How isn't Globalism entirely anti-American?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
You're basically saying "it can't happen, because I believe it's fantasy" without even an attempt at making it into reality.

Progressives also like to fill in non-existing blanks with things that were not said or written.

But to reply:

I absolutely believe all those things can happen one day.

I also believe it is not the federal government's job to promote or mandate them.

The job of the federal government is to make it easier for the People to come up with the next great ideas on their own.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: blood0fheroes

No, that's libertarianism in its proper expression.

Ya got me...you caught the tator ~Ron white

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I agree it would take a lot of work...

But it's funny in a way, that you presented an argument instead of labelling it a "utopian fiasco".
Hopefully you see the point of my above post now.

Oh I see it quite clearly. I *disagree* with the one-world-COTUS unless the federal government cedes the unconstitutional powers it has claimed for itself back to the People and States. Otherwise it's just an even bigger Big Government utopian central planning fiasco.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

Me: Hey, let's make solar power generation cheaper so all households can generate their own electricity.

You: Nope, that's clearly central planning, big govt, utopian stuff.

Nothing is wrong with Americans having those thing. The problem is with a central government mandating it. Kinda like telling us we all have to have health insurance. It's a utopian fiasco.

Then you added this:

Me: Hey ladies, I may not agree with abortion but it's not my body. So I think you should be the ones to decide, since you're the ones who can die from childbirth.

You: See! That's clearly central planning and big govt, even though progressives are trying to decentralize abortion decisions by allowing individuals to make that decision instead of letting govt panels & legislatures make the decision for all women. Hmm...

Never mind the human it kills in the process. They can't vote. They obviously aren't worth the effort yet. They must not be human.

I chose those examples of American progressive policies specifically because it counters your BS about us simply wanting central planning and big govt. Conservatives are the ones pushing for big govt and central planning when it comes to women's reproductive rights, fighting solar energy, and a living wage.

Progressives want individual women to make the choice because it affects them personally. But conservatives want big govt to pass and enforce legislation that prevents individual women from doing that.

Progressives want individual citizen workers to be able to live quality lives while only working 1 full time job. That's literally the point of a "living wage". But conservatives are the ones who always side with businesses over the individual citizen workers. And isn't the whole point in a businesses to centralize planning and operations? So who's supporting central planning then?

Progressives always generally want solar power to be cheaper so all citizens can generate our own electricity and thus bypass the central power grid. But once again, it's conservative lawmakers who keep trying to crush solar power initiatives, which literally favors the power companies (central planning). Conservative Republican lawmakers in both Oklahoma and Nevada have already done this, and many other Republican controlled states are threatening to do this.

But of course, you'll ignore this angle just as you did in the post that you responded to.

It's Capitalism. If Capitalism is pro-American then globalism can't be anti-American. Globalism isn't about government it's about trade, cheap labor and resources.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you think it's best left up to the individual, at best State involvement.

That's fair to say...

But we are discussing globalism...
So to bypass the Federal Government seems a bit silly and naive in my opinion...

The Fed would be the best bet to take this on and deliver it to the willing world outside.

Sorry if my last post seemed harsh, I just much prefer it when people I respect debate the topic instead of brush it off.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

Me: Hey, let's make solar power generation cheaper so all households can generate their own electricity.

You: Nope, that's clearly central planning, big govt, utopian stuff.

Nothing is wrong with Americans having those thing. The problem is with a central government mandating it. Kinda like telling us we all have to have health insurance. It's a utopian fiasco.

Then you added this:

Me: Hey ladies, I may not agree with abortion but it's not my body. So I think you should be the ones to decide, since you're the ones who can die from childbirth.

You: See! That's clearly central planning and big govt, even though progressives are trying to decentralize abortion decisions by allowing individuals to make that decision instead of letting govt panels & legislatures make the decision for all women. Hmm...

Never mind the human it kills in the process. They can't vote. They obviously aren't worth the effort yet. They must not be human.

I chose those examples of American progressive policies specifically because it counters your BS about us simply wanting central planning and big govt. Conservatives are the ones pushing for big govt and central planning when it comes to women's reproductive rights, fighting solar energy, and a living wage.

Progressives want individual women to make the choice because it affects them personally. But conservatives want big govt to pass and enforce legislation that prevents individual women from doing that.

