Progressivism: What it is and Why it's Bad

[fj1200]

Go.

[Drummond]

Go.

Is that an order, FJ ? :rolleyes::laugh:


I'm curious, though. You've refrained from directly answering this yourself .. haven't you ? Why is that ?

.. I mean, you could've given your view, then challenged others to debate it. Instead - no actual view supplied.

One way of reading the thread title could be to suggest that you need convincing that it's bad ...

Tell you what. I'll hint at a direct reply by pointing out that Margaret Thatcher thought it was bad. She hated Progressivism.

And .. since you assert you're a 'Thatcherite' yourself, one might expect that this would satisfy you ... ?

[Abbey Marie]

I like the topic, fj. It will take some real thought to answer well, imo.

You aren't crocodiling us, are you? ;)

[fj1200]

I like the topic, fj. It will take some real thought to answer well, imo.

You aren't crocodiling us, are you? ;)

Crocociling? Now you've made go and look something up. :mad: :laugh: And do you mean this (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crocodiling)?

talking on your cell phone backstage at a fashion show to make yourself look important, because in reality, nobody cares you are there
If so then heaven's no. People DO care that I'm here, look how quickly the topic became about me and not the question posed. ;)

More seriously though hopefully we can have some fun with it and find out what people actually think based on what people actually post. I'm sure that there are various "semi-official" definitions out there and possibly some misconceptions so it will be interesting to see them fleshed out.

[fj1200]

Is that an order, FJ ?

As some like to point out I have no position here from which to "order" anyone to do anything. I just pose a question, it's up to you to decide if you have the capability of discussing. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Haha, what a vacuous definition that is! I am confident you know what I meant, though. :cool:

[Drummond]

People DO care that I'm here, look how quickly the topic became about me and not the question posed. ;):laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::co ffee::lol::lol:

[Drummond]

As some like to point out I have no position here from which to "order" anyone to do anything. I just pose a question, it's up to you to decide if you have the capability of discussing. :)

Excellent ! Glad we got that sorted out, then ...

FJ, I thought you might like this little 'pointer' to what you, 'as a Thatcherite' (!!), are supposed to be allied to. Oh, and you'll find an answer to your debating point, as well ....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/why_margaret_thatcher_matters.html

It's a long article, and well worth reading in detail ! But, anyway .... first, from a speech of Mrs Thatcher's ...


Choice in a free society implies responsibility on the part of the individual. There is no hard and fast line between economic and other forms of personal responsibility to self, family, firm, community, nation, God. Morality lies in choosing between feasible alternatives. A moral being is one who exercises his own judgment in choice, on matters great and small, bearing in mind their moral dimension, i.e. right and wrong. Insofar as his right to choose is taken away by the state, the party or the union, his moral facilities i.e. his capacity for choice, atrophy, and he becomes a moral cripple in the same way as we should lose the facility of walking, reading, seeing, if we were prevented from using them over the year.

Wonderfully put, eh, FJ ?

But try this out:


Kenneth Minogue, in the The Servile Mind, also discusses the morally redemptive power of the free market. Minogue and Thatcher see economic success as a product of moral practice. It is based on the individual, on responsibility, and the capacity to choose. Socialists and progressives try to portray capitalism as immoral because it is based on the profit motive, but it is socialism/progressivism that is immoral. It is immoral because the statist system eliminates choice, and without choice, there are no ethics, no good or evil.

The article's concluding comment:


Margaret Thatcher matters because she demonstrated that freedom is always an option.

FJ -- you might perhaps see, from all of this, why I'd wonder how a 'Thatcherite' would ever need to pose the implied question that you seemingly want answered. As a 'Thatcherite' .. SURELY .. all of this is already crystal clear to you ?!? Why do you need to be on the receiving-end of a debate about it ?

Still -- debate is why we're here. Hopefully, FJ, you'll find all I've provided helpful.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

FJ, I suggest that you not try to debate with Drummond about Thatcher or her political philosophy. Nor should you attempt to present better form of the English language than an educated Englishman. As I found out in our little Thatcher/Churchill debate Lady Thatcher was at least Churchill's equal and thus I quickly lost my premise that she was not.. The man has no false bravado and knows his P's and Q's far, far better than most. You guys may forget that I know him from another forum(where we first met) and have seen him reduce his opposition to bread crumbs(way past toast) as easily as I can shoot a zig-zagging running rabbit at 30 yards with my favorite 12ga pump shotgun. He aint no slouch amigo not by a long shot IMHO..

However, do not let my words put any afearin' in ya'.. Iffin' ya' feelz froggy go ahaid and jump. ;)-Tyr

[Drummond]

FJ, I suggest that you not try to debate with Drummond about Thatcher or her political philosophy. Nor should you attempt to present better form of the English language than an educated Englishman. As I found out in our little Thatcher/Churchill debate Lady Thatcher was at least Churchill's equal and thus I quickly lost my premise that she was not.. The man has no false bravado and knows hid P's and Q's far, far better than most. You guys may forget that I know him from another forum(where we first met) and have seen him reduce his opposition to bread crumbs(way past toast) as easily as I can shoot a zig-zagging running rabbit at 30 yards with my favorite 12ga pump shotgun. He aint no slouch amigo not by a long shot IMHO..

However, do not let my words put any afearin' in ya'.. Iffin' ya' feelz froggy go ahaid and jump. ;)-Tyr

I've FINALLY found myself free to post you a 'reputation', Tyr ... and it was well timed .. !

Thanks very much for your comment - to say the least, it's much appreciated !:beer:

[... besides, don't forget your OWN participation on that original forum ... you did a splendid job there !]

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've FINALLY found myself free to post you a 'reputation', Tyr ... and it was well timed .. !

Thanks very much for your comment - to say the least, it's much appreciated !:beer:

[... besides, don't forget your OWN participation on that original forum ... you did a splendid job there !]
I sure did my good friend . I am a fantastic loser.. ;)
I lose with style and grace exceptin' when I don't.. --:laugh:
I tell you that was the best loss I ever had the pleasure of admitting. I learned a damn lot about Lady Thatcher and even more about your character.

You know should mi amigo fj decide to debate you he could get pointers from that thread. Only fair since you being a Brit and her being your favorite politician you have a built in advantage. ;)-Tyr

[Drummond]

I sure did my good friend . I am a fantastic loser.. ;)
I lose with style and grace exceptin' when I don't.. --:laugh:
I tell you that was the best loss I ever had the pleasure of admitting. I learned a damn lot about Lady Thatcher and even more about your character.

You know should mi amigo fj decide to debate you he could get pointers from that thread. Only fair since you being a Brit and her being your favorite politician you have a built in advantage. ;)-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thanks again !:cheers2:

FJ, I hope you're taking notes. You'd be well advised to take Tyr up on his suggestion of visiting the thread where Tyr and I debated. If you really are serious about identifying with Mrs Thatcher's philosophies, and want to understand more about her, I'm confident that the thread will prove instructive for you.

[Gaffer]

Progressivism, another name for socialism. Govt control of everything. That was so hard, next?

[aboutime]

Progressivism....Socialism, often also associated with, and defined as Democracy. Which is why Democrats/Progressives use the Democracy word to describe what they THINK, and BELIEVE is, and should be what The United States of America is today.

But Democracy...aka Progressivism...are both the Unspeakable definitions of MOB RULE.

So. Progressivism/Socialism/Democracy/Liberalism/Communism are actually forms of MARXIST thinking.

Just look at how PUTIN is using it today.

[fj1200]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::coff ee::lol::lol:

:shrug: You didn't even take a stab at the topic before bringing up your previous failures. I'm amazed at how you can turn a thread away from a topic and into your imagination so quickly; it only took one line.


Is that an order, FJ ?


Still -- debate is why we're here. Hopefully, FJ, you'll find all I've provided helpful.

That was a cool post and all but Mags isn't the question. It's also overly simplistic to blather out Socialism/Progressivism IMO. But debate is why we're here though I do constantly have to deal with you yelling into an empty room.

[fj1200]

FJ, I suggest that you not try to debate with Drummond about Thatcher or her political philosophy.

1. Why would I?, and B. I didn't bring up the Thatchinator anywhere in the OP; hell it consisted of a question and one word and the only connection to it being related to a particular country from across the pond was that I typed it in the English language. Which brings up my next point; the man can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag without bringing up his usual blather.

[fj1200]

Progressivism, another name for socialism. Govt control of everything. That was so hard, next?

A bit simplistic IMO, consider this:


Progressivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) is a broad political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) based on the Idea of Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress), which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_development), and social organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organization) can improve the human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition).

I mean, how can progress be bad right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. Why would I?, and B. I didn't bring up the Thatchinator anywhere in the OP; hell it consisted of a question and one word and the only connection to it being related to a particular country from across the pond was that I typed it in the English language. Which brings up my next point; the man can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag without bringing up his usual blather.



1. Why would I?,
^^^^^^^ Wise choice... -Tyr


I didn't bring up the Thatchinator anywhere in the OP; hell it consisted of a question and one word and the only connection to it being related to a particular country from across the pond was that I typed it in the English language.
^^^^You brought up Progressivism which Lady Thatcher ever so dearly detested. Drummond replied with that information and attached it to your recent comments about Lady Thatcher. Myself, I thought that maybe you would attempt to school him on it all.-;) (me love a good fight).-Tyr


Which brings up my next point; the man can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag without bringing up his usual blather.
^^^^ A bit bold to say after refusing to engage in one with him amigo. I hope my words about his abilities did not mistakenly intimidate you because undoubtedly his opposition(he easily destroyed) at the other forum was surely not in your league. -Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^^^^^ Wise choice... -Tyr

Don't get me wrong. I'd still smoke him. :slap:


^^^^You brought up Progressivism which Lady Thatcher ever so dearly detested. Drummond replied with that information and attached it to your recent comments about Lady Thatcher. Myself, I thought that maybe you would attempt to school him on it all.-;) (me love a good fight).-Tyr

I have made no comments about Mags, I merely asked a question. Some people just have a propensity to bring up unrelated subjects when they have no other constructive comments.


^^^^ A bit bold to say after refusing to engage in one with him amigo. I hope my words about his abilities did not mistakenly intimidate you because undoubtedly his opposition(he easily destroyed) at the other forum was surely not in your league. -Tyr

:laugh: As soon as he's able to engage in a constructive discussion without his crutches then you can bring that up again. I've never known someone who imagined the positions of others more so than he. ;)

[Drummond]

I have made no comments about Mags, I merely asked a question. Some people just have a propensity to bring up unrelated subjects when they have no other constructive comments.


I didn't bring up the Thatchinator anywhere in the OP

You're the only person I know of who'd ever dream of calling Lady Thatcher the 'Thatchinator', FJ.

But here's the point, isn't it ? You, as a supposed Thatcher supporter, would be very well aware of Lady Thatcher's hatred of Progressivism, AND what it was based on. After all, you're asking a question which her philosophy amply ANSWERS !! In having that knowledge, IF you were the supporter of her you claim to be, you couldn't help but see the posing of your question as a redundant and rather useless exercise.

But you didn't see any of that at all, did you ?

My earlier posting answers you, as you SHOULD already be aware that it does.

Or, if what I've posted is too much for you to handle, I simply refer you to Gaffer's answer instead.

[Drummond]

A bit simplistic IMO, consider this:


Progressivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) is a broad political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) based on the Idea of Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress), which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_development), and social organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organization) can improve the human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition).


I mean, how can progress be bad right?

SO YOU REJECT LADY THATCHER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD 'PROGRESSIVISM' ???

Even your own Wikipedia link includes this ...


The Progressive Movement, historically associated with left-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries

.. OR .. are you in fact saying that Progressivism, IS 'progress' .. ?? You apparently openly question how it can be bad .. which is a VERY strange thing for a Thatcher supporter to do !!!!!

FJ, when are you going to stop digging yourself into a remarkably deep pit ?

[fj1200]

You're the only person I know of who'd ever dream of calling Lady Thatcher the 'Thatchinator', FJ.

But here's the point, isn't it ?

You know, you can keep blathering on about the Thatchmeister and her Progressivism views but the real point is I don't care. I didn't start a thread titled, "What Mags thinks about Progressivism and why it's bad?", I posted it to actual people who may have an opinion on the subject and like to talk about things. When I want to read about the Thatchinator's views on Progressivism, or anything else for that matter, I'll look it up; I'm well versed in the ways of the interwebinator and its many uses.

So, what's it going to be? Progressivism: what it is and why it's bad? or anything BUT the actual topic?

[fj1200]

SO YOU REJECT LADY THATCHER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD 'PROGRESSIVISM' ???

Even your own Wikipedia link includes this ...


The Progressive Movement, historically associated with left-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries

.. OR .. are you in fact saying that Progressivism, IS 'progress' .. ?? You apparently openly question how it can be bad .. which is a VERY strange thing for a Thatcher supporter to do !!!!!

