This board's political alignment seems to have changed since the election. What is yours?

[eddiew37]

What part of "definition" is flying over so many heads here??

"________ " referred to himself/herself as a 'progressive" IS NOT A DEFINITION.

Holy shit. I could refer to myself as the freaking Easter Bunny --- that doesn't define what "Easter Bunny" means.

You need a definition for Obama? The self described progressive is a lying lawless thug puke liberal scumbag who defends illegals even while they kill, rape, assault thousands of American citizens. There you have your definition.

Well, there's certainly nothing emotional in that. LOL

Just sit in the back lib and don't do a lot of talking while Trump cleans up your mess.

Trump is not known for cleaning up messes His forte is making messes and walking away untouched

What did I just tell you libs about sitting in the back and not talking? Maybe I can distract you, oh look a sale on hummus.

BLUES


L

 

[jc456]

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

well if you have no definition how can it be used wrong? that has no logic.

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

so you have no reason to object to its use.

Well, actually, why would I want to use a word that has no meaning? If it means more than one thing, it doesn't really mean anything because it is open to the other person's interpretation of what you're saying. It would be like making up a word like pulkercidy. You can go ahead and use it but it doesn't mean anything.
So, although I definitely don't have the energy to get worked up about it, until Pogo knows what it means, I'm not going to use it on him.

maybe you don't use it, I really don't give a shit. Don't use it. why get in the middle of something you choose to ignore?

To annoy you, jc, to annoy you.

that's the last thing anyone in here does. I love this shit. I long for this shit. all you libs are like wittle puppies who don't know where to go to the bathroom or who feeds you. nice wittle parrots or puppets on strings. I love it. It gets me in trouble in here sometimes from the mods, but i can handle it. so whatever it is you think you are, you think that lib. I know who you are. antifa most likely.

 

[BluesLegend]

You need a definition for Obama? The self described progressive is a lying lawless thug puke liberal scumbag who defends illegals even while they kill, rape, assault thousands of American citizens. There you have your definition.

Well, there's certainly nothing emotional in that. LOL

Just sit in the back lib and don't do a lot of talking while Trump cleans up your mess.

Trump is not known for cleaning up messes His forte is making messes and walking away untouched

What did I just tell you libs about sitting in the back and not talking? Maybe I can distract you, oh look a sale on hummus.

BLUES


L

You googled hummus don't deny it.

 

[Borillar]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

PBS uses the word to describe left of left. Like Sanders. Not a judgment, but I've noticed them using Prog that way.

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

It's basically just a pejorative the right tosses out at anyone or anything they disagree with.

 

[EverCurious]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

I disagree. So many people are wrapped up in surface words that they cannot actually distinguish the "meat" of the political parties ideals. Many "think" they are R or D, red or blue, but when one actually looks at the policy instead of the title they realize that the parties are not as ideologically far apart as they had always thought. It is this black or white, fuck the gray shades mentality that has made politics in this nation so untenable; ie its created an us vs them mentality that the R and D parties foster at every chance because it allows them to retain, and increase, their power (and fatten their pocket books.)

 

[OldLady]

PBS uses the word to describe left of left. Like Sanders. Not a judgment, but I've noticed them using Prog that way.

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

People here are very sensitive about labels. I'm just tellin ya how I've heard it being used. Warren. Sanders. The Alt Right of the Left, so to speak. It is not flung around so much as Alt Right, but it's accumulating a new connotation.

Yes I understand that. And I've seen it used here, and I've seen some quote, for example Hillary Clinton using the label on themselves.

But none of that defines what it IS.

I think you would be the perfect person to pen that definition, Pogo, once enough examples of its new use have been collected so that you can summarize and put into a nutshell what "progressive" these days actually means.

That's just it --- I can't do that. Not just because it's recycled and therefore already has a definition from another era, but because no one can or will say what they mean. It's a meaningless pseudo-slur. I've been soliticing this definition for literally years here and all I ever get is either the emotional butthurt ad homs, or the empty "_________ called himself/herself a 'progressive" which expects to attach a Composition Fallacy, which never works.

You are probably right, though, that it is being misused as much as it is being used with a specific meaning in mind. So it can't have a clear definition since it is being used to define more than one thing.

