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:

Spoiler

MAYNARDVILLE (WATE) - If your kids have been complaining they're not getting enough to eat at school, they're not alone. It's a concern being heard nationwide since the school year started, but local administrators say their hands are tied.

6 News started looking into this after we got an email from a student at Union County High School, saying he wasn't getting enough food at lunchtime. We thought maybe the school was running low, but it turns out the smaller portions are due to new federal mandates.

Over the years, school lunches have gradually gotten healthier, with less fat and salt and more fresh fruit and whole grains.

"This is our first generation. These kids right here are the ones who are expected to not outlive their parents. It's serious when you look at it that way," said Union County Schools Nutrition Director Jennifer Ensley. She's in charge of making sure each cafeteria meal meets even stricter USDA guidelines that went into effect on July 1.

"Our calorie count went down, what we're allowed to serve per meal. There's tighter regulations on sodium, saturated fat, serving sizes," Ensley said.

That last change has been the hardest. "If it says half a cup, it's half a cup. It's not half a cup heaped up, and the kids notice the difference," she explained.

Ensley hears all about it from one particular sophomore. "My daughter sits here during lunch and texts me the whole time that everybody's mad!" she said.

"There's smaller portions it seems like, and a lot of people don't get full on that," Hannah Ensley said.

She says some of her classmates are now paying for a second helping or packing a lunch. "They have microwaves now so they just bring stuff from home," she said.

But that's not an option for everyone. Seventy percent of students in Union County are on a free or reduced meal plan.

"It's hard to see a kid walk out of here hungry when you don't know what else they're going to have before breakfast tomorrow," Ensley said.

Nutrition directors from several local school districts are meeting Thursday to talk about the new federal guidelines. Ensley hopes to get some more ideas on how to meet the standards and keep her students full.

The new regulations say high school lunches must be under 850 calories, with less than 10 percent of those coming from saturated fat.

http://www.wate.com/story/19464908/new- ... nts-hungry

Spoiler

Mukwonago - By 7 a.m. Monday, senior Nick Blohm already had burned about 250 calories in the Mukwonago High School weight room.

He grabbed a bagel and a Gatorade afterward; if he eats before lifting, he gets sick.

That was followed by eight periods in the classroom, and then three hours of football practice. By the time he headed home, he had burned upward of 3,000 calories - his coach thinks the number is even higher.

But the calorie cap for his school lunch? 850 calories.

"A lot of us are starting to get hungry even before the practice begins," Blohm said. "Our metabolisms are all sped up."

Following new federal guidelines, school districts nationwide have retooled their menus to meet new requirements to serve more whole grains, only low-fat or nonfat milk, daily helpings of both fruits and vegetables, and fewer sugary and salty items. And for the first time, federal funds for school lunches mandate age-aligned calorie maximums. The adjustments are part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 touted by Michelle Obama and use the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The changes are hard to swallow for students like Blohm. On Monday, 70% of the 830 Mukwonago High students who normally buy lunch boycotted cafeteria food to protest what they see as an unfair "one size fits all thing." Middle schoolers in the district also boycotted their school lunches, with counts down nearly half Monday. They're not alone in their frustration; schools across the country are reporting students who are unhappy with the lunch offerings.

The sub sandwich line at Mukwonago High used to let students pile veggies on a six-inch French bread bun. Options now include a fist-sized whole wheat roll or multigrain wrap, and the once popular line is now mostly empty.

The healthier food is less the issue than the portions.

"A freshman girl who weighs 100 pounds can eat this lunch and feel completely full, maybe even a little bloated," said Joey Bougneit, a Mukwonago senior.

But Blohm is a 6-foot-3-inch, 210-pound linebacker. He's also class president, and takes several Advanced Placement classes. If schools want students to perform well, he said, they can't be sitting in their chairs hungry.

Last year's fare featured favorites like chicken nuggets and mini corn dogs in helpings that were "relatively decent," Bougneit said. But health-conscious regulations have changed that. Last week's super nacho plate, for example, offered just eight tortilla chips.

Adding to the dissatisfaction is a 10-cent price hike on lunches because the USDA, which oversees the National School Lunch Program, forced many districts to raise full-price lunches closer to the $2.86 it reimburses for students who qualify for free lunches. That means the leaner, greener lunches at Mukwonago High this year now cost $2.50 instead of $2.40.

"Now it's worse tasting, smaller sized and higher priced," Bougneit said.
Officials share concerns

Pam Harris, the district food service supervisor and a registered dietitian, said children's weight and poor nutrition in America are serious problems, but the changes are too abrupt.

"I could not be more passionate about this," Harris said. "I want to solve this problem. But limiting calories in school lunch is not going to help the overweight kid. What happens at home is a major piece of that puzzle."

"Our issue is pretty much kids just don't want to eat vegetables," she said. "The USDA wants to solve the problem of childhood obesity. Those are two kind of separate issues."