FJ, when are you going to stop digging yourself into a remarkably deep pit ?

:facepalm99: When you start telling me what you think rather than what Mags says, that'll be cool. When you start adding information that is not in question, that'll be cool. When you stop arguing with your own imagination and attempt to parse every little word, that'll be cool.

[aboutime]

Once again. fj presents the real identity without being intelligent enough to realize it.

fj actually sounds like a spoiled, miserable, trouble-making teen who has been convinced, by mommy and daddy; how his special educational background with other miserable, spoiled, immature trouble making teens gives him special rights to make everyone else as miserable, and as much a victim of trouble as possible.

In other words. FJ only comes here to stir the pot, throw the mudballs, make accusations, pretend to be so much more intelligent than everyone else...all while waiting for someone to pay more attention, and energize his immature ego.

[Drummond]

You know, you can keep blathering on about the Thatchmeister and her Progressivism views but the real point is I don't care.

That's the 'real point', is it, FJ ?? Oho. What a giveaway ! IF YOU WERE GENUINELY A THATCHERITE' YOU WOULD CARE !!


I didn't start a thread titled, "What Mags thinks about Progressivism and why it's bad?"

Yes, I noticed, thanks.


.. I posted it to actual people who may have an opinion on the subject and like to talk about things.

So, what kind of supporter of a person's philosophy deliberately refuses to SUPPORT it, when there's a chance to ? How many contributors here hide their allegiances ??


When I want to read about the Thatchinator's views on Progressivism, or anything else for that matter, I'll look it up

What do you mean, 'you'll look it up' .. DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU CLAIM TO SUPPORT ??

Besides, FJ, that particular view is about as central to all she stood for as you can get !!!! Why, whatever let you think that you'd need to check on what her view on Progressivism, or Socialism (as Gaffer points out, THEY'RE THE SAME THING) really was ??

FJ, heyyy ... that's one whopping great hole you're digging for yourself. More and more, you're proving yourself to be ignorant of the very views you supposedly 'ally' yourself to !!


So, what's it going to be? Progressivism: what it is and why it's bad? or anything BUT the actual topic?

Since I am genuine in my allegiance to Lady Thatcher's viewpoint, naturally my views coincide with her own. This thread has already made plain what they are. Had YOU been what you claimed to be, you'd have seen nothing to usefully debate ... UNLESS it was to invite counterpoints to that very viewpoint.

But, as you've admitted, you could have reason to CHECK OUT Lady Thatcher's views on Progressivism !! Ergo ... AS I'VE SAID BEFORE ... YOU ARE NOT AS ADVERTISED.

Whoops ......

[fj1200]

That's the 'real point', is it, FJ ? Blah, Blah, blah...

No, the real point is that you have no independent thought.

[Drummond]

Once again. fj presents the real identity without being intelligent enough to realize it.

fj actually sounds like a spoiled, miserable, trouble-making teen who has been convinced, by mommy and daddy; how his special educational background with other miserable, spoiled, immature trouble making teens gives him special rights to make everyone else as miserable, and as much a victim of trouble as possible.

In other words. FJ only comes here to stir the pot, throw the mudballs, make accusations, pretend to be so much more intelligent than everyone else...all while waiting for someone to pay more attention, and energize his immature ego.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly right, Aboutime ... and with breathtaking arrogance, too ! He's now, actually, openly admitted that he has no regard at all for the very viewpoints central to Lady Thatcher and all she stood for. If her life and career stood for anything, it was to defeat Progressivism entirely. Now, FJ claims not to care about the view which defined her life's work !!

It's as you say. All we see here is an ego at work. There's nothing of actual substance behind it, apparently.

[Drummond]

No, the real point is that you have no independent thought.

To get this straight: you feel I should have views which are outside of what Lady Thatcher advocated ?

Well ... I have my own mind, my own thought processes. But here's what's so curious - why would a self-proclaimed 'Thatcherite' invite me to depart from Lady Thatcher's own thinking ??

It makes no sense. None at all. UNLESS, you are not what you claim to be !

[fj1200]

... I have my own mind...

I've seen no evidence of that. When someone asks me about tax policy I don't parrot Reagan.

[Drummond]

I've seen no evidence of that. When someone asks me about tax policy I don't parrot Reagan.

I'm not surprised. What Leftie would ?

So explain why you think that having and expressing views which are at all outside Lady Thatcher's philosophy is a good way to be loyal to her views ?

Have you not yet grasped the fact that your 'stance' is so illogical as to be unbelievable ?

[aboutime]

I'm not surprised. What Leftie would ?

So explain why you think that having and expressing views which are at all outside Lady Thatcher's philosophy is a good way to be loyal to her views ?

Have you not yet grasped the fact that your 'stance' is so illogical as to be unbelievable ?


Sir Drummond. Isn't it refreshing to note, or recognize how NOW....fj almost sounds like the last RAT on the sinking TITANIC?

Pushed into a corner with no means of escape. Seems like fj should just take Lincoln's words of advice about "Allowing a fool to prove he is a fool...by letting them continue to speak."

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Isn't it refreshing to note, or recognize how NOW....fj almost sounds like the last RAT on the sinking TITANIC?

Pushed into a corner with no means of escape. Seems like fj should just take Lincoln's words of advice about "Allowing a fool to prove he is a fool...by letting them continue to speak.":laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can't better this. Exactly .. well said !

[fj1200]

I'm not surprised. What Leftie would ?

So explain why you think that having and expressing views which are at all outside Lady Thatcher's philosophy is a good way to be loyal to her views ?

Have you not yet grasped the fact that your 'stance' is so illogical as to be unbelievable ?

So... you've proven to be nothing more than a parrot. It's just a shame that you get so riled up when I prove to be a better Thatcherite than you. :shrug:


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can't better this. Exactly .. well said !

I see two stooges can be just as stupid without your third. ;)

[Drummond]

So... you've proven to be nothing more than a parrot.

If, by that remark, you mean that I have the privilege of being totally supportive of Margaret Thatcher's outlook and views, then if that leads me to being a 'parrot', that's just fine !!


It's just a shame that you get so riled up when I prove to be a better Thatcherite than you. :shrug:

Since you're trying to goad me into DIVERGING from Mrs Thatcher's line ... I hardly think you're proving any such thing about yourself !!

It's a bizarre form of 'supporter' who wants people to NOT replicate, or openly and unreservedly support, the very things he'd surely claim to support himself !!!

FJ, you're obviously desperate to try and gain some sort of 'moral high ground' ... which, given your circumstances and the great hole you've dug for yourself, is most definitely a non-starter ! I genuinely SUPPORT Lady Thatcher's outlook and views. I prove it by making that support evident.

I am proud to do so. And you can't goad me into doing otherwise ...:slap:


I see two stooges can be just as stupid without your third. ;)

Tut tut.

Pitiful.

[fj1200]

... me to being a 'parrot', that's just fine !!

No, that would be your unthinking, government-centric positions you keep carrying on about and calling "conservative." Parrots don't know what they're saying, they just "speak." :dunno:

[aboutime]

The S.S. FJ is sinking......http://icansayit.com/images/ratsinker.jpg

[Drummond]

The S.S. FJ is sinking......http://icansayit.com/images/ratsinker.jpg:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

Well, progressivism actually started out well-enough back in the Renaissance. Back then, it was about progress in technology, science, and medicine being able to ease the toil of man. It evolved here during the Industrial Revolution, as a backlash against the laissez-faire capitalism that was running the day.

However, the current face of it has become something quite different now. Modern progressivism leans toward an ever expanding, ever more powerful central government, despite advances in technology and science that could make it leaner and more efficient. One need only look at some of the zero-tolerance policies in schools, or constantly looking to government for the fix to whatever ails us as a country.

The main problem with this is, of course, that government right now is what ails us. We wouldn't need to speak about extra taxes for anyone, save that the government itself needs the money. Most progressive policies on the books require a constant expansion of their bounds, as well as the money needed to operate them.

The problem is seeing progress as an end in and of itself is the simple point that sometimes, continued forward motion is a bad thing. Sometimes what you need is to sit still and let things level off naturally without direct intervention, and then, when things are stable, move forward. This is not what modern progressivism does. Instead, it constantly seeks to making constant changes to the structure in order to stabilize it without wondering about their net effect on stability itself.

[Drummond]

No, that would be your unthinking, government-centric positions you keep carrying on about and calling "conservative." Parrots don't know what they're saying, they just "speak." :dunno:

Strange. 'Parrots don't know what they're saying' ... yet I have greater familiarity with Lady Thatcher's viewpoints, and achievements, than you.

Her hatred of Progressivism, her desire to defeat it whenever she could.

Her attitude towards fiscal prudence, which you seem oblivious of ...

I had to tell YOU, some time ago, of the very existence of the Thatcher Foundation (!!!), her greatest legacy !! ..

Your admission, earlier in this thread, of maybe having a need of greater research about her ...

FJ, Aboutime is spot on about you. This is just a joke. I needn't continue with this .. your credibility is sinking without trace.

[aboutime]

Strange. 'Parrots don't know what they're saying' ... yet I have greater familiarity with Lady Thatcher's viewpoints, and achievements, than you.

Her hatred of Progressivism, her desire to defeat it whenever she could.

Her attitude towards fiscal prudence, which you seem oblivious of ...

I had to tell YOU, some time ago, of the very existence of the Thatcher Foundation (!!!), her greatest legacy !! ..

Your admission, earlier in this thread, of maybe having a need of greater research about her ...

FJ, Aboutime is spot on about you. This is just a joke. I needn't continue with this .. your credibility is sinking without trace.



Sir Drummond. Looks like the HORSE just wants to DIE OF THIRST!:laugh:

[Drummond]

Well, progressivism actually started out well-enough back in the Renaissance. Back then, it was about progress in technology, science, and medicine being able to ease the toil of man. It evolved here during the Industrial Revolution, as a backlash against the laissez-faire capitalism that was running the day.

However, the current face of it has become something quite different now. Modern progressivism leans toward an ever expanding, ever more powerful central government, despite advances in technology and science that could make it leaner and more efficient. One need only look at some of the zero-tolerance policies in schools, or constantly looking to government for the fix to whatever ails us as a country.

The main problem with this is, of course, that government right now is what ails us. We wouldn't need to speak about extra taxes for anyone, save that the government itself needs the money. Most progressive policies on the books require a constant expansion of their bounds, as well as the money needed to operate them.

The problem is seeing progress as an end in and of itself is the simple point that sometimes, continued forward motion is a bad thing. Sometimes what you need is to sit still and let things level off naturally without direct intervention, and then, when things are stable, move forward. This is not what modern progressivism does. Instead, it constantly seeks to making constant changes to the structure in order to stabilize it without wondering about their net effect on stability itself.

The modern interpretation is one of Progressivism and Socialism being interchangeable terms. Arguably, the Left hijacked that term to try and add respectability or a popular image to their stinking poison. Regardless, it was this that Lady Thatcher despised with every fibre of her being.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Looks like the HORSE just wants to DIE OF THIRST!:laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Really, Aboutime, it's getting too pitiful for words. I think maybe I'll just leave FJ to his own devices in this thread.

That's the great thing about all this. Regardless of the image painted, the TRUTH has to emerge sooner or later. And ... here it is .....

[aboutime]

The modern interpretation is one of Progressivism and Socialism being interchangeable terms. Arguably, the Left hijacked that term to try and add respectability or a popular image to their stinking poison. Regardless, it was this that Lady Thatcher despised with every fibre of her being.


Sir Drummond. Something else many have forgotten since the ADVENT of the Obama/Progressive/Muslim brotherhood programs have been permitted to grow is....

Our Democrat...Liberal, Uneducated Politicians felt they were being unfairly accused of proper stupidity by many of us...when we called them Democrat...vice Liberal. Both of which, they now insist...should be replaced with PROGRESSIVE. As if it would suddenly change their ideology in any way other than to Destroy America.
Much like Obama and his gang have rejected the use of ILLEGALS, TERRORISTS, RADICAL MUSLIMS, and RADICAL ISLAMISTS.

Our DEM-LIB-PROGRESSIVES in Politics simply can't find that HAPPY-PHONY-MEDIUM that makes them feel more powerful over the Growing, Under-educated, Information starved Voters they need to survive.

Seems like DP has a few of those...I called RATS. But...(DON'T TELL THEM I SAID SO).

[DragonStryk72]

The modern interpretation is one of Progressivism and Socialism being interchangeable terms. Arguably, the Left hijacked that term to try and add respectability or a popular image to their stinking poison. Regardless, it was this that Lady Thatcher despised with every fibre of her being.

Well, that and, more recently, 9/11 over here cause a giant wave of fear, and regardless of what your political beliefs are, the handling of that fear was absolutely horrible. Instead of "we have naught to fear, but fear itself", we went to "Welcome to 24-hour fear network! All fear, all the time!". It's made us horribly paranoid, with many people seeing almost every day activities now as potentially hazardous.

We've seen evidence of this in some of the more idiotic stories of completely unreasonable safety "precautions" in schools, daycares, and the like. This extends to our government as well, though. We keep thinking there's a government solution for every problem, and there just isn't. In fact, there many ways in which our government handles it's social affairs that is almost in direct opposition to what would be real progress.

[fj1200]

Strange. 'Parrots don't know what they're saying' ...

Exactly, which explains your posts. For someone who touts their "abilities" it doesn't take much to turn you into a complete nutter. I'll wait for 'at' to bail you out with some more idiotic trolling to give you another avenue by which to demonize.

[fj1200]

The modern interpretation is one of Progressivism and Socialism being interchangeable terms. Arguably, the Left hijacked that term to try and add respectability or a popular image to their stinking poison. Regardless, it was this that Lady Thatcher despised with every fibre of her being.

Which was why I started the thread with the "what it is" part before the "why it's bad" part. :slap:

[Kathianne]

Well, progressivism actually started out well-enough back in the Renaissance. Back then, it was about progress in technology, science, and medicine being able to ease the toil of man. It evolved here during the Industrial Revolution, as a backlash against the laissez-faire capitalism that was running the day.

However, the current face of it has become something quite different now. Modern progressivism leans toward an ever expanding, ever more powerful central government, despite advances in technology and science that could make it leaner and more efficient. One need only look at some of the zero-tolerance policies in schools, or constantly looking to government for the fix to whatever ails us as a country.

The main problem with this is, of course, that government right now is what ails us. We wouldn't need to speak about extra taxes for anyone, save that the government itself needs the money. Most progressive policies on the books require a constant expansion of their bounds, as well as the money needed to operate them.

The problem is seeing progress as an end in and of itself is the simple point that sometimes, continued forward motion is a bad thing. Sometimes what you need is to sit still and let things level off naturally without direct intervention, and then, when things are stable, move forward. This is not what modern progressivism does. Instead, it constantly seeks to making constant changes to the structure in order to stabilize it without wondering about their net effect on stability itself.

Other than the 'start date' you pretty much summed up what I would use as an introduction. The 'progressive movement' to my way of thinking in the US grew out of the reform movement, picking up steam in post-Reconstruction/IR era and exploding under Teddy Roosevelt. While the 'reform movement' always had some 'issues' the were trying to bring to being addressed by government (women rights; penal reform; education for poor; mental health; civil rights/abolition; prohibition), the progressives were much more attuned to political machinations and the forming of public opinion.

While the reformers tended to be 'religious or spiritual' in their philosophical bent, (i.e. the reformers had women's rights and prohibition as goals since revolutionary times, even colonial time; yet slavery and child issues kept women issues secondary until nearly 2 decades into the 20th C.); the progressives began and quickly accelerated a political method towards issues they thought would 'sell' candidates.

[fj1200]

Well, progressivism actually started out well-enough back in the Renaissance. Back then, it was about progress in technology, science, and medicine being able to ease the toil of man. It evolved here during the Industrial Revolution, as a backlash against the laissez-faire capitalism that was running the day.

However, the current face of it has become something quite different now. Modern progressivism leans toward an ever expanding, ever more powerful central government, despite advances in technology and science that could make it leaner and more efficient. One need only look at some of the zero-tolerance policies in schools, or constantly looking to government for the fix to whatever ails us as a country.

The main problem with this is, of course, that government right now is what ails us. We wouldn't need to speak about extra taxes for anyone, save that the government itself needs the money. Most progressive policies on the books require a constant expansion of their bounds, as well as the money needed to operate them.

The problem is seeing progress as an end in and of itself is the simple point that sometimes, continued forward motion is a bad thing. Sometimes what you need is to sit still and let things level off naturally without direct intervention, and then, when things are stable, move forward. This is not what modern progressivism does. Instead, it constantly seeks to making constant changes to the structure in order to stabilize it without wondering about their net effect on stability itself.

OMG, thank you. A well-thought out reply. My faith in humanity is restored and possibly kept this thread from being cage material. :beer:

The first bold is exactly the point I have been thinking about. Free men making free decisions lead to optimal outcomes but what happens when man is not able to make free decisions? When you have something like the IR that displaces a large portion of society, migration from farms to cities at the turn of the century for example, you see where capital has the advantage over labor where 6-day work weeks and 12-hour days become the norm along with child labor and unsafe conditions. Is "progressivism" that seeks to restore some sort of balance inherently evil? There are times in society where "sitting still" allows what might be a market failure to continue.

Now the problem with modern progressivism, liberalism, etc. is that it does seek to expand and is ideologically driven not solution driven. You can see the same thing with ACA, it didn't start out with determining the true causes of the problems with health care and divining better solutions, it merely stated the problems and assumed that advancing regulations would solve them (or was at least sold that way).

Sitting still and letting things stabilize is an unwise choice when there are obvious failings in the status quo. Sitting still allows those with the message of expansive progressivism to dominate the conversation over that of corrective progressivism.

[Kathianne]

It's CW that the conservatives are static in what they want; when actually that is the problem with the so-called progressives. They want the ball to keep rolling towards more and more government, though the writing is on the wall that the outcome is unsustainable. More government regulation is the answer, the only answer.

Sometimes change means looking at what has worked and bringing it up-to-date.

[fj1200]

^That was certainly the meme with Republicans and ACA, "they have no alternatives," never mind the raft of Republican proposals that had been ignored by about everyone. There is a rare day though when Liberals will change course, albeit temporarily, and propose a rollback of regulations or taxes. The Democrats were the sponsors of the '86 tax reform bill and let's not forget my favorite Democrat Alfred Kahn who was able to convince the powers that be to do a bit of deregulating during '79 and '80.

[Drummond]

Which was why I started the thread with the "what it is" part before the "why it's bad" part. :slap:

Back to your crossings-out, I see. I view them as a sign of desperation on your part .. usually. But as for ....


<strike>Regardless, it was this that Lady Thatcher despised with every fibre of her being.</strike>

... perhaps that one was enjoyed ?

Discussing this more seriously ... I still don't see that anything is being achieved in this thread other than a logical 'circle' that'll close in on itself and just lead to an affirmation of the status quo. Using DragonStryk's post as a benchmark ... what's surely being discussed are two forms of Progressivism, according to the age it belonged to. The first was a less focused version of Progressivism, which opposed the form of capitalism prevalent in past ages. The second was just another form of the same thing, only more refined and more 'statist' in nature ... and recognisable as being Socialist.

FJ - you've accused me, rather rudely (yet typically so), of being a mere 'parrot' in repeating Margaret Thatcher's views as she expressed them and as they're agreed to be in form and nature. BUT ... an examination of what she believed, what she had to say, ANSWERS ANY PRACTICAL OBJECTION TO PROGRESSIVISM, REGARDLESS OF ITS PRECISE FORM.

So what we have, FJ, through your questioning, is your refusal to take on board what Lady Thatcher was all about .. and my original objection STANDS.

I therefore have just the same problem as before ... namely, to wonder why you're asking a question to which you should not only already know the answer, but be committed to that approach as a matter of absolute faith. You claim to be a 'Thatcherite'. OK .. so why aren't you as implacably opposed to Progressivism, as she was ? Conservatism is pro-Capitalism, and pro-freedom. Socialism is anti-Capitalism, and goes further, requiring State intervention at as many levels, and as completely, as possible.

Lady Thatcher understood all of this. Her beliefs are well known, and I have done an adequate job of rendering them. Except ... that in doing so, you just accuse me of being 'a parrot'.

Being loyal to a belief system, advocating it, representing it when it's called for ... this role extends FAR beyond mere 'parroting', FJ. And this is what I've done. Your response ? Scorn. 'Rubbishing' my contribution .. a contribution YOU SHOULD HAVE CERTAIN AND UNWAVERING LOYALTY TOWARDS.

I ask: WHY DON'T YOU ?

[fj1200]

Back to your crossings-out, I see. I view them as a sign of desperation on your part .. usually. But as for ....

... perhaps that one was enjoyed ?

:dunno:


Discussing this more seriously ... I still don't see that anything is being achieved in this thread other than a logical 'circle' that'll close in on itself and just lead to an affirmation of the status quo. Using DragonStryk's post as a benchmark ... what's surely being discussed are two forms of Progressivism, according to the age it belonged to. The first was a less focused version of Progressivism, which opposed the form of capitalism prevalent in past ages. The second was just another form of the same thing, only more refined and more 'statist' in nature ... and recognisable as being Socialist.

It seems you overlooked this in your earlier post:

Moreover, in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), the term "progressive" has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing.
...
In the UK there are several parties who claim to be progressive, including the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)), the Liberal Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats), the Scottish National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party), Plaid Cymru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaid_Cymru) and the Green Party of England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales). The current coalition between the Conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) and the Liberal Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats) also claims to be progressive.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#cite_note-26)


Mr Clegg agreed - but, unfortunately for Mr Brown, it was the Conservatives, traditionally seen as anything but progressive, that he formed the "progressive alliance" with.Explaining his logic, in a speech on Wednesday, he claimed Labour were now "old progressives", while the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition were "new progressives".
David Cameron, meanwhile, has been busy rebranding himself as a "progressive Conservative" since well before the general election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11785483

Nevertheless I already posted a response to DS, why don't you take a look see at post #48 and we'll go from there.


FJ - you've accused me, rather rudely (yet typically so), of being a mere 'parrot' in repeating Margaret Thatcher's views as she expressed them and as they're agreed to be in form and nature. BUT ... an examination of what she believed, what she had to say, ANSWERS ANY PRACTICAL OBJECTION TO PROGRESSIVISM, REGARDLESS OF ITS PRECISE FORM.

So what we have, FJ, through your questioning, is your refusal to take on board what Lady Thatcher was all about .. and my original objection STANDS.

I therefore have just the same problem as before ... namely, to wonder why you're asking a question to which you should not only already know the answer, but be committed to that approach as a matter of absolute faith. You claim to be a 'Thatcherite'. OK .. so why aren't you as implacably opposed to Progressivism, as she was ? Conservatism is pro-Capitalism, and pro-freedom. Socialism is anti-Capitalism, and goes further, requiring State intervention at as many levels, and as completely, as possible.

Lady Thatcher understood all of this. Her beliefs are well known, and I have done an adequate job of rendering them. Except ... that in doing so, you just accuse me of being 'a parrot'.

Being loyal to a belief system, advocating it, representing it when it's called for ... this role extends FAR beyond mere 'parroting', FJ. And this is what I've done. Your response ? Scorn. 'Rubbishing' my contribution .. a contribution YOU SHOULD HAVE CERTAIN AND UNWAVERING LOYALTY TOWARDS.

I ask: WHY DON'T YOU ?

Only your imagination says I don't. Unless of course you can point to my posts that oppose capitalism and oppose freedom.

[Abbey Marie]

^ FYI, whoever used the yellow, it's unreadable.

[fj1200]

^psst. That was the idea. ;)

[DragonStryk72]

Other than the 'start date' you pretty much summed up what I would use as an introduction. The 'progressive movement' to my way of thinking in the US grew out of the reform movement, picking up steam in post-Reconstruction/IR era and exploding under Teddy Roosevelt. While the 'reform movement' always had some 'issues' the were trying to bring to being addressed by government (women rights; penal reform; education for poor; mental health; civil rights/abolition; prohibition), the progressives were much more attuned to political machinations and the forming of public opinion.

While the reformers tended to be 'religious or spiritual' in their philosophical bent, (i.e. the reformers had women's rights and prohibition as goals since revolutionary times, even colonial time; yet slavery and child issues kept women issues secondary until nearly 2 decades into the 20th C.); the progressives began and quickly accelerated a political method towards issues they thought would 'sell' candidates.

Yeah, progressivism started out as a pretty great thing. In the Ren., it was about using improved technology for things like better sewer system, medicine to stave off plagues or lessen the effects of plagues, as well as science to improve cities.


OMG, thank you. A well-thought out reply. My faith in humanity is restored and possibly kept this thread from being cage material. :beer:

lol, yeah, it seemed to be getting pretty bad, so I figured I'd chime in.


The first bold is exactly the point I have been thinking about. Free men making free decisions lead to optimal outcomes but what happens when man is not able to make free decisions? When you have something like the IR that displaces a large portion of society, migration from farms to cities at the turn of the century for example, you see where capital has the advantage over labor where 6-day work weeks and 12-hour days become the norm along with child labor and unsafe conditions. Is "progressivism" that seeks to restore some sort of balance inherently evil? There are times in society where "sitting still" allows what might be a market failure to continue.

Inherently evil, no. Very few philosophies are inherently evil, really. Forward progress can alleviate a lot of troubles, but it can also mean you just went off a cliff, and therein lies the problem.


Now the problem with modern progressivism, liberalism, etc. is that it does seek to expand and is ideologically driven not solution driven. You can see the same thing with ACA, it didn't start out with determining the true causes of the problems with health care and divining better solutions, it merely stated the problems and assumed that advancing regulations would solve them (or was at least sold that way).

Exactly, it was born out of a mode of thinking that went, "We must fix Healthcare", and then went into immediate motion, without holding in place long enough to determine what was actually wrong with healthcare, and where the most effective changes would be. This is essentially progressivism for the sake of progressing, as opposed to progressivism for the sake of Man.



Sitting still and letting things stabilize is an unwise choice when there are obvious failings in the status quo. Sitting still allows those with the message of expansive progressivism to dominate the conversation over that of corrective progressivism.

When I talk about sitting still, it is as a whole, not an individual. People, for the most part, don't seem to get that acting simply for the sake of acting can produce some of the most detrimental results out there. Progress is all well and good... if it's stable progress.

Okay, we'll use Iraq as an example here: Setting aside whether the war was morally/ethically alright, removing Saddam from power, and installing a new government, was progress. However, because we did not stabilize the country as went, and didn't make sure we had the situation stably under control, a great deal of progress in Iraq got swallowed up by the insurgency. Had we taken more time, secured cities, and generally made sure that we had total control first, we would likely not have seen the insurgency happen in the first place. Then we could have focused on progressing the government of Iraq, and the expansion of Democracy in the Middle East.

That's essentially what makes Progressivism bad: It must be rooted in a wrong that needs correction, and if it lingers on afterward, it begins to turn on itself. Progressivism wanted equal rights for women and minorites, and that was achieved.... and then it kept going, only without any real guiding principle.

It can be good, and many times has been, but due to the nature of Man, we don't usually stop a movement as soon as it has achieved its aim. What I think modern Progressivism needs to focus on are ways in which to reduce crime/recitivism, move inner cities away from gang culture, and how to make government smaller and more efficient. In those ways, I think we can see some real good happen, but it needs to stop after that for a time, in order to see what progress is needed, and how to apply it in a stable manner.

[fj1200]

When I talk about sitting still, it is as a whole, not an individual. People, for the most part, don't seem to get that acting simply for the sake of acting can produce some of the most detrimental results out there. Progress is all well and good... if it's stable progress.

...

It can be good, and many times has been, but due to the nature of Man, we don't usually stop a movement as soon as it has achieved its aim. What I think modern Progressivism needs to focus on are ways in which to reduce crime/recitivism, move inner cities away from gang culture, and how to make government smaller and more efficient. In those ways, I think we can see some real good happen, but it needs to stop after that for a time, in order to see what progress is needed, and how to apply it in a stable manner.

Thanks, but two points:

First, I know what you meant by sitting still but sometimes the act of doing nothing allows the problem to consolidate and fester. ACA as an example, there were/are problems in our HC system and the inaction gave those who wanted to "fix" the problem the space to start talking about the problems and once they got going, and elected, they had the momentum. For many reasons there was no chance for a conservative solution to HC at that point.

Second, I think that's part of the problem, anything can be rolled into 'Progressivism' so how can one demonize it without first properly defining it. I agree with the rest of your points though; action for the sake of action is not necessarily progress.

[Drummond]

^ FYI, whoever used the yellow, it's unreadable.

Sadly, this is one of the games that FJ plays. Honest debate has its place in FJ's world ... sometimes. Other times, I just see gimmicks. Like, crossings-out of text. The barely readable yellow font is definitely another gimmick.

A pity. For myself, I'd just value debate on its own, minus all the other stuff. But, maybe that's just me .. ?

[Little-Acorn]

"Progressivism" today is just another name for modern liberalism.

Liberals were finding that more and more normal Americans were discovering how destructive and debilitating liberalism was. Rather than learning their lesson and changing what they were doing, the liberals made up a new name to disguise themselves, without actually changing a thing.

They will probably hide behind this new name for another decade or two, until normal Americans discover once again that they are just the same old socialists, this time in a different sheep's clothing.

Then they'll make up yet another name for themselves, and hide behind it for another decade or two. But they'll never change their socialistic nature.

[Drummond]

It seems you overlooked this in your earlier post:

This refers to (for clarity) ..


Moreover, in Europe and Canada, the term "progressive" has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing....
In the UK there are several parties who claim to be progressive, including the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party of England and Wales. The current coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats also claims to be progressive.

The Labour Party is most DEFINITELY Left wing !! It's far and away the most Left wing mainstream Party the UK has.

The Liberal Democrats are also Left wing, but not to the same extreme. They could be said to be between Labour and the Conservatives in the UK political spectrum.

The SNP is a Scottish, highly nationalistic form of a Left wing Party.

Plaid Cymru is somewhat Left wing, an approximate equivalent (if also a less successful one) of the SNP, serving Welsh interests.

The Green Party has a history of standing for causes which the Labour Party has itself tried to call its own. Nuclear disarmament comes to mind, which was a passion of Michael Foot, a Labour Party leader of the 1980's. Other 'Green' issues have been adopted to varying degrees by Labour over the years.

It originally grew out of a Party calling itself the 'People Party', then reinvented itself a couple of more times before settling down into its current identity. I'm not sure it can actually be called Left wing as such, although Lefties find their causes identifiable as Leftie-friendly ones.

As for the current Conservative/LibDem Coalition, this consists of a Coalition borne of an indecisive election outcome in 2010. To form a stable Government, the Conservatives had to ally themselves with the LibDems to get anything done at all. So it was that Conservative ideals and policy commitments have been dragged Leftwards over the lifetime of this Parliament.

[The Deputy Prime Minister is the LibDem leader.]

That said .. the LibDems are themselves highly critical of Labour's fiscal irresponsibility when Labour was in power. Small rifts in policy-making have appeared, though both Parties recognise the absolute value of commitment to our austerity package ... since, after all, its alternative is the more loony Labour/Left wing brand of recklessness they'd love to re-institute if they ever get a chance !

David Cameron ? Disturbingly 'Progressive' is a fair description. He's no Margaret Thatcher. His proclaimed 'love' of our NHS ... and his staunch support of gay rights, actually taken to the extent of support for gay marriage ... this definitely qualifies him for the 'Progressive' tag.

AFTER ALL - OUR LEFT WINGERS CAN IDENTIFY WITH ALL OF THAT !!

Here's the point. Identify anything in UK politics as 'Progressive', and it'd be impossible to use that term without its association with Left-wing thought or action.


Only your imagination says I don't. Unless of course you can point to my posts that oppose capitalism and oppose freedom.

Since your outlook, especially fiscally, essentially clones the LABOUR PARTY'S approach ... it must follow that you are committed .. consciously or otherwise (I'm being charitable) .. with a cornerstone of what they stand for. And Labour, being the furthest Left-wing Party we have that cannot qualify for 'Communist' status (and they've scraped pretty near to it, in their history !!) is as near to opposing capitalism and individual freedoms as anyone could realistically dream of being, within mainstream British politics !!!!!

[Drummond]

"Progressivism" today is just another name for modern liberalism.

Liberals were finding that more and more normal Americans were discovering how destructive and debilitating liberalism was. Rather than learning their lesson and changing what they were doing, the liberals made up a new name to disguise themselves, without actually changing a thing.

They will probably hide behind this new name for another decade or two, until normal Americans discover once again that they are just the same old socialists, this time in a different sheep's clothing.

Then they'll make up yet another name for themselves, and hide behind it for another decade or two. But they'll never change their socialistic nature.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[aboutime]

Sadly, this is one of the games that FJ plays. Honest debate has its place in FJ's world ... sometimes. Other times, I just see gimmicks. Like, crossings-out of text. The barely readable yellow font is definitely another gimmick.

A pity. For myself, I'd just value debate on its own, minus all the other stuff. But, maybe that's just me .. ?


Sir Drummond. Have no fear. There's an obvious reason fj decided to use YELLOW. Without saying it. The yellow is very telling about fj. And so appropriate too!

[fj1200]

Sadly, this is one of the games that FJ plays. Honest debate has its place in FJ's world ... sometimes. Other times, I just see gimmicks. Like, crossings-out of text. The barely readable yellow font is definitely another gimmick.

A pity. For myself, I'd just value debate on its own, minus all the other stuff. But, maybe that's just me .. ?

:laugh: Your MO is "all the other stuff." :laugh: When you have no capacity to discuss the topic we need to hear you blather on about Hamas or your recitation of what Mags did 30 years ago. Get some new material dude.


Modern "Progressivism" today is just another name for modern liberalism.

More accurately.


Since your outlook, especially fiscally, essentially clones the LABOUR PARTY'S approach ... it must follow that you are committed .. consciously or otherwise (I'm being charitable) .. with a cornerstone of what they stand for.

The above is why you're dumb as F*.


David Cameron ? Disturbingly 'Progressive' is a fair description. He's no Margaret Thatcher. His proclaimed 'love' of our NHS ... and his staunch support of gay rights, actually taken to the extent of support for gay marriage ... this definitely qualifies him for the 'Progressive' tag.

:laugh: The above after you've gotten over regaling us with the brilliance of the current "conservatives" in charge over there. Unreal.

[aboutime]

:laugh: Your MO is "all the other stuff." :laugh: When you have no capacity to discuss the topic we need to hear you blather on about Hamas or your recitation of what Mags did 30 years ago. Get some new material dude.



More accurately.



The above is why you're dumb as F*.



:laugh: The above after you've gotten over regaling us with the brilliance of the current "conservatives" in charge over there. Unreal.



fj. If all of your whining above is true. Directed so harshly at Drummond.
Why would an Honest person feel such a need to DEFEND so much of your own BS?
That rat on the sinking ship seems to be taking YOUR last breath in defending the undefendable.

[Drummond]

:laugh: Your MO is "all the other stuff." :laugh: When you have no capacity to discuss the topic we need to hear you blather on about Hamas or your recitation of what Mags did 30 years ago. Get some new material dude.

The above is why you're dumb as F*.

:laugh: The above after you've gotten over regaling us with the brilliance of the current "conservatives" in charge over there. Unreal.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Hilarious ! FJ, for all your criticism of 'my' capacity for debate .. you'll happily devote posts to disparagement of your opponent, whenever things don't go your way !

If nothing else .. I'd suggest to you that a 'Thatcherite' shouldn't be nearly as dismissive as YOU want to be, about Lady Thatcher's achievements, speeches, her whole set of beliefs, from three decades ago .. or at ANY time .....

[fj1200]

.. you'll happily devote posts to disparagement of your opponent, whenever things don't go your way !

I don't do it happily. Sometimes your stupidity is just so overwhelming along with your complete inability to prove out your allegations. Your attempts to hide your cop-outs behind your irrelevant drivel is not unnoticed.

Besides, I'm not the one defending progressive "conservatives." ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

: I see two stooges can be just as stupid without your third. ;)

Care to name the third stooge?? Inquiring minds would like to know and even if they don't I would. I am an avid reader and read just about everybody's posts here. I view neither as a stooge but if you say there are three stooges here please give us the name of the third one.-Tyr

[fj1200]

^Shemp. ;)

[aboutime]

I don't do it happily. Sometimes your stupidity is just so overwhelming along with your complete inability to prove out your allegations. Your attempts to hide your cop-outs behind your irrelevant drivel is not unnoticed.

Besides, I'm not the one defending progressive "conservatives." ;)


But fj. If only you could see how comical your words are. When you talk so much about yourself like above. Do you look in a mirror while Typing? There's a cure for that. And you won't find it here.

[Drummond]

^Shemp. ;)

???????????????????????

Is this an Americanism I've never come across before, or are you now trying out a foreign language ?

[Drummond]

I don't do it happily.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

... no, of COURSE not ... I'll bet you're heartbroken when you indulge in that behaviour ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Sometimes your stupidity is just so overwhelming

You have such a flair for making yourself miserable, FJ ... :laugh::laugh::rolleyes::rolleyes:


.. along with your complete inability to prove out your allegations. Your attempts to hide your cop-outs behind your irrelevant drivel is not unnoticed.

I back up my comments. That you choose not to acknowledge my proofs .. such as, how bogus your 'Thatcherite' pretensions are ... is really not my problem.

[fj1200]

???????????????????????

That about sums it up.


I back up my comments. That you choose not to acknowledge my proofs .. such as, how bogus your 'Thatcherite' pretensions are ... is really not my problem.

Backing up your comments with the rantings of your imagination don't quite cut it in the real world. That you need to parse sentences in half only add to your aura of desperation.

But please, let me know when you have something to add to the topic.

[aboutime]

That about sums it up.



Backing up your comments with the rantings of your imagination don't quite cut it in the real world. That you need to parse sentences in half only add to your aura of desperation.

But please, let me know when you have something to add to the topic.


fj. So, how long have you been away from the Hospital with Nicholson, and Nurse Kratchet???

[Drummond]

Backing up your comments with the rantings of your imagination don't quite cut it in the real world. That you need to parse sentences in half only add to your aura of desperation.

But please, let me know when you have something to add to the topic.

Still 'thoroughly determined to make yourself miserable', I see .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You ask me to 'add something to the topic'. What you fail to explain is how you, the 'Thatcherite', fail to be satisfied with the quotes my previous post contained. I refer, of course, to THIS post ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45187-Progressivism-What-it-is-and-Why-it-s-Bad&p=686325#post686325

A Thatcherite should have no need, and think it inappropriate to try to, look outside of Lady Thatcher's own thinking. But .. here you are, doing just that, looking for more.

How come ?

[fj1200]

You ask me to 'add something to the topic'. What you fail to explain is how you, the 'Thatcherite', fail to be satisfied with the quotes my previous post contained. I refer, of course, to THIS post ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45187-Progressivism-What-it-is-and-Why-it-s-Bad&p=686325#post686325

A Thatcherite should have no need, and think it inappropriate to try to, look outside of Lady Thatcher's own thinking. But .. here you are, doing just that, looking for more.

How come ?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up a post I had no problem with seeing as how my response was:


That was a cool post and all but Mags isn't the question.

BTW, psst, this thread isn't about Mags. Keep copping out though because you suck at this.

[aboutime]

Still 'thoroughly determined to make yourself miserable', I see .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You ask me to 'add something to the topic'. What you fail to explain is how you, the 'Thatcherite', fail to be satisfied with the quotes my previous post contained. I refer, of course, to THIS post ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45187-Progressivism-What-it-is-and-Why-it-s-Bad&p=686325#post686325

A Thatcherite should have no need, and think it inappropriate to try to, look outside of Lady Thatcher's own thinking. But .. here you are, doing just that, looking for more.

How come ?


Sir Drummond. Take note how fj either refused to answer my question about the hospital, or he needs to remain quiet intentionally....to not disclose how he is still a patient there.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Take note how fj either refused to answer my question about the hospital, or he needs to remain quiet intentionally....to not disclose how he is still a patient there.

Definitely suspicious !! :laugh2:

[aboutime]

Definitely suspicious !! :laugh2:


:beer:

[Drummond]

BTW, psst, this thread isn't about Mags. Keep copping out though because you suck at this.

I see you're enjoying the different font colours available to you on this forum. Oh well, it keeps you occupied, I suppose - you prefer gimmicks to actual debate ?

Talking of debate -- yes, I'm aware that the thread 'isn't about Mags', as you put it. And in fact, that's part of why your whole approach is so 'puzzling' .. you being a, ahem, 'Thatcherite'.

I've pointed this out already .. maybe I'll need to again. Fact is, FJ, that if you are familiar with what Lady Thatcher stood for in her life (.. and haven't I already shown that you aren't ?), you'll be well aware of what she understood Progressivism to be, how much she hated it, how her opposition to it defined her actions and her political career.

And 'if' you're not .. then I've nonetheless provided you with enough material to set you straight on that.

So I keep coming back to why you're continuing to show us thoughts on the subject which are uncharacteristic of Lady Thatcher's own thinking .. IF YOU ARE A 'THATCHERITE'. Why would you entertain doubts, or think to indulge questions ? Why would you depart from the scope of that which you claim to support ?

Cue more gimmickry as a cop-out ?

[aboutime]

Constantly reminded to think about fj looking like http://icansayit.com/images/joncucko.jpg

My apologies to Jack Nicholson.

[fj1200]

... yes, I'm aware that the thread 'isn't about Mags'...

... why you're continuing to show us thoughts on the subject which are uncharacteristic of Lady Thatcher's own thinking ..

Point 1, doubtful.

Point 2, Socialism is bad mmkay.

Point 3, you still suck at this.

[aboutime]

Point 1, doubtful.

Point 2, Socialism is bad mmkay.

Point 3, you still suck at this.


fj. What are you complaining about now? If everyone is trying to be like you, and your Point 3. You should feel complimented that we try so hard to be....SO MUCH LIKE YOU.

[DragonStryk72]

Thanks, but two points:

First, I know what you meant by sitting still but sometimes the act of doing nothing allows the problem to consolidate and fester. ACA as an example, there were/are problems in our HC system and the inaction gave those who wanted to "fix" the problem the space to start talking about the problems and once they got going, and elected, they had the momentum. For many reasons there was no chance for a conservative solution to HC at that point.

Second, I think that's part of the problem, anything can be rolled into 'Progressivism' so how can one demonize it without first properly defining it. I agree with the rest of your points though; action for the sake of action is not necessarily progress.

Except that, while the ACA did correct some of those problems, it brought out a huge batch of new ones, like 14,000,000 people losing their insurance, many of whom were in the middle of treatment for very serious diseases like cancer, increasing premiums (pretty much the exact opposite of what we were shooting for), and yet another layer of red tape in the process. Had the ACA instead been targeting to what was actually wrong, it would have fared better, but progress on the bill did not stop at where it accomplished what it needed to accomplish, and thus, progress worked against itself. Again, progress past the point, and ending up sliding down the hill.

I think the biggest problem to progress at this point is that no one wants to make the numerous small, corrective adjustments that are actually needed to the existing systems. Every politician we have wants to do something huge, that people can clearly point to. Problem there being, because of how many times those huge things go right off the rails, it really just makes the existing problems worse.

[DragonStryk72]

I see you're enjoying the different font colours available to you on this forum. Oh well, it keeps you occupied, I suppose - you prefer gimmicks to actual debate ?

Talking of debate -- yes, I'm aware that the thread 'isn't about Mags', as you put it. And in fact, that's part of why your whole approach is so 'puzzling' .. you being a, ahem, 'Thatcherite'.

I've pointed this out already .. maybe I'll need to again. Fact is, FJ, that if you are familiar with what Lady Thatcher stood for in her life (.. and haven't I already shown that you aren't ?), you'll be well aware of what she understood Progressivism to be, how much she hated it, how her opposition to it defined her actions and her political career.

And 'if' you're not .. then I've nonetheless provided you with enough material to set you straight on that.

So I keep coming back to why you're continuing to show us thoughts on the subject which are uncharacteristic of Lady Thatcher's own thinking .. IF YOU ARE A 'THATCHERITE'. Why would you entertain doubts, or think to indulge questions ? Why would you depart from the scope of that which you claim to support ?

Cue more gimmickry as a cop-out ?

No, cue me telling you that he never said he was departing from the scope of it. In point of fact, he put up an actual debate here on our debate site. Oh fuck, you mean we're supposed to debate things here?

A person can oppose something, and still see a degree of merit in it. It's like how I'm not going vegan any time soon (meat is murder, and murder tastes good)- I'm opposed to it, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the thought behind it, and couldn't have a debate on the merits of veganism. It doesn't mean I'm getting any closer to giving up my triple slam cheeseburger with beef, chicken, and bacon on it any time soon.

Now, I get it: You've decided he's a liberal, and there's nothing for it but to troll him in every single thread so you can have the vague sense of a spine.... but it makes you no more correct than some dipshit saying sun orbits the moon. Just because you don't understand either what Progressivism actually is, nor do you understand what being an actual conservative is, doesn't mean any of us are under any obligation to continue letting your little delusion keep going.

Wanna prove me wrong? Then do it, because at least you defining Progressivism would be a part of the current debate. Oh, and your own words please, as I have yet to see proof that you actually understand what me and FJ are actually discussing. Ms. Thatcher, while certainly a well-spoken woman, was able to speak in her own words on numerous occasions. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to do the same, as a person who is "Proudly Thatcherite"

[Drummond]

No, cue me telling you that he never said he was departing from the scope of it.

Thank you so much for your valuable contribution ....

Since when was it necessary for someone to announce a debating intention before embarking on it ?


In point of fact, he put up an actual debate here on our debate site. Oh fuck, you mean we're supposed to debate things here?

Last time I checked, DragonStryk, a debating site was meant to be for debates. So, yes, I'd say we were ....

FJ, however, only sometimes actually debates ! Often we also see gimmickry entered into as well, not to mention gratuitously expressed put-downs (done for a hoped-for effect, which is rarely if ever achieved:laugh:). I for one don't find these conducive to worthwhile debate. That said -- I'm happy to give as good as I get.

But still, give FJ his due. YES, he did put up an actual debate here. The thing is, it was an odd subject to enter into, considering the context of FJ's supposedly being 'a Thatcherite'. Either a person stands for what they SAY they stand for, or they don't. In this case, it's just a bit like Simon Wiesenthal asking people to debate the merits or otherwise of the Holocaust !! You either nail your colours to the mast and STAND for what you SAY you stand for, or, you invite people the opportunity to shred it. Which ?


A person can oppose something, and still see a degree of merit in it.

Depends. If you believe in something sufficiently strongly, then I'd basically say the stronger the belief was, the less likely seeing merit in its opposite should be. In Margaret Thatcher's case, I am unaware that she ever found anything 'meritorious' AT ALL in Progressivism. Why would she, since it was the opposite of all she stood for and believed in ? SO ... on what basis would a staunch follower of hers take any other line ?


It's like how I'm not going vegan any time soon (meat is murder, and murder tastes good)- I'm opposed to it, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the thought behind it, and couldn't have a debate on the merits of veganism.

I see your point. But that still doesn't explain why you'd ever want to enter into such a debate ! You say, in your example, that you oppose veganism. So why would you want to enter into a debate designed to go into the merits of something you oppose ?? Do you WANT to have your beliefs knocked down ?

OK .. granted .. putting one's beliefs to the test, publicly, could be an interesting exercise. In which case - it makes a lot more sense to state those beliefs clearly, candidly, then invite opposition to them as the nature of that test. So .. if FJ had come at this from the point of view of his being a loyal Thatcherite, why not set out those beliefs first, then invite countering views ?

But FJ didn't do that, AT ALL. He kept the subject sufficiently unfocused as to skate over, maybe avoid altogether, what SHOULD have been detail of an abiding belief of his. I ask ... why ? Why do that ? If I post subject-matter for a thread and have a view, I post that view ! I don't AVOID posting it.

I believe this: that FJ asserts he's a Thatcherite, but lacks any detailed knowledge of that which he purports to represent. For example ... I established elsewhere that FJ knew nothing of the Thatcher Foundation, which is odd, since this was her legacy to the world after her death !! I had to - twice over ! - test the fact of that knowledge, then ultimately clue FJ in !


Now, I get it: You've decided he's a liberal,

Not only 'YES' to that, but more importantly, we keep getting pointers to it ! A liberal will think like one, no matter how much he/she protests denial of the fact.


and there's nothing for it but to troll him in every single thread

WHO trolls WHO, DragonStryk ? Check that out for yourself, dispassionately, objectively.


.. so you can have the vague sense of a spine

H'm. Should I take that gratuitous remark as evidence of trolling ?

I give as good as I get. And if you have it mind to at least be even-handed (??), you are invited to be equally scathing of FJ, whether here or elsewhere. Now .. I wonder if you will be .. ?


Just because you don't understand either what Progressivism actually is,

Ridiculous. This thread proves otherwise, both for its origins and - I consider this rather more important, considering the process involved - its current meaning and relevance to the world.


nor do you understand what being an actual conservative is, doesn't mean any of us are under any obligation to continue letting your little delusion keep going

Tut tut. More evidence of trolling, DragonSryk ?


Wanna prove me wrong? Then do it, because at least you defining Progressivism would be a part of the current debate. Oh, and your own words please, as I have yet to see proof that you actually understand what me and FJ are actually discussing. Ms. Thatcher, while certainly a well-spoken woman, was able to speak in her own words on numerous occasions. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to do the same, as a person who is "Proudly Thatcherite"

To what extent should I feel obligated to account for myself to a trolling exercise ?

Besides, hasn't it all been said here already ?

Still, I'll give it a go .. why not ? So ...

As is true of other things in life, sometimes, you can start off with one thing, then see it perverted over time. 'Progress' .. this has one clear meaning, a very obvious one. Enter the term 'Progressivism' on to the scene, which sows the seed for that process. Initially -- 'Progressivism' could have been said to be a description of the process whereby one advances progress. Yet ... progress ITSELF should serve .. surely ?

So why the need for 'Progressivism' ?

I understand it to be true that Progressivism was a means whereby a process of progress could be packaged into something advancing it.

Now .. WHY the packaging ? Unless, a degree of agenda-creation is involved ?

With agenda-creation, you have intent, a goal (or goals) involved. My understanding is that 'Progressivism' was, and definitely is today (and then some !) a politicising of 'progress', to advance that agenda.

Times change. The world changes. As political thought polarised and adapted to changes in social conditions, so 'Progressivism' became more identifiable -- AND -- more prone to being hijacked by those of a political brand of thinking. So it was, and is now, that 'Progressivism' is a term interchangeable with Socialism (just as Gaffer correctly says, here on this thread), the idea being that Socialists could sell their bankrupt philosophy as something both reputable and as representing Mankind's future. You want humankind to progress ? Then the political package of 'Progressivism', Socialist in its content, 'will do it'. That was and is their message.

So, DragonStryk .. does this assist your trolling exercise, or not ?

[fj1200]

Except that, while the ACA did correct some of those problems, it brought out a huge batch of new ones, like 14,000,000 people losing their insurance, many of whom were in the middle of treatment for very serious diseases like cancer, increasing premiums (pretty much the exact opposite of what we were shooting for), and yet another layer of red tape in the process. Had the ACA instead been targeting to what was actually wrong, it would have fared better, but progress on the bill did not stop at where it accomplished what it needed to accomplish, and thus, progress worked against itself. Again, progress past the point, and ending up sliding down the hill.

I think the biggest problem to progress at this point is that no one wants to make the numerous small, corrective adjustments that are actually needed to the existing systems. Every politician we have wants to do something huge, that people can clearly point to. Problem there being, because of how many times those huge things go right off the rails, it really just makes the existing problems worse.

I'm pretty sure we're arguing the same thing on ACA with my belief that if anything was "corrected" was by mere dumb luck. :laugh: And I agree if it had targeted the actual problems then sure it would have fared better but I guess that gets to my original post; If progressivism = socialism (i.e. 100% socialized HC) with its inherent limiting of individual freedoms then its bad because it needlessly regulates and produces a worse outcome, though many will argue the worse outcomes when looking at other models. If progressivism = correcting a market failure then that becomes a whole different question.

ACA, and HC in general because of so many variables and variations across different countries, is almost a bad example to use for this debate because the HC system we had prior to it in no way resembled a true free market where one could divine a "failure." The underlying market failure was slowly becoming apparent for quite some time before the Dems got into a position to drive some sort of change based on the uninsured and the Republicans weren't really interested in tackling the problems when they had the chance.

[DragonStryk72]

Thank you so much for your valuable contribution ....


Since when was it necessary for someone to announce a debating intention before embarking on it ?

You haven't announced a debating intention, you just keep trolling FJ, that's not a debate. Stop hiding, and take a proper stand.

Last time I checked, DragonStryk, a debating site was meant to be for debates. So, yes, I'd say we were ....

Fine, then why are you purposely derailing debate? If you understand that we are here to debate, and that a debate is what FJ was setting up, then it follows that you are intentionally derailing, and thus trolling, the thread.


FJ, however, only sometimes actually debates ! Often we also see gimmickry entered into as well, not to mention gratuitously expressed put-downs (done for a hoped-for effect, which is rarely if ever achieved:laugh:). I for one don't find these conducive to worthwhile debate. That said -- I'm happy to give as good as I get.



But still, give FJ his due. YES, he did put up an actual debate here. The thing is, it was an odd subject to enter into, considering the context of FJ's supposedly being 'a Thatcherite'. Either a person stands for what they SAY they stand for, or they don't. In this case, it's just a bit like Simon Wiesenthal asking people to debate the merits or otherwise of the Holocaust !! You either nail your colours to the mast and STAND for what you SAY you stand for, or, you invite people the opportunity to shred it. Which ?

So Margaret Thatcher, who publicly denounced Progressivism, would be against giving it proper definition? Or is it that she would be against pointing out what is bad about Progressivism? She seemed to want to talk about it openly, in any event, so I don't get your obstruction of such course.

Depends. If you believe in something sufficiently strongly, then I'd basically say the stronger the belief was, the less likely seeing merit in its opposite should be. In Margaret Thatcher's case, I am unaware that she ever found anything 'meritorious' AT ALL in Progressivism. Why would she, since it was the opposite of all she stood for and believed in ? SO ... on what basis would a staunch follower of hers take any other line ?

Because there's a distinctive difference a "staunch follower" and a spineless parrot. Ms. Thatcher was a woman of strong opinions who worked in politics. You're honestly trying to say, here and now, that she was incapable of seeing merit in any viewpoint other than her own? I see nothing in her history to even vaguely suggesting this, and I further would point that, were it to be true, that you are saying she is completely irrational and unreasonable.

Then of course, no one agrees with one another 100%, even conservative to conservative. That's simply not possible, because we're different people, and that's a good thing. Diversity of opinion was the precise reason for the First Amendment after all.

I see your point. But that still doesn't explain why you'd ever want to enter into such a debate ! You say, in your example, that you oppose veganism. So why would you want to enter into a debate designed to go into the merits of something you oppose ?? Do you WANT to have your beliefs knocked down ?

Well, one, he asked to point out the flaws of Progressivism, not the merits, so again, you aren't actually reading anything he wrote, you're just assuming he's a liberal, and drowning all the rest out.

Now, as to why I would want to talk about it? Because understanding the merits, while still being aware of the flaws means that I have reached a reasoned conclusion. Shying away from such merits, or trying to make them trivial, is the sign of a person who lacks conviction to the avowed cause. I can understand that Progressivism is meant to do good, but, due to the nature of Man, it most often ends up going squarely against it.

It is much the same with going Vegan: I understand that it means the person isn't killing anything to live, and that's all well and good, but it's not a properly healthy lifestyle, and goes against the natural balance of our bodies.

My beliefs are strong enough to survive admitting to the merits of my opponent's cause.

OK .. granted .. putting one's beliefs to the test, publicly, could be an interesting exercise. In which case - it makes a lot more sense to state those beliefs clearly, candidly, then invite opposition to them as the nature of that test. So .. if FJ had come at this from the point of view of his being a loyal Thatcherite, why not set out those beliefs first, then invite countering views ?

Probably because we, as the site regulars, already know that. Putting his own definition would have altered the debate by putting a spin on it out of the gate, so the only thing for it to really get the opinion of others as to what Progressivism actually is, was not to give a definition to start with.

But FJ didn't do that, AT ALL. He kept the subject sufficiently unfocused as to skate over, maybe avoid altogether, what SHOULD have been detail of an abiding belief of his. I ask ... why ? Why do that ? If I post subject-matter for a thread and have a view, I post that view ! I don't AVOID posting it.

Except, you already know where he lies on the issue, as he's stated it before, repeatedly. You've chosen to ignore it, but that doesn't obligate him to have to say it again and again, especially since you would simply ignore him again. In fact, we couldn't have this discussion without you already knowing where he stood, so the simple answer is: Because he already has.

I believe this: that FJ asserts he's a Thatcherite, but lacks any detailed knowledge of that which he purports to represent. For example ... I established elsewhere that FJ knew nothing of the Thatcher Foundation, which is odd, since this was her legacy to the world after her death !! I had to - twice over ! - test the fact of that knowledge, then ultimately clue FJ in !

OH NO, someone somewhere didn't know about a single foundation?!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!! Believe it or not, many people in the world look to political leaders, and others that they enjoy the teachings of, and grow from, without having a ton of extra knowledge. For example, all the Christians out there that have never actually read the Gospels, but claim to "know Jesus".

Your "tests" were designed with the predetermined results of him being a liberal, and not a conservative, thus invalidating all of the tests. What you actually did was essentially an Inquisition that didn't end until you obtained "proof".

Not only 'YES' to that, but more importantly, we keep getting pointers to it ! A liberal will think like one, no matter how much he/she protests denial of the fact.

So basically, you pre-judged him, then went ahead, performed an inquisition to assert his status, one that he had no chance whatsoever of actually getting anywhere with, and then proudly thumped your chest about your "proof" that has no actual grounding in reality.

WHO trolls WHO, DragonStryk ? Check that out for yourself, dispassionately, objectively.

Shall I quote back starting from the OP? Or maybe we could go back to your little "tests" that you just admitted to. Gee, it's almost like constantly badgering someone, ignoring them when they speak, and then ducking every question they give that you don't like is.... something that would agitate them.


H'm. Should I take that gratuitous remark as evidence of trolling ?

I give as good as I get. And if you have it mind to at least be even-handed (??), you are invited to be equally scathing of FJ, whether here or elsewhere. Now .. I wonder if you will be .. ?

No you don't. You hide behind false reason and bravado, and you duck even the simplest of questions of the thread. That's not, by any definition, "Giving as good as you get"


Ridiculous. This thread proves otherwise, both for its origins and - I consider this rather more important, considering the process involved - its current meaning and relevance to the world.

No it doesn't. All that you have proved is that you can use Google, as well as copy/paste. I have a six-year old who can do the same. It's not any degree of original thought.


Tut tut. More evidence of trolling, DragonSryk ?

No, it's evidence of getting tired of your childish crap while I try to have an adult discussion.

To what extent should I feel obligated to account for myself to a trolling exercise ?



Besides, hasn't it all been said here already ?

Still, I'll give it a go .. why not ? So ...

As is true of other things in life, sometimes, you can start off with one thing, then see it perverted over time. 'Progress' .. this has one clear meaning, a very obvious one. Enter the term 'Progressivism' on to the scene, which sows the seed for that process. Initially -- 'Progressivism' could have been said to be a description of the process whereby one advances progress. Yet ... progress ITSELF should serve .. surely ?

So why the need for 'Progressivism' ?

I understand it to be true that Progressivism was a means whereby a process of progress could be packaged into something advancing it.

So basically... you've got nothing. Yeah, I graduate high school, Drummond. You never actually defined it, you just used vague hint arounds to keep from having to be specific.

Now .. WHY the packaging ? Unless, a degree of agenda-creation is involved ?

With agenda-creation, you have intent, a goal (or goals) involved. My understanding is that 'Progressivism' was, and definitely is today (and then some !) a politicising of 'progress', to advance that agenda.

Times change. The world changes. As political thought polarised and adapted to changes in social conditions, so 'Progressivism' became more identifiable -- AND -- more prone to being hijacked by those of a political brand of thinking. So it was, and is now, that 'Progressivism' is a term interchangeable with Socialism (just as Gaffer correctly says, here on this thread), the idea being that Socialists could sell their bankrupt philosophy as something both reputable and as representing Mankind's future. You want humankind to progress ? Then the political package of 'Progressivism', Socialist in its content, 'will do it'. That was and is their message.

So, DragonStryk .. does this assist your trolling exercise, or not ?

Well, it succeeded in proving my assertions correct, that's for certain. Your answer to "What is Progressivism?" is essentially the following:

Progressivism is about progressing progress.

Well, no shit Sherlock, we already knew that. Any talking head on Fox could've used that meandering nothing.

So basically, no, you don't actually know what Progressivism is. Therefore, you do not know your enemy, and clearly not your self in this regards. Therefore, you have no chance of overcoming Progressivism.

Okay, now back to the adults discussion I was having:


I'm pretty sure we're arguing the same thing on ACA with my belief that if anything was "corrected" was by mere dumb luck. :laugh: And I agree if it had targeted the actual problems then sure it would have fared better but I guess that gets to my original post; If progressivism = socialism (i.e. 100% socialized HC) with its inherent limiting of individual freedoms then its bad because it needlessly regulates and produces a worse outcome, though many will argue the worse outcomes when looking at other models. If progressivism = correcting a market failure then that becomes a whole different question.

Actually, no. Well, it could work, if it stopped there, but it won't, and that continues to be the core instability of progressivism. It doesn't actually stop when the problem it was brought about to eredicate is gone, it contiues to grow and grow, like a cluster of cancer cells within the body, and begins to damage the body itself.


ACA, and HC in general because of so many variables and variations across different countries, is almost a bad example to use for this debate because the HC system we had prior to it in no way resembled a true free market where one could divine a "failure." The underlying market failure was slowly becoming apparent for quite some time before the Dems got into a position to drive some sort of change based on the uninsured and the Republicans weren't really interested in tackling the problems when they had the chance.

And the reason we tend not to realize these market failures, outside of those paying close attention, is precisely because we have not been using our own progresses in science, tech, and whatnot to ease the system itself.

However, one part of the problem with HC is Progressivism, in making Health Insurance essentially mandatory to receive treatment, and now again when mandating that a person not only be insured, but at what level they must be insured, and to which doctors they can go. This does nothing to stabilize the market, only creating yet more of a patchwork of problems for the future.

As well, Progressivism, by it's growing and expanding nature, has been rubbing up against the HC Industry for decades now, and there is no true way of divorcing its influence from the current woes it is feeling.

[fj1200]

Okay, now back to the adults discussion I was having:


Actually, no. Well, it could work, if it stopped there, but it won't, and that continues to be the core instability of progressivism. It doesn't actually stop when the problem it was brought about to eredicate is gone, it contiues to grow and grow, like a cluster of cancer cells within the body, and begins to damage the body itself.


