The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[Woodruff]

Their argument is at the emotional level, while the conservative argues based on rational thought.

Now see, it's when you say things like this that lead me to believe you're not serious.

Kinda like when you threw your last tizzy and left this place for good for the third or so time.

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of my leaving this past time, but that's ok...I'm used to your wallowing in ignorance.

[Woodruff]

Their argument is at the emotional level, while the conservative argues based on rational thought.

Now see, it's when you say things like this that lead me to believe you're not serious.

Dismissialism is also the weapon of the Progressive.

I am serious (and don't call me Shirley).

To claim that you're serious while also claiming that "the conservative argues based on rational thought" tells me that either you have a very strange idea of conservatives or that you're willingly taking your argument to the absurd.

[Juan_Bottom]

lolololololol

Who is HapSmo talking to?

[HapSmo19]

dumb and dumber

[BigBallinStalin]

To put it simply, progressivism refers to the general appeal to state intervention in order to impose one's desires on others. Classical liberalism on the extreme opposite side of this spectrum would be an adherence to limited government, e.g. state-provided defense, police, and courts. At the extreme end of classical liberalism, it's probably safe to say that it's anarcho-capitalism.


So, this is how the framework functions:

You're shifting toward the progressive side of the spectrum by supporting increases in taxes on whoever. However, by advocating for extremely high taxes (75%) on incomes over a million Euros, pounds, or dollars, you've shifting very closely toward the progressivism end of the spectrum and very far away from liberalism. If you supported a 5% flat tax, you're very close to the far end of liberalism.



"Liberalism" of today is actually the continuation of Progressivism from the past. It's reshaped itself, but it's still the same old collectivist way of thinking. It's forever juxtaposed from classical liberalism, which is exemplified in very few true conservatives in today's political circles. Ron Paul and a few politicians who view negatively the role of government in the lives of others.

[PLAYER57832]

I call myself a Progressive, because I believe in progress.

What about when the Progressivism is taking away the freedoms we have? And what are you "progressing" to? Progress for the sake of progress is not inherently good.

I disagree, because if it's progress then it is, by definition, an improvement.

So we've progressed from a country founded on individual freedoms to a society that depends on the government if they don't get what they want. Yep, that's quite the improvement.

Freedom for a few is not freedom. Government ensures uniform freedom for ALL. That means that you get to do what you wish, UNTIL you start to invade my space.

The problem is, if you ignore most biology, pretend that scientists, as a whole are just a bunch of biased folks out to attack business or Christianity or "free thinking individuals".. then you can pretend that you are not harming anyone.

Doesn't mean you are being truthful.. just means that you are very good at puttiing your fingers in your ears.

[tzor]

To claim that you're serious while also claiming that "the conservative argues based on rational thought" tells me that either you have a very strange idea of conservatives or that you're willingly taking your argument to the absurd.

Oh dear, this is like talking about the Yankee bullpen to a Red Sox fan. Do you think I should tell him? (OF COURSE, YOU ARE EVIL!)

"Rational Thought" is the tagline of SirusXM Patriot Channel talk show host Andred Wilkow (spell his name right) on the Wilkow Mjority.

Remember his "argument cannot be broken." You are welcome to try, but do let us know so i can tune in and LOL the afternoon away.

Check out the "Free Five (minutes of audio)"

[tzor]

Freedom for a few is not freedom. Government ensures uniform freedom for ALL. That means that you get to do what you wish, UNTIL you start to invade my space.

BINGO! We will make a libertarian conservative (little "r" republican) out of you yet!

The problem is, if you ignore most biology, pretend that scientists, as a whole are just a bunch of biased folks out to attack business or Christianity or "free thinking individuals".. then you can pretend that you are not harming anyone.

But what exactly does "biology" state? At what point does your "regulation" invade my space more than the "regulation" protects yours?

And how did this thread get into biology?

[Phatscotty]

Most Progressives do not know why they are a progressive, what it means to be a progressive, the principles of the progressive movement, the founding of the progressive movement, the history of the progressive movement, or the track record of the progressive movement. Most Progressives are just for progress, and then plug their personal issues in and claim improving those issues would be "progress". Well, I have some progress for ya....

