This board's political alignment seems to have changed since the election. What is yours?

[TheOldSchool]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

Or we don't aim to be that. Whereas "far right" is a badge of honor among Trump supporters.

 

[Hossfly]

New World Order, One World Government, Get rid of Congress and the Courts.

It's trying to happen now and there will be blood in the streets. Liberal blood.

Check out this site and see the murderous traitors who infiltrated the Government.

​

PROGRESSIVE:

Liberal Motto: Where You Can't Legislate, Regulate!

"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." ~ Thomas Sowell

“A liberal doesn't care what you do as long as it is mandatory.” ~ Charles Krauthammer

Otherwise known, as obviously evident, as secular selective human reasoning: selective tolerance, selective diversity, selective "hate," selective discrimination, selective free speech, selective reporting and transparency, etc.

​

What defines a progressive liberal

"Earstohear.net"?

No I mean some legitimate source. Like one that actually knows what the term "Liberal" means. Which is another term that those operating the Memory Hole would have us recycle to mean its own opposite.

Sorry, can't do that.

And btw your Krauthammer quote is fake. It's a real quote, but rendered as a joke. Hence the dubiquity of the source that purports to use it as real. Hate to break this to ya but not everything you can find on the internets is honest. Who knew.

I don't argue with fools and the infirm. That site got all their information from the media and official documents. Progressives are out to destroy the country and fools like you are blind to it.

And I just demonstrated that they lied with the Krauthammer quote.
It was the first one I looked up. Should I go get more?

You seem to find everything to dispute the truth. I answered your post at the beginning with MY words that Progressives are out to destroy this country. Prove me wrong.

I can't. Because no one can define what a "Progressive" ***IS***. Which is right back where we started, full circle.

Holy shit this is like eating a rock....

A Progressive is:

New World Order, One World Government, Get rid of Congress and the Courts.

Wilson started thishorror.
The early progressives did not seek to amend or to improve the Constitution — they sought to subvert it. Their main tool in this endeavor was the executive office itself.
President Woodrow Wilson and his progressive allies in Congress understood the separation of powers built into the Constitution. They considered the separation of powers unnecessary in their own time—man had progressed beyond the founders’ fear of factions, and what he now needed was a strong, centralized symbol of authority. Wilson’s aim was to enlarge the power and scope of the national government by assigning to the president the power to supervise each branch. The Progressive philosophy of Wilson and others has become the standard of many in government today.
How 'bout them apples?

 

[OldLady]

PBS uses the word to describe left of left. Like Sanders. Not a judgment, but I've noticed them using Prog that way.

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

PBS uses the word to describe left of left. Like Sanders. Not a judgment, but I've noticed them using Prog that way.

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

 

[impuretrash]

卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐

 

[Chuz Life]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

Or we don't aim to be that. Whereas "far right" is a badge of honor among Trump supporters.

I support Trump at least over any breathing leftard... but I don't consider myself to be far right at all. I just said as much in my previous post.

 

[jc456]

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

so you have no reason to object to its use.

 

[EverCurious]

Stop playing the two party game.

2017 Political Quiz

 

[OldLady]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

 

[jc456]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

Or we don't aim to be that. Whereas "far right" is a badge of honor among Trump supporters.

why do you say that? the last thing a trump supporter is is conservative. you do know trump was a democrat right? wow you guys are really ignorant.

 

[jc456]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

funny how you don't like what someone else calls you and yet you're in here calling others names. wow. how white of you.

 

[TheOldSchool]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

Or we don't aim to be that. Whereas "far right" is a badge of honor among Trump supporters.

I support Trump at least over any breathing leftard... but I don't consider myself to be far right at all. I just said as much in my previous post.

Hint: if you say things like "I support Trump at least over any breathing leftard," you are probably far right. Hell, you even concluded that yourself before trying to tell yourself that you weren't.

