What is a "Progressive"?

[JWBooth]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

 

[Derideo_Te]

A self-governing nation is a sovereign nation. Progressivism is democracy, which is a form of government that eighteenth century Americans did not want.

democracy - definition of democracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk′rə-s&#275
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

de•moc•ra•cy (dɪˈmɒk rə si)

n., pl. -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people, esp. with respect to their political power.

democracy
a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised by them or by officers they elect to represent them. Cf. republicanism. — democrat, n. — democratic, adj.

Please explain exactly how this nation does not embrace democracy?

We are not a democracy. Democracy is tyranny. 50% plus one is not efficient. Nor is it just.
Hence the reason for a representative republic, staggered terms for Sens and Reps and proportional representation in the House for each state.

 

[JWBooth]

It's scary isn't it?

Holding us to a standard of the way 18th century America viewed the world

Well, not in all cases. The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute. So one might presume that gun huggers are closet progressives, capable of seeing some phrases in the Constitution as they want to, and others as they presume the authors (all in agreement, of course) wrote and each phrase was tightly constructed and with a clear non ambiguous meaning.

The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute.

the Girandoni was able to shoot 40 rounds a minute

A ragtag army of rebels held off the greatest army of the time by being armed with such.
It was the eighteenth century and the framers could not envision the weaponry available today, but they could envision citizens having the ability to be on equal terms with the military.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Classic example of Progressive Government Policies at work achieving the goal that Conservatives wanted.

Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973 - The Washington Post

The introduction of contraception via the ACA has effectively reduced abortions to their lowest levels since RvW.

While conservatives will claim that it was their own government enforced anti-abortion laws this is a fallacy because if it were true there would have been a corresponding increase in birth rates. However the CDC data shows a corresponding DECREASE in birth rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf#table01

The 2011 general fertility rate was the lowest ever reported for
the United States, at 63.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44,
a 1% decline from 2010. The total fertility rate declined 2%, to
1,894.5 births per 1,000 women in 2011.

So that is indisputable evidence that Progressive government policies work.

Fewer abortions, lower healthcare costs, progressives achieve a conservative goal without harming women's Constitutional rights.

The math doesn't lie!

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]

 

[The Rabbi]

Figures dont lie but liars can figure.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Figures dont lie but liars can figure.

Well, that was a fun but fact-free response to Derideo's posting before yours.

Got some facts to back up that outlandish claim of yours?


I bet that were that graph to show and increase rather than a decrease in abortions in 2011. Conservatives would be ScReAmInG from the rooftops about it.

Do hyperpartisan much?

 

[rightwinger]

Figures dont lie but liars can figure.

Well, that was a fun but fact-free response to Derideo's posting before yours.

Got some facts to back up that outlandish claim of yours?


I bet that were that graph to show and increase rather than a decrease in abortions in 2011. Conservatives would be ScReAmInG from the rooftops about it.

Do hyperpartisan much?

Hey, it was either that or "Liar, liar, pants on fire"

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, not in all cases. The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute. So one might presume that gun huggers are closet progressives, capable of seeing some phrases in the Constitution as they want to, and others as they presume the authors (all in agreement, of course) wrote and each phrase was tightly constructed and with a clear non ambiguous meaning.

The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute.

the Girandoni was able to shoot 40 rounds a minute

And who might have been able to afford that weapon?

so what has nothing to do with the right to own one

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, not in all cases. The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute. So one might presume that gun huggers are closet progressives, capable of seeing some phrases in the Constitution as they want to, and others as they presume the authors (all in agreement, of course) wrote and each phrase was tightly constructed and with a clear non ambiguous meaning.

The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute.

the Girandoni was able to shoot 40 rounds a minute

A ragtag army of rebels held off the greatest army of the time by being armed with such.
It was the eighteenth century and the framers could not envision the weaponry available today, but they could envision citizens having the ability to be on equal terms with the military.

exactly

 

[Statistikhengst]

The 2nd A. referenced arms, and a firearm in the 18th C. was a single shot weapon capable of (maybe) three round per minute.

the Girandoni was able to shoot 40 rounds a minute

A ragtag army of rebels held off the greatest army of the time by being armed with such.
It was the eighteenth century and the framers could not envision the weaponry available today, but they could envision citizens having the ability to be on equal terms with the military.

exactly

Don't fall from your chair, but I agree - mostly.

 

[DiamondDave]

Classic example of Progressive Government Policies at work achieving the goal that Conservatives wanted.

Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973 - The Washington Post

The introduction of contraception via the ACA has effectively reduced abortions to their lowest levels since RvW.

While conservatives will claim that it was their own government enforced anti-abortion laws this is a fallacy because if it were true there would have been a corresponding increase in birth rates. However the CDC data shows a corresponding DECREASE in birth rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf#table01

The 2011 general fertility rate was the lowest ever reported for
the United States, at 63.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44,
a 1% decline from 2010. The total fertility rate declined 2%, to
1,894.5 births per 1,000 women in 2011.

So that is indisputable evidence that Progressive government policies work.

Fewer abortions, lower healthcare costs, progressives achieve a conservative goal without harming women's Constitutional rights.

The math doesn't lie!

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]

Uhhh.. considering the ACA just went into effect, your conclusion is pure shit

And there was NOTHING preventing people from gong out and buying contraceptives (which are not expensive) all along

'Math' may not lie, but you and your ilk sure do.. just like the government does

 

[Nosmo King]

Without Bell Telephone inventing the transistor, none of that would have been possible. Government had nothing to do with it, and that includes vision.

If Edison had not invented the light bulb, you would be watching TV by candlelight. No government involvement.

Somehow, we managed to develop into the industrial age with little, if any, help from government.

Now, some of you cannot take a crap without ensuring you have a government approved commode, and permission to do so.

Where were you taught this particular lie, or are you making this up as you go?

How was this continent spanned by railroad had it not been by the help from government? How was foreign trade regulated and protected if not by the help go government? How were rivers made navigable, communications develop from pony express to nation-wide telegraph to satellite had government not helped.

Your grasp of American history is tenuous at best. Did you take your studies over seas, or from Sears and Roebuck?

You dont refute a single example and call it a lie. Congratulations!
You are confusing gov't setting ground rules with gov't actually doing the work in all the cases you cite. Ultimately private money built railroads, airlines, telegraph and other infrastructure in America. The fact that people got paid in US dollars or signed contracts enforceable in US courts doesn't negate that.

Federal land grants built the railroads, unless you think that private money was used to buy up vast tracts in the west before the first tie was laid. Federal mandates to string telegraph and telephone wires made communications possible, unless you think private entrepreneurs had an itch to push lines into small towns on the prairies.

To dismiss the federal government as a hindrance on one hand and ignore the federal power that made all this possible on the other betrays a basic ignorance of history and a basic misunderstanding of the role of the federal government. The federal government cannot be both poison and antidote to private enterprises.

 

[BDBoop]

Classic example of Progressive Government Policies at work achieving the goal that Conservatives wanted.

Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973 - The Washington Post

The introduction of contraception via the ACA has effectively reduced abortions to their lowest levels since RvW.

While conservatives will claim that it was their own government enforced anti-abortion laws this is a fallacy because if it were true there would have been a corresponding increase in birth rates. However the CDC data shows a corresponding DECREASE in birth rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf#table01

The 2011 general fertility rate was the lowest ever reported for
the United States, at 63.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44,
a 1% decline from 2010. The total fertility rate declined 2%, to
1,894.5 births per 1,000 women in 2011.

So that is indisputable evidence that Progressive government policies work.

Fewer abortions, lower healthcare costs, progressives achieve a conservative goal without harming women's Constitutional rights.

The math doesn't lie!

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]

Go, US!!!!