Progress for more gun ownership
Progress for more fair taxation, where everyone has some skin in the game, and not just 53% of people
Progress to protect the life of unborn fetus
Progress to reduce the debt and cut spending
Progress to smaller government
Progress to true equality, where there are no "special" rights and privileges and benefits
Progress towards liberty oriented policy, and away from redistributionary policy

Heck, maybe I am a Progressive!

[Woodruff]

To claim that you're serious while also claiming that "the conservative argues based on rational thought" tells me that either you have a very strange idea of conservatives or that you're willingly taking your argument to the absurd.

Oh dear, this is like talking about the Yankee bullpen to a Red Sox fan. Do you think I should tell him? (OF COURSE, YOU ARE EVIL!)

"Rational Thought" is the tagline of SirusXM Patriot Channel talk show host Andred Wilkow (spell his name right) on the Wilkow Mjority.

Remember his "argument cannot be broken." You are welcome to try, but do let us know so i can tune in and LOL the afternoon away.

Check out the "Free Five (minutes of audio)"

So because one guy uses a phrase (whether accurately or not I have no idea), that makes all those who hold the same general stance as him also fit that phrase completely? So..."to the absurd" it is!

[Phatscotty]

The biggest problem with progressives is that their definition of equality is anti-Liberty, second biggest is their love and trust of gigantic government, third biggest is their obsession with social issues

[tzor]

So because one guy uses a phrase (whether accurately or not I have no idea), that makes all those who hold the same general stance as him also fit that phrase completely? So..."to the absurd" it is!

Oh please Woodruff. Everyone knows that "The Conservaive uses rational thought," is just a set up argument to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Just as the notion that the liberal uses emotional arguments is a setup to the same fallacy. I'm sure that there has to be a logical progressive. I haven't met one, but, logically one has to exist.

[Phatscotty]

Bill Whittle makes the case that Progressivism is rooted in envy

[PLAYER57832]

Quicker summary--
Progressives created a world in which anyone with the ability and will could go to college without hocking their future earnings for the next 20 years, childhood hunger was unknown and homelessness something experienced almost entirely by the truly derelict or, in the short term, those who suffered a tragedy (fire, etc.).

They created a world in which worker safety actually mattered, weekends and 40 hour work week are standard (that last is largely due to unions, I must add).

Yep, a TRULY "terrible" fate.

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

[thegreekdog]

By this definition, almost all politicians and almost all politically-active individuals are progressives.

Are you yet willing to amend your original belief that Progress "by definition" equals improvement?


And politicians in general seek power, always more power. That's why we have a thing like the Constitution which clearly lays out what Congress can do. What is written in the Constitution is all that Congress can do.

The Progressives aren't the only ones who seek to subvert the Constitution, not by a long shot. However, this particular thread is about Progressives. You and JB keep trying to shift the conversation away from that central point. Go make another thread if you must, but please do try to keep on topic. We are talking about Progressives.

While I don't agree with the Progressive thinking, I tend to lean to the side that for the most part the Progressives are trying to do what they think is right. That is, they don't necessarily have nefarious plans. Maybe they do, but I tend to think that most people only want people to be happy and live life to the fullest.

Where I disagree with, is how we accomplish that. I pretty much laid it out in my first post in this thread. Good intentions are all fine and dandy, but we must also see the results of those good intentions. By all means, not all of the things Progressives have done are all bad.
It's just that the Fates laugh at the plans of men.

Oh, hey, I'm willing to not shift the conversation away! The fetish for things the "founding fathers" did/liked in this country is kind of creepy, the Constitution is full of stupid bullshit (the Senate and electoral college shouldn't exist), and I'm not sure how people explain the existence of other countries with just as much (if not more) political and civil freedom than us when they use different documents as their core structure.

You picked the Senate and electoral college as the stupid bullshit in the Constitution?

