Progressives Need to Get it On

I think Democrats just need to sponsor some kind of religion that encourages rampant breeding, while still respecting a woman's right to choose - as long as she chooses to have many, many babies.

I mean, it worked for the Catholics, right?

MacAllister said:

I wanna know when clear-eyed idealism gets to come back into fashion. Progressives would have a nicer time of it if we didn't have to fight the creeping shame and embarrassment of really wanting to make the world a kinder, happier place.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. Unfortunately, clear-eyed idealism, when it obtains any significant amount of power, always leads to veiled and/or open totalitarianism...

This is the best of all possible worlds...

Rob

William Haskins said:

so sayeth the democratic leadership council.

Baby Bust: Progressives aren't having as many babies as conservatives. Democrats should learn how to appeal to families.

Click to expand...

I'm not worried. All those extra babies are going to be cut off from welfare any day now, and their loyalties will change in an eyeblink.

This is great news.

Thank you, William.

ColoradoGuy said:

An idealist need not be an ideologue, although the distinction can be a fine one. I think that it is possible to be a practical idealist, and, like Mac, I want that to be a respected career goal. I’ve done my part for the DNC -- two loin fruit, at least one a left-wing loon like her dad.

Click to expand...

That's cool, until someone assumes power with the expressed purpose of fully implementing an idealistic agenda--like equal ownership of the means of production...

Rob

Get it on, bang a gong, get it on.

*scratches his head*

When did idealism become a bad word?

Oops. Sorry William.

Return to topic please. Don't mind me.

These are pragmatic times, Shadow. As is always the case when the spectre of threats to personal safety loom large. And that's always been the biggest flaw in any sort of liberal agenda - it doesn't appeal to one's self interest nearly as much as the opposing point of view. In this climate, that's a tough sell.

I think we get it on more then enough, if you ask me. You should have seen us on that volunteer canvassing trip.

pconsidine said:

These are pragmatic times, Shadow. As is always the case when the spectre of threats to personal safety loom large. And that's always been the biggest flaw in any sort of liberal agenda - it doesn't appeal to one's self interest nearly as much as the opposing point of view. In this climate, that's a tough sell.

Click to expand...

I think your post was just too pragmatic for me to even understand.

My ideas, William, of course.

Sorry. I've lost my flair for the dramatic since I turned...well, not 21 any more.

ColoradoGuy said:

I'm not worried. I just figured that Rob's Communist floater needed to be swatted back. Your serve, sir.

Click to expand...

That's a net court. Replay the point, please...unless you're suggesting 'enforcing family values' has an historical example wherein totalitarianistic policies were a direct consequence; you'll need to specify, please. Also, I'm not sure how 'family values' qualify as a part of a clear-eyed idealistic ideology.

Rob