Exactly. Apparently those that can only engage in slurs seem to think their perversion of "Liberal" worked, and think they can mine another one out of the past. It's bizzaro.

Well this quest has gone to the same Nowhere it always did before, so I guess that's my answer.

Progressive is not being used only as a slur. Here and on Fox are the only places I hear it used that way. But they call everyone on the "left" commies, too, which isn't true, so whatever.
P.S. From all the context in which I've heard the word used recently, Hillary Clinton is NOT a progressive.

 

[OldLady]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

funny how you don't like what someone else calls you and yet you're in here calling others names. wow. how white of you.

What did I call others? I forget

 

[BluesLegend]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

Tough poll. I don't consider myself to be far right nor even "right wing" at all for that matter. . . but I damn sure am not left.... so, if that makes me a rightly? So be it.

This poll is how the establishment stays in power, labels, left, right, PC. Fine, I identify as common sense hello you can't borrow trillions of dollars forever, common sense.

 

[OldLady]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

Name one "right leaning" opinion you have.

I want a strong, protected border. Government is a bloated, self-interested monster that needs serious streamlining. Nuff for now?

 

[impuretrash]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

Name one "right leaning" opinion you have.

I want a strong, protected border. Government is a bloated, self-interested monster that needs serious streamlining. Nuff for now?

Fascist! Someone call antifa, we've got literally hitler over here.

 

[OldLady]

It can't, you're right, it can't have a specific meaning if no one is clear what is being defined. Which is exactly what Pogo is saying. You sure you really want to say that, then?

so you have no reason to object to its use.

Well, actually, why would I want to use a word that has no meaning? If it means more than one thing, it doesn't really mean anything because it is open to the other person's interpretation of what you're saying. It would be like making up a word like pulkercidy. You can go ahead and use it but it doesn't mean anything.
So, although I definitely don't have the energy to get worked up about it, until Pogo knows what it means, I'm not going to use it on him.

maybe you don't use it, I really don't give a shit. Don't use it. why get in the middle of something you choose to ignore?

To annoy you, jc, to annoy you.

that's the last thing anyone in here does. I love this shit. I long for this shit. all you libs are like wittle puppies who don't know where to go to the bathroom or who feeds you. nice wittle parrots or puppets on strings. I love it. It gets me in trouble in here sometimes from the mods, but i can handle it. so whatever it is you think you are, you think that lib. I know who you are. antifa most likely.

Oh, jc, bless your heart.

 

[BluesLegend]

As of this writing, no Left or Far Left.

Pretty interesting, they way they look at themselves.

We don't have to say who we are. Everyone knows, including the OP unless he's completely senile.
I've tried to call myself moderate before and I keep getting pushed back into the far left "commie corner." So I give up.

Name one "right leaning" opinion you have.

I want a strong, protected border. Government is a bloated, self-interested monster that needs serious streamlining. Nuff for now?

^^^ Agree. I feel empathy for the billions of poor people in the world, but we can't afford open boarders. We are already in a serious financial hole and racking up billions more in debt each day. If the US collapses financially then the world will know real pain and suffering, we have an obligation to the world not to fail.

 

[OldLady]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

(and btw it would be "fewer Progs" --- not "less".
"Less rain --- fewer raindrops")

______________________________________

This is just my humble opinion but, in this strange post-Obama world of today, I think the labels Democrat, Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, and Bolshevik.....are all interchangeable.

Also, you ought to quit pestering the educated for definitions, and go read a dictionary.

______________________________________

They're in NO WAY interchangeable, and it's blatant abuse of basic political science to lump different terms into a single basket just because one can't be bothered with distinctions.

"Liberal" for instance, to take another established term popularly perverted, means one who believes power derives from We the People, and not from an aristocracy or clergy or priveleged class. Liberalism is what built this country and wrote its Constitution. Nothing to do with political parties or "right" and "left". Some like flacaltenn prefer to call this "libertarian" although "Liberal' is the older term.

