Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AlGore, once more the buffoon...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    No they don't. And you might wish to actually do a little research to find out.

    The Progressive Era was from approximately 1890-1920 and many influential Americans, such as Teddy Roosevelt were Progressives. Their purpose was to root out political corruption and reform government and society where needed.

    Today's progressives originated in the 1950s, probably from the socialist movement and migrated to the Democratic Party over the next few decades. They have little or no relation to the Progressive Era. Their main effort is to make the government the agent of the change they want whether or not it is good for the country or its people.
    What difference does any of that make? Progressive is a noun. You have the Progressive Democrat Caucus (CPC) in Congress. You have Progressive Democrats of America.

    http://pdamerica.org/about-pda/

    There were also Progressive Parties in 1924 and 1948. But, today Progressives are represented often by association with the Democrat party in the same way the Minnesota Democratic Farm-Labor Party is for example. Thus, a proper noun.

    Today's Progressives might best be compared as Leftists comparable to the TEA Party on the Right. They aren't organized as a single party but rather factions of Leftists with some goals in common.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      What difference does any of that make? Progressive is a noun. You have the Progressive Democrat Caucus (CPC) in Congress. You have Progressive Democrats of America.

      http://pdamerica.org/about-pda/

      There were also Progressive Parties in 1924 and 1948. But, today Progressives are represented often by association with the Democrat party in the same way the Minnesota Democratic Farm-Labor Party is for example. Thus, a proper noun.

      Today's Progressives might best be compared as Leftists comparable to the TEA Party on the Right. They aren't organized as a single party but rather factions of Leftists with some goals in common.
      The difference is that the so-called progressive movement today has nothing to do with the Progressive Era of 1890-1920.

      Comment


      • #33
        From Wiki:
        Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[2] The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]
        The term is also now often used as shorthand for a more or less left-wing way of looking at the world
        ...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

        The Progressive Era(USA)
        ...
        The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States, from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] The main objectives of the Progressive movement were eliminating problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and corruption in government.
        The movement primarily targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (Trust Busting) and corporations through antitrust laws. These antitrust laws were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors.
        Many progressives supported prohibition in the United States, ostensibly to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons, but others out of a religious motivation.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A third theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism".
        Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,[4] economics,[5] and political science.[6] In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side. Yet, leaders of the movement also existed far from presidential politics. Jane Addams, Grace Abbott, Edith Abbott and Sophonisba Breckinridge were among the most influential Progressive Era reformers.
        ...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Massena
          In short, the US elected a scumbag as president who will eventually end up hurting the US in many ways-economically, morally, and physically.
          Politicians are a reflection of society and unfortunately vasts parts of society today are morally devoid, they just love to be bad, they don't wanna be told that there are consequences for their actions either, they are a bunch of nihilists.

          In a way it's been long time coming. I mean think back to the Clinton blowjob (if that even happened) and how that begun to lower everyone's expectations, then we get all the way up to Trump and Hillary and it is a clown show! What adult, in their adult mind, could view the election as anything but a clown show?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Massena View Post
            The difference is that the so-called progressive movement today has nothing to do with the Progressive Era of 1890-1920.
            And where have I ever linked the two...?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              You're overlooking Al Gore's former bosses: Bill and Hillary Clinton. Indeed, wasn't the central plank of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign "I'm not a Clinton"?

              Trump is bad, no doubt about it. Every time he touches his smart phone I cringe a little bit more. At this rate I'll suck my teeth out of their sockets by Columbus Day. Still doesn't make me forget what a walking talking goat-fck of a politician that Al Gore is, however.
              yeah they situationally lied. (Clintons)

              Trump exaggerates things that either don't have to be ie positive stories about him or do not matter. He just cant say the sky is blue it the most brilliant blue anyone has ever seen. Then tommrow rinse and repeat

              I liked Gore at one point but then he went full politician and couldn't stand him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by craven View Post
                yeah they situationally lied. (Clintons)

                Trump exaggerates things that either don't have to be ie positive stories about him or do not matter. He just cant say the sky is blue it the most brilliant blue anyone has ever seen. Then tommrow rinse and repeat

                I liked Gore at one point but then he went full politician and couldn't stand him.
                Gore is just full of himself and a gooey brown substance that smells bad... Like his "inventing the internet" or anything to do with "Gorebal Warming" like in his book saying that "the internal combustion engine was the most dangerous invention of the 20th century..." Kind of makes you wonder where he'd put nuclear weapons on the list...
                Gore strikes me as one of those smug people you run into on the Left that think they're so smart and really know stuff, but are in reality really incompetent, and so incompetent that they can't recognize their own incompetence.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Gore is just full of himself and a gooey brown substance that smells bad... Like his "inventing the internet" or anything to do with "Gorebal Warming" like in his book saying that "the internal combustion engine was the most dangerous invention of the 20th century..." Kind of makes you wonder where he'd put nuclear weapons on the list...
                  Gore strikes me as one of those smug people you run into on the Left that think they're so smart and really know stuff, but are in reality really incompetent, and so incompetent that they can't recognize their own incompetence.
                  I agree and not sure about the last. I think it just being a politician and never being told no much.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/763182/posts

                      Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).
                      Gore was, and is, a mediocre mind of no particular capacity. Why should anyone listen to him on anything? His grades in the two introductory (and required) science courses he took in college were below average (a C- and a D). He obviously has little if any scientific training or knowledge. Yet, somehow he's some paragon of intellect on Gorebal Warming?

                      The guy's an scientific illiterate.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X