Are you one of the 53%

[Neotrotsky]

I have posted it at times elsewhere with examples, and you have seen it before and ran away.

Progressivism is a process of reform of economics, culture, and society through political means. Thus some examples in the beginning of the Progressive Age would by the Meat Act (1906), the Pure Food and Drug Act
(1906), the Mann Act (1910), Prohibition (1919), Federal Reserve Act (1913), Women's Suffrage (1920), and on down today.

Progressivism is best described as a reform process rather than an ideology.

Run away
too funny, coming from a guy who tries to hide by clipping out the original question
a little more projection on your part..


Wow, really had to dig back in time for those
So you base your radical ideas on the Mann Act?
man you are out of touch,,,, I can see it now,- the Mann Act means we should have socialized medicine as well


Speaking of, you may want to check some of those examples
Federal Reserve Act ?
Most every Democrat was in support of and most Republicans were against it
Prohibition? was there not more Democratic supporters than Republicans

What make these acts "Republican" or "right wing" ?

Well, you tried, poorly, to answer part of the question,
so I will give you credit for that
-------------------------------------


Now for the rest
Speaking of running away,

here is the question again that you clipped out
We would not want the reader to miss the whole story line, now would we
Plus one can click here to see your original posting

Please name the specific right wing and left wing "progressivist" programs, as you say...
What are they and who has more?​

How do these stack up against the left wing "progressivist" programs?

Who has more?

One has to wonder if the Left' plans are from more recent history

-----------------------------------------------

I know these were extra questions from the original
but just for interest

So do you Still think Papa Obama Care was a good idea? and
Are you Pro Life, sorry , Are you not Pro Choice?
-----------------------

Side note:
Funny how you are afraid to list all your beliefs
on all the major issues at one time

It is almost like you are trying to hide something

Jake, we know your ideas are not mainstream
there is nothing to hide on your part

 

[Big Fitz]

No. I did not. I rejected a totalitarian state where the government controls it's citizens, not one that serves it's citizens best interests by letting them live their lives best as they see fit because too many of the citizenry cannot abide others choosing something different from them.

You preach control and slavery when you preach that need has supremacy over individual freedom, property ownership and choice.

How would a government actually function that wasn't based on the principle that the majority should rule?

Specifically and coherently please.

Ever READ the constitution?

Understand what a SUPER-MAJORITY is? Do you understand why certain things are legislated and moved forward on Simple Majority of 50% while others require a 66% majority?

You keep proving yourself to have flunked civics and government every thread you try to be authoritative on the subject. May I suggest you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a primer for American history and Government? It'd save the rest of us a lot of wasted time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The acts are self-evident which is left progressive and right progressive. You are a right wing progressive, though you are afraid to admit it, Neo. I am glad you did some digging, so you know that the Federal Reserve was liberal progressive and Prohibition was con progressive, for example.

You are failing at hiding that the GOP had progressive wings of libs and cons, just as the Dems did with their libs and their cons. Southern dem cons fought women's suffrage very hard, while they supported the Butler Act (TN) that prohibited the teaching of evolution, and won the case, too. You can go to get a set of legislation attempts from 2001 to 1924 as right wing progressive cons try to attack evolution being taught in the class room. Anti-Evolution and the Law

I am glad you are struggling with this, NeoTrotsky. Keep learning.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The acts are self-evident which is left progressive and right progressive. You are a right wing progressive, though you are afraid to admit it, Neo. I am glad you did some digging, so you know that the Federal Reserve was liberal progressive and Prohibition was con progressive, for example.

You are failing at hiding that the GOP had progressive wings of libs and cons, just as the Dems did with their libs and their cons. Southern dem cons fought women's suffrage very hard, while they supported the Butler Act (TN) that prohibited the teaching of evolution, and won the case, too. You can go to get a set of legislation attempts from 2001 to 1924 as right wing progressive cons try to attack evolution being taught in the class room. Anti-Evolution and the Law

I am glad you are struggling with this, NeoTrotsky. Keep learning.

Jake
Why do you insist on spamming me
Just answer the question or stop spamming me


Yes indeed
it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want

Pretty funny coming from a guy who can't even defend his own points
Speaking of you struggling



Once Again, you are shooting blanks and trying to cover for your extreme beliefs
Tell us why you thought Papa Obama Care was a good thing?



I have no doubt your seat is reserved at the

OWS crowd

Obama Wallstreet Stooges

Must be tough to be a RIN...er Romney Supporter
and OWS member at the same time for you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hi, Neo. Here is one for you. It is right wing or left wing progressivism?

Only 10 percent of the rural population had electricity in the 1930s while nearly 90 percent of people who lived in cities and the suburbs had electricity. The Rural Electric Administration was created in 1935 to provide electricity to rural areas because the Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply people living in rural areas with electricity, it was the government’s responsibility to do so. There were many individuals and groups that opposed the distribution of electricity by the federal government because they felt as if the government was competing with private enterprise. Despite all opposition, the REA had established 417 rural electric cooperatives by 1939 which provided 288,000 rural homes with electricity. The process of providing electricity to rural homes helped to improve the standard of living in all rural areas and also allowed farmers to enjoy electric appliances such as the radio, refrigerators, water heaters, lights, and even the television later on.

You have no idea what rural poverty is or what it entails, obviously.

See, you are so easy to toy with, because you don't know the real meanings of words, or history, or economics.


Rural Electrification

 

[Neotrotsky]

Again with the spamming me and not answering the question?

Let us stay focused Jake

Your poor attempt to spin is noted ( to be fair, you may be ADHA, which would explain a lot)

Again- focus


Come Jake man up to your claims
This is a simple question
I see no reason why you can not answer it



But we can always revisit later
all your extreme beliefs, if you really want that

 

[Care4all]

No. I did not. I rejected a totalitarian state where the government controls it's citizens, not one that serves it's citizens best interests by letting them live their lives best as they see fit because too many of the citizenry cannot abide others choosing something different from them.

You preach control and slavery when you preach that need has supremacy over individual freedom, property ownership and choice.

How would a government actually function that wasn't based on the principle that the majority should rule?

Specifically and coherently please.

Ever READ the constitution?

Understand what a SUPER-MAJORITY is? Do you understand why certain things are legislated and moved forward on Simple Majority of 50% while others require a 66% majority?

You keep proving yourself to have flunked civics and government every thread you try to be authoritative on the subject. May I suggest you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a primer for American history and Government? It'd save the rest of us a lot of wasted time.

out side of declaring war, agreeing to treaties, and amending the constitution which needs 2/3's majority, 50% vote is all the constitution requires I believe?

....but it allows for the houses of congress make up their own rules, so the filibuster in the senate, as an example, is a rule of the senate itself....not a direct rule in the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SNIP

We will stay this way until Neo can respond instead of run and hide.

I bet he will say that Locke did not believe in the social compact.

He will continue to believe that his loony libertarianism is mainstream instead of to the far, far outside of American exceptionalism.

I bet he will continue to opine that "statism" includes modern, every day community government.

Come on, Neo, post or continue to have this board laugh at you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hi, Neo. Here is one for you. It is right wing or left wing progressivism?

Only 10 percent of the rural population had electricity in the 1930s while nearly 90 percent of people who lived in cities and the suburbs had electricity. The Rural Electric Administration was created in 1935 to provide electricity to rural areas because the Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply people living in rural areas with electricity, it was the government’s responsibility to do so. There were many individuals and groups that opposed the distribution of electricity by the federal government because they felt as if the government was competing with private enterprise. Despite all opposition, the REA had established 417 rural electric cooperatives by 1939 which provided 288,000 rural homes with electricity. The process of providing electricity to rural homes helped to improve the standard of living in all rural areas and also allowed farmers to enjoy electric appliances such as the radio, refrigerators, water heaters, lights, and even the television later on.

You have no idea what rural poverty is or what it entails, obviously.

See, you are so easy to toy with, because you don't know the real meanings of words, or history, or economics.


Rural Electrification

You need to look at the LONG TERM effects of "rural electrification", not just the original INTENT Jake. As with Soc Sec -- we now have a majority of Americans wanting to make that "socialist" program into something that FDR would never recognize. Just 70 years after it was created..

In the case of TVA and "rural electrification, the program survives today -- reducing MY RATES (i certaintly don't need a handout) and polluting more than any other single entity in the USA. They dammed all the rivers, created new flooding issues, installed a HUGE coal plant base that has NOT been maintained. TVA is responsible for more environmental damage than any other power generator in America. The problem here is that the FEDS are notoriously bad about managing and maintaining these glorious leaps that were taken during the New Deal. GOVT has no skills for maintaining and administering programs of this size..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The original intent of REA was to bring electricity to rural America to improve life, health, and economic opportunity. That has been a huge success for nearly eight decades. Whether that is a "socialist" success, I will leave to you.

You can talk about TVA, which is a major deflection. Has the TVA polluted as much as more than private coal electrication? You can't answer that because you don't know. You cannot even give figures about TVA compared to all othe private electrification programs.

You so-called silly little right wing lack-of-economics-sense-folks are a hoot.

 

[flacaltenn]

The original intent of REA was to bring electricity to rural America to improve life, health, and economic opportunity. That has been a huge success for nearly eight decades. Whether that is a "socialist" success, I will leave to you.

You can talk about TVA, which is a major deflection. Has the TVA polluted as much as more than private coal electrication? You can't answer that because you don't know. You cannot even give figures about TVA compared to all othe private electrification programs.

You so-called silly little right wing lack-of-economics-sense-folks are a hoot.

You cannot separate REA and the TVA. They are the plan and the hammer. I DO know that TVA pollutes more than other energy provider. Look it up. I also know that SUBSIDIES for power in the TVA area are no longer neccessary or needed, but yet the program stumbles on in perpetuity. The GOVT has neither managed and or maintained the system.

Just like Soc Sec... It's incompetence in GOVT that prevents the LONG TERM success of such ambitious projects...