Harris spoke at all lunch periods Friday to explain the federal dietary changes and had students fill out comment cards explaining what they do and don't like about the new menu. She plans to send those and parent letters to the USDA in hopes the department will allow districts including Mukwonago to gradually introduce their menu over a few years.

In a clothing store bag the size of a backpack, Blohm lugged his homemade, linebacker-size lunch including a bag of raw carrots, two ham sandwiches on wheat bread, two granola bars, an apple and three applesauce cups - an estimated total of 1,347 calories.

How long will the students keep boycotting the lunch program?

"I've already told my mom we might be packing my lunch for the rest of the year," Blohm said.

Clay Iverson, Mukwonago's varsity football head coach, said student-athletes are bigger, stronger and more athletic than ever before, and their food intake needs have evolved.

"Everything has been accelerated, and maybe nutrition hasn't been," he said.

He worries that if players' stomachs are growling by the end of the school day, they'll go home and binge on anything they get their hands on and undo any of the benefits of the lighter, healthier school lunch.

Teens need a push to make healthy eating choices, Iverson said, but they've got plenty else to worry about during the football season.

"I wonder if the people who made the decision had to go through a day like Nick Blohm."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/ ... 24676.html

Spoiler

Thanks to new Department of Agriculture guidelines, there are healthier food choices on school lunch menus this year.

But so far, the cafeteria trash cans might be getting more healthy food than the students.

Some students in the St. Joseph School District say they aren’t getting enough food on the new menu. They also claim that much food goes to waste, as students throw away the parts of the required meal they don’t like.

“You’re forced to get certain stuff,” said Caleb Bennett, a Robidoux Middle School eighth-grader. “I just go and get my vegetables and won’t eat (the other items). That’s a lot of food going to waste.”

Caleb also said the new system creates long lunch lines. Many students don’t have enough time to finish their meals.

“The other day I was in the back of the line, and as soon as I got my food, lunch was over,” he said.

Culinary algebra

The district is among many across the country going through compliance pains with the guidelines, which require schools to offer more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat fluids on their menus. Schools are also required to provide reduced sodium and trans-fats and saturated fats in the meals, which translates into reduced caloric intake.

As a result, meal planning has become sort of like culinary algebra. It’s a complicated math that deals in half-cup and three-fourths-cup measures, and how much red, orange, green and starchy vegetables and slices of bread to offer each week.

Linda Shaiffer, district nutritional analysis manager, said before the government had only a minimum caloric intake. Now there’s a minimum and a maximum calorie count.

“The maximum goes by the age group,” she said.

Last year, the minimum requirement was 664 calories per meal for students in kindergarten through sixth grade and 825 calories for seventh through 12th grades.

This year, the minimum and maximum requirements for kindergarten through fifth grade are 550 and 650, respectively. For sixth through eighth grade, the minimum is 600 and the maximum is 700 calories per meal. In high schools, the minimum is 750 and the maximum is 850 calories.

“High school has not changed,” she said, adding that changes to the breakfast menu will be implemented next year.

The amount of bread servings this year is causing the most consternation. Facebook has several parent posts about their kids being served half sandwiches and going hungry. Ms. Shaiffer said kindergarten through eighth grades are only allowed up to nine bread servings a week.

“So if you give them a sandwich four days a week, that’s eight bread servings. That only gives them one piece of bread on Friday, so we wouldn’t be able to give them any chips or cookies,” she said.

The vegetable requirements are even trickier, said Robin Rhodes, nutrition services director. They’re broken down into subgroups of dark green, red/orange, beans/peas and starchy vegetables.

“Over the course of a week, we have to serve all those different vegetables,” he said.

More variety

Last year, children could get two fruits with their lunch. This year they are required to get one fruit and one vegetable. Additional fruit costs extra.

Lunch prices rose by 10 cents this year. An elementary school lunch costs $2.30, and the cost for a middle or high school lunch is $2.50.

Mr. Rhodes said last year, before the guidelines took place, kids were saying they were hungry. Even though the portions are smaller this year, the children still have up to five food components for a lunch: fruit, vegetable, grain, meat or meat alternative and a fluid, which is milk. Students are required to have at least three of these components for the meal to be reimbursable by the government.

“Used to be, (the student) could choose any three out of the five. Now they have to take three out of five, but no matter what, one of those components has to be a fruit or vegetable,” Mr. Rhodes said. “They can take all five every day.”

Perhaps students are going hungry because they’re not taking all their food options, he suggested.

“The question I try to pose is, are they choosing all the options they have, or are they refusing something?” he asked rhetorically. “Maybe they’ve decided they don’t want the fruit or the vegetable of the day. At some point, we have to say, ‘Well, we can’t have a choice for every kid.’ It’s impossible.”

Going by the rules

Maddie Book, another Robidoux Middle School eighth-grader, said there are some good choices, but she still doesn’t get full. She added that because kids are forced to get food they don’t want, much of it gets thrown away.

“You can’t just pick what you want. You have to go by the rules and get what they say,” Maddie said. “Before, you could pick what fruit you wanted, but this year you have to get certain combinations or it won’t scan through.”

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_ ... 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: