Who are the REAL regressives?

The REAL Regressives are Conservatives

Who wants to negative the hard won progress in worker's rights - Conservatives
Who wants to privatise the NHS or take to American-style private insurance - Conservatives
Who thinks it is the right of a certain class from a certain school and a certain background to preside over others and mock them for being 'under-achievers' - Conservatives
Who thinks it's ok to take from the poor and give to the rich - Conservatives
Who thinks that they have the right to invade other countries and kill their civilians, or kill them with drones without even invading - Conservatives
Who has taken money from the disabled to give tax breaks to the rich - Conservatives
Who talks about 'the deserving poor' (a Victorian Concept) - Conservatives

Who, given half a chance, would take us back to feudal times, with them at the helm being bowed and scrapped to - Conservatives

They are not just regressive - they have regressed and they want to make sure we do as well.

This from an article sass?

No Edds, from me.

Okay. Was gonna be bossy and ask for a link.

What made you write that, and can I take it you don't like conservatives?

'The Regressive Left' is banded about here all the time, where in fact the opposite is true.  And I loathe Conservatives and everything they stand for.

sassy wrote:The REAL Regressives are Conservatives

Who wants to negative the hard won progress in worker's rights - Conservatives
Who wants to privatise the NHS or take to American-style private insurance - Conservatives
Who thinks it is the right of a certain class from a certain school and a certain background to preside over others and mock them for being 'under-achievers' - Conservatives
Who thinks it's ok to take from the poor and give to the rich - Conservatives
Who thinks that they have the right to invade other countries and kill their civilians, or kill them with drones without even invading - Conservatives
Who has taken money from the disabled to give tax breaks to the rich - Conservatives
Who talks about 'the deserving poor' (a Victorian Concept) - Conservatives

Who, given half a chance, would take us back to feudal times, with them at the helm being bowed and scrapped to - Conservatives

They are not just regressive - they have regressed and they want to make sure we do as well.

You should go into politics Sassy...for whilst I agree with your summing up of the cons.....I don't think any other party will help us either.

I did go into politics Syl, stood as a Councillor for here, just missed getting in (of which I'm very thankful cos my health went down and I could not have managed it).

No other party would have helped, now we have one that will with JC, he's stood up for the underdog all his life and ain't going to be stopping any time soon.

As John McDonnell said about voting for the benefit bill:



That's when the Labour Party was going to vote for it!!!!   The times have changed, because they wouldn't be voting for it these days.

sassy wrote:The REAL Regressives are Conservatives

Who wants to negative the hard won progress in worker's rights - Conservatives

Not sure what you mean by 'negative the hard won progress'...

But what 'hard won rights' are you talking about that you think tory are against...!?


Who wants to privatise the NHS or take to American-style private insurance - Conservatives

No... that would be labour who have done loads of that over their 13 years in govt... and the eu with TTIP who want to finish off the rest of it...

Who thinks it is the right of a certain class from a certain school and a certain background to preside over others and mock them for being 'under-achievers' - Conservatives

It is labour who think they know best and only they have the right to dictate to everyone else... Maybe if they backed grammar schools instead of trying to destroy them, then they could have a claim to be helping the brightest of poorer and disadvantaged kids achieve a higher standard of education that would put them the chance of being up in the best jobs etc... rather than trying to dumb everyone down to the lowest denominator level so as to make everyone 'equal'...


Who thinks it's ok to take from the poor and give to the rich - Conservatives

labour think unemployed should be able to claim up to £100,000 a year in benefits to fund much better lifestyles than the majority of hard working taxpayers!!!


Who thinks that they have the right to invade other countries and kill their civilians, or kill them with drones without even invading - Conservatives

Have you totally forgotten labour invasion of Afghanistan and iraq...!?


Who has taken money from the disabled to give tax breaks to the rich - Conservatives

Who was in govt for 13 years before they put up the top rate of tax just before being kicked out of govt, and resulted in a lower tax take from the higher earners...!?

LABOUR!!!




