Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com The Barnyard: A Focus on Terms

Friday, June 17, 2005

A Focus on Terms

'Liberal progressive' should be replaced with 'regressive socialist' for their policies are more reflective of the latter. Liberalism is freedom, progressive means moving forward, neither of these represents todays Dems, Pelosi to Boxer to "turban" Durbin, all I hear is hate America socialism. That manure doesn't fly here! Yea, us "rednecks" are stupid, I know Dr. Dean won't get much milage with his latest retoric.

5 comments:

Sheepdog said...

GG - ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I've e-mailed BOR repeatedly, requesting he PLEASE stop calling these folks "progressive". They may be progressive-in-THEORY, but they are, in fact, truth, and reality, regressive-in-PRACTICE. While I agree with calling some of them "socialists", far too many of them, due to their promotion of so many Communist goals and objectives, probably qualify for the "Communist" or "Leftist" label, instead. "Seditionists", "traitors", and "opportunistic, prevaricating, and slanderous poseurs" also comes to mind.

Goat said...

Hey Sheepdog a good Saturday Morning to you. I need your help in letting our friends in the FBZ know the Barnyards new address.

tequilarain said...

Right now, the democrats have a problem. The Bush machine has successfully managed to take a few far left, secular, liberal socialist poster children such as Hillary, Boxer and Pelosi and apply that dreaded image to all democrats. So now you have a situation where just about every dem is in the same box, trying to get out and reform their image. Hence, "progressive." It resonates more positively than "liberal" or "socialist" or "leftist." All of these terms have been successfully demonized. The problem with the Dems is they are constantly in a defensive position.

Now I would love to know what it is they are "progressing."

Mark Weller said...

Join the Libertarian Party

Sheepdog said...

They're actually so-called "progressing" many of the "1963 Communist Goals" and other progressive-in-theory, but regressive-in-practice, programs, policies, and plans, while proactively attempting to undermine, and ultimately destroy, the Judeo-Christian principles, traditional morality, and family values that the vast majority of our Founding Fathers originally intended our nation to be built upon and supported by. Most regrettably, they're being too ably assisted by far too many so-called "Republicans", GWB is not doing enough to keep these "libertines" and/or "pusillanimous pantywaists" on the GOP reservation, and there aren't enough socially-conservative and freedom-spreading Democrats to balance the scales. Consequently, many of those that voted for GWB are being defacto disenfranchised, and this is the reason so many are going to sit out or vote for a 3rd party (socially-conservative, anti-illegal alien, truly free-and-fair trade-promoting, and red-ink reducing) in 2006, hoping this will motivate the GOP to wake up and smell the coffee in time for 2008. Otherwise, Clinton and Obama are going to "go moderate", while still securing the single female, fatherless family, welfare dependent and perpetual victimhood minority, union, and faux Judeo-Christian aka hypoChrist vote. While I respect and admire Romney, I'm not sure what he brings to the party as far as the Electoral College goes? He's certainly not going to change the minds of died-in-the-wool blue-staters, and I believe a more truly conservative nominee, like George Allen, would be able to more firmly secure the traditional red-states, while a running mate, like Condoleeza Rice, would serve to help cut into both the female and minority votes usually reserved for the D's. Of course, there are plenty of other options, e.g., Ken Blackwell of Ohio, a conservative black, perhaps a viable Hispanic conservative, and/or other conservative women? After seeing how GWB and the First Lady have turned their backs on us social conservatives, and doing the math, I'm not really that hopeful that we won't end up with a RINO running against Clintonobama. While I admire Rudy and Arnold's fiscal conservatism and rugged defense postures, I despise their support of abortion, homosexuality, and other insidious and deleterious attitudes and behaviors. I'm pretty sure I'd simply sit out or vote for a 3rd party candidate if either of them, or McCain, e.g., got the GOP nomination. Regretfully, I'm afraid the current political calculus might not allow a fiscally- AND socially-conservative candidate to win the presidency. It's so sad that formerly middle-of-the-road, mainstream, and moderate positions re: abortion, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, adultery, etc., are now seen by far too many to be "right-wing, religious-right, extremist, zealotry". I find it fascinating that the political spectrum and social continuum have been so radically redefined since the 1963 publication of the "Communist Goals".