Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Which of these are progressive values? 78

Journal by damn_registrars
From recent messages from Smitty, it appears that all of these values are now the property of progressives - or at the very least, conservatives oppose them:
  • Actual independent, non-partisan agenda-free investigations into events
  • Government representation of the people, elected by the people
  • Having federal agencies do the job they are tasked with

I can see how conservatives would hate those ideas so much. That is, I can understand it, if they live in some sort of alternate up==down reality.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Which of these are progressive values? More

Which of these are progressive values?

Comments Filter:
  • That's a conservative value.
    Progressive==Statist
    • You aim to continue the concentration of wealth. With that will follow further concentration of power. Don't pretend that you can have the former without the latter.

      Nonetheless you missed the point. You have actually described many values that are popular with people well outside the small box you paint as "(evil evil evil) progressives (evil evil evil)" and declared them to be sole property of "(evil evil evil) progressives (evil evil evil)". If you are trying to give people reasons to believe in t

      • You aim to continue the concentration of wealth.

        No, I do not.

        If you are trying to give people reasons to believe in the philosophy of the tea party instead

        The Tea Party, itself, is irrelevant. What matters are the ideals in our founding documents, sadly corrupted a century past.

        • What matters are the ideals in our founding documents, sadly corrupted a century past.

          Utter nonsense. If the declaration of independence were the law of the land, then you would have something. What you are propping up is a parliamentary rule book, which didn't even last four years.

          And you are not about "distributing" wealth/power. And you are definitely deluded if you think you can separate it. Like pulling electrons from protons, you try and they just snap back together. It is a fundamental structure that

        • You aim to continue the concentration of wealth.

          No, I do not.

          That response directly contradicts your numerous accusations of how others are trying to

          distribute wealth

          Please stick to just one story. If you believe that others are trying to distribute it, and you want to stop that, then you are supporting those who want to concentrate it.

          The Tea Party, itself, is irrelevant. What matters are the ideals in our founding documents, sadly corrupted a century past.

          You need to go back further than just 100 years, as you are not consistently supporting some of the first 10 amendments to our constitution. Although if the key term in your statement was ideals, which is a weasel word to express the notion of "i

    • Redistribute power, not wealth...

      That's a conservative value.

      Ah, you whacky conservatives, always with the fantasies.

      • Regression to the mean of human history sure is a "damn_registrars".

        • :-) Well, up until now, he didn't deem it worth mentioning. I tend to cut straight to the chase. Foreplay is not my forte.

          • For a while, I thought you and he were in fact the same person.

            • Well, that's what you get for thinkin'

              • The difference between your recreational cynicism and d_r's throne sniffing madness can be difficult to discern.

                • My observations of nature are hardly cynical. The cynics are the ones who think they're above it all. That you have difficulty discerning me from him shows how clouded and distorted your perceptions are. Actually I see it as just another one of your attempts to turn things around. As I pointed out before, it is you and he who are the look alikes [youtube.com].. And you both follow your scripts remarkably well.

                  • The cynics are the ones who think they're above it all. That you have difficulty discerning me from him shows how clouded and distorted your perceptions are.

                    See, now, if you could just mix in a dash of all-knowing know-it-all there, you'd have a finished product. . .

                    • I only observe and repeat the obvious, nothing more. I can't do anything for those who don't want to see.

                    • Yeah, yeah: you oscillate between omniscient observer and hyper-materialist meat-sack. Got it.

                    • Nope, that's just your preconception distortion field talking, Your culture is just resisting the facts, and you simply cling like the monkey in the trap [rootsauce.com] I see this all the time. You are a textbook example.

                    • Verily, the Olympian perch from which thou speakest turnest me on.

                    • Noooo... From the sewer, where man deposits the real truth.

                    • I can agree, physically, that the world is a fallen sewer, as a result of Adam's transgression.
                      But that is not a spiritually needful end state, and there is joy to be had in the alternative.

                    • It was Eve who bit first, they were just following their animal instincts. Neither man or the world has "fallen", he has failed to rise up and remains totally subservient to his biology.

                    • Yeah, I'm not buying your exegesis. You're playing as fast and loose with Genesis as Satan did with God's command in the Garden.

                    • You have yet to show evidence either way.

                    • How about you show some evidence, instead? I have no new cornerstones which you haven't already rejected.

                    • I relate to observation and experience. You are reading fables and pawning them off as documentaries.

                    • So, your observation and experience trumps mine? All I can do is be intellectually honest about what is provably there, and what sits beyond that boundary, in the realm of faith. And I'm the bad guy. Got it.