Progressives want individual citizen workers to be able to live quality lives while only working 1 full time job. That's literally the point of a "living wage". But conservatives are the ones who always side with businesses over the individual citizen workers. And isn't the whole point in a businesses to centralize planning and operations? So who's supporting central planning then?

Progressives always generally want solar power to be cheaper so all citizens can generate our own electricity and thus bypass the central power grid. But once again, it's conservative lawmakers who keep trying to crush solar power initiatives, which literally favors the power companies (central planning). Conservative Republican lawmakers in both Oklahoma and Nevada have already done this, and many other Republican controlled states are threatening to do this.

But of course, you'll ignore this angle just as you did in the post that you responded to.

You should have dropped a mic at the end of that mate.
Quality post.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

Me: Hey, let's make solar power generation cheaper so all households can generate their own electricity.

You: Nope, that's clearly central planning, big govt, utopian stuff.

Nothing is wrong with Americans having those thing. The problem is with a central government mandating it. Kinda like telling us we all have to have health insurance. It's a utopian fiasco.

Then you added this:

Me: Hey ladies, I may not agree with abortion but it's not my body. So I think you should be the ones to decide, since you're the ones who can die from childbirth.

You: See! That's clearly central planning and big govt, even though progressives are trying to decentralize abortion decisions by allowing individuals to make that decision instead of letting govt panels & legislatures make the decision for all women. Hmm...

Never mind the human it kills in the process. They can't vote. They obviously aren't worth the effort yet. They must not be human.

I chose those examples of American progressive policies specifically because it counters your BS about us simply wanting central planning and big govt. Conservatives are the ones pushing for big govt and central planning when it comes to women's reproductive rights, fighting solar energy, and a living wage.

Progressives want individual women to make the choice because it affects them personally. But conservatives want big govt to pass and enforce legislation that prevents individual women from doing that.

Progressives want individual citizen workers to be able to live quality lives while only working 1 full time job. That's literally the point of a "living wage". But conservatives are the ones who always side with businesses over the individual citizen workers. And isn't the whole point in a businesses to centralize planning and operations? So who's supporting central planning then?

Progressives always generally want solar power to be cheaper so all citizens can generate our own electricity and thus bypass the central power grid. But once again, it's conservative lawmakers who keep trying to crush solar power initiatives, which literally favors the power companies (central planning). Conservative Republican lawmakers in both Oklahoma and Nevada have already done this, and many other Republican controlled states are threatening to do this.

But of course, you'll ignore this angle just as you did in the post that you responded to.

You should have dropped a mic at the end of that mate.
Quality post.

(Though technically, I've still got a few "verses" left in me lol.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

...and then lose their minds over labels.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

That is easy.

Anyone who wants to see a Progressive Utopia can look no further than the movie "Demolition Man" from 1990.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: enlightenedservant

...and then lose their minds over labels.

Exactly. Supposedly we're the ones pushing "PC" down everyone's throats. But they have huge temper tantrums when someone doesn't stand for the national anthem, doesn't say "radical Islam", doesn't say "illegal immigrants", or follow their own PC crap.

I remember them shunning and practically banishing the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush. But somehow, I'm supposed to believe they support freedom of the individual. Yeah right. Their whole system of "conservatism" is built around big govt shoving their "conservative principles" down everyone else's throats. Do they believe in the individual's freedom to marry a consenting adult of the same gender? Nope. Freedom to believe or reject any religion you want? Nope. Freedom to wear your pants a little "saggy"? Nope. Freedom to use mj in your own home? Nope.

(LOL ok, lemme stop. I haven't had any chocolate and I'm getting grumpy)

a reply to: infolurker

Typical answer.

Step 1. Ignore every point made by actual progressives about what we want.

Step 2. Recite your own ideas of what you think progressives want, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with what we say we want.

a reply to: infolurker

And if you want to see a conservative utopia, check out "Elysium".

en.wikipedia.org...(film)

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
The United States of America was founded on the idea that the People are greater than any Government. Power comes from the People.

Legislators are entrusted with the power from the People.

States are an extension of the People in them.

It's the Executive's job to make sure the States deal fairly with each other, as well as to deal with foreign powers.

It's the Judiciary's job to make sure new laws do not trample existing laws or the Constitution.

Pretty simple.

Progressivism (and any other Big Government for that matter) turns all that on its head.