 

[Nosmo King]

Going to require some examples.
You are confusing classic liberalism( based on liberty and freedom of the individual) and modern day liberalism.
Liberalism of today is associated with big government, deficit spending, high taxes , welfare statism and central planning..
"For the common good".
Today's liberal eschews the notion that the individual is in charge of and should be trusted with his own destiny. Liberalism of today is collectivism. It labels people and places them into groups. Then pits those groups against one another in the interest of gaining and maintaining political power.
Liberals of today are elitists.

This was said of all Liberal/Progressive issues. 'Twas ever thus. FDR heard it and brought us Social Security along with a virtual alphabet soup of federal programs that gave work and hope to a desperate people. His uncle Theodore heard it and was first mocked as, then praised as a Trust Buster.

And yet our economy was saved from monopolistic control at the beginning of the 20th century and saved again from Capitalist panic in the first third of that century.

LBJ heard it just after the mid point of the 20th century and we got Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start.

Keep up the tradition of being blind to accomplishments and focusing on the well worn talking points. In the meantime, Liberals will be fighting the good fight and Conservatives will continue to be behind the curve of history.

Is that a fact? I (once again) ask you liberal pukes to read or re-read the "Grapes Of Wrath" John Steinbeck.

Nearly 50 years after Steinbeck wrote his novel, LBJ introduced the "Great Society" to rid the United States of "poverty"
There are just as many "poor" people in this country now, as there were when LBJ started this nonsense - some 50 years ago. And there are just as many now as there was 100 years ago and 150 years ago. Get the idea of how the cycle works yet skippy?

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is a contract between the workers of the United States and the Federal Government. I receive Social Security. Taxes were taken from my 50 years of working (against my will) to pay for my "social Security" in my "old age". Only they (the taxes) weren't for "me". Oh no. They were for those that came before me. Now, I have to depend on people working 15-20 hours a week to pay MY Social Security. What a deal.

The United States government entered into a contract with me - one that I never agreed to - and now, every month, they meet their end of the contractual obligation just as I did when I unwillingly allowed them to take taxes from me.

And supposedly YOU are paying for my retirement. Pretty good shell game, isn't it. Typical liberal tactic. You see, GOVERNMENT NEVER "SOLVES" ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SUFFERING - IT MERELY PROLONGS IT FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A Progressive will fight to the death to see that your money and property are used for the highest good as he sees fit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This was said of all Liberal/Progressive issues. 'Twas ever thus. FDR heard it and brought us Social Security along with a virtual alphabet soup of federal programs that gave work and hope to a desperate people. His uncle Theodore heard it and was first mocked as, then praised as a Trust Buster.

And yet our economy was saved from monopolistic control at the beginning of the 20th century and saved again from Capitalist panic in the first third of that century.

LBJ heard it just after the mid point of the 20th century and we got Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start.

Keep up the tradition of being blind to accomplishments and focusing on the well worn talking points. In the meantime, Liberals will be fighting the good fight and Conservatives will continue to be behind the curve of history.

Is that a fact? I (once again) ask you liberal pukes to read or re-read the "Grapes Of Wrath" John Steinbeck.

Nearly 50 years after Steinbeck wrote his novel, LBJ introduced the "Great Society" to rid the United States of "poverty"
There are just as many "poor" people in this country now, as there were when LBJ started this nonsense - some 50 years ago. And there are just as many now as there was 100 years ago and 150 years ago. Get the idea of how the cycle works yet skippy?

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is a contract between the workers of the United States and the Federal Government. I receive Social Security. Taxes were taken from my 50 years of working (against my will) to pay for my "social Security" in my "old age". Only they (the taxes) weren't for "me". Oh no. They were for those that came before me. Now, I have to depend on people working 15-20 hours a week to pay MY Social Security. What a deal.

The United States government entered into a contract with me - one that I never agreed to - and now, every month, they meet their end of the contractual obligation just as I did when I unwillingly allowed them to take taxes from me.