                    • Only when you bring your "realm of faith" into the realm of law. We all know what "religious freedom" means...

                    • intellectually honest about what is provably

                      Intellectual honesty and probably don't go together when there are no facts to link them. This fits well though with your claim of being "intellectually honest" about Obama being "the worst president EVAR" when you have no facts to link those statements either.

                    • Apparently it means that we all bow down to the Sodomist faith that's taken hold of our culture.
                    • Yeah, don't let the tanking economy, spiraling debt, and the sliding into a new world war upset your non-command of editing, bucko. You just keep piling on the lies, hear?

                    • No, it means that you accept people, not sanction them. Nature will do that if they are doing anything "wrong". You are more than welcome to keep your personal beliefs where they belong.

                    • Except that's not what's happening. But keep flattering yourself so, if it makes you feel better.

                    • Except that's not what's happening.

                      Exactly, you are trying rationalize and legitimize discrimination, hiding it behind a very transparent facade. You don't like it when people who should *know their place* fight back, do you?

                    • Are you attempting to say that I don't care for political expression?

                    • your non-command of editing

                      I took exact words from your exact comment. If your own words offend you, then you should have chosen some other ones instead. You were trying to lecture us on

                      intellectual honesty

                      While what you were doing was anything but intellectually honest.

                    • I took exact words from your exact comment.

                      Um, no: you did not. I said:

                      intellectually honest about what is provably

                      and you replied:

                      Intellectual honesty and probably don't go together when there are no facts to link them.

                      Thus, you both misquoted me, and introduced a silly typo. I figured I could opt for a minor chide. As is your wont, you escalate matters to the point that minor silliness turns into the centerpiece an exchange. Watching your pagan idol Barack getting dribbled in the basketball fashion by Vladimir seems to have you in a state of elevated menstruation, AFAICT.

                    • Ahh, I see. Indeed, I saw "provably" and expected you meant "probably", as you were talking about your faith. After all, you cannot prove anything with faith alone, no matter how much you might wish it to be the case. You were apparently trying to describe something you believe to be "provably" there, but your argument was based on nothing more than your own beliefs on the matter. Hence your claim of "intellectual honesty" is not met, as you are not presenting an argument based on actual facts.
                    • And again, I forgive your falsehoods:
                      1. Claiming exactness when not meeting that standard.
                      2. Claiming that I've not been intellectual honest, without showing where I've been even slightly in error, much less intentionally misinforming.
                      I guess the only way you could be a bigger loser would be to become Obama's foreign policy. It's OK. I still love you.

                    • Obama, Vladimir... bla bla bla!

                      Cui bono? Oops, sorry. That's classified.

                    • But likely one or more oligarchs, as though that required any analysis.

                    • Then why do you vote for politicians that are subservient to them? Oh wait, that doesn't require any more analysis either. And please, don't try to tell me the tea party is any different. They're beholden to the same blood money from the same trough, or they wouldn't have all this publicity. You may think you're fighting the status quo, but in fact, you are carrying their water.

                    • All right, fine, Mr. Spitballer. If you want to offer any alternative whatsoever, then maybe you'd sound less a blowhard.

                    • Positions by drawing lots. Take a number. If it comes up, TAG!, you're it. That is the fairest solution.

                    • Sortition [wikipedia.org] doesn't scale. My local church has the 1 person, 1 vote thing going, but it's not clear that works above, say, the clan level.
                      Other ideas?

                    • Sortition doesn't scale.

                      Still the best thing available, if you want to eliminate the crony corruption of authority that permeates all other systems. We've discussed this before. There should be no careerism in any positions of authority. A lottery is the best way to keep that from happening. And then, we might find out if you can separate wealth from power. Because without super powers there can't be super wealth.

                    • How about a hybrid: you elect people to a pool of representatives, and every two years pick at random, from your Congressional district pool, for the State delegation to DC?
                      Restated, I am in violent agreement that careerism is a problem.

                    • Instead of electing them, just check their resumé and reviews by others. If they qualify, then throw them into the pool. If we have to vote, there is the issue of political campaigns and people who want the job, and we are back where we started.

                    • Oh for crying out loud: given a system, there will be mischief.
                      You have to accept that things are going to be gamed, and attempt to minimize that.
                      I fail to see much tangible improvement in your approach.

                    • I fail to see much tangible improvement in your approach.

