Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
doesn't matter who changed it. the fact remains it was a progressive move. This my team did this and my team did that is a poison on this nation.
I'll take that post as meaning that you have learned your lesson.
yes, i wish we could go back to 1914 when you could be slapped out in public and people would agree, because you have a mouth problem.
Regardless of what you think, Progress is a good thing
2. Because you're a child......mentally.
I'll take that post as meaning that you have learned your lesson.
yes, i wish we could go back to 1914 when you could be slapped out in public and people would agree, because you have a mouth problem.
Regardless of what you think, Progress is a good thing
I recommend you for Liberal/Progressive poster child.
1. Because your aim is to silence opposition voices
2. Because you're a child......mentally.
It really gets under your skin how regularly and thoroughly I whip you, huh?
Great.
yes, i wish we could go back to 1914 when you could be slapped out in public and people would agree, because you have a mouth problem.
Regardless of what you think, Progress is a good thing
I recommend you for Liberal/Progressive poster child.
1. Because your aim is to silence opposition voices
2. Because you're a child......mentally.
It really gets under your skin how regularly and thoroughly I whip you, huh?
Great.
You don't know my aim...
But typical assumptions by you.
Any support the Republican Party had for women's rights pretty much officially ended in 1980,
when the GOP put opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment into their platform...
...and so began the Reagan era, and with it eventuated the modern Republican Party in its current form...
...not the party of Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt, or even Eisenhower by any stretch of the imagination.
Any support the Republican Party had for women's rights pretty much officially ended in 1980,
when the GOP put opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment into their platform...
...and so began the Reagan era, and with it eventuated the modern Republican Party in its current form...
...not the party of Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt, or even Eisenhower by any stretch of the imagination.
But you voted for the rapist?
Any support the Republican Party had for women's rights pretty much officially ended in 1980,
when the GOP put opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment into their platform...
...and so began the Reagan era, and with it eventuated the modern Republican Party in its current form...
...not the party of Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt, or even Eisenhower by any stretch of the imagination.
But you voted for the rapist?
Since you call Bill Clinton a rapist I assume that's who you're referring to.
I voted for Perot actually.
"President Obama "quipped" today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
Obama: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want' | The Weekly Standard
But you voted for the rapist?
Since you call Bill Clinton a rapist I assume that's who you're referring to.
I voted for Perot actually.
Well then.....we made the same mistake.
"President Obama "quipped" today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
Obama: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want' | The Weekly Standard
So if I am understanding the gist of your argument, you are upset that President Obama wanted to look at the view from the terrace?
Btw, Wilson was not the first progressive president
1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President, made no secret of his desires to 'fundamentally change America.'
1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President, made no secret of his desires to 'fundamentally change America.'
2. First of all, there is that pesky Constitution:
"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]
3. Then, there is his major objection, separation of powers.
He rejected the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances that are the foundation of American government: Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand .
4. In his 1890 essay, Leaders of Men, Wilson explained No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle, wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great.
Progressives love the people, hate the person.
5. One often hears that Liberals and Progressives yearn for the US government to be more like that of Western European nations. Here's why:
In May of 1953, with the Labor Party in power in England, and Clement Atlee, Prime Minister, and while addressing the House of Commons, attacked the United Stated Constitution. (He was quickly denounced by Senator McCarthy,) Atlee claimed the Constitution was "framed for an isolationist state," and that he had contempt for the separation of powers, and insinuated that President Eisenhower could not speak with authority, because of the constitutional prerogatives of the US Senate. "One sometimes wonders who is more powerful, the President
or Senator McCarthy," Attlee remarked."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 25
6. Let's see what the last century has given us:
a. Obama, on the Constitution: "I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place."
Obama: Constitution 'Constrains' Me - Ben Shapiro - Page full
b. And, it seems that this constitutional law instructor has decided on how he will handle the problem of the Constitution:
"President Obama "quipped" today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
Obama: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want' | The Weekly Standard
7. "...Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws," that Obama's abuse of executive power has grown to the point that "he's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."
Doug Ross @ Journal: Obama is the President the Constitution Was Designed to Prevent
So....where are the Liberal voices raised against this tyrant???
1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President, made no secret of his desires to 'fundamentally change America.'
P-chic, you have got to be the least educated person on this form, yet it appears you see yourself as some sort of history scholar.
The opening lines of your posts are often so disturbingly stupid that it's impossible to read the rest of the post.
Take the whopper above for example --
Wilson's agenda included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax. Child labor was curtailed by the KeatingOwen Act. (U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional)
Although considered a modern liberal visionary giant as President, Wilson was deeply racist in his thoughts and politics and his administration racially segregated federal employees and the Navy.
The non-progressive, progressive.
He was fighting for the WHITE underclass. Which should make him your hero.
The problem with you conservative morons is that you are unable to see how complicated and nuanced issues and people are. Everything with you is either white(good) or black (evil).
1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President, made no secret of his desires to 'fundamentally change America.'