And supposedly YOU are paying for my retirement. Pretty good shell game, isn't it. Typical liberal tactic. You see, GOVERNMENT NEVER "SOLVES" ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SUFFERING - IT MERELY PROLONGS IT FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

They're much worse off now. They used to be self sufficient and now they are slaves to the government

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is that a fact? I (once again) ask you liberal pukes to read or re-read the "Grapes Of Wrath" John Steinbeck.

Nearly 50 years after Steinbeck wrote his novel, LBJ introduced the "Great Society" to rid the United States of "poverty"
There are just as many "poor" people in this country now, as there were when LBJ started this nonsense - some 50 years ago. And there are just as many now as there was 100 years ago and 150 years ago. Get the idea of how the cycle works yet skippy?

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is a contract between the workers of the United States and the Federal Government. I receive Social Security. Taxes were taken from my 50 years of working (against my will) to pay for my "social Security" in my "old age". Only they (the taxes) weren't for "me". Oh no. They were for those that came before me. Now, I have to depend on people working 15-20 hours a week to pay MY Social Security. What a deal.

The United States government entered into a contract with me - one that I never agreed to - and now, every month, they meet their end of the contractual obligation just as I did when I unwillingly allowed them to take taxes from me.

And supposedly YOU are paying for my retirement. Pretty good shell game, isn't it. Typical liberal tactic. You see, GOVERNMENT NEVER "SOLVES" ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SUFFERING - IT MERELY PROLONGS IT FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

Do you think that conditions for the Joad family are the same as the conditions for poor Oklahoma families in 2014? Is there clean reliable sources of drinking water today? Is there electricity flowing into the poorest homes today? Can poor families depend on a meal each day today? Are their children being educated, clothed, fed? LBJ never said "rid the country of poverty". He said he would wage war on poverty. Even after a war is fought, the enemy remains.

And if you're so dissatisfied with your Social Security benefits, why don't you write to the Social Security office and refuse next month's check? I wager more people are thankful for the stipend than resentful of it.

They're much worse off now. They used to be self sufficient and now they are slaves to the government

Why does CrusaderFrank lie? Does he really believe his whiny rants will convince anyone that history according to him is credible to any but the most ignorant? Or is his need for attention his greatest motivation?

Of course the possibility he is one of the "most ignorant" needs to be ruled out, and he is simply a parrot for the Minister of Truth, PoliticalChic.

 

[thanatos144]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

And you are an idiot who does not know the meaning of either term.

Fascism is derived from the Latin meaning bundle of sticks and Coined by SOCIALIST Progressive Benito Mussolini Meaning together they are strong individually weak. Now that I have educated you I expect your apology any day.

 

[thanatos144]

A progressive is a fascist

tapatalk post

see post 258 .... By the way dont try to match wits with me when your unarmed.

 

[editec]

Where were you taught this particular lie, or are you making this up as you go?

How was this continent spanned by railroad had it not been by the help from government? How was foreign trade regulated and protected if not by the help go government? How were rivers made navigable, communications develop from pony express to nation-wide telegraph to satellite had government not helped.

Your grasp of American history is tenuous at best. Did you take your studies over seas, or from Sears and Roebuck?

You dont refute a single example and call it a lie. Congratulations!
You are confusing gov't setting ground rules with gov't actually doing the work in all the cases you cite. Ultimately private money built railroads, airlines, telegraph and other infrastructure in America. The fact that people got paid in US dollars or signed contracts enforceable in US courts doesn't negate that.

Federal land grants built the railroads, unless you think that private money was used to buy up vast tracts in the west before the first tie was laid. Federal mandates to string telegraph and telephone wires made communications possible, unless you think private entrepreneurs had an itch to push lines into small towns on the prairies.

To dismiss the federal government as a hindrance on one hand and ignore the federal power that made all this possible on the other betrays a basic ignorance of history and a basic misunderstanding of the role of the federal government. The federal government cannot be both poison and antidote to private enterprises.

They not only gave them the land, the FEDERAL government also paid the RRs per mile for laying track.

A huge SOCIALIST welfare system to the railroads that I believe ALSO helped this nation tremendously.

Sometimes a business partnership between private capital and government is a boon to the entire society.