Seussgate; Have Leftards Finally Jumped the Proverbial Shark?

[OldLady]

Oh, the difficult, hair splitting work we must face whilst putting the proper label on our fellow humans.

 

[Mac1958]

I've triggered another one.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh, the difficult, hair splitting work we must face whilst putting the proper label on our fellow humans.

Everyone does it to some degree.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Prog" doesn't mean anything. The term is meaningless.

You have never seen 'prog used as short hand for 'Progressive'?

Seriously?

I don't have a term for my politics, they evolve on a daily basis. Ideology is the antithesis of critical thought.

I entirely agree with the bolded statement. But ideology can be useful as a background to provide relief for expressed viewpoints to some extent.

I know what "Prog" stands for. I reject that the term "progressive" has any meaning, either.

 

[bodecea]

The debate on the Civil War and whether every Confederate serviceman was a racist wannabe slave owner is an old canard well worn by the left. Most are used to hearing about it, but the cultural battle went along very predictable lines until Guv Nikki Perky Hale decided that the left was right and took down the Confederate Battle flag honoring tens of thousands of South Carolinians who gave their lives defending a state from Yankee invaders (to include my ancestor).

But that did not end the anguish of the left, who always manages to find something to whine about, from the supposed higher rates of cops killing black thugs, to the racism of white society, to the racism of Old Glory and the National Anthem to now we have Dr Seuss damned as a racist also.

Dr Seuss has been the hallmark liberal childrens story teller and a staple of American virtue for decades now, but alas he is a sinister old racist koot now, according to the left.

Is there ANYTHING about the USA that leftards dont hate? ANYTHING?

Was Dr. Seuss racist? Old material backs up a librarian's claim in rejecting Melania's book donation

I strongly suspect that the latest NFL controversy is demonstrating the worn out welcome of leftist partisanship and the end of white guilt.

The disgust Americans feel every day for the left's lynching of Uncle Sam is reaching epic proportions.

Where the blowback will lead is anybodies guess, but it wont go well for the left.

We may see the GOP pick up about a dozen seats in the Senate and more in the House in 2018 because people are getting so fucking tired of the lefts whinefest.

Fuck each and every one of them, as far as I care, which isnt very far at all.

Who, besides this one stupid librarian is condemning Seuss?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've triggered another one.

I must have them on ignore, I dont see it.

Dont feel any need to share what I cannot see though.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've triggered another one.

I must have them on ignore, I dont see it.

Dont feel any need to share what I cannot see though.

He's talking about me.

It's part of his ideology, he can't help it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I know what "Prog" stands for. I reject that the term "progressive" has any meaning, either.

Just for reference, are there any other well defined words in the English language that you have decided have no meaning?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what "Prog" stands for. I reject that the term "progressive" has any meaning, either.

Just for reference, are there any other well defined words in the English language that you have decided have no meaning?

"Well defined."

You're kidding, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've triggered another one.

I must have them on ignore, I dont see it.

Dont feel any need to share what I cannot see though.

He's talking about me.

It's part of his ideology, he can't help it.

Lol, look, if three (if not four counting me) liberals cannot agree on such simple thing, what chance do the rest of our citizens have?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I know what "Prog" stands for. I reject that the term "progressive" has any meaning, either.

Just for reference, are there any other well defined words in the English language that you have decided have no meaning?

"Well defined."

You're kidding, right?

Not kidding at all

pro·gres·sive
(prə-grĕs′ĭv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Open to or favoring new ideas, policies, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
9. Music Of or being a style that emphasizes virtuoso technique, rhythmic and melodic complexity, and unconventionalforms and instrumentation: progressive rock; progressive jazz.
n.
1. A person who is open to or favors new ideas, policies, or methods, especially in politics.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar A progressive verb form.

Just because everyone has their own opinion on it doesnt mean that there is no original standardized meaning.

This is the case with most concepts to some degree.

 

[Mac1958]

I've triggered another one.

I must have them on ignore, I dont see it. Dont feel any need to share what I cannot see though.

The Regressives put a great deal of effort into trying to convince me that they don't care about my posts.

Remember grade school?


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what "Prog" stands for. I reject that the term "progressive" has any meaning, either.

Just for reference, are there any other well defined words in the English language that you have decided have no meaning?

"Well defined."

You're kidding, right?

Not kidding at all

pro·gres·sive
(prə-grĕs′ĭv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Open to or favoring new ideas, policies, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
9. Music Of or being a style that emphasizes virtuoso technique, rhythmic and melodic complexity, and unconventionalforms and instrumentation: progressive rock; progressive jazz.
n.
1. A person who is open to or favors new ideas, policies, or methods, especially in politics.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar A progressive verb form.

Just because everyone has their own opinion on it doesnt mean that there is no original standardized meaning.

This is the case with most concepts to some degree.

Do any of those definitions suffice, in your mind?

My point is that political labelling is meaningless, outside of being used as a comparative tool.