2. First of all, there is that pesky Constitution:
"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]
3. Then, there is his major objection, separation of powers.
He rejected the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances that are the foundation of American government: Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand .
4. In his 1890 essay, Leaders of Men, Wilson explained No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle, wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great.
Progressives love the people, hate the person.
5. One often hears that Liberals and Progressives yearn for the US government to be more like that of Western European nations. Here's why:
In May of 1953, with the Labor Party in power in England, and Clement Atlee, Prime Minister, and while addressing the House of Commons, attacked the United Stated Constitution. (He was quickly denounced by Senator McCarthy,) Atlee claimed the Constitution was "framed for an isolationist state," and that he had contempt for the separation of powers, and insinuated that President Eisenhower could not speak with authority, because of the constitutional prerogatives of the US Senate. "One sometimes wonders who is more powerful, the President
or Senator McCarthy," Attlee remarked."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 25
6. Let's see what the last century has given us:
a. Obama, on the Constitution: "I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place."
Obama: Constitution 'Constrains' Me - Ben Shapiro - Page full
b. And, it seems that this constitutional law instructor has decided on how he will handle the problem of the Constitution:
"President Obama "quipped" today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
Obama: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want' | The Weekly Standard
7. "...Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws," that Obama's abuse of executive power has grown to the point that "he's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."
Doug Ross @ Journal: Obama is the President the Constitution Was Designed to Prevent
So....where are the Liberal voices raised against this tyrant???
1. Wrong that was Teddy...
2. Constitution shattering started with John Adams, since then, every single president since, without exception, has torn it to shreds.
3. Andrew Jackson quite literally destroyed any semblance of the separation of powers.
4. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 campaign included states rights, and limited government. Him and Taft were about equal in their leanings, while Teddy, and Debs were far to the left of him
5. I would think most liberals are not even aware of that event, nor does one man speak for a whole ideology
1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President, made no secret of his desires to 'fundamentally change America.'
2. First of all, there is that pesky Constitution:
"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]
3. Then, there is his major objection, separation of powers.
He rejected the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances that are the foundation of American government: Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand .
4. In his 1890 essay, Leaders of Men, Wilson explained No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle, wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great.
Progressives love the people, hate the person.
5. One often hears that Liberals and Progressives yearn for the US government to be more like that of Western European nations. Here's why:
In May of 1953, with the Labor Party in power in England, and Clement Atlee, Prime Minister, and while addressing the House of Commons, attacked the United Stated Constitution. (He was quickly denounced by Senator McCarthy,) Atlee claimed the Constitution was "framed for an isolationist state," and that he had contempt for the separation of powers, and insinuated that President Eisenhower could not speak with authority, because of the constitutional prerogatives of the US Senate. "One sometimes wonders who is more powerful, the President
or Senator McCarthy," Attlee remarked."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 25
6. Let's see what the last century has given us:
a. Obama, on the Constitution: "I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place."
Obama: Constitution 'Constrains' Me - Ben Shapiro - Page full
b. And, it seems that this constitutional law instructor has decided on how he will handle the problem of the Constitution:
"President Obama "quipped" today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
Obama: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want' | The Weekly Standard
7. "...Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws," that Obama's abuse of executive power has grown to the point that "he's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."
Doug Ross @ Journal: Obama is the President the Constitution Was Designed to Prevent
So....where are the Liberal voices raised against this tyrant???
1. Wrong that was Teddy...
2. Constitution shattering started with John Adams, since then, every single president since, without exception, has torn it to shreds.
3. Andrew Jackson quite literally destroyed any semblance of the separation of powers.
4. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 campaign included states rights, and limited government. Him and Taft were about equal in their leanings, while Teddy, and Debs were far to the left of him
5. I would think most liberals are not even aware of that event, nor does one man speak for a whole ideology
Wrong. TR was not as anti-Constitution as Wilson.
Wilson despised the Constitution. TR gave it a nod.
1. The historian Mowry called TR the advance agent of mainstream progressivism.
a. It was TRs belief that executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution. According to TR, I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.
b. Taft condemned this as an unsafe doctrine, which assumes the President is to play the part of a universal providence and set all things right.
Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, p.425.
2. TR and Taft diverged in the way they flexed their progressive muscle toward big business, and trusts. TR, rather than desiring to end trusts, wanted government regulation of same, while Taft invested his love of law, pursued strict enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against every big corporation he could find. Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, p. 658
a. In the beginning, Taft continued TRs programs. His administration initiated twice as many anti-trust suits as had TRs (TR: forty-four in seven years; Taft: ninety in three years). http://www.delbarton.org/OnCampus/academics/Teacher_Sites/Richard/ClassNotes/UnitVI.html
3. Taft viewed TR, Debs and Wilson as radicals and viewed himself as knowing he had no part to play but that of a conservative, and that I am going to play. Quoted in Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, vol. 2, p. 658.
He championed the conservative creed of individualism, while warning of the dangers of socialism.