That has nothing to do with, for example, "Democrat", which did not even exist then, and which is the name of a specific political party. As such it's a practical vehicle to get elected, not the repository of some ideology. Billy Graham and Zell Miller are Democrats. Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin were Democrats for the purpose of getting elected because they knew what vehicle would work. The Sheriff in my town was a Democrat running for re-election, then a Republican running for re-election. He won both times. Same guy. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. Again, same guy. That's simply a grand game of Whatever Works. In the case of Rizzo and Nagin, they knew running for mayor of their city involved two choices, (a) run as a Democrat or (b) lose. Just as their counterparts in their suburbs face the opposite dynamic. In the case of my sheriff I suspect he assessed at some point that one local party ran a better get-out-the-vote campaign than the other. Just as you buy a Ford or a Dodge -- they take you to the same place.

Won't even bother with your other lump-basket terms. That should suffice.

It probably won't.

So how do we label ourselves and each other, then? USMB would DIE without its pigeon holes. Shoot down all our labels? How do we speak?

I don't find a need for labels at all. Labeling I find leads to Composition Fallacies. I hate that.

I would label you as "thinker". And that's a very good thing.

I might add you have a certain.... what is the word............. pulkercidy.

I've never been here to make points for this or that 'side'. I'm here in search of honest and intelligent argument. And it's rare.

Which is why I'll spend an hour in jc's company, so I can share in a discussion with you.

 

[Hossfly]

"Earstohear.net"?

No I mean some legitimate source. Like one that actually knows what the term "Liberal" means. Which is another term that those operating the Memory Hole would have us recycle to mean its own opposite.

Sorry, can't do that.

And btw your Krauthammer quote is fake. It's a real quote, but rendered as a joke. Hence the dubiquity of the source that purports to use it as real. Hate to break this to ya but not everything you can find on the internets is honest. Who knew.

I don't argue with fools and the infirm. That site got all their information from the media and official documents. Progressives are out to destroy the country and fools like you are blind to it.

And I just demonstrated that they lied with the Krauthammer quote.
It was the first one I looked up. Should I go get more?

You seem to find everything to dispute the truth. I answered your post at the beginning with MY words that Progressives are out to destroy this country. Prove me wrong.

I can't. Because no one can define what a "Progressive" ***IS***. Which is right back where we started, full circle.

Holy shit this is like eating a rock....

A Progressive is:

New World Order, One World Government, Get rid of Congress and the Courts.

Wilson started thishorror.
The early progressives did not seek to amend or to improve the Constitution — they sought to subvert it. Their main tool in this endeavor was the executive office itself.
President Woodrow Wilson and his progressive allies in Congress understood the separation of powers built into the Constitution. They considered the separation of powers unnecessary in their own time—man had progressed beyond the founders’ fear of factions, and what he now needed was a strong, centralized symbol of authority. Wilson’s aim was to enlarge the power and scope of the national government by assigning to the president the power to supervise each branch. The Progressive philosophy of Wilson and others has become the standard of many in government today.
How 'bout them apples?

No comments, Pogo ?

 

[jc456]

You need a definition for Obama? The self described progressive is a lying lawless thug puke liberal scumbag who defends illegals even while they kill, rape, assault thousands of American citizens. There you have your definition.

Well, there's certainly nothing emotional in that. LOL

Just sit in the back lib and don't do a lot of talking while Trump cleans up your mess.

Trump is not known for cleaning up messes His forte is making messes and walking away untouched

What did I just tell you libs about sitting in the back and not talking? Maybe I can distract you, oh look a sale on hummus.

BLUES


L

I love the libturd obsession with putin. it's amazing.

 

[jc456]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

PBS uses the word to describe left of left. Like Sanders. Not a judgment, but I've noticed them using Prog that way.

I don't see that as a sufficient equation. As in quantifiable.

A "Progressive" as used a century ago meant part of a movement calling for accountable government, opposing entrenched corruption and dealing with the turbulence of the rapid industrialization/urbanization/immigration of that time, all of which were forefront issues.

I don't think anyone can argue that the political dynamics of 2017 are the same as those of 1917. One glaring contemporary contrast is the Lost Cause movement --- vibrant and erecting statues the same statues then that are under serious review now. So applying the same term to two different eras' sociopolitical environments is automatically problematic.

Then there's the distinction between "a Progressive" (capital P, the noun) and ""progressive" (small P, the adjective). The former was a proponent of the movement of a century ago, the latter is a generic adjective applied to anything at any time. Meaning a state of "progress". Not sure who doesn't value "progress" --- a Luddite?