It's not the federal government's job to promote green energy or high speed rail. It's not the federal government's job to assign benefits or duties to the People. It's not the federal government's job to worry about safety nets or education.

If the People come up with any of those ideas on their own and they become popular enough to implement on grande scale, so be it. Those are the business of the People and their States.

If you think the above agendas are the purview of progressivsm for the USA, then yes they are anti-American.

problem is "The People" have been supplanted by Corporote CEO's, Donor Class billionaires, and foreign entities.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Now that it's beyond abundantly clear that Progressivism is totally anti-Nationalist (love for ones nation)

examples please.

and totally pro-Globalist (obsession with making the whole world one big nation [or is it non-nation,I dunno])

you clearly dont understand.

Globalism is the idea of creating an increasingly interdependent global society, i.e. the globalization of resources. We can see this in free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, pushed through by democrat Bill Clinton. In NAFTA, the US automotive manufacturing industry was destroyed, jobs shipped away for cheaper labor that could be easily exploited. The Mexican farmers suffered greatly under this agreement, cheap US corn flooded the Mexican markets, those farmers no longer could support their families; and we have seen the rise of 'maqueadoras'(sp?) along the border, essentially sweatshops that left workers underpaid, overworked, and poisoned the surrounding environment.

Progressives may say they are opposed to things like this, however, Hillary Clinton is pro-TPP, and progressives support Hillary Clinton. The only thing a progressive can do about this fact, is obfuscate the issue.

The problem with globalism, is that our economy is dependent on far off lands, if a catastrophe occurs somewhere that disrupts an economic sector, every corner of the world becomes affected.

By localizing resources, such as obtaining our food locally, manufacturing our goods within a reasonable distance, we become more self-sufficient.

I noticed a post from a Progressive, saying we need to force green technology on people. In Nevada, a large portion of the solar panel energy had to be discontinued, because it was not efficient and too costly. If the technology was efficient, and relatively worth the cost, the market would decide if that technology was better than fossil fuels. The massive population the world has, is due to the fossil fuel age, if there is no good alternative, forcing green energy to replace fossil fuels will cause mass starvation and economic collapse.

It should be pointed out, that solar panels are created using fossil fuels. These solar panels also come with an environmental cost, they have pollution by-products. So these 'green' technologies are not green at all. Just progressive lies.

So far, the environment has been the biggest loser in China’s rapid economic growth. The irony of the recent Post exposé is that the environment is not even being considered seriously by those Chinese industries that bear a “green” tag, and whose products support progress toward a better environment. As China becomes more industrialized and strives to meet the insatiable demands of a burgeoning urban middle class, there is every reason to question how long the current state of affairs can last, and how much time it will take before businesses care enough about their impacts to truly protect the environment.

www.worldwatch.org...

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Now, fossil fuels produce way more CO2, but the Earth has a natural scrubbing system and is actually benefiting greatly from more co2 in the atmosphere. Plants breath co2, in fact in response to the increase in co2, trees are growing 10% faster, while smaller plants are growing up to 150% faster.

Forcing a technology, that may or may not be viable, is naive and fascist. First, it is not certain the real impact on the technology, just because it doesn't produce as much co2 does not make it green. Especially since globalism has placed the creation of these 'green' technologies, in China where environmental regulations are nonexistent.

Calling solar panels green technology is a lie.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

Me: Hey, let's make solar power generation cheaper so all households can generate their own electricity.

You: Nope, that's clearly central planning, big govt, utopian stuff.

Nothing is wrong with Americans having those thing. The problem is with a central government mandating it. Kinda like telling us we all have to have health insurance. It's a utopian fiasco.

Then you added this:

Me: Hey ladies, I may not agree with abortion but it's not my body. So I think you should be the ones to decide, since you're the ones who can die from childbirth.

You: See! That's clearly central planning and big govt, even though progressives are trying to decentralize abortion decisions by allowing individuals to make that decision instead of letting govt panels & legislatures make the decision for all women. Hmm...

Never mind the human it kills in the process. They can't vote. They obviously aren't worth the effort yet. They must not be human.

I chose those examples of American progressive policies specifically because it counters your BS about us simply wanting central planning and big govt. Conservatives are the ones pushing for big govt and central planning when it comes to women's reproductive rights, fighting solar energy, and a living wage.

Progressives want individual women to make the choice because it affects them personally. But conservatives want big govt to pass and enforce legislation that prevents individual women from doing that.

