One step closer to understanding the disease called Progressivism.

[peach174]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.

Pogo asked for a definition of progressivism so I put it up.
Plain and simple

 

[R.D.]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

While I agree that is generally the doctrine most progressives preach, I don't know if I would use the term 'mind-altered' though you could be right.

I once thought progressives were just narrow minded, self righteous, self serving bullies who dare not, with impunity, allow anybody off the plantation they have forged out of their own wierd way of looking at the world. I no longer see most progressives that way because I know a number of them--both here at USMB and elsewhere on line and in real life too--who are loving, caring, capable people. And I don't believe their point of view to be a character flaw so much as some kind of dysfunction that makes them incapable of seeing the unintended negative consequences wrought by the policies and practices they embrace.

How do they get that way? And why do so many of us exposed to the same stuff reject progressivism purely because we can see and understand the negative consequences it produces? Why didn't we succumb to that 'religion' too?

I honestly don't know.

One trait those with that character flaw mostly all have is a lack of self awareness. It's very frustrating

Explain please. How is an ideology that is based on pure rose colored glasses, emotionalism, and 'sensitivity to feelings' a 'lack of self awareness'?

Well, I goofed. You said it wasn't a character flaw

Those rose colored glasses are phony, the emotions are shallow and the sensitivity to feelings are one sided. For example there is a constant barrage of homophobic accusations from the left to the right here, but those very same wonderfully caring liberals constantly use gay and homo slurs and accusations as a put down. The accusation we on the right are racist is so embedded in their conversation, yet they don't refrain from calling people Uncle Tom, house ****** etc-as well as embracing those who do as long as they are liberals. The list goes on and on

Totally unaware of their hypocrisy.

 

[PredFan]

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.

Or (my favorite quote from 2014) the stupidity of the American voters. He so clearly was addressing the progs and their followers

Without a doubt.

 

[PredFan]

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.

Pogo asked for a definition of progressivism so I put it up.
Plain and simple

My apologies.

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

While I agree that is generally the doctrine most progressives preach, I don't know if I would use the term 'mind-altered' though you could be right.

I once thought progressives were just narrow minded, self righteous, self serving bullies who dare not, with impunity, allow anybody off the plantation they have forged out of their own wierd way of looking at the world. I no longer see most progressives that way because I know a number of them--both here at USMB and elsewhere on line and in real life too--who are loving, caring, capable people. And I don't believe their point of view to be a character flaw so much as some kind of dysfunction that makes them incapable of seeing the unintended negative consequences wrought by the policies and practices they embrace.

How do they get that way? And why do so many of us exposed to the same stuff reject progressivism purely because we can see and understand the negative consequences it produces? Why didn't we succumb to that 'religion' too?

I honestly don't know.

One trait those with that character flaw mostly all have is a lack of self awareness. It's very frustrating

Explain please. How is an ideology that is based on pure rose colored glasses, emotionalism, and 'sensitivity to feelings' a 'lack of self awareness'?

Well, I goofed. You said it wasn't a character flaw

Those rose colored glasses are phony, the emotions are shallow and the sensitivity to feelings are one sided. For example there is a constant barrage of homophobic accusations from the left to the right here, but those very same wonderfully caring liberals constantly use gay and homo slurs and accusations as a put down. The accusation we on the right are racist is so embedded in their conversation, yet they don't refrain from calling people Uncle Tom, house ****** etc-as well as embracing those who do as long as they are liberals. The list goes on and on

Totally unaware of their hypocrisy.

Yeah, we're arguing the same side of the fence here, but just with a slight difference in perception. Is a lie a lie if the person believes they are telling the truth? Is it hypocrisy when each believes the other to be an idiot but only one of the two is? So yes, the rose colored glasses are phony, the emotionalism is real but misguided, and the sensitivity is highly selective and only the right kind of people are entitled to be beneficiary of it, but I honestly believe they mostly can't see or understand that. There is something missing in the psychological makeup of most of those who embrace progressivism that makes them incapable of seeing or understanding anything other than the way they want things to be.

 

[R.D.]

Yeah, we're arguing the same side of the fence here, but just with a slight difference in perception. Is a lie a lie if the person believes they are telling the truth?

Yes. But a progressive I know once actually told me it doesn't matter, as long as it "could" be true. She was being honest in her foolishness and she spoke for a great many progressives

Is it hypocrisy when each believes the other to be an idiot but only one of the two is?

Lol, not sure on that one. Idiots don't usually see it in the self, but will go on the defensive when pointed out. You know..."I know you are, but what am I?"

So yes, the rose colored glasses are phony, the emotionalism is real but misguided, and the sensitivity is highly selective and only the right kind of people are entitled to be beneficiary of it, but I honestly believe they mostly can't see or understand that. There is something missing in the psychological makeup of most of those who embrace progressivism that makes them incapable of seeing or understanding anything other than the way they want things to be.