Who talks about 'the deserving poor' (a Victorian Concept) - Conservatives

While labour try to make undeserving people richer than the vast majority of hard working taxpayers who are struggling every day!

Who, given half a chance, would take us back to feudal times, with them at the helm being bowed and scrapped to - Conservatives

While you lefties think that you should all be living the high life for doing fuck all while all the other intelligent and qualified professionals should work as slaves to pay for you all to sit back on your fat arses on your over inflated and egotistical clouds of self righteous guff... because only YOU know best... and that means that you are better and more deserving than others... all in the name of 'equality' mind!!!



They are not just regressive - they have regressed and they want to make sure we do as well.

No sassy... it is idiots like you who are a regressive force on everyone else!!!

eddie wrote:Okay. Was gonna be bossy and ask for a link.

What made you write that, and can I take it you don't like conservatives?

Don't be too pissy, eds.  I know just where she's coming from.  You hear about 'regressive lefties' all the time.  Breitbart uses the term all the time, and didge copies them.  http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/21/regressive-left-on-defensive-on-campus/  Sassy chooses to write a comment.  Good on her...

I've made a couple of comments along the same line.  RW ers use the term as one of the adjectives in their toolbox.  Thing is, it's just an adjective, so it's a waste of time to argue over it.

I think it's more effective to point up how RW ers hate their fellow man...how they don't want them to have healthcare or be fed...how they want to govern women's bodies, but don't want to pay to raise the children...or, how they side with the abyss of nothingness, over helping their fellow man...or how they are just plain, old selfish...or simply, how they love wars and ruin everything on earth, including the earth.

That's substance you can get your teeth into.

The regressive left support groups that deny equal rights to women, homosexuals, religious minorities, that support religious laws over the democracy
The regressive left support and defend terrorists
The regressive left support and defend Islamism
The regressive left support attacking democracies
The regressive left support and endorse antisemitism
The regressive left are against free enterprise
The regressive left support importing bad cultures like FGM, forced marriage, honour killings, Polygamy, child marriage
The regressive left are against personal achievement and success
The regressive import people who have no respect for women
The regressive left import people who increase the levels of hate crimes
The regressive left excuse and defend groups who are misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic, antisemitic
The regressive left believe in unfair taxation
The regressive left are against equality
The regressive left do not care about the people they live with
The regressive left impose their views on others
The regressive left try to silence anyone who disagrees with them
The regressive left falsify lies to dehumanize people

THE WHOLE CONCEPT of a "progressive" conservative is in and of itself an Oxymoron  --  i.e. a contradiction in terms...

THE term Conservation means to protect the status or current situation or position of something -- to keep it in the condition or state that it is in now, or was in at some past point in time -- or what the person wanting to conserve it wishes it was, or imagines it may have been..

A CONSERVATIVE, in political terms, refers to people who want to maintain the status quo in political conditions -- or in the case of today's American Repub's, the Australian L/NP coalition, and the British Tories, they want to 'wind the clock back' to the bad ol' days when all power and influence resided with the bosses, the financiers, and the "landed gentry";  when workers had no rights, abysmal pay, and work safety and environmental protection regulations didn't exist -- and where good education and health services are only available to those who can afford them.   

THE WORD "Progress" means to move forwards -- so that the adverb "progressive" in fact means the very opposite of the term "conservative" !  

THAT'S WHY we constantly see conservative speakers and writers using the term "Progressives" as a derogative and abusive insult towards anyone they see as in opposition to their reactionary policies..
And why certain extremist conservative and fascist elements have dreamt up those nonsensical and meaningless phrases "progressive conservative/right wing" and "regressive left" to attemt to bolster their odious and untenable positions...

THEREFORE, every time the phrases "regressive left" or "progressive conservatives" are used in arguments on here, that person is self-contradicting their own position from the very beginning !