There is no standard definition for what a political "progressive" is. The people who self-apply the term have an entirely different definition of what it means than you do.

If you see "progressives" as the enemy, then you'll create the definition that you need - and if you're particularly insecure about your views, you might even try to change the name to a semi-comedic play on the term.

 

[BlackSand]

...

predictable lines until Guv Nikki Perky Hale decided that the left was right and took down the Confederate Battle flag honoring tens of thousands of South Carolinians who gave their lives defending a state from Yankee invaders (to include my ancestor).

...

Who then became Ambassador to the United Nations ... Probably just a coincidence ...

.

 

[Conservative65]

Not with record numbers on food stamps today. It used to be that people were embarrassed to be on it. Now, they wear it as a badge of honor.
If one person that feeds their own children is forced to feed someone else's children because the ones creating that child won't do their job, that's stealing.

Before finishing my degree, I did a lot of blue collar work in warehouses, machine mills and so forth, and some of those workers would be on food stamps because of the size of their family vrs the earned income.

I NEVER met ANYONE who did not want to get off the programs because it was proof t hat they did not make much money and a reminder.

My family was on the WIC program back around 1989 and we needed the help then.

But I kept searching for a job to get off of it ASAP, as did everyone else I ever met that was on it.

I know that there are the kind of free loaders that you describe but they are a small minority of people on government assistance and most of them have drug problems and are not your typical recipient.

We should drug test people for addiction when they try to get government relief and then give them counseling to get free of the addiction. Not throw them in jail.

Why should the taxpayers have been responsible for those families because they chose to have more kids than they could feed?

When, with all the social programs around today, people can get more for doing nothing than they can make working, where is there incentive to work?

If people, as you say, truly want to get off such programs, why do they stay on them for so long?

Who pays for the counseling? Taxpayers? You?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not with record numbers on food stamps today. It used to be that people were embarrassed to be on it. Now, they wear it as a badge of honor.
If one person that feeds their own children is forced to feed someone else's children because the ones creating that child won't do their job, that's stealing.

Before finishing my degree, I did a lot of blue collar work in warehouses, machine mills and so forth, and some of those workers would be on food stamps because of the size of their family vrs the earned income.

I NEVER met ANYONE who did not want to get off the programs because it was proof t hat they did not make much money and a reminder.

My family was on the WIC program back around 1989 and we needed the help then.

But I kept searching for a job to get off of it ASAP, as did everyone else I ever met that was on it.

I know that there are the kind of free loaders that you describe but they are a small minority of people on government assistance and most of them have drug problems and are not your typical recipient.

We should drug test people for addiction when they try to get government relief and then give them counseling to get free of the addiction. Not throw them in jail.

Why should the taxpayers have been responsible for those families because they chose to have more kids than they could feed?

When, with all the social programs around today, people can get more for doing nothing than they can make working, where is there incentive to work?

If people, as you say, truly want to get off such programs, why do they stay on them for so long?

Who pays for the counseling? Taxpayers? You?

We once had an agricultural society with single denomination towns that all pulled together and there was no need for government welfare, but now there is and it has been duly enacted by law.

Dont like it? You can always leave for something more suitable to your anarchism like Somalia or the Congo.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do any of those definitions suffice, in your mind?

Sure, but it depends on the context it is used in.

Language is not perfect, but it is all we gots.

 

[Conservative65]

Not with record numbers on food stamps today. It used to be that people were embarrassed to be on it. Now, they wear it as a badge of honor.
If one person that feeds their own children is forced to feed someone else's children because the ones creating that child won't do their job, that's stealing.

Before finishing my degree, I did a lot of blue collar work in warehouses, machine mills and so forth, and some of those workers would be on food stamps because of the size of their family vrs the earned income.

I NEVER met ANYONE who did not want to get off the programs because it was proof t hat they did not make much money and a reminder.

My family was on the WIC program back around 1989 and we needed the help then.

But I kept searching for a job to get off of it ASAP, as did everyone else I ever met that was on it.

I know that there are the kind of free loaders that you describe but they are a small minority of people on government assistance and most of them have drug problems and are not your typical recipient.

We should drug test people for addiction when they try to get government relief and then give them counseling to get free of the addiction. Not throw them in jail.

Why should the taxpayers have been responsible for those families because they chose to have more kids than they could feed?

When, with all the social programs around today, people can get more for doing nothing than they can make working, where is there incentive to work?

If people, as you say, truly want to get off such programs, why do they stay on them for so long?

Who pays for the counseling? Taxpayers? You?

We once had an agricultural society with single denomination towns that all pulled together and there was no need for government welfare, but now there is and it has been duly enacted by law.

Dont like it? You can always leave for something more suitable to your anarchism like Somalia or the Congo.

It's not anarchism. It's expecting people to do for themselves what they should be doing for themselves instead of being lazy pieces of shit relying on others to do it for them.

It's not a surprise someone like you that lived that way of life supports laziness.