This view places him squarely at the very opposite of Wilson.
4. At the Socialist convention in 1898, Debs accepted Victor Bergers Socialist Democratic Party platform: immediate overthrow of capitalism, nationalization of resources, improvement of working conditions, and equality for women.
1. Wrong that was Teddy...
2. Constitution shattering started with John Adams, since then, every single president since, without exception, has torn it to shreds.
3. Andrew Jackson quite literally destroyed any semblance of the separation of powers.
4. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 campaign included states rights, and limited government. Him and Taft were about equal in their leanings, while Teddy, and Debs were far to the left of him
5. I would think most liberals are not even aware of that event, nor does one man speak for a whole ideology
Wrong. TR was not as anti-Constitution as Wilson.
Wilson despised the Constitution. TR gave it a nod.
1. The historian Mowry called TR the advance agent of mainstream progressivism.
a. It was TRs belief that executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution. According to TR, I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.
b. Taft condemned this as an unsafe doctrine, which assumes the President is to play the part of a universal providence and set all things right.
Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, p.425.
2. TR and Taft diverged in the way they flexed their progressive muscle toward big business, and trusts. TR, rather than desiring to end trusts, wanted government regulation of same, while Taft invested his love of law, pursued strict enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against every big corporation he could find. Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, p. 658
a. In the beginning, Taft continued TRs programs. His administration initiated twice as many anti-trust suits as had TRs (TR: forty-four in seven years; Taft: ninety in three years). http://www.delbarton.org/OnCampus/academics/Teacher_Sites/Richard/ClassNotes/UnitVI.html
3. Taft viewed TR, Debs and Wilson as radicals and viewed himself as knowing he had no part to play but that of a conservative, and that I am going to play. Quoted in Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, vol. 2, p. 658.
He championed the conservative creed of individualism, while warning of the dangers of socialism.
This view places him squarely at the very opposite of Wilson.
4. At the Socialist convention in 1898, Debs accepted Victor Bergers Socialist Democratic Party platform: immediate overthrow of capitalism, nationalization of resources, improvement of working conditions, and equality for women.
You really just made an argument that TR was a progressive.
1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President, made no secret of his desires to 'fundamentally change America.'
P-chic, you have got to be the least educated person on this form, yet it appears you see yourself as some sort of history scholar.
The opening lines of your posts are often so disturbingly stupid that it's impossible to read the rest of the post.
Take the whopper above for example --
Wilson's agenda included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax. Child labor was curtailed by the KeatingOwen Act. (U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional)
Although considered a modern liberal visionary giant as President, Wilson was deeply racist in his thoughts and politics and his administration racially segregated federal employees and the Navy.
The non-progressive, progressive.
He was fighting for the WHITE underclass. Which should make him your hero.
The problem with you conservative morons is that you are unable to see how complicated and nuanced issues and people are. Everything with you is either white(good) or black (evil).
Wrong. TR was not as anti-Constitution as Wilson.
Wilson despised the Constitution. TR gave it a nod.
1. The historian Mowry called TR the advance agent of mainstream progressivism.
a. It was TRs belief that executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution. According to TR, I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.
b. Taft condemned this as an unsafe doctrine, which assumes the President is to play the part of a universal providence and set all things right.
Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, p.425.
2. TR and Taft diverged in the way they flexed their progressive muscle toward big business, and trusts. TR, rather than desiring to end trusts, wanted government regulation of same, while Taft invested his love of law, pursued strict enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against every big corporation he could find. Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, p. 658
a. In the beginning, Taft continued TRs programs. His administration initiated twice as many anti-trust suits as had TRs (TR: forty-four in seven years; Taft: ninety in three years). http://www.delbarton.org/OnCampus/academics/Teacher_Sites/Richard/ClassNotes/UnitVI.html
3. Taft viewed TR, Debs and Wilson as radicals and viewed himself as knowing he had no part to play but that of a conservative, and that I am going to play. Quoted in Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, vol. 2, p. 658.
He championed the conservative creed of individualism, while warning of the dangers of socialism.
This view places him squarely at the very opposite of Wilson.
4. At the Socialist convention in 1898, Debs accepted Victor Bergers Socialist Democratic Party platform: immediate overthrow of capitalism, nationalization of resources, improvement of working conditions, and equality for women.
You really just made an argument that TR was a progressive.
Many have.
The comparison is with the far more Progressive, the ant-Constitution, racist, Woodrow Wilson.
no one was more important to the origins of the administrative state in America than Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow. Wilson served as the 26th President of the United States and was a leading academic advocate of Progressive ideas long before his entry into politics. Much of his contribution to Progressive thought came in his work from the 1880s, The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government
Why am I responsible for both sides of the argument????
I was waiting for some to post this:
a. Teddy Roosevelt, during the Coal Strike of 1902: To hell with the Constitution when people want coal.
b. And in his (Roosevelts) speech The New Nationalism, 1902: The state has a role in effecting economic equality, and superintending private property.
c. And The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good.