And yet throughout history it has been mainly conservative politicians that have brought foruth many progressive rights which of recent note has been gay mariage.
When you look back in history they have ended slavery to a multitude of progressive laws and the left hate historical facts

Should have added that last one also

didge wrote:And yet throughout history it has been mainly conservative politicians that have brought foruth many progressive rights which of recent note has been gay mariage.
When you look back in history they have ended slavery to a multitude of progressive laws and the left hate historical facts

Should have added that last one also

Now you're just spinning the truth. When the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, ruled that states couldn't ban gay marriage, they were simply (finally) giving the constitution an honest interpretation. Which brings us to the framers of the constitution.

They were the most liberal people of their day, because they believed that not only shouldn't there be a king with absolute authority, they believed there should be no monarch whatsoever and that people should rule their own country.

That's an impetus that is resisted by conservatives to the present -- in the form of voter ID laws which Republicans have admitted are designed to limit access to the vote, and even to some Republicans who have proposed that only job-holding or even land-owning Americans should get the right to vote.

Les brought this up the other day, and it bears repeating because it seems you and Tommy don't get it -- no political party is perfectly aligned with a particular political ideology, especially in practice. Thus, when a conservative party does something liberal, that doesn't suddenly make that action a conservative idea. Nor when a mostly liberal party enacts a conservative policy does it make that policy liberal.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:And yet throughout history it has been mainly conservative politicians that have brought foruth many progressive rights which of recent note has been gay mariage.
When you look back in history they have ended slavery to a multitude of progressive laws and the left hate historical facts

Should have added that last one also

Now you're just spinning the truth. When the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, ruled that states couldn't ban gay marriage, they were simply (finally) giving the constitution an honest interpretation. Which brings us to the framers of the constitution.

They were the most liberal people of their day, because they believed that not only shouldn't there be a king with absolute authority, they believed there should be no monarch whatsoever and that people should rule their own country.

That's an impetus that is resisted by conservatives to the present -- in the form of voter ID laws which Republicans have admitted are designed to limit access to the vote, and even to some Republicans who have proposed that only job-holding or even land-owning Americans should get the right to vote.

Les brought this up the other day, and it bears repeating because it seems you and Tommy don't get it -- no political party is perfectly aligned with a particular political ideology, especially in practice. Thus, when a conservative party does something liberal, that doesn't suddenly make that action a conservative idea. Nor when a mostly liberal party enacts a conservative policy does it make that policy liberal.

We have been though this before and it has always been conservative Presidents

You have never had a left wing President

I suggest you check your history

Eilzel can bring up what he likes, but the fact remains, the more you go back in the time, the more conservative Presidents are
The more they progress society means its Conservatives who have progressed them, no matter how hard that is for you to stomach

Sorry didge Ben is right. For example, Lincoln was a progressive in his time and he banned slavery. Our NHS and welfare system was introduced by social democrats. Labour enacted every single pro-LGBT equality law before Same Sex Marriage. Most Conservatives still opposed it, and Cameron did it as a man who for all his flaws is at least liberal-ish on social issues.

FDR in the 1940s proposed a new bill of rights. In it he proposed:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

That's about as left-wing as it gets, and that was over 100 years ago. You can't judge liberal politicians by their times -- liberalism changes as society progresses, and liberals are generally smart enough not to propose changes that society at the time can't handle.

Eilzel wrote:Sorry didge Ben is right. For example, Lincoln was a progressive in his time and he banned slavery. Our NHS and welfare system was introduced by social democrats. Labour enacted every single pro-LGBT equality law before Same Sex Marriage. Most Conservatives still opposed it, and Cameron did it as a man who for all his flaws is at least liberal-ish on social issues.

Sorry Eilzel he is wrong because fundamentally most of his views were conservative and I have been with him through this before
In fact none of the US Presidents can lay claim to being socialists and if you had accused them of being left wing, they would have had a stroke
Again when you look through history it has been conservatives even more so in the US who have made progressions

No one is saying they were socialists. A progressive, by definition, is someone who works to bring about significant change. A conservative works to hold back change and 'conserve' traditions. A regressive is someone who works to reverse changes.

Lincoln was not a conservative. Nor was he a socialist. But in his time he was a liberal and a progressive.

