A most remarkable issue with the US constitution, which came up in Jackson's hearing

[wist43]

No, prohibition was a Progressive cause. Alcohol was - rather rightly - viewed as a very harmful thing leading to large amounts of domestic problems. Progressives felt society would be much improved without it.

What is you definition of "progressive"?? "Progressivism"??

It seems to be a fairly malleable term - which is convenient. I saw your brief citation in the previous post - no mention of the rule of law??

 

[Craig234]

What is you definition of "progressive"?? "Progressivism"??

It seems to be a fairly malleable term - which is convenient. I saw your brief citation in the previous post - no mention of the rule of law??

First of all, that word 'convenient' is usually pejorative. If you are using it that way, I probably don't want to talk to you, so you should clarify why you used it for the word malleable. If someone says, 'science shows driving drunk is less safe... isn't that convenient since you support laws against it', does that 'convenient' argument belong there?

Basically every political label is "malleable" - not only at any given time, but over time they change as well - sometimes a little, sometimes radically. When you confirm you're not trying to be pejorative and to have an honest discussion, I can provide you with some response like definitions used a century ago and now showing some malleability but not a huge amount. Or, you sound more like you might be a partisan Libertarian desperately looking for an attack.

 

[wist43]

First of all, that word 'convenient' is usually pejorative. If you are using it that way, I probably don't want to talk to you, so you should clarify.

Basically every political label is "malleable" - not only at any given time, but over time they change as well - sometimes a little, sometimes radically. When you confirm you're not trying to be pejorative and to have an honest discussion, I can provide you with some response like definitions used a century ago and now showing some malleability but not a huge amount.

Good Christ, just spit out your definition of progressivism??

Is that so hard??

Just curious, how old are you??

 

[Craig234]

Good Christ, just spit out your definition of progressivism??

Is that so hard??

Just curious, how old are you??

Aren't you obnoxious. Why would I want to talk to you? FYI I edited the post a bit clarifying its point.

 

[wist43]

Aren't you obnoxious. Why would I want to talk to you? FYI I edited the post a bit clarifying its point.

I've agreed with some of your stated positions - and others, not.

Progressive means different things to different people. Back in the day, most communists identified as progressives.

And to be sure, your saying...

"If you want to argue that Progressive views have some changes, that's right, but it's fundamentally the same movement, focused on improving the country for the people, opposing corruption and exploitation by the wealthy and corporations."

... is pretty vague.

In general, progressivism is a more congenial path to communism Marx advocated. It is more in line with Antonio Gramsci's prescribed march through the institutions and cultural hegemony.

In America, in free countries, the law constrains government. That view of the law is antithetical to progressivism.

 

[Craig234]

... is pretty vague.

Yes, it is. Not nearly as vague as other labels, such as 'conservative', 'liberal', and 'communist'.

In general, progressivism is a more congenial path to communism Marx advocated.

That's wrong and idiotic.

 

[HangLow]

In terms of politics, both parties are controlled at the top by the same people.

Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are both on Team Establishment. It is why there are no policy shifts regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House

It is like a con game in which the operator and the shill take turns at each position.

This a quote from Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope. Quigley was an Establishment academic at Georgetown University, and was instrumental in Bill Clinton's ascension into the Establishment.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

And that is exactly where we are today.

So, that said, there is no Democrat that is concerned with liberty, i.e. the constraint of government. They talk about "rights", but they only advance narratives that are destructive to the family and social fabric - which has long been an Establishment objective.

Abolition of the family is a critical battlefront in terms of overthrowing a nation as solidly founded as the United States (read Marx).

Republicans on the other hand are quite similar, but carry water for the Establishment on different fronts. Namely war, and globalist policies which contribute greatly to the deindustrialization of the United States.

Sen. Ben Sass's (R-Neb) actions that shut down a distribution center in his state, and cost thousands of jobs, was him doing the bidding of the Establishment to the detriment of his own constituents.

All of that said, the only people actively fighting the Establishment and working to preserve the Constitution and save America, are a small minority of Republicans and some Libertarians.

I am a liberatarian (small l). No Democrat is aligned with us - the closest one is probably Tulsi Gabbard, whom I like.

​

 

[wist43]

Yes, it is. Not nearly as vague as other labels, such as 'conservative', 'liberal', and 'communist'.



That's wrong and idiotic.

I hadn't noticed your 'bernie' avatar... you're a kid, living in mom's basement aren't you??

Lol

ciao

 

[Craig234]

I hadn't

Someone who has clearly lost the privilege to get read.

 

[poweRob]

For certain the right to only minimal sentencing for unspeakable child porn crimes is a right that is secure with her .
An inalienable right given from straight out of the pit of hell .

Judge Jackson and Judiciary Committee Republicans Joust on Child-Porn-Possession Case against 18-Year-Old . . . Again​

Sentencing the same as other judges.

 

[Eatomus]

Sentencing the same as other judges.

Exactly, Why does she find these cretins so likable & why is she giving this scum such light sentences ?

 

[poweRob]

Exactly, Why does she find these cretins so likable & why is she giving this scum such light sentences ?

She's not. She's following the sentencing guidelines provided by Congress and has similar sentencing records to other judges. You're just pushing talking points and don't know what your talking about.

 

[Eatomus]

She's not. She's following the sentencing guidelines provided by Congress and has similar sentencing records to other judges. You're just pushing talking points and don't know what your talking about.

Bare minimum sentences, Your likeminded fond feelings for these predator scum tells as much about you.

 

[poweRob]

Bare minimum sentences, Your likeminded fond feelings for these predator scum tells as much about you.

What "much" does my post tell you about me @Eatomus?

 

[Antiwar]

Do you believe human rights exist? Natural rights are synonymous with human rights.

I believe in all kinds of rights, including human rights.

'Natural rights' is often used by right-libertarians to rail against good governance.

 

[wist43]

I believe in all kinds of rights, including human rights.

'Natural rights' is often used by right-libertarians to rail against good governance.

Such as,??

 

[Craig234]

Not much response to posts 124/125. What I said about progressives supporting prohibition? Here's an example why:

South Carolina boater who fatally shot jet skier he tried to rescue had no choice, slain man's pal says

The boater who rescued a jet skier from drowning in a South Carolina lake then fatally shot him had no choice after the man assaulted him, the victim's friend told deputies.

www.foxnews.com