A Complete Waste of Space

Pudfark wrote:Define "pragmatic progressive"

it's a term that I use to describe my position, and I generally use it in discussions with left-leaning types
(you probably don't believe this, but I am a far more serious thorn in the side of such, as I agree with most of their goals and think they are near whacked-out at their routes to them). Here goes:

I believe that government does, in any Industrial/Post-industrial society, have a very major role to play in providing a social safety net. Such a net is crucial when you have a diverse population, with a wide range of wealth, to stabilize the poorer elements of a society and prevent upheaval that sets a nation back.
This would be classic Progressive thought. I differ from most, in that I revere the system of government that the US has, and accept that it is a slow system to change, and designed that way. Thus, I advocate focusing on a few ideas that share massive consensus, and work to educate the public and slowly develop consensus on others. By every reliable measure, the US public overwhelmingly supports:
1. Strong public education
2. Social Security for the elderly and disabled
3. Universal Health coverage that is NOT job-dependant(believe it or not, this one consistently polls at
around 70%)
4. A Foreign policy that relies far less on military intervention and other meddling in the affairs of others.
5. Less dependence on foreign oil, less reliance on foreign goods and services. This would involve both
basic research into new technologies and embracing certain Environmental ideas.
6. Legalization and taxation of marijuana, for both crime reduction and deficit reduction
7. Reform of the tax code, to a far simpler model(Flat Tax is one option).
8. Strong return to the rights of individuals to assemble, speak freely and not be subject to false arrest
in their own nation
9 Deficit reduction,as eventually, a large deficit will be used as an excuse to remove the safety net.

I think Progressives ought to hammer on these issues, and these issues alone(hence, the Pragmatic part) because they can accomplish progress in these areas. Where I differ from most on the Left(especially the farther left one goes) is that I have utterly no time for distractions like Bush conspiracy theories, anti-corporate diatribes, tree-hugging/animal rights stupidity, support for goofball dictators like Chavez or Castro, on any of the other 500 or so nitwit ideas espoused by a handful on the left, and then left unchallenged by most of the others. That sort of idiocy kills the credibility of the basic ideals which will, demonstrably make life better for virtually ALL Americans. But, most on the left are so afraid of hurting the feelings of their peers over these goofy tangents that they kill the overall goal, which is PROGRESS. Seriously, who really doesn't want progress? Would any of you prefer to live under 19th century conditions?
As that Krugman op-ed points out, that is where we're all headed, at least those of us who don't have the benefit of owning lots of land and holding a Trust fund. The idea that small government or lower taxes when you already owe 4 trillion dollars or so is anything other than suicidal to the entire nation is baffling. Why anyone buys the idea that isn't the case eludes me, it never has worked any other way but to have a nation regress into backward status. Want low taxes and no government? Check out Afghanistan, because that's what 20 years of low taxes and no government looks like. Rwanda, ditto, Congo, Sierra Leone, likewise.

Hope that answers your question, Rube.

HappyHappy wrote:Callmesick is eating this up.
My guess is he masturbates when reading the shit he is stirring up. (if he has a dick)

HH

at least I have a wife(and, a dick), so guess all you want, loser.

callmeslick wrote:at least I have a wife

I don't have a wife. Neither do a couple of my buddies. We use yours.

Pudfark wrote:Define "pragmatic progressive" ?

callmeslick wrote: I always have claimed to be a pragmatic progressive. Not in the moronic, Glenn Beck definition, but in the original definition of Progressive, which goes back to the Midwest early in the 20th century.

Old Pudfark sez: " I called you a fruit...you denied it and said you were an apple....WTF? "

callmeslick wrote:Hope that answers your question, Rube

Nope...still waiting on the RED part to be defined.....then, perhaps....I will have a better understanding.....of your point/definition.....