I think that's why I've never gotten a definition. Doesn't mean anything.

It's basically just a pejorative the right tosses out at anyone or anything they disagree with.

cause the left never does that right? I'll just go with the trump supporters and wait for one of your pejorative comments.

 

[jc456]

so you have no reason to object to its use.

Well, actually, why would I want to use a word that has no meaning? If it means more than one thing, it doesn't really mean anything because it is open to the other person's interpretation of what you're saying. It would be like making up a word like pulkercidy. You can go ahead and use it but it doesn't mean anything.
So, although I definitely don't have the energy to get worked up about it, until Pogo knows what it means, I'm not going to use it on him.

maybe you don't use it, I really don't give a shit. Don't use it. why get in the middle of something you choose to ignore?

To annoy you, jc, to annoy you.

that's the last thing anyone in here does. I love this shit. I long for this shit. all you libs are like wittle puppies who don't know where to go to the bathroom or who feeds you. nice wittle parrots or puppets on strings. I love it. It gets me in trouble in here sometimes from the mods, but i can handle it. so whatever it is you think you are, you think that lib. I know who you are. antifa most likely.

Oh, jc, bless your heart.

I always take blessings, one can never have too many.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm not keen to say it because I have so many lefty friends that I respect, but the harsh truth is that lefties don't want to discuss things, they just want others to confirm and agree with their opinions. Why would they go to a discussion board with strangers who disagree with them, when they can "get famous" in their echo chambers and feel good about themselves?

 

[Nosmo King]

With the rise of Trump I see those who once might have identified as Conservative are actually Nationalist Populists. I don't think they were actually Conservatives to begin with, but not having a firm grasp on Political Science, they had no way of really describing their position.

 

[jc456]

It seems there are way less Progs than there were before the election and even since the spring.

What is your political ideology that you lean, in general.

In general, of course many have crossover issues.

What the hell is a "Prog" anyway? Far as I know that was a century ago.

I keep asking for that definition on this board from those who use it, and I have yet to get one. Other than the roughly 1890-1920 one I already know.

Pretty hard to take a position here if said positions can't be defined.

(and btw it would be "fewer Progs" --- not "less".
"Less rain --- fewer raindrops")

______________________________________

This is just my humble opinion but, in this strange post-Obama world of today, I think the labels Democrat, Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, and Bolshevik.....are all interchangeable.

Also, you ought to quit pestering the educated for definitions, and go read a dictionary.

______________________________________

They're in NO WAY interchangeable, and it's blatant abuse of basic political science to lump different terms into a single basket just because one can't be bothered with distinctions.

"Liberal" for instance, to take another established term popularly perverted, means one who believes power derives from We the People, and not from an aristocracy or clergy or priveleged class. Liberalism is what built this country and wrote its Constitution. Nothing to do with political parties or "right" and "left". Some like flacaltenn prefer to call this "libertarian" although "Liberal' is the older term.

That has nothing to do with, for example, "Democrat", which did not even exist then, and which is the name of a specific political party. As such it's a practical vehicle to get elected, not the repository of some ideology. Billy Graham and Zell Miller are Democrats. Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin were Democrats for the purpose of getting elected because they knew what vehicle would work. The Sheriff in my town was a Democrat running for re-election, then a Republican running for re-election. He won both times. Same guy. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. Again, same guy. That's simply a grand game of Whatever Works. In the case of Rizzo and Nagin, they knew running for mayor of their city involved two choices, (a) run as a Democrat or (b) lose. Just as their counterparts in their suburbs face the opposite dynamic. In the case of my sheriff I suspect he assessed at some point that one local party ran a better get-out-the-vote campaign than the other. Just as you buy a Ford or a Dodge -- they take you to the same place.

Won't even bother with your other lump-basket terms. That should suffice.

It probably won't.

So how do we label ourselves and each other, then? USMB would DIE without its pigeon holes. Shoot down all our labels? How do we speak?

I don't find a need for labels at all. Labeling I find leads to Composition Fallacies. I hate that.

I would label you as "thinker". And that's a very good thing.

I might add you have a certain.... what is the word............. pulkercidy.

I've never been here to make points for this or that 'side'. I'm here in search of honest and intelligent argument. And it's rare.

huh?