 

[Neotrotsky]

SNIP out poor spin attempts

The spamming is getting old Jake

Yes the board, you just can't get away from the collective can you


Jake as usual can not defend his statements
Your poor attempt at spin is noted


Again- focus. Don't run Jake not very becoming of a RINO
or maybe it is ?
This is a simple question

You won't have have to pull out your hero, you know the one who you believed had more influence than Locke on the forming of the US
Rousseau- the father of totalitarianism; he put state above man- too radical for many but you
Of course, it does explain why you thought Papa Obama Care was a good idea
Though it does seem to conflict with your other theory that statism exists nowhere in the world
Then again, maybe you feel North Korea has not just done enough yet in the name of "progressivist" programs


Tell you Jake, Rousseau and your use of the Mann Act, you should
have people shaped up into little obedient drones in no time
with all your "progressivist" programs running smooth




Jake it would be a lot easier
if you just admit you pulled it out of your arse

If you can admit you lied, pull it out of your arse or fully defend your statement

then I will answer all your non relevant, poor attempt at spin, secondary questions
(Jake your spin does not work; you are not fooling anyone except perhaps, yourself)

Man Up Jake
the challenge awaits

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. I did not. I rejected a totalitarian state where the government controls it's citizens, not one that serves it's citizens best interests by letting them live their lives best as they see fit because too many of the citizenry cannot abide others choosing something different from them.

You preach control and slavery when you preach that need has supremacy over individual freedom, property ownership and choice.

How would a government actually function that wasn't based on the principle that the majority should rule?

Specifically and coherently please.

Ever READ the constitution?

Understand what a SUPER-MAJORITY is? Do you understand why certain things are legislated and moved forward on Simple Majority of 50% while others require a 66% majority?

You keep proving yourself to have flunked civics and government every thread you try to be authoritative on the subject. May I suggest you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a primer for American history and Government? It'd save the rest of us a lot of wasted time.

Hey fat boy, you didn't answer the question.

 

[Big Fitz]

How would a government actually function that wasn't based on the principle that the majority should rule?

Specifically and coherently please.

Ever READ the constitution?

Understand what a SUPER-MAJORITY is? Do you understand why certain things are legislated and moved forward on Simple Majority of 50% while others require a 66% majority?

You keep proving yourself to have flunked civics and government every thread you try to be authoritative on the subject. May I suggest you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a primer for American history and Government? It'd save the rest of us a lot of wasted time.

Hey fat boy, you didn't answer the question.

Obviously you wouldn't know a "you should know better already" answer.

Read the fucking constitution and see how it prevents exactly what you're pissing and moaning about, bitch.

 

[Big Fitz]

How would a government actually function that wasn't based on the principle that the majority should rule?

Specifically and coherently please.

Ever READ the constitution?

Understand what a SUPER-MAJORITY is? Do you understand why certain things are legislated and moved forward on Simple Majority of 50% while others require a 66% majority?

You keep proving yourself to have flunked civics and government every thread you try to be authoritative on the subject. May I suggest you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a primer for American history and Government? It'd save the rest of us a lot of wasted time.

out side of declaring war, agreeing to treaties, and amending the constitution which needs 2/3's majority, 50% vote is all the constitution requires I believe?

....but it allows for the houses of congress make up their own rules, so the filibuster in the senate, as an example, is a rule of the senate itself....not a direct rule in the constitution.

Yep. And then you have the checks and balances of the Executive and Legislative Branches, PLUS the limitations on powers as given with the 10th Amendment which requires the Federales to remain in a strictly limited purview of power, while the states can be more ambiguous.

So a super majority is required for as you point out, specific things. But then state rights (long since trampled on since 1865, and don't even go there with dumbass examples, [not meaning you, Care]), executive veto and unconstitutionality do the rest of the work.

Lots of things to protect the minority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I posted examples of right wing and left wing progressive progams and acts, and Neo wants even more without responding, which indicates he won't. Two right wing progressive programs were no child left behind and the senior drug prescription acts; a third right wing progressive act of neo-con interventionism was Iraq. Neo's hero, Rousseau, would approve of those busihie programs.

Neo is so easy to toy with.

If Neo ever offers a consistent argument for his positions, we can then discuss them.

In the meantime, he is here for grins and chuckles.

 

[Neotrotsky]

spamming me is not answering the question?


Same old song and dance
Someone known as "Jake the Fake" lacks any credibility

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ever READ the constitution?

Understand what a SUPER-MAJORITY is? Do you understand why certain things are legislated and moved forward on Simple Majority of 50% while others require a 66% majority?

You keep proving yourself to have flunked civics and government every thread you try to be authoritative on the subject. May I suggest you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a primer for American history and Government? It'd save the rest of us a lot of wasted time.

Hey fat boy, you didn't answer the question.

Obviously you wouldn't know a "you should know better already" answer.

Read the fucking constitution and see how it prevents exactly what you're pissing and moaning about, bitch.

If the constitution enables minority rule, why haven't your crackpot minority positions been implemented?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, Rick Perry is rolling out his flat tax plan today, and because of a huge standard deduction,

a family of four making 50,000 will pay NO federal income tax.

What percent of households does that represent?

 

[Care4all]

about 50%