 

[Pogo]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

(and btw it would be "fewer Progs" --- not "less".
"Less rain --- fewer raindrops")

______________________________________

This is just my humble opinion but, in this strange post-Obama world of today, I think the labels Democrat, Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, and Bolshevik.....are all interchangeable.

Also, you ought to quit pestering the educated for definitions, and go read a dictionary.

______________________________________

They're in NO WAY interchangeable, and it's blatant abuse of basic political science to lump different terms into a single basket just because one can't be bothered with distinctions.

"Liberal" for instance, to take another established term popularly perverted, means one who believes power derives from We the People, and not from an aristocracy or clergy or priveleged class. Liberalism is what built this country and wrote its Constitution. Nothing to do with political parties or "right" and "left". Some like flacaltenn prefer to call this "libertarian" although "Liberal' is the older term.

That has nothing to do with, for example, "Democrat", which did not even exist then, and which is the name of a specific political party. As such it's a practical vehicle to get elected, not the repository of some ideology. Billy Graham and Zell Miller are Democrats. Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin were Democrats for the purpose of getting elected because they knew what vehicle would work. The Sheriff in my town was a Democrat running for re-election, then a Republican running for re-election. He won both times. Same guy. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. Again, same guy. That's simply a grand game of Whatever Works. In the case of Rizzo and Nagin, they knew running for mayor of their city involved two choices, (a) run as a Democrat or (b) lose. Just as their counterparts in their suburbs face the opposite dynamic. In the case of my sheriff I suspect he assessed at some point that one local party ran a better get-out-the-vote campaign than the other. Just as you buy a Ford or a Dodge -- they take you to the same place.

Won't even bother with your other lump-basket terms. That should suffice.

It probably won't.

 

[jc456]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

Or we don't aim to be that. Whereas "far right" is a badge of honor among Trump supporters.

I support Trump at least over any breathing leftard... but I don't consider myself to be far right at all. I just said as much in my previous post.

Hint: if you say things like "I support Trump at least over any breathing leftard," you are probably far right. Hell, you even concluded that yourself before trying to tell yourself that you weren't.

when I yell I support trump I am superior to your ass.

 

[OldLady]

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

so you have no reason to object to its use.

Well, actually, why would I want to use a word that has no meaning? If it means more than one thing, it doesn't really mean anything because it is open to the other person's interpretation of what you're saying. It would be like making up a word like pulkercidy. You can go ahead and use it but it doesn't mean anything.
So, although I definitely don't have the energy to get worked up about it, until Pogo knows what it means, I'm not going to use it on him.

 

[jc456]

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

so you have no reason to object to its use.

Well, actually, why would I want to use a word that has no meaning? If it means more than one thing, it doesn't really mean anything because it is open to the other person's interpretation of what you're saying. It would be like making up a word like pulkercidy. You can go ahead and use it but it doesn't mean anything.
So, although I definitely don't have the energy to get worked up about it, until Pogo knows what it means, I'm not going to use it on him.

maybe you don't use it, I really don't give a shit. Don't use it. why get in the middle of something you choose to ignore?

 

[Avatar4321]

Constitutional conservative. That seems to be neither left nor right because its not constrained by that ridiculous spectrum.

 

[OldLady]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

(and btw it would be "fewer Progs" --- not "less".
"Less rain --- fewer raindrops")

______________________________________

This is just my humble opinion but, in this strange post-Obama world of today, I think the labels Democrat, Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, and Bolshevik.....are all interchangeable.

Also, you ought to quit pestering the educated for definitions, and go read a dictionary.

______________________________________

They're in NO WAY interchangeable, and it's blatant abuse of basic political science to lump different terms into a single basket just because one can't be bothered with distinctions.

"Liberal" for instance, to take another established term popularly perverted, means one who believes power derives from We the People, and not from an aristocracy or clergy or priveleged class. Liberalism is what built this country and wrote its Constitution. Nothing to do with political parties or "right" and "left". Some like flacaltenn prefer to call this "libertarian" although "Liberal' is the older term.

That has nothing to do with, for example, "Democrat", which did not even exist then, and which is the name of a specific political party. As such it's a practical vehicle to get elected, not the repository of some ideology. Billy Graham and Zell Miller are Democrats. Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin were Democrats for the purpose of getting elected because they knew what vehicle would work. The Sheriff in my town was a Democrat running for re-election, then a Republican running for re-election. He won both times. Same guy. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. Again, same guy. That's simply a grand game of Whatever Works. In the case of Rizzo and Nagin, they knew running for mayor of their city involved two choices, (a) run as a Democrat or (b) lose. Just as their counterparts in their suburbs face the opposite dynamic. In the case of my sheriff I suspect he assessed at some point that one local party ran a better get-out-the-vote campaign than the other. Just as you buy a Ford or a Dodge -- they take you to the same place.

Won't even bother with your other lump-basket terms. That should suffice.

It probably won't.

So how do we label ourselves and each other, then? USMB would DIE without its pigeon holes. Shoot down all our labels? How do we speak?

 

[OldLady]

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

so you have no reason to object to its use.

Well, actually, why would I want to use a word that has no meaning? If it means more than one thing, it doesn't really mean anything because it is open to the other person's interpretation of what you're saying. It would be like making up a word like pulkercidy. You can go ahead and use it but it doesn't mean anything.
So, although I definitely don't have the energy to get worked up about it, until Pogo knows what it means, I'm not going to use it on him.

maybe you don't use it, I really don't give a shit. Don't use it. why get in the middle of something you choose to ignore?

To annoy you, jc, to annoy you.

 

[Pogo]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

(and btw it would be "fewer Progs" --- not "less".
"Less rain --- fewer raindrops")

______________________________________

This is just my humble opinion but, in this strange post-Obama world of today, I think the labels Democrat, Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, and Bolshevik.....are all interchangeable.

Also, you ought to quit pestering the educated for definitions, and go read a dictionary.

______________________________________

They're in NO WAY interchangeable, and it's blatant abuse of basic political science to lump different terms into a single basket just because one can't be bothered with distinctions.

"Liberal" for instance, to take another established term popularly perverted, means one who believes power derives from We the People, and not from an aristocracy or clergy or priveleged class. Liberalism is what built this country and wrote its Constitution. Nothing to do with political parties or "right" and "left". Some like flacaltenn prefer to call this "libertarian" although "Liberal' is the older term.

That has nothing to do with, for example, "Democrat", which did not even exist then, and which is the name of a specific political party. As such it's a practical vehicle to get elected, not the repository of some ideology. Billy Graham and Zell Miller are Democrats. Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin were Democrats for the purpose of getting elected because they knew what vehicle would work. The Sheriff in my town was a Democrat running for re-election, then a Republican running for re-election. He won both times. Same guy. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. Again, same guy. That's simply a grand game of Whatever Works. In the case of Rizzo and Nagin, they knew running for mayor of their city involved two choices, (a) run as a Democrat or (b) lose. Just as their counterparts in their suburbs face the opposite dynamic. In the case of my sheriff I suspect he assessed at some point that one local party ran a better get-out-the-vote campaign than the other. Just as you buy a Ford or a Dodge -- they take you to the same place.

Won't even bother with your other lump-basket terms. That should suffice.

It probably won't.

So how do we label ourselves and each other, then? USMB would DIE without its pigeon holes. Shoot down all our labels? How do we speak?

I don't find a need for labels at all. Labeling I find leads to Composition Fallacies. I hate that.

I would label you as "thinker". And that's a very good thing.

I might add you have a certain.... what is the word............. pulkercidy.

I've never been here to make points for this or that 'side'. I'm here in search of honest and intelligent argument. And it's rare.

 

[impuretrash]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

Name one "right leaning" opinion you have.