A Complete Waste of Space

Pud, the American way is liberal and Progressive!

Actually, while the founders were a very Progressive group for their era, the political structure they put together was a clever mix of Classic Conservative and Liberalism. They trusted the People to select leaders to represent them soundly, yet put in place an overriding structure that would protect Commerce and Freedom from the evil in men(Conservative). Thus, they toed no Lib/Conservative ideological line tightly, were thoughtful men with an eye to a long future for the nation(hence the extreme flexibility of the Constitutional structure).

callmeslick wrote:Pud, the American way is liberal and Progressive!

No, Slick, it isn't.
That's just the way....you envision it/want it to be.

The "War for Independence" was/is known as the "Revolutionary War", not the
"Progressive/Liberal War" as you would like to change it into. Though, if things
continue for four more years? Folks with your beliefs? Might oughta dig a hole and
hide. No offense to your person, but, you are really "out of touch" with the "average"
American.

Sorta interests me, the why of? Nic, ain't commented on the original post in this thread.

Our forefathers weren't progressive, dillhole. They wanted less government and expected men to act like it and take care of themselves. Not let someone else do that.

ruggbutt wrote:Our forefathers weren't progressive, dillhole. They wanted less government and expected men to act like it and take care of themselves. Not let someone else do that.

compared to the accepted norm, the idea of no monarchy, and the expectation that the citizens could run things through elected representatives was damned near radical. You see, what was progressive in the late 18th century is not what would be progressive after 250 years which brought massive changes in demographics, settlement, industrialization, the rise of corporations, modern communications and a global economy. Progressive merely means looking to evolve with the times into a better future, it says NOTHING of the actual shape of governance.

callmeslick wrote: Progressive merely means looking to evolve with the times into a better future, it says NOTHING of the actual shape of governance.

Would that also be Bill Ayers definition?
More to the point, that eliminates you and places you,
in the socialist/communist category. Not perfectly, but you fit there, better.

All of course, by your definition.

work on your definitions, Pud, because as it stands you don't have a clue, and prove it with every post here.

callmeslick wrote:

callmeslick wrote:work on your definitions, Pud, because as it stands you don't have a clue, and prove it with every post here.

compared to the accepted norm, the idea of no monarchy, and the expectation that the citizens could run things through elected representatives was damned near radical. You see, what was progressive in the late 18th century is not what would be progressive after 250 years which brought massive changes in demographics, settlement, industrialization, the rise of corporations, modern communications and a global economy. Progressive merely means looking to evolve with the times into a better future, it says NOTHING of the actual shape of governance.

That being my point, though, you made it in a different way.

This being my point and you made it exactly.

That being said, I'll stand by, what I said.
It interests me, how much explaining, you have to do, when you profess the "truth"?