I tried to find a good, concise read for you, Pud, but came up with a short excerpt from Wikipedia
on the early 20th century Progressive movement:

Modernization
The progressives were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society's weaknesses. Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention.[8]

Democracy
Progressives moved to enable the citizenry to rule more directly and circumvent political bosses; California, Wisconsin, and Oregon took the lead. California governor Hiram Johnson established the initiative, referendum, and recall, viewing them as good influences for citizen participation against the historic influence of large corporations on state assembly including job reform.[9]

About 16 states began using primary elections to reduce the power of bosses and machines.[10] The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, requiring that all senators be elected by the people (instead of the state legislature).

Municipal reform
Many cities set up municipal reference bureaus to study the budgets and administrative structures of local governments. In Illinois, Governor Frank Lowden undertook a major reorganization of state government.[11] In Wisconsin, the stronghold of Robert LaFollette, the Wisconsin Idea, used the state university as the source of ideas and expertise.[

No disrespect Slick.....but, Wikipedia? Please to forward/post the link....or links....?

If you post them...I'll read them....

Pudfark wrote:No disrespect Slick.....but, Wikipedia? Please to forward/post the link....or links....?

If you post them...I'll read them....

I know, I thought it to be sucky as well. How about this. Get your hands on Theodore Roosevelt's writings, he was the starting point. Move from there to LaFollette and you have a good idea where my foundations are based.

Slick..I was hoping for the historical answer.....since one does not seem to be forthcoming....(yes, I know, it's been less than 24 hours) I'll take what you "tossed" in my direction.....

First.....If I were to take your offered definition and poured syrup on it....I would call it "waffles".....cuz, it is and it does..........instead, I will call it "Turd Pie".

Modernization: Let's stick a feather up their ass and tickle their turds....as a grand solution...to society's weaknesses....Laws and enforcement of laws have always been and will be the control of society's weaknesses...Example: We have immigration laws, they are not enforced, so therefore we need to change the law?...Non-enforced laws don't work and never will. As to your "belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention"...Look at the last forty years and especially the last year and a half.... What this country has done in the last 50 years is to make a "Turd Pie"...and they did it by circumventing the rules, tricking the public and ignoring the enforcement of laws....Your "solution" of adding more shit to the "Turd Pie" ain't gonna make it taste any better tomorrow....no matter how you explain it.... I say throw out the "Turd Pie"....and return to the Ten Commandments, Constitution and Bill of Rights. It works, if enforced.

Democracy: "Progressives moved to enable the citizenry to rule more directly and circumvent political bosses" We all ready have a process to deal with that...quit re-electing the same self-serving thieves.... You, throwing California as an example....makes the point...term limitations will address the other points. The term "Power Bosses" is ? Would that be like George Soros? Machines? Would that be like what got Obama elected? Granulated fecal material on top of the pie, may make it look better....though. it does not change the taste....

Municipal Reform: Two thirds of your definition does not apply to it. Only, the first sentence. Municipalities are governed by the local folks and if they choose to waste their money on "reference bureaus" to study the community "piggy bank"....it is solely their right to do so....and when the majority of citizens and taxpayers get tired of it and the deficit spending that usually accompanies it? A change in local government is sure to occur....

Here's a point to ponder? The common foibles of man/society have never changed...they still lie,cheat, steal and are greedy.
Here is some more to think about....Education does not change these foibles...it never has and it never will. Reference the last two thousand years of recorded history.
Your "progressive way" to explain it/change it won't work either.
Here is what I know....this country was prosperous and worked well for the first first one hundred and thirty years or so....then the "progressives" came along.........added shit to the recipe and started stirring the pot....and are now complaining about the meal...and blaming the "original recipe"..............

Old Pudfark sez: " Ain't that some shit "

Pudfark wrote:Here's a point to ponder? The common foibles of man/society have never changed...they still lie,cheat, steal and are greedy.

a solid point. Hence, a responsive and responsible government, and sensible regulations keep those 'foibles' in check. A Progressive ideal.

Here is some more to think about....Education does not change these foibles...it never has and it never will. Reference the last two thousand years of recorded history.

true, but an educated populace is FAR less susceptable to victimization by such things, wouldn't you agree?
You can't possibly be arguing for less education for the average American, can you? Because that is what is ongoing, and it is the ticket to third-world status, in a global economy.