That's why it's frustrating

 

[gipper]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

They also believe a big unlimited government run by a small group of elites, is a good thing. Thus proving they have learned absolutely nothing from history.

This is the one thing I have never been able to get anybody from the progressive camp to explain to me. How is it that 'we the people' are too greedy, too selfish, too unreliable, too self centered to entrust with the liberty to live our lives as we choose--we will invariably do it wrong without uniform rules and regulations to control everybody--but. . . .

. . .somehow all that greed, selfishness, unreliability, and self-centeredness magically disappears if we elect those same people to federal office and give them power over the rest of us and we can trust them to do it as it should be done?

Agreed. Many on the left fail to recognize or understand the dangers of unlimited government. They foolishly see government as a FORCE for good...when any fool can see it is far from good, but it is all about force.

This is a great quote. If only those on the left could understand its meaning.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, we're arguing the same side of the fence here, but just with a slight difference in perception. Is a lie a lie if the person believes they are telling the truth?

Yes. But a progressive I know once actually told me it doesn't matter, as long as it "could" be true. She was being honest in her foolishness and she spoke for a great many progressives

Is it hypocrisy when each believes the other to be an idiot but only one of the two is?

Lol, not sure on that one. Idiots don't usually see it in the self, but will go on the defensive when pointed out. You know..."I know you are, but what am I?"

So yes, the rose colored glasses are phony, the emotionalism is real but misguided, and the sensitivity is highly selective and only the right kind of people are entitled to be beneficiary of it, but I honestly believe they mostly can't see or understand that. There is something missing in the psychological makeup of most of those who embrace progressivism that makes them incapable of seeing or understanding anything other than the way they want things to be.

That's why it's frustrating

Well yes. It has long been obvious to a lot of us that through the progressive's eyes, 'right intentions' justify ANYTHING while unintended bad consequences can be ignored. And if they are convinced that any 'wrong intentions or characteristics' are involved, it doesn't matter if something is of great benefit. It is wrong and it must be squashed.

 

[peach174]

They don't think that there are actual facts.
That Facts are just opinions and that is why it is so hard to have a rational conversation with them.
It's that "could be true" and looking at the world as everything is grey and that there is no black and white.
Looking at anything at all in black and white is wrong by them.
When they look at everything in grey all the time it makes their world much more difficult and complicated by over analyzing and micro managing everything.

 

[Foxfyre]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

You didn't identify how it was a straw man. You just called it that. And I was referring to another thread with my comment about 'eeeeevul Republicans' which you completely ignored in your comments. (Such reading comprehension problems lend credibility to the OP's charges by the way.)

Why is it not okay to post a thread referring to 'the disease called progressivism' which did not make an effort to define the term but rather made the charge that those who identify themselves as progressive are uneducated and ignorant and must appeal to authority (ie. 'those who have college degrees') in order to have anything to argue at all.

I immediately challenged the emphasis of the OP, for which I have yet to receive any credit.

And not a single progressive posting on this thread thus far has offerred a rationale or argument for why the OP is wrong. Instead we have ad hominem aspersions cast on the OP or others, complaints that the thread exists at all, demands for definitions, accusations of straw man (used incorrectly) yadda yadda. All of which supports my opinion that most progressives are incapable of analyzing and discussing a concept and compensate for that with ad hominem, personal insults, and deflections from the topic.

So what do you think? Does that reinforce the OP's charge that progressives are uneducated and ignorant and invariably appeal to authority rather than making their own arguments?

 

[Pogo]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Hence my reference to Nosebook being around a hundred years ago. Funny that the OP couldn't define his own term. Wonder if he agrees with it. Guess we'll never know.

Thanks Peach -- is there a link to whose definition this is, or is it yours?

 

[Pogo]

Yup. We see the usual 'progressive' tactics of accusing the OP, of accusing those discussing the topic, demanding links, going ad hominem, hollering 'straw man' or some other such phrase that they can't explain how it applies (and usually can't define), but absolutely unwilling to offer their own rationale for why the premise of the OP is wrong or why somebody's observation is incorrect or whatever.

Strange then that you can't identify where this ad hom is. Much like the OP can't define his own term.

 

[Pogo]

Seems like it's a philosophy rooted in the belief that the harder one works the more should be taken from you to "redistribute" to others unwilling to work.

Progressively producing more who won't bestir themselves.

Now back to my well deserved nap. And, Oh, thank you for working so as to make that possible.

This would be the second definition, again neither of which comes from the OP.

Maybe once they're all in y'all could vote for one.

 

[Pogo]

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.

Not until he tries to explain WTF he's talking about.

It's pretty obvious to most anyone. You however, won't understand it. Just move on.

-- See what I mean?

Why are you so deathly afraid to define your own term? Because you can't do it?
If your term has no definition, then what's your point?

That reminds me, we need to understand the disease called Greeblingism. So we can stamp it out. You with me or what?

 

[Pogo]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

You didn't identify how it was a straw man. You just called it that.

You know exactly what it means -- you refer directly to it in your very next paragraph here.

And I was referring to another thread with my comment about 'eeeeevul Republicans' which you completely ignored in your comments. (Such reading comprehension problems lend credibility to the OP's charges by the way.)

I'm not a mindreader; I wouldn't have any idea what other thread -- which I may never have even seen- you might have had in mind. I'm reminded of the occasional time in the radio studio we'd get a call that would go something like...
"Uh... I heard a song, maybe a couple of months ago... can you tell me what it was? I think it had a guitar in it..."

If being outside of some inside joke is what you call 'reading comprehension problems' you just might need a new definition.

Why is it not okay to post a thread referring to 'the disease called progressivism' which did not make an effort to define the term but rather made the charge that those who identify themselves as progressive are uneducated and ignorant and must appeal to authority (ie. 'those who have college degrees') in order to have anything to argue at all.

I immediately challenged the emphasis of the OP, for which I have yet to receive any credit.

Didn't see that, I'll go back and look 'er up. I addressed the OP, as it seemed he's the one who needed to essplain hisself (and still does).

[EDIT] - as promised I went back to the beginning to re-read. I still don't see it.

And not a single progressive posting on this thread thus far has offerred a rationale or argument for why the OP is wrong. Instead we have ad hominem aspersions cast on the OP or others, complaints that the thread exists at all, demands for definitions, accusations of straw man (used incorrectly) yadda yadda. All of which supports my opinion that most progressives are incapable of analyzing and discussing a concept and compensate for that with ad hominem, personal insults, and deflections from the topic.

Is CrusaderFrank a "Progressive" then? Or RD? I'm looking for clues here, you mentioned ad hom...

I will concede that "straw man" was used incorrectly. A straw man requires that some point is made that is purported to emanate from another party. In this case no point was made since the OP refuses to define what he's talking about.. That's what we're still waiting on.

So what do you think? Does that reinforce the OP's charge that progressives are uneducated and ignorant and invariably appeal to authority rather than making their own arguments?

Nothing supports or refutes anything, so long as terms aren't defined. On my planet you can't pass judgment on something before you divulge what it is you're talking about in the first place. We're in the Linear Time Zone.

Just give me this clue: when you talk about "Progressives", is the P supposed to be upper or lower case? It kinda matters.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the purpose of this discussion, I believe the author of the OP and others who have been participating in that discussion will agree that Progressives--and I don't CARE whether the word is capitalized or not--are defined as those who describe themselves as such. I think it is probably safe to say that those who have been arguing ad hominem and are doing their dangdest to change the subject or divert from the thesis of the OP and who are refusing to discuss it probably all fall within that definition.

 

[gipper]

There is much about progressives that is not based in truth or facts. Truth is not a value many progressives hold dear. Personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them, is a standard procedure.

Dennis Prager outlined this psychosis recently related to the campus rape bogus issue, with this:
First, truth is a not a left-wing value (though, of course, some individuals on the left have great integrity). If you don’t know that, you cannot understand the left. Truth is a conservative value (though, of course, some individuals on the right lie). From the Bolsiheviks to today’s left-wing, lying is normal. Not one left-wing comment or article (except for the HuffingtonPost reference to the MIT report) even dealt with the issue of the truth of the claim that one out of every five female college students is sexually assaulted/raped, or the truth of the charge that our universities are a “culture of rape.”

Second, mockery, indeed cruel mockery, is the norm on the left. I urge readers to visit any of the liberal websites cited and read the comments after the articles. No significant American group hates like the left does. If you differ with them — from global warming, to race relations, to same-sex marriage, to the extent of rape on college campuses — they will humiliate, defame, libel and try to economically crush you.

 

[PredFan]

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.

Not until he tries to explain WTF he's talking about.

It's pretty obvious to most anyone. You however, won't understand it. Just move on.

-- See what I mean?

Why are you so deathly afraid to define your own term? Because you can't do it?
If your term has no definition, then what's your point?

That reminds me, we need to understand the disease called Greeblingism. So we can stamp it out. You with me or what?

I doesn't need definition numbskull. Maybe to YOU it does but you are a progressive and no one gives a shit about your opinions here.

 

[peach174]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Hence my reference to Nosebook being around a hundred years ago. Funny that the OP couldn't define his own term. Wonder if he agrees with it. Guess we'll never know.

Thanks Peach -- is there a link to whose definition this is, or is it yours?

The only possible reason you would want that information is so that you can attack.

 

[kiwiman127]

The United States became the greatest country in the world, because it progressed versus going backwards.