And the reason we tend not to realize these market failures, outside of those paying close attention, is precisely because we have not been using our own progresses in science, tech, and whatnot to ease the system itself.

However, one part of the problem with HC is Progressivism, in making Health Insurance essentially mandatory to receive treatment, and now again when mandating that a person not only be insured, but at what level they must be insured, and to which doctors they can go. This does nothing to stabilize the market, only creating yet more of a patchwork of problems for the future.

As well, Progressivism, by it's growing and expanding nature, has been rubbing up against the HC Industry for decades now, and there is no true way of divorcing its influence from the current woes it is feeling.

Well, I gotta say the only thing I disagree with in your post is that ACA is a big steaming pile and has little chance of working. The basis upon which it "works" is that the people will adapt in spite of how bad it is. But I agree with the rest, the problem is in the continuing advance of Progressivism for the sake of continued meddling in what is perceived as making things better. Of course that comes down to defining what is 'Progressivism,' discerning when it advances to 'Liberalism,' and knowing when it becomes 'Socialism.'

[DragonStryk72]

Well, I gotta say the only thing I disagree with in your post is that ACA is a big steaming pile and has little chance of working. The basis upon which it "works" is that the people will adapt in spite of how bad it is. But I agree with the rest, the problem is in the continuing advance of Progressivism for the sake of continued meddling in what is perceived as making things better. Of course that comes down to defining what is 'Progressivism,' discerning when it advances to 'Liberalism,' and knowing when it becomes 'Socialism.'

Oh, in the form the ACA took? Oh hell, it had no chance of working. It hit a couple of things, but if I throw a bunch of shit at the wall, some of it's bound to stick. It doesn't make any of the rest of it any less shit, though.

I believe there's a point in it where it could work out well, if those performing it had the restraint to stop. Here, we'll use a different example than HC: Unions. At the time of the inception of labor unions, they were a necessity due to the rabid abuses of companies over their employees, and thus, they were a good thing. But again, we have a point where we didn't simply stop at giving unions their voice, and we're still feeling the echoes today. Look no further than Hostess, where a single union out of several simply refused to accept a deal, and screwed everyone when the company flopped. The Company could do nothing against this one union that kept screaming like an unruly child that wants ice cream, and so won't come along home.

Thinking on it a moment, I do believe there is a single point where Progressive thinking worked: The Constitution. The entire thought that there were inherent rights was a very new concept, and building a government around that concept had never been tried before. But why did it work? Well, essentially it worked because the Founders put every roadblock in the way that they could, and due to their paranoia of governmental abuse of power, they made certain that a system of checks and balances to curb the abuses existed.

However, that's the exception that proves the rule. In order to make it work, and continue to do so, they had to do something that almost no other person actually does: Stop themselves.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, I gotta say the only thing I disagree with in your post is that ACA is a big steaming pile and has little chance of working. The basis upon which it "works" is that the people will adapt in spite of how bad it is. But I agree with the rest, the problem is in the continuing advance of Progressivism for the sake of continued meddling in what is perceived as making things better. Of course that comes down to defining what is 'Progressivism,' discerning when it advances to 'Liberalism,' and knowing when it becomes 'Socialism.'

ACA is progressivism at its best= a " fustercluck" of epic proportions.
It is also Socialism at it finest== a " fustercluck" of epic proportions.

It is also the Dem party at its best , forcing such socialistic puke on us all. A shat pile birthed solely by the DEM idiots and dumbasses that now make up that absolutely Un-American party.

Need any more TRUTHS JUST ASK , I HAVE BOATLOADS OF THEM.. ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

ACA is progressivism at its best= a " fustercluck" of epic proportions.
It is also Socialism at it finest== a " fustercluck" of epic proportions.

It's not really Socialism as it doesn't embody a complete takeover of the HC industry. This is such a CF that it's probably not a stretch to say that actual Socialism would be better than what they've turned it into.

[fj1200]

Oh, in the form the ACA took? Oh hell, it had no chance of working. It hit a couple of things, but if I throw a bunch of shit at the wall, some of it's bound to stick. It doesn't make any of the rest of it any less shit, though.

I believe there's a point in it where it could work out well, if those performing it had the restraint to stop. Here, we'll use a different example than HC: Unions. At the time of the inception of labor unions, they were a necessity due to the rabid abuses of companies over their employees, and thus, they were a good thing. But again, we have a point where we didn't simply stop at giving unions their voice, and we're still feeling the echoes today. Look no further than Hostess, where a single union out of several simply refused to accept a deal, and screwed everyone when the company flopped. The Company could do nothing against this one union that kept screaming like an unruly child that wants ice cream, and so won't come along home.

Thinking on it a moment, I do believe there is a single point where Progressive thinking worked: The Constitution. The entire thought that there were inherent rights was a very new concept, and building a government around that concept had never been tried before. But why did it work? Well, essentially it worked because the Founders put every roadblock in the way that they could, and due to their paranoia of governmental abuse of power, they made certain that a system of checks and balances to curb the abuses existed.

However, that's the exception that proves the rule. In order to make it work, and continue to do so, they had to do something that almost no other person actually does: Stop themselves.

Whew, it looks like we do agree on ACA... :laugh: and the union thing. The Constitution as Progressivism...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5gqb0aUoI1rxc156o1_500.gif

You might be blowing some minds with that one. ;)

[Drummond]

You haven't announced a debating intention, you just keep trolling FJ, that's not a debate. Stop hiding, and take a proper stand.

DragonStryk .. my stand, since I'm a Thatcherite, is the same as Lady Thatcher's. Do I understand you to be mirroring FJ's requirement that I in some way diverge from her own opinions on Progressivism ? Why WOULD I ?

... and ... why would FJ ? I still fail to see how he, 'as a Thatcherite', would think the matter questionable.


Fine, then why are you purposely derailing debate? If you understand that we are here to debate, and that a debate is what FJ was setting up, then it follows that you are intentionally derailing, and thus trolling, the thread.

Your interpretation, unsubstantiated by my actions. I see that you are now debating with FJ yourself. How am I 'derailing' that ?

I simply fail to understand why - or how - a 'Thatcherite' would see room for debate in any question of how Progressivism was good or bad. Lady Thatcher has already answered this for us.


So Margaret Thatcher, who publicly denounced Progressivism, would be against giving it proper definition? Or is it that she would be against pointing out what is bad about Progressivism? She seemed to want to talk about it openly, in any event, so I don't get your obstruction of such course.

She would not be 'against' doing what she DID. She was clear about what it was, and why it needed opposition.

And she, during her life, most certainly wasn't against debate, frequently welcoming it. I've little doubt that she'd obtain a measure of enjoyment if she were debating here and now.

But she was in no doubt as to the nature of those who'd debate against her. She'd call them 'adversaries'. So ... I wonder if FJ can tell us if he agrees that anyone, here, now, not taking her views on board is an adversary ?


Because there's a distinctive difference a "staunch follower" and a spineless parrot.

Highly assumptive. What if what it is that you're following just cannot be bettered ?? In such a circumstance, why would you try to ?


Ms. Thatcher was a woman of strong opinions who worked in politics. You're honestly trying to say, here and now, that she was incapable of seeing merit in any viewpoint other than her own?

Of course not. However, Lady Thatcher did have the virtue of being right to a highly laudable degree. And she would never give ground on anything where she was convinced of the correctness of her views. Take Union opposition .. she never gave an inch to them. She recognised adversaries when shge saw them, and fought to win against them. No matter if it made her unpopular with many .. she was a conviction politician, loyal to what was right, not what was popular.


I see nothing in her history to even vaguely suggesting this, and I further would point that, were it to be true, that you are saying she is completely irrational and unreasonable.

Answered above.


Then of course, no one agrees with one another 100%, even conservative to conservative. That's simply not possible, because we're different people, and that's a good thing. Diversity of opinion was the precise reason for the First Amendment after all.

... which we do not have, in Britain.

In principle I can agree with you. In practice, I honestly cannot, as of this moment, think of a single thing she ever said or stood for which I could disagree with.


Well, one, he asked to point out the flaws of Progressivism, not the merits, so again, you aren't actually reading anything he wrote, you're just assuming he's a liberal, and drowning all the rest out.

Regardless - consider the title of this thread. In it, FJ poses a question which he, 'as a Thatcherite', should already have no doubts about. Why, then, does he entertain any ? I have to infer that he does .. otherwise, why not start off the thread with a statement of belief, then invite opposing opinion. Merely issuing the order 'GO' is no evidence of loyalty to Lady Thatcher or her views.


Now, as to why I would want to talk about it? Because understanding the merits, while still being aware of the flaws means that I have reached a reasoned conclusion. Shying away from such merits, or trying to make them trivial, is the sign of a person who lacks conviction to the avowed cause. I can understand that Progressivism is meant to do good, but, due to the nature of Man, it most often ends up going squarely against it.

I think you are mixing up the terms. I've gone through this already, surely ? Progress .. nobody rational could be against it. But 'Progressivism' is a term hijacked by the Left to refer to their particular brand of political thought, hijacked so as to instill in people that Socialism can mean 'progress'.

Are you further mixing up its original significance with its current usage ? Because consider that the thread title asks about ITS CURRENT USAGE. You don't see the past tense used in that title, do you ?


It is much the same with going Vegan: I understand that it means the person isn't killing anything to live, and that's all well and good, but it's not a properly healthy lifestyle, and goes against the natural balance of our bodies.

I don't see the connection between a political agenda, which is what Progressivism currently is, with any rationale behind choices of eating habits. Besides, you're wrong .. people DO kill food termed 'vegan' to live. They kill the plants which form part of that diet.
My beliefs are strong enough to survive admitting to the merits of my opponent's cause.

Well, good for you.

Now, what merits in FJ's opponents' cause does FJ 'admit' to ?

Isn't his cause, as a 'Thatcherite', the same as hers ?


Probably because we, as the site regulars, already know that. Putting his own definition would have altered the debate by putting a spin on it out of the gate, so the only thing for it to really get the opinion of others as to what Progressivism actually is, was not to give a definition to start with.

Well, fine, then. In which case, FJ could've 'parroted' Lady T's views and invited discussion about THOSE. In any case, you're being highly assumptive about what every contributor here knows, or does not know. And ... what about any newcomers here ? Did FJ have no duty to them, no consideration for what the 'non regulars' might've been thinking, or, wanted to know ?

FJ could've considered himself an ambassador for her views, taking an opportunity to represent them.

BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.


Except, you already know where he lies on the issue, as he's stated it before, repeatedly. You've chosen to ignore it, but that doesn't obligate him to have to say it again and again, especially since you would simply ignore him again. In fact, we couldn't have this discussion without you already knowing where he stood, so the simple answer is: Because he already has.

What I actually DO know is that, elsewhere, he's taken a line which defies Conservative thinking and instead favours an approach to an issue which mirrors that of our SOCIALISTS. So, you're wrong - I've no reason to either know, or to trust, in FJ's Conservatism, much less any loyalty he may have to Lady Thatcher.

OH NO, someone somewhere didn't know about a single foundation?!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!!:clap::clap::clap:

Nicely put, if I may say so.


Believe it or not, many people in the world look to political leaders, and others that they enjoy the teachings of, and grow from, without having a ton of extra knowledge. For example, all the Christians out there that have never actually read the Gospels, but claim to "know Jesus"

... which is all very well. However, it doesn't get much more basic to Lady Thatcher's achievements than to know of the Thatcher Foundation !!

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/


This is the website of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, the largest contemporary history site of its kind.

See that ? And FJ DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT IT !


Your "tests" were designed with the predetermined results of him being a liberal, and not a conservative, thus invalidating all of the tests. What you actually did was essentially an Inquisition that didn't end until you obtained "proof".

I don't understand. Why shouldn't I set out to prove the truth of FJ ?


So basically, you pre-judged him, then went ahead, performed an inquisition to assert his status, one that he had no chance whatsoever of actually getting anywhere with, and then proudly thumped your chest about your "proof" that has no actual grounding in reality.Assertion denied. FJ has already proven his Leftie bona fides. If I can be accused of anything, it's of wasting time and effort in proving what's already evident. Prejudging FJ supposes that any judgment of FJ remains any sort of 'live' issue. It doesn't. Every now and again FJ produces thinking indicating Left-wing thought processes. His lack of automatic loyalty to Lady Thatcher is but the latest in a succession of proofs of what is true.


Shall I quote back starting from the OP? Or maybe we could go back to your little "tests" that you just admitted to. Gee, it's almost like constantly badgering someone, ignoring them when they speak, and then ducking every question they give that you don't like is.... something that would agitate them.

FJ could be honest, and just candidly state that he's a Left winger. I would welcome such honesty.

Instead .. you presumably see the latest description he's using .. of 'Ultimate Thatcherite' .. ?

