Progressive Credo
I usually find these things cringe inducing, but this Progressive credo from a diarist at kos is pretty good.
I believe in social justice. That is, we may not all be born with the same advantages but we are born with the right to be treated equally before the law.
I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe in using tax payer’s money responsibly. I believe in paying my taxes for the common good. I believe in a progressive tax structure.
I believe in preserving a healthy planet. ‘Cos where else are you going to go? I believe in reducing greenhouse gases, in moving away from an oil based economy. I believe in research into alternative fuels. I believe in investment in mass transit.
I believe in privacy for citizens and the right to be left alone. I believe that government should stay out of our bedrooms and the sex lives of consenting adults. I believe that the government has no state interest in interfering with a woman’s right to choose to have children or not.
I believe in diplomacy. I believe in the wise use of our forces as a last resort. I believe that national security is best when our military is well-prepared, well-equipped and well rested.
“I believe in social justice.”
Provided it is for individuals in our voting constituency. Those with conservative ideas get what they deserve!
“I believe in fiscal responsibility.”
Yes, achieving the opportunity to be “responsible” for everything a citizen makes and how they spend it.
“I believe in preserving a healthy planet.”
Provided it doesn’t violate my ideology. Sure using more nuclear power could reduce greenhouse gases multiple times more than driving hybrids will…but well…..no.
“I believe in privacy for citizens and the right to be left alone. ”
(This one is so laughable lampooning it would be redundant.)
“I believe in diplomacy.”
Sure the President of Iran has declared on numerous occasions that he was put on this earth by God for the sole purpose of exterminating the Jews, destroying the United States and bringing about the apocalypse. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t a reasonable man. I mean Chamberlain talked to Hitler and worked everything out? Right? Then why won’t diplomacy work just as well here?
Thanks for posting this. I needed a great laugh today.
Chris, you are a doofus.
Social Justice – the constituency votes for us because we fight for them, not vice-versa.
Fiscal responsibility has two sides, why do you only look at the tax side and spend side gets a free pass.
Nukes would be doable if you can store the spent rods in your basement. Can we drop them off tonight?
Do you not believe in diplomacy? You believe that we should shoot first and ask questions later?
Welcome to Chrissy’s fantasy world! Where patriotism means military action, all diplomats are Chamberlains (not like AQ is a sovereign nation or anything), and the Great SkyDad wrote the US Constitution.
Chris, you’re so fucking gullible if you believe your analogies. Why? That’s for you to figure out, grasshopper…
But here’s a start – if you knew ANYTHING, historically, about middle eastern (especially Persian) rhetoric, you would KNOW that it’s chock-full of flowery, heightened hyperbole…
But to you, and your super ego/id-reasonless-value system ilk, words equate actions, everyone who’s not in lockstep is extreme, and hypocritical actions by your party’s leaders never happened.
No wonder hardly anyone wants to be identified as a conservative!
Diplomacy is an old art but without the ability (and will) to use force it is merely a matter of negotiating a surrender.
To some, ‘fiscal responsibility’ means raising taxes to new heights to pay for expanding programs.
Privacy protection should deal with ‘electronic law enforcement’ that is often revenue enhancement in the guise of ‘safety’.
As far as ignoring the rants of tyrants on the basis of them being merely hyperbople, I suggest a re-reading of Mein Kampf for another warning that long went unheeded.
“Fiscal responsibility has two sides, why do you only look at the tax side and spend side gets a free pass.”
Oh yes…liberals are known for REDUCED spending. Please…
Yes, Bush has overspent by a ton, war tends to do that. Take the war spending out and the numbers fall more into line. I know that your arugement will be that a libbie president WILL take the war spending out by ending the war. But that will not be the case. Ending the war will not be as simple as pulling the troops out, and the consequences of such a decision could well be MORE costly not just in money but in loss of American life that will make your war dead totals seem like an hourly count.
“Nukes would be doable if you can store the spent rods in your basement. Can we drop them off tonight?”
Find out where the French put them. You guys love that country so much. They are 95% nuke. So your heroes must have figured it out.
“Do you not believe in diplomacy? You believe that we should shoot first and ask questions later?”
