Progressives: Despicable Liars

[P@triot]

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define

Here's the thing snowflake - USMB places no requirements on me to define words for you simply because you are ignorant, uneducated, and thus don't know basic definitions. Either Google them or grab a dictionary. In either case, ask an adult for help.

 

[P@triot]

The Progressive Era: 1890-1920

If "Progressive" had been recycled as a term --- it would have a definition. I've invited myriad posters to cite one. No one ever has. Sorry, I don't believe in terms that don't come with definitions.

HuffPo vehemently disagrees with you, snowflake. But then again - so does all of society. That's what happens when one is ignorant and uneducated.

The presidential victory of Donald Trump in November of 2016 has been under systematic assault by Democrats, their institutional and media organs, and their followers in an effort to delegitimize him. Why? Progressives thought they had won the battle and would be in power in perpetuity. The election of President Trump demonstrated otherwise. Consequently, Progressives responded with protests, marches, riots, and sustained rage in an effort to undermine his effectiveness in order to restore Progressive governance, now and forever.

The Progressive Coup d’État That Wasn’t Quite | The Huffington Post

 

[P@triot]

If "Progressive" had been recycled as a term --- it would have a definition.

Folks...you just can't make this stuff up. This desperate, immature, uneducated little nitwit actually wants to make the case that the word "progressive" has no definition.

pro·gres·sive (prəˈɡresiv/)
adjective
1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating;

2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. "a relatively progressive governor"

 

[P@triot]

That's exactly why Buttsoiler has me on Ignore.

I have no idea who "buttsoiler" is or why they have you on ignore - but I can tell you why I have you on ignore. Because you're immature, desperate for attention, you refuse to accept reality, and you think it is "intellectually challenging" to demand basic definitions while insisting that they do not exist. Here is a prime example in post #103:

If "Progressive" had been recycled as a term --- it would have a definition.

The word "progressive" does have a definition. And literally everyone knows that that definition is. So you're either astoundingly ignorant (in which case you're a waste of my time) or you're playing games because you're desperate for my attention (in which case you're a waste of my time).

In either case - I've made you my personal bitch here on USMB. You're ignorance and immaturity are not worth my time. You make up bizarre words like "buttsoiler" (something a 2nd grader would say) while insisting that actual words such as "progressive" don't have a definition.

Maybe try coming back to USMB in 12 to 15 years? Maybe by then you'll have grown up and matured?

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

This is an older thread that was placed in Badlands without any mod notes on it. So it's been cleaned, revived, and placed in Politics. KEEP it clean. Back to Zone2..

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define, even in historical terms let alone contemporary ones, which means it's just here as a pretext for him to whine about any story he scrapes up, laying the same label on it despite said stories having no common thread. Which in turn means the OP never made a point, which in turn is why I pointed that out from its inception.

Which only goes to prove, as Confushi said many, many years ago, “lon gai zahou tong goo loo tao aye tai zai zahou.”

Which translated briefly means: If you get to it, and you can not do it.
There you jolly well are [whew] --- aren't you."

Oh -- I don't think it's worth whining about. Because it's not a collection "of any old story". They ARE old stories, but the theme is -- they hit the Media on Page1 and were retracted months later when the truth comes out just below the horoscopes on pg 16..

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important. Since SOME of these stories actually had the "legs" to be multi-page discussions on USMB. As a pun and a poke -- it's a good form of "social justice" that any honest Progressive would appreciate.

 

[P@triot]

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important.

 

[Pogo]

Mod Note:

This is an older thread that was placed in Badlands without any mod notes on it. So it's been cleaned, revived, and placed in Politics. KEEP it clean. Back to Zone2..

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define, even in historical terms let alone contemporary ones, which means it's just here as a pretext for him to whine about any story he scrapes up, laying the same label on it despite said stories having no common thread. Which in turn means the OP never made a point, which in turn is why I pointed that out from its inception.

Which only goes to prove, as Confushi said many, many years ago, “lon gai zahou tong goo loo tao aye tai zai zahou.”

Which translated briefly means: If you get to it, and you can not do it.
There you jolly well are [whew] --- aren't you."