Well, how does an 'ultimate Thatcherite' fail to know about the Thatcher Foundation ??!?


No you don't. You hide behind false reason and bravado, and you duck even the simplest of questions of the thread. That's not, by any definition, "Giving as good as you get"

Ahem, I 'hide behind' THE TRUTH.

Tell me of the 'false reasoning' implicit in my understanding that any 'ultimate Thatcherite' should BE AN EXPERT ON HER LIFE AND WORKS (AND SO SHOULD KNOW OF THE THATCHER FOUNDATION !!).


No it doesn't. All that you have proved is that you can use Google, as well as copy/paste. I have a six-year old who can do the same. It's not any degree of original thought.

This is more of your assumptiveness at work. I am British. I lived here, in the UK, throughout Mrs Thatcher's Premiership. I witnessed the changes she made to my society. I witnessed her debates. Her speeches (she even spoke at my school once). Her House of Commons performances. The great good she did for my country, and the wider world.

I have firsthand experience of Margaret Thatcher's policies at work.

So I suggest you attribute more of my knowledge of her to that experience, than mere Google referencing !!

[fj1200]

:laugh:

[Drummond]

:laugh:

This is the best response you can manage ?

Still .. I'm encouraged. I see you've decided to go from 'ultimate Thatcherite' to something a little more modest (to the extent that you could ever be said to downplay anything at all). And, I don't blame you.

Calling yourself an 'ultimate Thatcherite' when I had to inform you of the Thatcher Foundation ... well, let's just say that it doesn't exactly scan, does it, FJ ?;)

[aboutime]

This is the best response you can manage ?

Still .. I'm encouraged. I see you've decided to go from 'ultimate Thatcherite' to something a little more modest (to the extent that you could ever be said to downplay anything at all). And, I don't blame you.

Calling yourself an 'ultimate Thatcherite' when I had to inform you of the Thatcher Foundation ... well, let's just say that it doesn't exactly scan, does it, FJ ?;)


Sir Drummond. We have now reached, what I believe to be "fj's" flushing point.:laugh:

It seems he has become a victim of his own, indoor plumbing problems. Meaning, he's become that one...really stubborn turd that never seems to go down after the flush.
He doesn't want his foolishness, or misery to end. Which is why...no matter how many times we attempt to FLUSH fj...he just won't GO DOWN.

[DragonStryk72]

DragonStryk .. my stand, since I'm a Thatcherite, is the same as Lady Thatcher's. Do I understand you to be mirroring FJ's requirement that I in some way diverge from her own opinions on Progressivism ? Why WOULD I ?

So, you have now admitted to being a mindless parrot. The reality is no one on this Earth agrees with anyone 100%, it just doesn't happen.

No, I'm just sick of hearing about it, and I get the feeling she would be, too. You're just name-dropping, and trying to use that name as a billy club, which is the last thing I imagine she would've wanted.

... and ... why would FJ ? I still fail to see how he, 'as a Thatcherite', would think the matter questionable.

Because he has both a spine and a brain, enough so to come to his own informed decisions on subjects that will, by their very nature, vary at least subtlely from the original speaker.

Your interpretation, unsubstantiated by my actions. I see that you are now debating with FJ yourself. How am I 'derailing' that ?

Because your trolling takes up the majority of the thread, and it's all anyone sees anymore, if you being an idiot, and creating the whole sideshow.

I simply fail to understand why - or how - a 'Thatcherite' would see room for debate in any question of how Progressivism was good or bad. Lady Thatcher has already answered this for us.

Oh my God, she would so fucking hate you. I cannot think of a single educated person who needs or wants a mindless zealot on the side of reason. That's all you are, just thumping your chest again and again about Thatcher, meanwhile demeaning her every word and action in the run.

She would not be 'against' doing what she DID. She was clear about what it was, and why it needed opposition.

Yes, and there was still an entire parliament, and royalty to deal with that she had to debate with, and deal with regularly.

And she, during her life, most certainly wasn't against debate, frequently welcoming it. I've little doubt that she'd obtain a measure of enjoyment if she were debating here and now.

And yet you are against debate, because you have not in any manner debated in this whole thread. So basically, you're not a "thatcherite". You either embrace her teachings entirely, or you're not it. That's by your own assessment of what constitutes a "Thatcherite". You don't get both ways, so you're either a hyprocrite or a fraud at this point.

But she was in no doubt as to the nature of those who'd debate against her. She'd call them 'adversaries'. So ... I wonder if FJ can tell us if he agrees that anyone, here, now, not taking her views on board is an adversary ?

Correct. She knew they were human in nature, and thus prone to agreeing with one another, because individual people have their own individual opinions.

Highly assumptive. What if what it is that you're following just cannot be bettered ?? In such a circumstance, why would you try to ?

Because, then you're saying that all continued education stops. There is no learning but Thatcher, and she would disagree with you. And again, we're still debating Thatcher and not Progressivism.

Of course not. However, Lady Thatcher did have the virtue of being right to a highly laudable degree. And she would never give ground on anything where she was convinced of the correctness of her views. Take Union opposition .. she never gave an inch to them. She recognised adversaries when shge saw them, and fought to win against them. No matter if it made her unpopular with many .. she was a conviction politician, loyal to what was right, not what was popular.

Not giving an inch isn't the same as refusing to understand where they are coming from in the first place. You are doing the latter, while she did the former. The difference? It requires actual strength and conviction to do what she did, while all you is more mindless chest thumping.

Answered above.



... which we do not have, in Britain.

In principle I can agree with you. In practice, I honestly cannot, as of this moment, think of a single thing she ever said or stood for which I could disagree with.

Except apparently debate, manners, having enough of a spine to not be a mindless zealot, etc.

Regardless - consider the title of this thread. In it, FJ poses a question which he, 'as a Thatcherite', should already have no doubts about. Why, then, does he entertain any ? I have to infer that he does .. otherwise, why not start off the thread with a statement of belief, then invite opposing opinion. Merely issuing the order 'GO' is no evidence of loyalty to Lady Thatcher or her views.

Go to where he said, "as a Thatcherite"........ Oh right, he didn't. You brought Thatcher into the thread to bludgeon him out of hand. And I already explained why he did not, so go read that again.

I think you are mixing up the terms. I've gone through this already, surely ? Progress .. nobody rational could be against it. But 'Progressivism' is a term hijacked by the Left to refer to their particular brand of political thought, hijacked so as to instill in people that Socialism can mean 'progress'.

You never explained what it is though. That's the clear point that is there.

Are you further mixing up its original significance with its current usage ? Because consider that the thread title asks about ITS CURRENT USAGE. You don't see the past tense used in that title, do you ?

No it doesn't. Read again.

I don't see the connection between a political agenda, which is what Progressivism currently is, with any rationale behind choices of eating habits. Besides, you're wrong .. people DO kill food termed 'vegan' to live. They kill the plants which form part of that diet.

Alright fine, Facism: It got shit done. Now, it's horrible, but you have to admit it was brutally efficient to its task. Again, horrible, but efficient.

Well, good for you.

Thank you for admitting the weakness of your beliefs.

Now, what merits in FJ's opponents' cause does FJ 'admit' to ?

Well, mine, but then, you'd have to read the thread.

Isn't his cause, as a 'Thatcherite', the same as hers ?

Not necessarily. Just because you're can't be more than a lapdog, doesn't mean he's doomed to it.

Well, fine, then. In which case, FJ could've 'parroted' Lady T's views and invited discussion about THOSE. In any case, you're being highly assumptive about what every contributor here knows, or does not know. And ... what about any newcomers here ? Did FJ have no duty to them, no consideration for what the 'non regulars' might've been thinking, or, wanted to know ?

Could've, and didn't, because unlike you, he actually studied on the subject, and can thus state the problems of Progressivism without relying on Thatcher.

FJ could've considered himself an ambassador for her views, taking an opportunity to represent them.

Why would he? You'll just pop into the thread and burn five pages on them, and if he does, then you'll pop into the thread and burn five pages on this retarded inquisition of yours. If he doesn't, then we'll just end up right where we're at now.

BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Proving my point for me.

What I actually DO know is that, elsewhere, he's taken a line which defies Conservative thinking and instead favours an approach to an issue which mirrors that of our SOCIALISTS. So, you're wrong - I've no reason to either know, or to trust, in FJ's Conservatism, much less any loyalty he may have to Lady Thatcher.
:clap::clap::clap:


Defies? He doesn't defy it, and that depends on how Conservatism is defined. After all, George W. Bush was about as un-Conservative as you can really get, but he's the de facto person people point to as a conservative. First, you have to define what the term actually means, then you can find those who fall within it.

Me? I'm a conservative, but I am in favor of gay marriage and legalizing marijuana, but I approach those from a conservative point of view. For gay marriage, there are several points: 1. The only arguments against are purely religious, and thus, the Constitution kicks into effect. 2. We aren't talking about marriage sanctioned by God, but about a contract between two consensual adults.

Now, for legalization, it's really common sense: It's really no worse than alcohol or cigarettes, and arguably better in some regards (does not build a tolerance, no salt peter or arsenic, not physically addictive).

Now, these are purportedly Liberal causes, but looking at it, I feel they should be conservative issues.

Nicely put, if I may say so.



... which is all very well. However, it doesn't get much more basic to Lady Thatcher's achievements than to know of the Thatcher Foundation !!

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/



See that ? And FJ DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT IT !



And neither do most other Americans, Drummond. We never get taught that stuff in school. Hell, a lot of times, it doesn't get covered in College, so him knowing or not knowing about it isn't proof of anything other than that he received a non-British education.

I don't understand. Why shouldn't I set out to prove the truth of FJ ?

Because it's not the truth, for one. It's your prejudicial witch-hunt, and those are never about truth.

Assertion denied. FJ has already proven his Leftie bona fides. If I can be accused of anything, it's of wasting time and effort in proving what's already evident. Prejudging FJ supposes that any judgment of FJ remains any sort of 'live' issue. It doesn't. Every now and again FJ produces thinking indicating Left-wing thought processes. His lack of automatic loyalty to Lady Thatcher is but the latest in a succession of proofs of what is true.

No, he didn't. You asserted them, and continue to do so, but he never proved them. It's all been your witch hunt.

FJ could be honest, and just candidly state that he's a Left winger. I would welcome such honesty.

Except that he would be lying to say he's on the left. Again you show your prejudice.

Instead .. you presumably see the latest description he's using .. of 'Ultimate Thatcherite' .. ?

you really need some extra courses in reading. His latest description is, in fact, "Doin' Thatcherite right." It's clearly him trolling your trolling attempts.

Well, how does an 'ultimate Thatcherite' fail to know about the Thatcher Foundation ??!?

Um, well, he's not an ultimate Thatcherite, and never claimed to be so, so this is an irrelevant question. However, someone could be very into Thatcher, and this was just the one odd blank spot in their knowledge. Hell, I have the same thing with a number of subjects I'm into.

Ahem, I 'hide behind' THE TRUTH.

Again, not Truth, just your little biased witch-hunt.

Tell me of the 'false reasoning' implicit in my understanding that any 'ultimate Thatcherite' should BE AN EXPERT ON HER LIFE AND WORKS (AND SO SHOULD KNOW OF THE THATCHER FOUNDATION !!).

He's not an Ultimate Thatcherite, and never claimed to be. That's your claim, not his. Therefore, all reasoning based on that point is, inherently, false.

This is more of your assumptiveness at work. I am British. I lived here, in the UK, throughout Mrs Thatcher's Premiership. I witnessed the changes she made to my society. I witnessed her debates. Her speeches (she even spoke at my school once). Her House of Commons performances. The great good she did for my country, and the wider world.

And I see no proof of what you've learned, just more parroting. Admire the woman all you want, but have the respect for her life and works to do the same thing she did: Form your own opinions, even if they don't necessarily agree with others.

I have firsthand experience of Margaret Thatcher's policies at work.

So I suggest you attribute more of my knowledge of her to that experience, than mere Google referencing !!

If all you do is parrot and reference her, then you deny her life's work, and prove yourself ignorant. Until you actually come to understand Progressivism, as she took the time to, you can either truly be a Thatcherite, nor can you truly fight against the Progressivism she fought against. You can succeed only in hobbling your own side of the argument.

[DragonStryk72]

Whew, it looks like we do agree on ACA... :laugh: and the union thing. The Constitution as Progressivism...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5gqb0aUoI1rxc156o1_500.gif

You might be blowing some minds with that one. ;)

lol, yeah, hit that thought as I was writing, but it essentially holds given how Progressivism worked back then. It was to a specific cause, and they put in the measures required to hit the target, without then blowing by it.

[fj1200]

This is the best response you can manage ?

It was all you were deserving of. Besides I know your obsessive penchant for parsing half sentences so I assumed a smilie would stump you. Success!