Eilzel wrote:No one is saying they were socialists. A progressive, by definition, is someone who works to bring about significant change. A conservative works to hold back change and 'conserve' traditions. A regressive is someone who works to reverse changes.

Lincoln was not a conservative. Nor was he a socialist. But in his time he was a liberal and a progressive.

he would never have classed himself as a liberal and this is the problem, being later are classifying him as something he never was Eilzel.
At then end of the day he was progressive but he held many conservative views

Everyone in the past would have held conservative views by today's standards. They liberal 'In. Their. Time.'

Eilzel wrote:Everyone in the past would have held conservative views by today's standards. They liberal 'In. Their. Time.'

I understand they would be seen as Liberal by our standards Eilzel, which is my point, we are basing views on the standards of today, but they would have considered themselves Conservatives

I disagree. A conservative in Lincoln's time would have fought for the conservation of the right to own slaves. Agree to disagree.

Again you are going off now for then, as Lincoln was still a conservative.
You are ignoring time itself in this instance Eilzel

Anyway I doubt we will agree on this Eilzel

Hey Didge.

How come you think you are always right and know everything? lol

didge wrote:
Again you are going off now for then, as Lincoln was still a conservative.
You are ignoring time itself in this instance Eilzel

WRONG AGAIN,  Dodge...

Lincoln was a Republican..
BUT BY today's standards he was a progressive and a libertarian in comparison to many others of the time.

BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans were Free Market political parties during the 18th and 19th cemturies -- with both centrist and conservative positions on various subjects, with the Democrats being the more "conservative" placed of the two at that time..

SOME POLITICIANS and businessmen on both sides had been slaveowners in the early days of the United States...

DURING the first half of the 20th Century, the Republican Party drifted so far to the right, that the Democrats became the defacto "Left Wing" party by default (helped along by union support, and caring a little more about workers..). The Republicans than reinforced their RW regressive and reactionary position by picking up the racists, xenophobes and rednecks, cementing their anti-worker credentials with Ronnie Raygun's "trickle down" economic rationalist Reaganomics policies and later the formation of the "Tea Party" fruitloop faction at the start of the 21st Century.

YOUR MISTAKE, Young Mr Doddery, is in wrongly considering the Republicans to be the "conservative" party, when they were actually on the left of the 19th century Democrats !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

didge wrote:
Again you are going off now for then, as Lincoln was still a conservative.
You are ignoring time itself in this instance Eilzel

WRONG AGAIN,  Dodge...

Lincoln was a Republican..
BUT BY today's standards he was a progressive and a libertarian in comparison to many others of the time.

BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans were Free Market political parties during the 18th and 19th cemturies -- with both centrist and conservative positions on various subjects, with the Democrats being the more "conservative" placed of the two at that time..

SOME POLITICIANS and businessmen on both sides had been slaveowners in the early days of the United States...

DURING the first half of the 20th Century, the Republican Party drifted so far to the right, that the Democrats became the defacto "Left Wing" party by default (helped along by union support, and caring a little more about workers..). The Republicans than reinforced their RW regressive and reactionary position by picking up the racists, xenophobes and rednecks, cementing their anti-worker credentials with Ronnie Raygun's "trickle down" economic rationalist Reaganomics policies and later the formation of the "Tea Party" fruitloop faction at the start of the 21st Century.

YOUR MISTAKE, Young Mr Doddery, is in wrongly considering the Republicans to be the "conservative" party, when they were actually on the left of the 19th century GOP !

Again by his says standards he was a Conservative
Again people are so easy to make up pseudo history and make things out to be champions of the left when they were nothing of the sort
There has never been a left wing President, they have always been center to center right

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay. Was gonna be bossy and ask for a link.

What made you write that, and can I take it you don't like conservatives?

Don't be too pissy, eds.  I know just where she's coming from.  You hear about 'regressive lefties' all the time.  Breitbart uses the term all the time, and didge copies them.  http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/21/regressive-left-on-defensive-on-campus/  Sassy chooses to write a comment.  Good on her...

