Hey Big Government Liberals...stop Calling Yourselves "progressives."

[Bush92]

Ah, this has degenerated into another flamezone thread.

Tell me more about the shift in the Democratic party between 1900 and 1960 then to 2010. In reasonable terms. Bush was doing an ok job. I am amazed by the evolution of the parties.

Modern Democrat Party traces its roots back to Eleanor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson. JFK was a moderate to conservative Democrat which was common at that time in order to keep the Southern conservatives Democrat. This was the old FDR Democratic Party. Remember, FDR jettisoned Henry Wallace because he was very Marxist in his ideology. The Wallace wing would split, with more conservative union members stating with traditional party, and leftist going with the Stevenson intellectual egghead ideologue wing that had its base with eastern blue blood liberals. This would be your campus professorate that polluted the youth in 1960's and paved the way for the Extremist Obama in 2008 and 2012 by playing race card from the bottom of the deck in both cases. If did not vote Obama, "you are a racist." But people in America are not as liberal as Obama, Holder, or Angela Davis. Clinton will run, but she is too establishment for Democratic Party that has swung so far left that it is indiscernible from the Socialist Party USA. The take over of Democratic Party by Socialist Party has been two generations in the making. Hope that answers your question. Oh, ironically when Clinton does not get nomination it will be because of people who used Sal Alinskys strategic theories to push party to extreme left and capture it.

 

[Bush92]

Liberal to conservative: "You have more cookies than me and that's not fair...I'm gonna tell mommy (federal government) and make you share!" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Rozman]

In paying taxes if the tax code is followed....
Then the fair share is paid...
You guys dont like it ...Change it.

 

[rightwinger]

In paying taxes if the tax code is followed....
Then the fair share is paid...
You guys dont like it ...Change it.

Works for me

 

[Clementine]

I'm a liberal who believes in the right sized government

And the right size is for you RW is "as long as it overpays me to not do a job that is even needed."

Right sized is determined by We the people

Works out great

In other words, it has no specific meaning.

Just like the term "paying your fair share"...
Libs throw that out there a lot.

But when they say 'pay your fair share' they aren't talking to all of us.

Apparently, the new definition of 'progressive' is to go back to the same old failed policies of the past and do it all over again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm a liberal who believes in the right sized government

And the right size is for you RW is "as long as it overpays me to not do a job that is even needed."

Right sized is determined by We the people

Works out great

In other words, it has no specific meaning.

Just like the term "paying your fair share"...
Libs throw that out there a lot.

But when they say 'pay your fair share' they aren't talking to all of us.

Apparently, the new definition of 'progressive' is to go back to the same old failed policies of the past and do it all over again.

What policies are those?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And the right size is for you RW is "as long as it overpays me to not do a job that is even needed."

Right sized is determined by We the people

Works out great

In other words, it has no specific meaning.

Just like the term "paying your fair share"...
Libs throw that out there a lot.

But when they say 'pay your fair share' they aren't talking to all of us.

Apparently, the new definition of 'progressive' is to go back to the same old failed policies of the past and do it all over again.

What policies are those?

Trickle down ...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Right sized is determined by We the people

Works out great

In other words, it has no specific meaning.

Just like the term "paying your fair share"...
Libs throw that out there a lot.

But when they say 'pay your fair share' they aren't talking to all of us.

Apparently, the new definition of 'progressive' is to go back to the same old failed policies of the past and do it all over again.

What policies are those?

Trickle down ...

I wish I had a nickel for every time that someone has clearly demonstrated the fact Republican economic policies have failed this nation over the past 40 years.

Failure to accept this is the height of partisanship.

 

[candycorn]

Who was the last Republican president to leave office with a smaller national debt than the one he inherited?

 

[regent]

When the Constitution was ratified our new government grew to the largest it had ever been. Until then the role of government was pretty much meant to nourish the elites of the country, the nobles, clergy, and monarchy. The plain people were pretty much on their own, but soon the plain people found that with that new vote, they now had clout, and they used that clout. In certain periods such as the Great Depression the people demanded even more help and the with their clout they got more help. The size of government reflects a democracy and a democratic government is supposed to help all of its citizens. Conservatives would love to go back to the good old days when government was small and a tool of the elites, but it's not going to happen.