Shoot first and ask questions later? No. Get shot first, with no chance at asking questions later…yeah. I have a real problem with that. There are times when talking can be considered reasonable. If we are in a tiff with Mexico or Russia, who are willing to talk because either they need us (Mexico) or actually care what we would do to their country (Russia) than diplomacy is fine. When your are dealing with Iranian President NutJob who WANTS the apocalypse, the only thing you can neogitate is on how to make it easier for him to get.
“But here’s a start – if you knew ANYTHING, historically, about middle eastern (especially Persian) rhetoric, you would KNOW that it’s chock-full of flowery, heightened hyperbole…”
Backed up with suicide bombers an hijacking terrorists. Doesn’t quite fit the definition of hyperbole to me.
Answer this honestly. If Iranian President NutJob had a nuke missle he could use on Israel, would he?
If you answer NO then YOU my friend are living in a fantasy world.
“No wonder hardly anyone wants to be identified as a conservative!”
Funny, outside of the the semi-annoymous world of blogging, I don’t find too many people flocking to the word liberal. In fact, I have heard several of you kooks bemoan that fact that people treat it like it is a dirty word. There are quite a few of us who OPENLY EMBRACE being Conservative. Sorry to ruin your day.
Nope, it’s you, Chris. It’s you…..
With that thinking, we should’ve bombed Dublin.
Embracing being a Conservative, huh?
Tell that to Terry Spence, whom among many local GOP incumbents, neglected to state party affiliation on political signage during the last election.
Yeah, proud….like Larry Craig’s proud of his gayness.
Sorry to ruin your credibility. Oh wait, you’ve done that yourself….a loooooong time ago. 🙂
Social Justice: We may not all be born with the same advantages, but we’ll do all we can to take those advantages away from those who have them. Estate taxes, hiring quotas, affirmative action in university admissions, you name it. See, it’s never about equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome; progressives are only happy when everyone is equally miserable.
Fiscal responsibility? Sure, let’s try that for a change. (Pox on both houses here)
Healthy planet? Fine. Oh, that reminds me to send that annual donation to Ducks Unlimited, thanks.
Privacy? Fine with that too; nobody needs Hillary going through their FBI files again.
As for the last one? Per Clausewitz, “War is nothing but the continuation of (diplomatic) policy by other means.”
And to answer you question about the Iranian Nutjob….well let’s just say you’ve blown you own cover, thankyouverymuch.
The Iranian president does not have the AUTHORITY to ‘lob’ missiles at Israel. That authority is given only to the Supreme Leader, Khamenei.
But let us suppose you knew what you’re talking about and replace the subject of your question to the supreme leader. The answer would be ‘No’, they wouldn’t do such a thing.
First of all, Iran would cease to exist; Israel would level the place with its own nukes. Second, Russia wouldn’t allow it – Russia needs high oil prices, so when their pumping of the Caspian Oil Reserve commences in a couple years, they can maximize profits. But such instability and the eventual annexation of Iranian Oilfields by its neighbors, if not by us or Israel, would be the worst thing for Russian Oil oligarchy.
Please, Chris, stop pulling your logic out from you ass….it reeks!
“The Iranian president does not have the AUTHORITY to lob missiles at Israel. That authority is given only to the Supreme Leader, Khamenei.”
It is no secret that he and Khamenei have been butting heads on occasion. But it is also no secret that there are many powerful players in the military that would side with him. I, and most other intelligent people do not share your polyannic confidence. He will use the nukes on Israel, consequences be damned. Russia is a close ally but far from having total control. To even suggest that a non-Islamic based country could have control over a religious fanatic like NutJob is patently naieve.
Keep on changing the quotient there, Chris. How fanatical are they? Enough to assure self-destruction and lose all the power and prestige they’ve accumulated since the late 70s?
Please! Go work for the New American Century or the Heritage Foundation…Peace through Popular War!
…and if it weren’t for Russia, today’s Iran wouldn’t have any powerful allies, except for the French, maybe. 😉
I really believe you have no idea of what you’re talking about! But keep it coming; it’s funny!