                      Yes, I actually expected that, yet it's there for the asking. It's a perfectly good way to dramatically reduce the influence of the privileged class. Of course maybe that's not what you want given your indicated political proclivities. You seem to have an interest in the status quo :-) I'm going to leave it to you to prove that it would be any worse than what we have to today.

                    • You haven't shown how it would "dramatically reduce the influence of the privileged class". Perhaps a pilot program in a state.

                      You seem to have an interest in the status quo :-)

                      I've a disinterest in "cures" worse than the disease. But I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, just to see how you flesh them out.

                    • You haven't shown how it would "dramatically reduce the influence of the privileged class".

                      It shows itself with the lack of electioneering(lying) and no chance of a specific faction monopolizing the process. It's the luck of the draw, as it should be. Neither Fox, Koch or Soros can shape the narrative. It would clearly be superior to what we have now. To make it even better, sunset every law on the books and the government itself every 20 years. I think 19 was what the man said.

                    • It shows itself with the lack of electioneering(lying) and no chance of a specific faction monopolizing the process.

                      Um, you're both blowing your credibility, and underestimating the power of human creativity put to ill use.
                      I like your sunset notion, but again: you can't bind a future Congress. The monkeys are just going to change some minor bit of punctuation and bring back, for example, Social Security.
                      So the real feedback that stabilizes the system (at least that's what I think our topic is) happens to be found in citizen engagement. You term limit everything, to include the un-elected civil service, so that everyone

                    • So the real feedback that stabilizes the system (at least that's what I think our topic is) happens to be found in citizen engagement.

                      How do you encourage that while simultaneously taking away the ability for citizens to vote for representation in the senate? Those goals are counter to each other. You can't simultaneously encourage and restrict something any more so than you can simultaneously attack and defend the same thing.

                      You term limit everything,

                      Would that include for appointed politicians? Not that it would solve anything as they would still be unelected representation.

                    • Gee, you all are starting to sound more like me. Maybe you are beginning to understand the slavery of biology. So, it appears eternal warfare is the norm. Evolution is our only hope as a species. Let's see if wee survive until the epiphany. Or maybe the claw will rescue us just before we fall into the pit.

                    • Evolution is our only hope as a species.

                      Still waiting for the reproducible experiment that goes from inorganic to organic chemistry. Not that I'm endorsing Genesis as a scientific document, mind you. Merely relating my gut feeling that, while we know much, we really aren't that close to any closure in our understanding of How We Got Here.

                    • It doesn't matter how we got here. We're here. That simple fact is what motivates me to make the best of it (since you asked). Another fact is that we are alive and our species is evolving just like all the other ones. Any lack of understanding of how things work does not give credence to a divinity, other than nature itself.

                    • Wow.

                      Way to completely not answer the question. The question is how do you strip voters of their right to elect senators directly without disenfranchising them, and your answer was that you want to strip voters of their right to elect senators directly.

                      Funny how you never championed this idea when the GOP had control of the senate. And what would you do if more than half the states had democratic governors?

                      And beyond that, your JE criticized the house. Who leads the house currently? Not democrats

                    • motivates me to make the best of it

                      This idea is in tension with your hyper-materialist stance. What is "best", and in what larger context do you evaluate that, while denying the context?

                    • I realize that analysis is something that escapes you, but there it is.

                      Funny how you never championed this idea when the GOP had control of the senate.

                      I learned. Would that learning could find you.

                      And beyond that, your JE criticized the house. Who leads the house currently? Not democrats...
                      You really should think these things through a bit more.

                      As should you. I've criticized Boehner at length and in detail. But again, you're not engaging in honest argument, merely handwaving. You don't even have the sack to comment over on the JE. Smacks of cowardice, it does.

                    • What is "best"?

                      Whatever I say it is.

                    • Funny how you never championed this idea when the GOP had control of the senate.

                      I learned.

                      And if the GOP were to take over the senate without changing the constitution, I expect you would un-learn that ideal just as readily.

                      I've criticized Boehner at length and in detail.

                      It's been hard to notice that, drastically outweighed by your conspiracy theories against the president.

                      But again, you're not engaging in honest argument, merely handwaving.

                      If you were to actually honestly read what I write, instead of taking only your favorite words from it and filling in the rest with what you want me to represent, you would realize that I have been consistently attempting honest discussion with you. The dishonesty is fr

                    • As long as you're cozy with your deity. Remind your heart not to stop beating.
                    • I answer your questions, and you pretend otherwise. But then, honesty seems a scattershot affair with you.

                    • As long as you're cozy with your deity.

                      As everybody should be with theirs. All 7 and a half billion of them.