Oh -- I don't think it's worth whining about. Because it's not a collection "of any old story". They ARE old stories, but the theme is -- they hit the Media on Page1 and were retracted months later when the truth comes out just below the horoscopes on pg 16..

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important. Since SOME of these stories actually had the "legs" to be multi-page discussions on USMB. As a pun and a poke -- it's a good form of "social justice" that any honest Progressive would appreciate.

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

This crapola of recycling an old term with a supposed new meaning, that can't even be defined, is complete bullshit, and it belies a wag who has no argument. And that's what I mean by having no common thread --- for that, the OP would need a definition; something they have in common. Which he can't do.

Folks...you just can't make this stuff up. This desperate, immature, uneducated little nitwit actually wants to make the case that the word "progressive" has no definition.

Oh no, it absolutely has a definition. One upon which you're foisting intentional ignorance. Here's an entire Wiki page on it.

The Progressive Era -- 1890s - 1920s

--- wouldn't seem to have much to do with ............... whatever you think you're doing here, now would it?

 

[Pogo]

The Progressive Era: 1890-1920

If "Progressive" had been recycled as a term --- it would have a definition. I've invited myriad posters to cite one. No one ever has. Sorry, I don't believe in terms that don't come with definitions.

HuffPo vehemently disagrees with you, snowflake. But then again - so does all of society. That's what happens when one is ignorant and uneducated.

The presidential victory of Donald Trump in November of 2016 has been under systematic assault by Democrats, their institutional and media organs, and their followers in an effort to delegitimize him. Why? Progressives thought they had won the battle and would be in power in perpetuity. The election of President Trump demonstrated otherwise. Consequently, Progressives responded with protests, marches, riots, and sustained rage in an effort to undermine his effectiveness in order to restore Progressive governance, now and forever.

The Progressive Coup d’État That Wasn’t Quite | The Huffington Post

This just in ---- there ain't no law that says hack writers who don't know what they're talking about can't get a blog page somewhere.

Or as they used to say in grammar school --- if "everybody else" jumped in the lake, would you jump in with 'em?

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

This is an older thread that was placed in Badlands without any mod notes on it. So it's been cleaned, revived, and placed in Politics. KEEP it clean. Back to Zone2..

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define, even in historical terms let alone contemporary ones, which means it's just here as a pretext for him to whine about any story he scrapes up, laying the same label on it despite said stories having no common thread. Which in turn means the OP never made a point, which in turn is why I pointed that out from its inception.

Which only goes to prove, as Confushi said many, many years ago, “lon gai zahou tong goo loo tao aye tai zai zahou.”

Which translated briefly means: If you get to it, and you can not do it.
There you jolly well are [whew] --- aren't you."

Oh -- I don't think it's worth whining about. Because it's not a collection "of any old story". They ARE old stories, but the theme is -- they hit the Media on Page1 and were retracted months later when the truth comes out just below the horoscopes on pg 16..

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important. Since SOME of these stories actually had the "legs" to be multi-page discussions on USMB. As a pun and a poke -- it's a good form of "social justice" that any honest Progressive would appreciate.

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

This crapola of recycling an old term with a supposed new meaning, that can't even be defined, is complete bullshit, and it belies a wag who has no argument. And that's what I mean by having no common thread --- for that, the OP would need a definition; something they have in common. Which he can't do.

The Progressive Era -- 1890s - 1920s

Nothing political ever truly dies. It just gets relabeled. Conservatism died with Bill Buckley. Now you have neo-cons and "rightists" and small l libertarians.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest membership organization within the Democratic congressional caucus in the United States Congress with 71 members. The CPC is a left-leaning organization that works to advance progressive and liberal issues and positions.

Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

 

[Pogo]

Mod Note:

This is an older thread that was placed in Badlands without any mod notes on it. So it's been cleaned, revived, and placed in Politics. KEEP it clean. Back to Zone2..

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define, even in historical terms let alone contemporary ones, which means it's just here as a pretext for him to whine about any story he scrapes up, laying the same label on it despite said stories having no common thread. Which in turn means the OP never made a point, which in turn is why I pointed that out from its inception.

Which only goes to prove, as Confushi said many, many years ago, “lon gai zahou tong goo loo tao aye tai zai zahou.”

Which translated briefly means: If you get to it, and you can not do it.
There you jolly well are [whew] --- aren't you."

Oh -- I don't think it's worth whining about. Because it's not a collection "of any old story". They ARE old stories, but the theme is -- they hit the Media on Page1 and were retracted months later when the truth comes out just below the horoscopes on pg 16..

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important. Since SOME of these stories actually had the "legs" to be multi-page discussions on USMB. As a pun and a poke -- it's a good form of "social justice" that any honest Progressive would appreciate.

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

This crapola of recycling an old term with a supposed new meaning, that can't even be defined, is complete bullshit, and it belies a wag who has no argument. And that's what I mean by having no common thread --- for that, the OP would need a definition; something they have in common. Which he can't do.

The Progressive Era -- 1890s - 1920s

Nothing political ever truly dies. It just gets relabeled. Conservatism died with Bill Buckley. Now you have neo-cons and "rightists" ..

Sure, and that's what I'm saying too -- the Progressives .... the real ones of a century ago ..... still carry that label; no wag on a message board is empowered to take it away from them.

And your contemporary terms "neocons" etc ---- are different from "conservatism", which is also what I'm saying. Buttsoiler here is using the SAME TERM to mean two different things. Well maybe different things, maybe not, since he won't define his term.

Let's face it -- it's not a term. It's a turd he flings rhetorically. An undefined turd. And that's a cheap shot by a wag who has no point.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest membership organization within the Democratic congressional caucus in the United States Congress with 71 members. The CPC is a left-leaning organization that works to advance progressive and liberal issues and positions.

Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

Ah but that's "progressive" the adjective. Describing those "in favor of progress" --- which is pretty much everybody anyway, only the definition of what "progress" looks like being in question. "progressive" with a lowercase P, only capitalized here for being a proper name.

But the OP is using it as a noun. It's the first word in his title. Pluralized. That means (a) they exist and (b) there are more than one. Yet he can't define who they are.

 

[P@triot]

This just in ---- there ain't no law that says hack writers who don't know what they're talking about can't get a blog page somewhere.

You mean like your Wikipedia page?

 

[P@triot]

Ah but that's "progressive" the adjective. Describing those "in favor of progress" --- which is pretty much everybody anyway, only the definition of what "progress" looks like being in question. "progressive" with a lowercase P, only capitalized here for being a proper name.

But the OP is using it as a noun. It's the first word in his title. Pluralized. That means (a) they exist and (b) there are more than one. Yet he can't define who they are.

The immaturity continues. First it was "there is no definition for that word". After being posted, it then becomes "oh...but that was the adjective...I want the noun". Uh...ok:

pro·gres·sive (prəˈɡresiv/)
adjective

1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating

2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
"a relatively progressive governor"

noun

1. a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian
"he is very much a progressive"

2. GRAMMAR a progressive tense or aspect. "the present progressive"

 

[P@triot]

But the OP is using it as a noun. It's the first word in his title. Pluralized. That means (a) they exist and (b) there are more than one. Yet he can't define who they are.

Wow...the immaturity even continues in her immaturity! So first you deny there is a definition for the word, then you don't like the adjective and prefer it as a noun, and now you're stating I can't define who the progressives are?

You are a progressive. Barack Obama is a progressive. Nancy Pelosi is a progressive. Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Hitlery Clinton is a progressive.

If you a registered Dumbocrat, you are a progressive. If you vote Dumbocrat, you are a progressive. If you are a registered Green Party, you are a progressive. If you vote Green Party, you are a progressive. The list goes on and on and on. You lose.

 

[P@triot]

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...
Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

And she wonders why I have her blocked. Who wants to deal with people who deny reality? She's a progressive while denying that progressives exist. There is a "Congressional Progressive Caucus" and still she denies that progressives exist.

And why is she so committed to denying that progressivism exists? Because the left wants to distance themselves from that term. They hijacked the term "liberal" (which used to mean LIBERTY). They want to convince everyone that the party of fascist control is actually the party of "liberty". So they need to distance themselves from their true identity - progressives.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

This is an older thread that was placed in Badlands without any mod notes on it. So it's been cleaned, revived, and placed in Politics. KEEP it clean. Back to Zone2..

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define, even in historical terms let alone contemporary ones, which means it's just here as a pretext for him to whine about any story he scrapes up, laying the same label on it despite said stories having no common thread. Which in turn means the OP never made a point, which in turn is why I pointed that out from its inception.

Which only goes to prove, as Confushi said many, many years ago, “lon gai zahou tong goo loo tao aye tai zai zahou.”

Which translated briefly means: If you get to it, and you can not do it.
There you jolly well are [whew] --- aren't you."

Oh -- I don't think it's worth whining about. Because it's not a collection "of any old story". They ARE old stories, but the theme is -- they hit the Media on Page1 and were retracted months later when the truth comes out just below the horoscopes on pg 16..

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important. Since SOME of these stories actually had the "legs" to be multi-page discussions on USMB. As a pun and a poke -- it's a good form of "social justice" that any honest Progressive would appreciate.

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

This crapola of recycling an old term with a supposed new meaning, that can't even be defined, is complete bullshit, and it belies a wag who has no argument. And that's what I mean by having no common thread --- for that, the OP would need a definition; something they have in common. Which he can't do.

The Progressive Era -- 1890s - 1920s

Nothing political ever truly dies. It just gets relabeled. Conservatism died with Bill Buckley. Now you have neo-cons and "rightists" ..

Sure, and that's what I'm saying too -- the Progressives .... the real ones of a century ago ..... still carry that label; no wag on a message board is empowered to take it away from them.

And your contemporary terms "neocons" etc ---- are different from "conservatism", which is also what I'm saying. Buttsoiler here is using the SAME TERM to mean two different things. Well maybe different things, maybe not, since he won't define his term.

Let's face it -- it's not a term. It's a turd he flings rhetorically. An undefined turd. And that's a cheap shot by a wag who has no point.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest membership organization within the Democratic congressional caucus in the United States Congress with 71 members. The CPC is a left-leaning organization that works to advance progressive and liberal issues and positions.

Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

Ah but that's "progressive" the adjective. Describing those "in favor of progress" --- which is pretty much everybody anyway, only the definition of what "progress" looks like being in question. "progressive" with a lowercase P, only capitalized here for being a proper name.

But the OP is using it as a noun. It's the first word in his title. Pluralized. That means (a) they exist and (b) there are more than one. Yet he can't define who they are.

Yeah -- I'm sure all 71 Dem members of the Progressive Caucus just thought that Auto Insurance Company had a neat name.. Not trying to relive the glory days of FDR W. Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt. Nope. Just a coinkydink..

 

[Doc1]

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...
Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

And she wonders why I have her blocked. Who wants to deal with people who deny reality? She's a progressive while denying that progressives exist. There is a "Congressional Progressive Caucus" and still she denies that progressives exist.

And why is she so committed to denying that progressivism exists? Because the left wants to distance themselves from that term. They hijacked the term "liberal" (which used to mean LIBERTY). They want to convince everyone that the party of fascist control is actually the party of "liberty". So they need to distance themselves from their true identity - progressives.

She's a moron who needs to feel like big shot, her life here where she pretend to be the smartest kid in school

 

[Pogo]

It was after all a bait thread from the beginning, purporting to employ a blanket political label that expired a century ago, a label that the OP cannot and will not define, even in historical terms let alone contemporary ones, which means it's just here as a pretext for him to whine about any story he scrapes up, laying the same label on it despite said stories having no common thread. Which in turn means the OP never made a point, which in turn is why I pointed that out from its inception.

Which only goes to prove, as Confushi said many, many years ago, “lon gai zahou tong goo loo tao aye tai zai zahou.”

Which translated briefly means: If you get to it, and you can not do it.
There you jolly well are [whew] --- aren't you."

Oh -- I don't think it's worth whining about. Because it's not a collection "of any old story". They ARE old stories, but the theme is -- they hit the Media on Page1 and were retracted months later when the truth comes out just below the horoscopes on pg 16..

That's actually justice working to absolve the innocent. And it's pretty important. Since SOME of these stories actually had the "legs" to be multi-page discussions on USMB. As a pun and a poke -- it's a good form of "social justice" that any honest Progressive would appreciate.

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

This crapola of recycling an old term with a supposed new meaning, that can't even be defined, is complete bullshit, and it belies a wag who has no argument. And that's what I mean by having no common thread --- for that, the OP would need a definition; something they have in common. Which he can't do.

The Progressive Era -- 1890s - 1920s

Nothing political ever truly dies. It just gets relabeled. Conservatism died with Bill Buckley. Now you have neo-cons and "rightists" ..

Sure, and that's what I'm saying too -- the Progressives .... the real ones of a century ago ..... still carry that label; no wag on a message board is empowered to take it away from them.

And your contemporary terms "neocons" etc ---- are different from "conservatism", which is also what I'm saying. Buttsoiler here is using the SAME TERM to mean two different things. Well maybe different things, maybe not, since he won't define his term.

Let's face it -- it's not a term. It's a turd he flings rhetorically. An undefined turd. And that's a cheap shot by a wag who has no point.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest membership organization within the Democratic congressional caucus in the United States Congress with 71 members. The CPC is a left-leaning organization that works to advance progressive and liberal issues and positions.

Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

Ah but that's "progressive" the adjective. Describing those "in favor of progress" --- which is pretty much everybody anyway, only the definition of what "progress" looks like being in question. "progressive" with a lowercase P, only capitalized here for being a proper name.

But the OP is using it as a noun. It's the first word in his title. Pluralized. That means (a) they exist and (b) there are more than one. Yet he can't define who they are.

Yeah -- I'm sure all 71 Dem members of the Progressive Caucus just thought that Auto Insurance Company had a neat name.. Not trying to relive the glory days of FDR W. Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt. Nope. Just a coinkydink..

Not at all --- again, it's an adjective. The noun is "caucus". Adjective modifies noun. "What kind of caucus? A progressive one". From what body is this progressive caucus derived? Congress. Another adjective. Basic rules of grammar. So no I don't think they had FDR in mind since he came after that era anyway.

Also again, the OP is using it as a NOUN. Indicating PEOPLE. Not an adjective. The people in your example are Congresscritters (noun) who consider themselves "progressive", i.e. they act "progressively" --- not "Progressives".

As such the adjective is an empty term anyway --- everybody acts 'progressively' unless they're reverting backward. Tells us nothing about any ideology.

 

[Pogo]

But the OP is using it as a noun. It's the first word in his title. Pluralized. That means (a) they exist and (b) there are more than one. Yet he can't define who they are.

Wow...the immaturity even continues in her immaturity! So first you deny there is a definition for the word, then you don't like the adjective and prefer it as a noun, and now you're stating I can't define who the progressives are?

You are a progressive. Barack Obama is a progressive. Nancy Pelosi is a progressive. Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Hitlery Clinton is a progressive.

If you a registered Dumbocrat, you are a progressive. If you vote Dumbocrat, you are a progressive. If you are a registered Green Party, you are a progressive. If you vote Green Party, you are a progressive. The list goes on and on and on. You lose.

In other words you still have no definition. Which is exactly what I noted first thing upon arriving in this joke of a thread.

 

[Pogo]

The thing is --- "any honest Progressive" already died, decades ago, usually of old age.

Besides -- you're not gonna win this one with 71 members of Congress in the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS...
Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

And she wonders why I have her blocked. Who wants to deal with people who deny reality? She's a progressive while denying that progressives exist. There is a "Congressional Progressive Caucus" and still she denies that progressives exist.

And why is she so committed to denying that progressivism exists? Because the left wants to distance themselves from that term. They hijacked the term "liberal" (which used to mean LIBERTY). They want to convince everyone that the party of fascist control is actually the party of "liberty". So they need to distance themselves from their true identity - progressives.

Who the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Pogo]

This just in ---- there ain't no law that says hack writers who don't know what they're talking about can't get a blog page somewhere.

You mean like your Wikipedia page?

Hey, that's the history and it's accurate, like it or lump it. You want a different page? Here ya go. Same history.

Want yet another? Here's one even better.

More? Here's yet another.

They all tell the same history. Because it IS history, and there ain't a damn thing in the world you can do to make it go away.