The catastrophic failure of progressive policy

[alang1216]

Please show me where I intimated that I supported slavery. Quite the contrary, throughout this thread I have shown you that slavery was the exclusive policy of DEMOCRATS. All progressives are DEMOCRATS. No progressives are conservatives. You embrace progressives AND democrats, so I would be more inclined to believe that you support slavery by extension. This should clear things up for you but I'm not holding out much hope.

Your logic is incomplete. You say "All progressives are DEMOCRATS", does that mean all DEMOCRATS are progressives?

Were the Democrats of the slavery era progressives? As I recall they embraced, not only slavery, but States Rights and literally fought Federal intervention in their affairs. Doesn't sound like progressive policies to me.

Were the Republicans of the slavery era conservatives then? As I recall they fought against States Rights and for Federal supremacy. The increased taxes to pay for the war, prevented free trade (for the Confederacy) and were the first to propose reparations for freed slaves. Doesn't sound like conservative policies to me.

Wouldn't it be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Concerned American]

does that mean all DEMOCRATS are progressives?

Did I say that? This isn't spin the bottle. Why do you have a problem reading and comprehending? Are you a product of the public school system of the last thirty years?

States Rights

Bbbut, Bbbbut, fill in the blank, eh? Please stay on topic. I don't think I ever heard the word progressive as it relates to the current political arena for the first 50 years of my life at least.

Were the Republicans of the slavery era conservatives then?

You are really conflicted by confronting the reality that you embrace the party who promoted the slavery you claim to abhor. Republicans freed the slaves. The fact that you are having such a hard time with it proves that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Next.

 

[P@triot]

I do but I don't think the founding fathers meant to include nuclear arms in the 2nd.

Well it’s safe to say that you don’t know a thing about the founders. You’re literally just making shit up for your own personal agenda.

Furthermore, even if the founder hadn’t meant to include nuclear arms - they did. Which means, if you don’t like it, the onus is on you to get the votes necessary to amend it.

Since you can’t get the votes you need to amend it, accept the fact that We the People have spoken. We didn’t agree with your view, we didn’t want the amendment, so we clearly like the 2nd Amendment as written.

So you get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are legally binding?

No - the law does. And when a contract of any kind is made, the explanation (the “why”) isn’t the agreement. The “what” is the agreement (Prefatory clause vs. Operative clause).

Wow! So if a SCOTUS disagrees with you they are either uneducated, dishonest, or both?

Yep. It’s written in black and white so only an idiot - or someone being completely disingenuous for a political agenda - could possibly disagree.

 

[P@triot]

Seems to me that if they could agree and the definition of 'arms' they would have included it. They choose not to.

Did they include the definition of “We” or “the” or “People”? No?

Uh. Almost like they realized words have meaning and that the US Constitution wasn’t designed to be a dictionary.

They didn’t put the definition of any word in the constitution. Nice try though. Next?

 

[P@triot]

What traditional marriage do you mean? Polygamy, 13-year-old brides, wives that could not inherit or own property?

None of that ever happened in the United States. Would you like to try again?

Most Americans support gay marriage so it is now an American tradition.

So now you’re admitting you lied - progressive policy isn’t “traditional American culture and values” as you erroneously stated in post #1165?

Oops.

 

[P@triot]

Most Americans support gay marriage so it is now an American tradition.

Hint: if you have to preface the word “tradition” with the word “now” then whatever you were claiming was traditional, wasn’t.

 

[toobfreak]

After studying hundreds of years of history, conservatives have the solutions down to a science - while progressives continue to toil in catastrophic failure as they ignore reality in favor of ideology.

One thing is for sure, P, the radical hard left are not pond scum 24/7 by accident, they are enemies of the state here by either dangerous brain defect or intentional sinister intention to destroy the greatest nation in the world from standing apart on its own free will from their globalist-Marxist fantasies, so deserve no more compassion from us than bug squirt.

 

[P@triot]

If I bought one in Pakistan you'd be OK with me importing it?

Except that the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to control what comes into the U.S. from foreign nations.

Article 1, Section 8 (clause 3):

“The Congress shall have Power to…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”

Oops. You didn’t think your weak “nuclear missiles” argument through very well, did you? Like I said previously, you should have taken the 14 minutes out of your life to actually read the US Constitution.

 

[Concerned American]

Did they include the definition of “We” or “the” or “People”? No?

Uh. Almost like they realized words have meaning and that the US Constitution wasn’t designed to be a dictionary.

They didn’t put the definition of any word in the constitution. Nice try though. Next?

LMAO, seems I remember another democrat trying to use "Well, it depend on what your definition of is, is" These guys are twisting in the wind today.

 

[P@triot]

…even if they were the norms in different times and different places.

Bingo! This is the United States - not the United Arab Emirates. There was never a time where multiple wives or gay marriage was traditional here in the United States.

So you flat-out lied earlier. The progressive policy has never been traditional US cultures and values.

 

[P@triot]

Good grief…progressives policy ends in total failure every time.

Woke Left's Removal of Discipline From Classrooms Has Been Calamitous

A lack of discipline in the classroom is leading some teachers to resign and is harming students' ability to learn, author Daniel Buck says.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[P@triot]

Progressives policy ends in total failure every time.

LA Times Asks: 'What's Matter With Portland?' Answer: Its Leftist Ideology.

Instead of rolling their eyes at critics, liberals in Portland, Oregon, should consider how their worldview is leading to misery, not utopia.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[alang1216]

Bingo! This is the United States - not the United Arab Emirates. There was never a time where multiple wives or gay marriage was traditional here in the United States.

So you flat-out lied earlier. The progressive policy has never been traditional US cultures and values.

I said gay marriage is NOW a tradition accepted by a majority of Americans. As for polygamy, I guess you've never heard of the Mormons.

 

[P@triot]

I said gay marriage is NOW a tradition accepted by a majority of Americans.

LMAO!! If it's "now" then it's not a "tradition"

As for polygamy, I guess you've never heard of the Mormons.

Mormons don't control the United States. Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since the 1800's

 

[Concerned American]

As for polygamy, I guess you've never heard of the Mormons.

It was NEVER mainstream and it was outlawed. Keep twisting.

 

[alang1216]

It was NEVER mainstream and it was outlawed. Keep twisting.

It was mainstream in the Mormon community, until God told them to become a state. There are communities where it is still practiced.

 

[Concerned American]

There are communities where it is still practiced.

Not legal in ANY state in the nation. Dog fighting is practiced in many places in the US as well--that is illegal too. Try again.

 

[alang1216]

Not legal in ANY state in the nation. Dog fighting is practiced in many places in the US as well--that is illegal too. Try again.

No thanks.

Are Social Security and Medicare American traditions? Are they catastrophic failures?

 

[Concerned American]

No thanks.

Are Social Security and Medicare American traditions? Are they catastrophic failures?

SS and Medicare are socialism that has influenced American law--not traditions. It is still to be seen whether they are failures. They do not exist as they were originally written. SS has been changed numerous times--there was no survivor benefit in the original 1935 SS law. It was added in 1939 and the disability benefit wasn't added until 1956--Both of these have had tremendous detrimental effects on the funding of original SS. Medicare wasn't introduced and signed into law until 1965. Time will tell if it was a mistake or not as socialism plays a larger part in its implementation.

 

[alang1216]

SS and Medicare are socialism that has influenced American law--not traditions. It is still to be seen whether they are failures. They do not exist as they were originally written. SS has been changed numerous times--there was no survivor benefit in the original 1935 SS law. It was added in 1939 and the disability benefit wasn't added until 1956--Both of these have had tremendous detrimental effects on the funding of original SS. Medicare wasn't introduced and signed into law until 1965. Time will tell if it was a mistake or not as socialism plays a larger part in its implementation.

They've changed and will likely keep changing as America changes. That said, they are immensely popular, being political 3rd rails, and brought to you by progressives/Democrats. Can you point to any conservative programs that are equally popular?