I've made a couple of comments along the same line.  RW ers use the term as one of the adjectives in their toolbox.  Thing is, it's just an adjective, so it's a waste of time to argue over it.

I think it's more effective to point up how RW ers hate their fellow man...how they don't want them to have healthcare or be fed...how they want to govern women's bodies, but don't want to pay to raise the children...or, how they side with the abyss of nothingness, over helping their fellow man...or how they are just plain, old selfish...or simply, how they love wars and ruin everything on earth, including the earth.

That's substance you can get your teeth into.

Quill I was only joking - I don't always out a lol at the end that's all as I think most by now know my humour! Sassy knew I was joking.

Any party that swings too far one way is not a party I am interested in, which is why I find it hard to vote.

I skimmed this thread and someone said it up there, (Les?), people's stances in the past would appear conservative by today's standards.

Yeah eds that was me. I think its to be expected.

An average person in the 1700s probably supported slavery.
An average person in the 1800s UK or US probably saw black people as inferior.
An average person in the early 1900s probably thought homosexuality was a metal problem.
An average man in all these times probably thought a woman's place was in the kitchen.

But someone who felt differently in their time on any one of those issues would have been socially 'liberal' in their day.

Eilzel wrote:Yeah eds that was me. I think its to be expected.

An average person in the 1700s probably supported slavery.
An average person in the 1800s UK or US probably saw black people as inferior.
An average person in the early 1900s probably thought homosexuality was a metal problem.
An average man in all these times probably thought a woman's place was in the kitchen.

But someone who felt differently in their time on any one of those issues would have been socially 'liberal' in their day.

But progressed by Conservative people, just because the view was liberal does make the person then ion every policy Liberal Eilzel

So you are now saying both the Democrats and Republicans in the 19th century were conservative parties didge?

Eilzel wrote:So you are now saying both the Democrats and Republicans in the 19th century were conservative parties didge?

Very much in the mindset of the day, are you suggesting they were anti capitalism, non-religious influenced etc?

No I'm not.

But didge, you miss the point.

Slavery was a way of life. A conservative in the 1800s would want to 'conserve' (by definition) the institution of slavery.

A progressive would want to bring change and be 'liberal' enough to recognise no one should be forced to serve another.

By comparison to me or you then Lincoln would be a conservative. But in the 1800s and by those standards at the time he was liberal/revolutionary/progressive.

Lincoln opposing slavery then is like people opposing thr criminalisation of homosexuality in the 20th century. Real conservatives at their time supported slavery and opposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Eilzel wrote:No I'm not.

But didge, you miss the point.

Slavery was a way of life. A conservative in the 1800s would want to 'conserve' (by definition) the institution of slavery.

A progressive would want to bring change and be 'liberal' enough to recognise no one should be forced to serve another.

By comparison to me or you then Lincoln would be a conservative. But in the 1800s and by those standards at the time he was liberal/revolutionary/progressive.

Lincoln opposing slavery then is like people opposing thr criminalisation of homosexuality in the 20th century. Real conservatives at their time supported slavery and opposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Sorry but again is misleading Eilzel as you are going off people who were fundamentally conservative in their belief
You had conservative vote to end slavery and there is no denying that, because already as seen views had been changing as they had in Britain where it had been ended. Even then slavery ended they still denied them many rights, all they did was free them from slavery, but they had no rights to vote or anything. So to say slavery was ended from a liberal stance is misleading and false

While slavery still goes on in places by people that the lefties love...

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't be too pissy, eds.  I know just where she's coming from.  You hear about 'regressive lefties' all the time.  Breitbart uses the term all the time, and didge copies them.  http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/21/regressive-left-on-defensive-on-campus/  Sassy chooses to write a comment.  Good on her...

I've made a couple of comments along the same line.  RW ers use the term as one of the adjectives in their toolbox.  Thing is, it's just an adjective, so it's a waste of time to argue over it.

I think it's more effective to point up how RW ers hate their fellow man...how they don't want them to have healthcare or be fed...how they want to govern women's bodies, but don't want to pay to raise the children...or, how they side with the abyss of nothingness, over helping their fellow man...or how they are just plain, old selfish...or simply, how they love wars and ruin everything on earth, including the earth.