Here is what I know....this country was prosperous and worked well for the first first one hundred and thirty years or so....then the "progressives" came along.........added shit to the recipe and started stirring the pot....and are now complaining about the meal...and blaming the "original recipe"..............

Rube, use some common sense and awareness of history. When the nation was founded, it was an agrarian society. What changed the whole ballgame was the industrial revolution. That, in turn, changed the whole relationship of workers, capitalists, consumers, producers, everything. If you think life for the average man in
1880(about 100 years into your 150) was some sort of picnic you know nothing. Nothing of sweatshops, child labor, mine conditions, banking, dockwork or the rest of how America lived. Progressives, starting with Roosevelt and followed by others, were a direct response to the exploitation and greed unleashed upon the population in that era.

Old Pudfark sez: " Ain't that some shit "

indeed, it is.

callmeslick wrote: Pudfark wrote:
Here's a point to ponder? The common foibles of man/society have never changed...they still lie,cheat, steal and are greedy.


Slick wrote:"a solid point. Hence, a responsive and responsible government, and sensible regulations keep those 'foibles' in check. A Progressive ideal."

One little problem with your "rebuttal"...you "progressives" don't enforce the law or your rules...reference your reply on "Forfeiture".....and apply greed, lie and cheat to it.......

callmeslick wrote:Quote:
Here is some more to think about....Education does not change these foibles...it never has and it never will. Reference the last two thousand years of recorded history.


Slick wrote: true, but an educated populace is FAR less susceptable to victimization by such things, wouldn't you agree?
You can't possibly be arguing for less education for the average American, can you? Because that is what is ongoing, and it is the ticket to third-world status, in a global economy.

False, people are just as susceptable to victimization, educated or not.....reference: accidental discharges with muskets vs machineguns....Further, Slick, you are the one selling tickets to a third world status...you and the "Bull Moose/shit party"... Your "global ideas" for the economy....cannot be followed, unless enforced on all equally....An ideal that you don't hold to personally....

callmeslick wrote:Quote:
Here is what I know....this country was prosperous and worked well for the first first one hundred and thirty years or so....then the "progressives" came along.........added shit to the recipe and started stirring the pot....and are now complaining about the meal...and blaming the "original recipe"..............


Slick wrote: Rube, use some common sense and awareness of history. When the nation was founded, it was an agrarian society. What changed the whole ballgame was the industrial revolution. That, in turn, changed the whole relationship of workers, capitalists, consumers, producers, everything. If you think life for the average man in
1880(about 100 years into your 150) was some sort of picnic you know nothing. Nothing of sweatshops, child labor, mine conditions, banking, dockwork or the rest of how America lived. Progressives, starting with Roosevelt and followed by others, were a direct response to the exploitation and greed unleashed upon the population in that era.

Here is some common sense for you Slick....When the nation was founded...it was an agrarian "capitalist" society...when the industrial revolution occurred...more capitalists were added...along with additional prosperity for the country as a whole....reference: a larger middle class and an elevated lifestyle which allowed for more education and opportunity to become a "capitalist"... Your last sentence is my favorite....here we go.... People have always been "exploited" for their labor and always will...Reference: sweaters vs thinkers and contrast that with your "progressive ideals" and you will quickly find out.....that with no sweaters...you gonna starve to death in yer mansion.... I don't really care for your whining about what occurred a hundred years ago, those conditions are not relevant now....What I do care about? The destruction of middle class America fomented by "Progressives"....who were and are the elitist Capitalists hiding behind the "poor man's" plight, masquerading their intentions to destroy the middle class...... Poor folks did not start the "Progressive Movement", Capitalists did. Reference: Teddy Roosevelt and Friends.....

callmeslick wrote:Quote:
Old Pudfark sez: " Ain't that some shit "


Slick wrote: indeed, it is.

Old Pudfark sez: " Check yer shorts Slick...it may be a crowded country...but folks now...know where the stink is coming from... "