                      Remind your heart not to stop beating.

                      Just like yours, it's on auto.

                    • it's on auto

                      I keep mine in good shape, but it has a finite service life, as all else under the sun. And I'm comfortable with that.

                    • Same here. Was there a message in that post?

                    • I answer your questions

                      No. You danced around the question. You support the contradictory goals of revoking the constitutional right to elect senators directly along with the goal of getting people more involved in government. I asked you how the first does not impede the second and you shoved your fingers in your ears.

                      A similar question - which I don't expect you to answer either - would be why not just shut down the senate entirely and let the state governors be the voices for their states? This would also aid your goal o

                    • Be comfortable. And I don't mean a couple beers cozy: the long haul.
                    • Both of your points are mired in YOUR refusal to understand (a) the original, working mechanisms of our Constitution, and (b) how Progressivism has de-stabilized the system by: freezing the size of the House; by muzzling States as political objects; by giving DC eminent domain over every wallet; and by permitting wanton inflation of the currency.
                      I'm afraid I thought your notion of "constitutional right to elect senators directly"=="getting people more involved in government" is so radically over-simplified

                    • Both of your points are mired in YOUR refusal to understand (a) the original, working mechanisms of our Constitution

                      The original constitution also did not allow the vote to anyone who was not a land-owning white male. Of course that is the overwhelming demographic for your party, so that restriction would likely be OK for you.

                      freezing the size of the House

                      I don't see why you are opposed to that. Why make government larger on purpose? You keep saying you want less government. Hell why not just go ahead and close down the senate entirely, that would get rid of a lot of those government jobs that you hate so dearly.

                      muzzling States as political objects

                      That's debatable at best.

                      Votes are crucial, yes

                      Well,

                    • Why make government larger on purpose? You keep saying you want less government.

                      Do you have any grasp of the vast size of the civil service? Probably you do not.
                      Anyway, you haven't read and understood my reply, and I'll save my time with the rest of yours, since you clearly don't grasp the point of the Ezra Klein [theblaze.com] comment.

                    • Why make government larger on purpose? You keep saying you want less government.

                      Do you have any grasp of the vast size of the civil service?

                      So then to paraphrase your stance:

                      • Making jobs for people who work for very little money == bad, bad, bad, really really bad
                      • Making jobs for the very wealthy people who work in congress == good, good, good, really really exceptionally good

                      Did I get that about right? I guess it does help with your wealth and power concentration aspirations.

                    • people who work in congress

                      I know what those five words mean, individually. That particular sequence seems a violation of the Incompleteness Theorem [wikipedia.org].
                      The crushing irony of your silly misreads is that you're making my point in a practical sense: our current Progressive economic course has bred what's tantamount to an aristocracy: if you're not caught with a live boy or a dead girl, you stay in office.
                      If you ACTUALLY want equality of opportunity, which will get you to a Pareto optimal society [wikipedia.org], you have to get off your wealth redistrib

                    • I learned.

                      I doubt that very much. You still idolize Reagan.

                    • Progressive economic course has bred what's tantamount to an aristocracy...

                      That's right. Because before then, everything was hunky dory.

                      ...you have to get off your wealth redistribution crack cocaine, and redistribute power.

                      Man! If he's on crack, you must be on some of the best acid around! Or maybe it's the fluorides in your water that calcified your mind.

                    • you must be on some of the best acid around!

                      I guess these ideals have an acidic effect on Statism.

    • I raised three items which you apparently blame on progressives:

      Actual independent, non-partisan agenda-free investigations into events

      Government representation of the people, elected by the people

      Having federal agencies do the job they are tasked with

      So why is it that you hate those ideas so much? What was so bad with these ideas? And what problems do you anticipate being able to solve by ridding the federal government of them?

      • I raised three items which you apparently blame on progressives:

        (1) Actual independent, non-partisan agenda-free investigations into events
        (2) Government representation of the people, elected by the people
        (3) Having federal agencies do the job they are tasked with

        So why is it that you hate those ideas so much? What was so bad with these ideas? And what problems do you anticipate being able to solve by ridding the federal government of them?

        (1) When do you think, for example, Benghazi had a "non-partisan agenda-free" investigation? The IRS? Fast & Furious?
        (2) When have you understood what the Founders were out to achieve, and "non-partisan agenda-free" thought to the matter? I'm not letting the GOP off the hook for being a pack of statist creeps here, either. The empirical results of Progressivism have been vast debt, income inequality, flight from Blue States, union thuggery. In a word: collapse. How about a little courage and intellect

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close