That's substance you can get your teeth into.

Quill I was only joking - I don't always out a lol at the end that's all as I think most by now know my humour! Sassy knew I was joking.

I know. And I was only teasing. I used you post as a jump-off point to engage the conversation. I even eased up on some of my language.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

didge wrote:
Again you are going off now for then, as Lincoln was still a conservative.
You are ignoring time itself in this instance Eilzel

WRONG AGAIN,  Dodge...

Lincoln was a Republican..
BUT BY today's standards he was a progressive and a libertarian in comparison to many others of the time.

BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans were Free Market political parties during the 18th and 19th cemturies -- with both centrist and conservative positions on various subjects, with the Democrats being the more "conservative" placed of the two at that time..

SOME POLITICIANS and businessmen on both sides had been slaveowners in the early days of the United States...

DURING the first half of the 20th Century, the Republican Party drifted so far to the right, that the Democrats became the defacto "Left Wing" party by default (helped along by union support, and caring a little more about workers..). The Republicans than reinforced their RW regressive and reactionary position by picking up the racists, xenophobes and rednecks, cementing their anti-worker credentials with Ronnie Raygun's "trickle down" economic rationalist Reaganomics policies and later the formation of the "Tea Party" fruitloop faction at the start of the 21st Century.

YOUR MISTAKE, Young Mr Doddery, is in wrongly considering the Republicans to be the "conservative" party, when they were actually on the left of the 19th century Democrats !

This post is the profoundest of any made...Les to the side, because he is saying the same thing.

The Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves, was equivocal.  But it was not so anti-slavery as you might expect.  Lincoln made it (effective January 1st, 1863) as a means of war, not in a spirit of lofty goals of equality and freedom for all.  The slave was tending the farm in the southerner's absence to fight the war; without the slave,  there would be no one to look after things.  Lincoln reckoned that if the southerner could not tend his farm the south would collapse economically.  It was an eminently practical decision.  As Lincoln was announcing the proclamation to his Cabinet on the date of July 22, 1862:

Doris K. Goodwin wrote:[Secretary of War] Stanton instantly grasped the military value of the proclamation.  Having spent more time than any of his colleagues contemplating the logistical problems facing the army, he understood the tremendous advantage to be gained if the massive workforce of slaves could be transferred from the Confederacy to the Union. --Goodwin, Team of Rivals.

So, the decision as we discuss it 155-years later, was not so progressive.  It was a war measure, with a shrewd awareness of the cash-cropping economic base of the South.

And while I concede that the Republican Party was the liberal movement on anti-slavery at the time, we have to follow the history of the movement.  In the election of 1900, Theodore Roosevelt was elected Vice-President on the Republican ticket.  The 25th President of the United States, William McKinley, was shot and fatally wounded on September 6, 1901, making Roosevelt the President.  As it turns out, Roosevelt was the foremost progressive of the era.  He served two terms, fighting for women's rights, the woman's vote, and against the peonage of the black...and he handed the Party over to William Howard Taft, who swiftly moved the Party to the right.  This prompted Roosevelt to start the Progressive Party, which opposed Taft in the next election.

The Progressive Party bled off all progressivism from the Republican Party, and left in the residual the sad conservative base that the Republican Party has today.  Remember that the anti-slavery movement was born in the mercantile and industrial north, for whom the slave was not an economic necessity, and indeed was an embarrassment.  But stripped of its humanitarian mission of ending slavery, the Republican Party was still the party of business and 'corporate interests over humanity'.  The "bully" was gone, as Roosevelt would have said.

So, that in a nutshell is the transformation of the Republican Party from a humanitarian and progressive movement, to the anti-humanity, war-mongering organ that it is today.  Add to that the southern-strategy of Lee Atwater, after the conservative revolution of 1964, and you have the complete reversal of mission, from anti-slavery to anti-civil rights, anti-hispanic, anti-women, anti-LGBT, and indeed, anti-democracy.