Progressives want individual citizen workers to be able to live quality lives while only working 1 full time job. That's literally the point of a "living wage". But conservatives are the ones who always side with businesses over the individual citizen workers. And isn't the whole point in a businesses to centralize planning and operations? So who's supporting central planning then?

Progressives always generally want solar power to be cheaper so all citizens can generate our own electricity and thus bypass the central power grid. But once again, it's conservative lawmakers who keep trying to crush solar power initiatives, which literally favors the power companies (central planning). Conservative Republican lawmakers in both Oklahoma and Nevada have already done this, and many other Republican controlled states are threatening to do this.

But of course, you'll ignore this angle just as you did in the post that you responded to.

You will notice that progressive ideology always tends to rely on using the power of the state to force their ideas on the public either through laws or taxation. There has always been an underlying current of authoritarianism with progressive ideology which is why it is such fodder for science fiction writers.

In regards to your point about the religious right, I will give you credit for that point. I've always despised that wing of the party and found them to be counter to a lot of conservative ideology when it comes to personal freedoms.

For each one of your so called points, the underlying issue is always restricting or taking from someone else. This is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals.

Minimum Wage: Individuals should be free to set their own wages and the businesses free to pay what the market commands.

Solar Power: I'm not against solar power, however, if solar power is truly an alternative, the free market will make it so.

Global Warming: Why does every solution involve taxing and lowering the standards of living

Schools: It is liberals who want to keep poor urban kids stuck in failing schools by preventing school choice and charter schools to protect their union buddies.

Abortion: The unborn child also has rights. It is no mystery as to how women get pregnant. They made the choice, so they should deal with the consequences. 99% of abortions are of convenience, not to save a woman's life or prevent a disabled child from being born or rape. Considering Margaret Sangers support of eugenics and controlling the black population, how any black person can support abortion is beyond me.

Central planning has never worked well. It assumes the "Central Planners" know what is best for everyone. This is rarely the case.

Globalism will never work because of differing cultures. Heck, we can barely get neighboring suburbs and cities to agree on anything, how is some massive global government going to effectively manage the world?

I really don't see how globalism benefits America other than providing cheap disposable goods at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. It seems to be a veiled attempt to lower our standard of living.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Progressives want individual women to make the choice because it affects them personally. But conservatives want big govt to pass and enforce legislation that prevents individual women from doing that.

This is the trouble.

We don't believe there is just one individual there. At some point, there are two: woman and her child, and no matter how much she not have wanted that child, it is now there and also a human individual. That makes two, not one.

The question is at what point that second individual is worthy of the basic, unalienable human right to its own life?

The very safest answer for the woman to make regarding her reproductive rights is choose not to take the risk of getting pregnant in the first place which to say, "No." I don't believe you will find ANY conservative in favor of passing laws that would violate her right to say "NO" which, of course, is what the progressives all like to imply.

What we are after is the protection of the second individual human who was brought into the world by her failure to say "NO." And once that happens, the controversy begins because there are many different ideas on when that person IS, in fact, a person, and that is the argument because if that person is human, it DOES have all the same inalienable rights its mother does, including a right to its own life which progressives are mostly all for allowing the mother to terminate arbitrarily for her own simple convenience.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your nation was founded by progressives, with progressive ideologies. ...

So, that makes sense. On the globalist front, nobody envisioned our 'huge world' getting ' so small' with the advent of technology.

It's the bankers and CEO's of the world who want this to be Globalist in nature.

Right, by the "progressives" of 200 years ago.

Later, the "progressives" of 100 years ago were running amok with Eugenics, which is where Hitler got most of his "superior race" ideas that he used to set about trying to conquer the entire planet with.

Now, the global CEO's & Banksters are using a twist on the old race obsession affair of Eugenics & Progressivism of old to conquer the world, where now it's about frantically mixing the cultures together in such a way at such a pace with the 'right' kind of propaganda in place to get us all at odds creating unending Social Group Warfare (SGW) dynamics which plays right into their hands as we're all divided amongst outselves, and diverted from keeping their underhanded tricks in focus.

But being progressive isn't anti-national that's just silly.

You could have fooled me. It's as if that's all I've been seeing lately her eint he board is an overarching anti-nationalist sentiment, and not just in regards to "White Nationalism". In the same vein, a clear pro-globalist slant drips from most the resident progressives I've been observing.