[Night Strike]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

show

http://www.wate.com/story/19464908/new-school-lunch-regulations-leaving-some-students-hungry

show

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/students-strike-against-new-federal-school-lunch-rules-t96t7sp-170124676.html

show

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_bbcf5d7e-01b9-567a-9d6c-83075a6bfe6b.html?mode=story

[thegreekdog]

anyone with the ability and will could go to college without hocking their future earnings for the next 20 years,

What? Did they provide grants to all college students or something? You need to let me know what this progressive mandate was, because I didn't get the memo. I'm going to be hocking my future earnings for the next 30 years to pay for college and law school.

childhood hunger was unknown and homelessness something experienced almost entirely by the truly derelict or, in the short term, those who suffered a tragedy (fire, etc.).

Really? So hunger and homelessness now is caused by what exactly? How many more dollars and progams are there now than there were in the 1940s and 1950s? Are they working? Are you indicating that they are not working (by pointing to the ghost of Ronald Reagan... ooh, oh, boo!)?

They created a world in which worker safety actually mattered, weekends and 40 hour work week are standard (that last is largely due to unions, I must add).

Are unions statist? I thought they weren't. In any event, weekends? 40 hour work week? Who gets that? Union workers certainly work more than 40 hours and they certainly work on weekends. I suppose government workers fit that definition. And last I checked, most office workers aren't unionized. I seriously have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quicker summary--
Progressives created a world in which anyone with the ability and will could go to college without hocking their future earnings for the next 20 years, childhood hunger was unknown and homelessness something experienced almost entirely by the truly derelict or, in the short term, those who suffered a tragedy (fire, etc.).

They created a world in which worker safety actually mattered, weekends and 40 hour work week are standard (that last is largely due to unions, I must add).

Yep, a TRULY "terrible" fate.

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

They also provided "free" houses for all which led to the financial crisis of 2008.

They also promoted minimum wage which inadvertently raises the bar over which unskilled labor must hurdle. You can thank the unions. i.e. skilled laborers, for that. It's easy to make the competition more expensive. You force people to pay higher wages for the unskilled.

As a trade-off for all these social welfare programs, the expansion of the military came alongside. If you want to build the Great Society, well it's only natural to protect it from foreign enemies, and unfortunately, the appeal to the state has been "institutionalized," or has become endemic due to this ideology, which continues to reinforce this justification for the expansion of the state.

Having raised a society which is so dependent on Government but not on self-Governance (and Community-based Governance), we have led ourselves into this expansionary state, which has become increasingly aggressive. It has pushed people beyond a sustainable path of "progress." We borrowed big, lived big, and will have to face the consequences of such a well-intended yet disastrous mindset, that mindset being Progressivism.

[Woodruff]

The biggest problem with progressives is that their definition of equality is anti-Liberty

As opposed to directly supporting policies that are anti-Liberty like you do?

second biggest is their love and trust of gigantic government

I don't have too much disagreement with this, as it does seem to be a liberal tendency, even if this is overstated to Phatscottian proportions.

third biggest is their obsession with social issues

It's terrible that progressives think that social issues are important! Terrible!

[Woodruff]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

Let me get this straight...the Republicans want to end food at school, yet you want to claim that it's the progressives that are not giving them enough food at school?

Does the cognitive dissonance ever become unbearable?

[Woodruff]

They also provided "free" houses for all which led to the financial crisis of 2008.

I don't remember these free houses.

[thegreekdog]

They also provided "free" houses for all which led to the financial crisis of 2008.

I don't remember these free houses.

I think that's why he put the word "free" in quotes.

[Woodruff]

They also provided "free" houses for all which led to the financial crisis of 2008.

I don't remember these free houses.

I think that's why he put the word "free" in quotes.

I don't remember these houses that were "free" either. Unless I'm mistaken, the terms of their contracts specified that they were expected to pay for them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Gee, if I ask Woodruff, "what does 'free' mean?" will he get upset and scatter the chess pieces again?


Maybe if I later clear up his confusion will he simply ignore it because he's still upset about being asked questions?

It's a tough call with this customer.

[thegreekdog]

They also provided "free" houses for all which led to the financial crisis of 2008.

I don't remember these free houses.

I think that's why he put the word "free" in quotes.

I don't remember these houses that were "free" either. Unless I'm mistaken, the terms of their contracts specified that they were expected to pay for them.

Banks were encouraged by the government to provide home loans to people who probably could not afford such loans. And lo and behold the home owners eventually could not pay such loans and lo and behold they were not expected to pay for them.

You may remember this: