(06-12-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:10 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't you see, supporting a strong public school system that extends before/after kindergarten and 12th grade is just about controlling people!

Your word choice seems revealing: stating one's objective as making the system strong rather than the education effective does not necessarily mean that it's "just" about control, but it certainly suggests that it's at least as much about control of education as it as about learning.

You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

I explained my disappointment: that you stated your objective as a strong system rather than effective education. Being disappointed in that is not smugness on my part. I think you were caught in your error and now are trying to backtrack.

More generally, education is very much an area in which "progressives" seem more committed to control than to results. In city after city, time after time, we have seen "progressives" go to the barricades to fight against accountability of schools and teachers for student learning, and to shut down mechanisms that might allow kids to get a good education outside the union-dominated "public school system". Their priority is the "system", not the outcomes. By all evidence, that's what makes "progressives" tick.

(06-12-2019 10:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:10 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Your word choice seems revealing: stating one's objective as making the system strong rather than the education effective does not necessarily mean that it's "just" about control, but it certainly suggests that it's at least as much about control of education as it as about learning.

You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

I explained my disappointment: that you stated your objective as a strong system rather than effective education. Being disappointed in that is not smugness on my part. I think you were caught in your error and now are trying to backtrack.

More generally, education is very much an area in which "progressives" seem more committed to control than to results. In city after city, time after time, we have seen "progressives" go to the barricades to fight against accountability of schools and teachers for student learning, and to shut down mechanisms that might allow kids to get a good education outside the union-dominated "public school system". Their priority is the "system", not the outcomes. By all evidence, that's what makes "progressives" tick.

I'm not trying to backtrack on an "error," I'm saying that it isn't an error and you're reading far too much into the use of the word "strong" over another term that describes what makes a school system :insert George-approved positive term here:.

I'm no policy expert, but my understanding is that their view is that the system is inherently important to the outcome. That to have the most :insert George-approved positive term here: outcomes for the most pupils, that adequate funding is needed, and siphoning the funding away from the public school systems to the other ones undermines the ability to achieve those outcomes.

If your thesis was true, you would see progressives rail against private schools in general - but they don't. They oppose a voucher system that siphons away funding. I've never seen a mainstream liberal argue that private schools across the board should be disbanded, just that public funds should not go to them.

(06-12-2019 08:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as starkly as George does. I think it is an unconscious motivation on the part of most progressives, the bottom 90% of the pyramid. They just see an enormous amount of people who cannot take care of themselves, and so they step in to direct their lives in the proper channels, and the rest of the people they see are uncaring, so they must be forced to help, and the end result either way is a bureaucracy shaping and propelling lives into the proper channels. Channels the progressives see and define for us, like environmental laws. It's not that they want power, they just have to run things if they want them done right. Sort of a modern version of the White Man's Burden from 200 years ago. I guess now, we caqn call it the Progressive's Burden.


And now for something completely different...

I am going out of town, so for a while my posting with be erratic (huge sigh of relief from the parliament). One question I have had running through my mind lately is this:

What have the Democrats in the House accomplished since winning the house? All that comes to mind are:

1. Endless bleating about impeachment, with the endless investigations rerouted into OOJ matters, with the attendant subpoenas and whatnot; Yada, Yada, Yada, rinse and repeat.
2. AOC proposed the GND, met with total derision, disbelief, and inaction from both sides.

Is the legacy of this House to be that they did nothing but oppose Trump?

In the meantime, two dozen candidates seem united on one thing - Somebody must beat Trump, it doesn't matter who or what their program is, or else Armageddon will be here and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. (One of their Dirty Two Dozen said as much yesterday).

So, i would like to hear especially from the libs here, what the hell are you doing?

BTW, the price of gasoline continues to drop, the stock market continues to rise, people continue to work and take home their pay and have disposable income to spend. This must STOP! if the Democrats are to meet their goal, their only goal, of beating Trump.

Govtrack shows that The House has passed 168 bills onto the Senate in the first 6 months of working. 20 bills so far have been signed by the POTUS and 2 have been passed by Congress by vetoed by POTUS.

How many of those are the 'Beto specials" (i.e. naming courthouses and stuff)?

Sometimes the metric is not 'how many bills have passed'.

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice (and incisive to boot) example.

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

(06-12-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

I explained my disappointment: that you stated your objective as a strong system rather than effective education. Being disappointed in that is not smugness on my part. I think you were caught in your error and now are trying to backtrack.

More generally, education is very much an area in which "progressives" seem more committed to control than to results. In city after city, time after time, we have seen "progressives" go to the barricades to fight against accountability of schools and teachers for student learning, and to shut down mechanisms that might allow kids to get a good education outside the union-dominated "public school system". Their priority is the "system", not the outcomes. By all evidence, that's what makes "progressives" tick.

I'm not trying to backtrack on an "error," I'm saying that it isn't an error and you're reading far too much into the use of the word "strong" over another term that describes what makes a school system :insert George-approved positive term here:.

I'm no policy expert, but my understanding is that their view is that the system is inherently important to the outcome. That to have the most :insert George-approved positive term here: outcomes for the most pupils, that adequate funding is needed, and siphoning the funding away from the public school systems to the other ones undermines the ability to achieve those outcomes.

If your thesis was true, you would see progressives rail against private schools in general - but they don't. They oppose a voucher system that siphons away funding. I've never seen a mainstream liberal argue that private schools across the board should be disbanded, just that public funds should not go to them.

But the track record shows that:
- But to "progressives", there is no such thing as "adequate" funding. Like the songs says, "When you ask them how much should we give, the only answer is more, more, more..."
- Even if funding for the "system" were quadrupled, "progressives" would still oppose anything that makes it possible for poor kids to get education outside of the system. Because helping students succeed is less important than making sure that they do NOT succeed without Big Brother.
- I've never seen a "progressive" contend that if public support of private schools achieves better results than a public-only system, then they would support it. Why not? Because they care more about control than they do about results!

It is true that even "progressives" have not tried to abolished private schools entirely -- after all, what would they do without Sidwell Friends, or at the college level, Reed and Oberlin? But I have seen them argue for active discrimination against private school students in various ways. And there are several "progressives" I know personally who have argued that sending one's own child, at one's own cost, to a private school is immoral, and have actively shamed other parents for doing so.

So much for being "pro-choice"!

(06-12-2019 11:39 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

I explained my disappointment: that you stated your objective as a strong system rather than effective education. Being disappointed in that is not smugness on my part. I think you were caught in your error and now are trying to backtrack.

More generally, education is very much an area in which "progressives" seem more committed to control than to results. In city after city, time after time, we have seen "progressives" go to the barricades to fight against accountability of schools and teachers for student learning, and to shut down mechanisms that might allow kids to get a good education outside the union-dominated "public school system". Their priority is the "system", not the outcomes. By all evidence, that's what makes "progressives" tick.

I'm not trying to backtrack on an "error," I'm saying that it isn't an error and you're reading far too much into the use of the word "strong" over another term that describes what makes a school system :insert George-approved positive term here:.

I'm no policy expert, but my understanding is that their view is that the system is inherently important to the outcome. That to have the most :insert George-approved positive term here: outcomes for the most pupils, that adequate funding is needed, and siphoning the funding away from the public school systems to the other ones undermines the ability to achieve those outcomes.

If your thesis was true, you would see progressives rail against private schools in general - but they don't. They oppose a voucher system that siphons away funding. I've never seen a mainstream liberal argue that private schools across the board should be disbanded, just that public funds should not go to them.

But the track record shows that:
- But to "progressives", there is no such thing as "adequate" funding. Like the songs says, "When you ask them how much should we give, the only answer is more, more, more..."
- Even if funding for the "system" were quadrupled, "progressives" would still oppose anything that makes it possible for poor kids to get education outside of the system. Because helping students succeed is less important than making sure that they do NOT succeed without Big Brother.
- I've never seen a "progressive" contend that if public support of private schools achieves better results than a public-only system, then they would support it. Why not? Because they care more about control than they do about results!

Me. If public support of private schools can be proven to achieve better results than public-only then I would support this.

(06-12-2019 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as starkly as George does. I think it is an unconscious motivation on the part of most progressives, the bottom 90% of the pyramid. They just see an enormous amount of people who cannot take care of themselves, and so they step in to direct their lives in the proper channels, and the rest of the people they see are uncaring, so they must be forced to help, and the end result either way is a bureaucracy shaping and propelling lives into the proper channels. Channels the progressives see and define for us, like environmental laws. It's not that they want power, they just have to run things if they want them done right. Sort of a modern version of the White Man's Burden from 200 years ago. I guess now, we caqn call it the Progressive's Burden.


And now for something completely different...

I am going out of town, so for a while my posting with be erratic (huge sigh of relief from the parliament). One question I have had running through my mind lately is this:

What have the Democrats in the House accomplished since winning the house? All that comes to mind are:

1. Endless bleating about impeachment, with the endless investigations rerouted into OOJ matters, with the attendant subpoenas and whatnot; Yada, Yada, Yada, rinse and repeat.
2. AOC proposed the GND, met with total derision, disbelief, and inaction from both sides.

Is the legacy of this House to be that they did nothing but oppose Trump?

In the meantime, two dozen candidates seem united on one thing - Somebody must beat Trump, it doesn't matter who or what their program is, or else Armageddon will be here and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. (One of their Dirty Two Dozen said as much yesterday).

So, i would like to hear especially from the libs here, what the hell are you doing?

BTW, the price of gasoline continues to drop, the stock market continues to rise, people continue to work and take home their pay and have disposable income to spend. This must STOP! if the Democrats are to meet their goal, their only goal, of beating Trump.

Govtrack shows that The House has passed 168 bills onto the Senate in the first 6 months of working. 20 bills so far have been signed by the POTUS and 2 have been passed by Congress by vetoed by POTUS.

How many of those are the 'Beto specials" (i.e. naming courthouses and stuff)?

Sometimes the metric is not 'how many bills have passed'.

Just list the three most important, the ones this Congress will be remembered for.

(06-12-2019 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as starkly as George does. I think it is an unconscious motivation on the part of most progressives, the bottom 90% of the pyramid. They just see an enormous amount of people who cannot take care of themselves, and so they step in to direct their lives in the proper channels, and the rest of the people they see are uncaring, so they must be forced to help, and the end result either way is a bureaucracy shaping and propelling lives into the proper channels. Channels the progressives see and define for us, like environmental laws. It's not that they want power, they just have to run things if they want them done right. Sort of a modern version of the White Man's Burden from 200 years ago. I guess now, we caqn call it the Progressive's Burden.


And now for something completely different...

I am going out of town, so for a while my posting with be erratic (huge sigh of relief from the parliament). One question I have had running through my mind lately is this:

What have the Democrats in the House accomplished since winning the house? All that comes to mind are:

1. Endless bleating about impeachment, with the endless investigations rerouted into OOJ matters, with the attendant subpoenas and whatnot; Yada, Yada, Yada, rinse and repeat.
2. AOC proposed the GND, met with total derision, disbelief, and inaction from both sides.

Is the legacy of this House to be that they did nothing but oppose Trump?

In the meantime, two dozen candidates seem united on one thing - Somebody must beat Trump, it doesn't matter who or what their program is, or else Armageddon will be here and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. (One of their Dirty Two Dozen said as much yesterday).

So, i would like to hear especially from the libs here, what the hell are you doing?

BTW, the price of gasoline continues to drop, the stock market continues to rise, people continue to work and take home their pay and have disposable income to spend. This must STOP! if the Democrats are to meet their goal, their only goal, of beating Trump.

Govtrack shows that The House has passed 168 bills onto the Senate in the first 6 months of working. 20 bills so far have been signed by the POTUS and 2 have been passed by Congress by vetoed by POTUS.

How many of those are the 'Beto specials" (i.e. naming courthouses and stuff)?

Sometimes the metric is not 'how many bills have passed'.

Just list the three most important, the ones this Congress will be remembered for.

(06-12-2019 11:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:39 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

I explained my disappointment: that you stated your objective as a strong system rather than effective education. Being disappointed in that is not smugness on my part. I think you were caught in your error and now are trying to backtrack.

More generally, education is very much an area in which "progressives" seem more committed to control than to results. In city after city, time after time, we have seen "progressives" go to the barricades to fight against accountability of schools and teachers for student learning, and to shut down mechanisms that might allow kids to get a good education outside the union-dominated "public school system". Their priority is the "system", not the outcomes. By all evidence, that's what makes "progressives" tick.

I'm not trying to backtrack on an "error," I'm saying that it isn't an error and you're reading far too much into the use of the word "strong" over another term that describes what makes a school system :insert George-approved positive term here:.

I'm no policy expert, but my understanding is that their view is that the system is inherently important to the outcome. That to have the most :insert George-approved positive term here: outcomes for the most pupils, that adequate funding is needed, and siphoning the funding away from the public school systems to the other ones undermines the ability to achieve those outcomes.

If your thesis was true, you would see progressives rail against private schools in general - but they don't. They oppose a voucher system that siphons away funding. I've never seen a mainstream liberal argue that private schools across the board should be disbanded, just that public funds should not go to them.

But the track record shows that:
- But to "progressives", there is no such thing as "adequate" funding. Like the songs says, "When you ask them how much should we give, the only answer is more, more, more..."
- Even if funding for the "system" were quadrupled, "progressives" would still oppose anything that makes it possible for poor kids to get education outside of the system. Because helping students succeed is less important than making sure that they do NOT succeed without Big Brother.
- I've never seen a "progressive" contend that if public support of private schools achieves better results than a public-only system, then they would support it. Why not? Because they care more about control than they do about results!

Me. If public support of private schools can be proven to achieve better results than public-only then I would support this.

There’s also more options than just public vs private. I went to a charter-like public school for middle/high school. My understanding is that it was added to our county to deal with population increases, but drew from the entire county as opposed to regular school districts. It had no requirements for attendance, just that you got in via a lottery or sibling/parent already being enrolled/working. It was academically focused, and is now one of the best public high schools in the country (despite being in Florida). I fully support innovative solution to educational problems, and that can include charters or other methods. I’m not a fan of private school vouchers, though. But if you want to spend your own money to send your child to private school, I will never try to stop you.

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

No. No more so than either side wants power to move forward legislation that they consider important.

Quote:What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

Whether or not you support abortion is not relevant. I am saying that the conservative goal of making abortion no longer available to women is the height (the fing height as Tanq would say) of "wielding power".

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

No one is arguing that, in general, Dem positions result in a federal, state, local government that is more active and has more control/power. The issue at hand is George’s desire to try and psychoanalyze the underlying reasoning for those policy positions, and that fundamentally (you know, what those ideas are built on) is the desire for power. I refute that hypothesis and think it is an incredibly smug position to hold.

(06-12-2019 01:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

No. No more so than either side wants power to move forward legislation that they consider important.

Quote:What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

Whether or not you support abortion is not relevant. I am saying that the conservative goal of making abortion no longer available to women is the height (the fing height as Tanq would say) of "wielding power".

I would say the military draft I was subject to was he height of wielding power. They literally had the power of life and death over me. Pleas of “its my body” and I don’t want it where you want it were unheard by those with the power - LBJ et al.

On more modern terms, I would say the IRS wields a lot of power, and the more taxation, the more power.

(06-12-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

No. No more so than either side wants power to move forward legislation that they consider important.

Quote:What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

Whether or not you support abortion is not relevant. I am saying that the conservative goal of making abortion no longer available to women is the height (the fing height as Tanq would say) of "wielding power".

I would say the military draft I was subject to was he height of wielding power. They literally had the power of life and death over me. Pleas of “its my body” and I don’t want it where you want it were unheard by those with the power - LBJ et al.

On more modern terms, I would say the IRS wields a lot of power, and the more taxation, the more power.

Yes. Nobody would argue either of those points.

Outlawing abortion will also lead to a life or death situation for some women.

(06-12-2019 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

No one is arguing that, in general, Dem positions result in a federal, state, local government that is more active and has more control/power. The issue at hand is George’s desire to try and psychoanalyze the underlying reasoning for those policy positions, and that fundamentally (you know, what those ideas are built on) is the desire for power. I refute that hypothesis and think it is an incredibly smug position to hold.

I stand by that hypothesis because it is accurate.

Advancing a hypothesis supported by history and experience is not smug. Adamant refusal to recognize that hypothesis is.

I'm surprised the reaction has been so strong. "Progressives" could say "Come to think of it, you've got a point: a lot of my views probably are rooted in a desire to tell other people what to do." That doesn't seem so hard, and at least it's honest.

Perhaps the fact that even a "progressive" is not yet willing to declare bossiness a virtue shows that, at some level and for the time being, there may be hope yet.

(06-12-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

No. No more so than either side wants power to move forward legislation that they consider important.

Quote:What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

Whether or not you support abortion is not relevant. I am saying that the conservative goal of making abortion no longer available to women is the height (the fing height as Tanq would say) of "wielding power".

I would say the military draft I was subject to was he height of wielding power. They literally had the power of life and death over me. Pleas of “its my body” and I don’t want it where you want it were unheard by those with the power - LBJ et al.

On more modern terms, I would say the IRS wields a lot of power, and the more taxation, the more power.

Yes. Nobody would argue either of those points.

Outlawing abortion will also lead to a life or death situation for some women.

Usually, the person dying is the child.

But, yes, occasionally the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Any stats on how often that happens?

(06-12-2019 01:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

No. No more so than either side wants power to move forward legislation that they consider important.

Quote:What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

Whether or not you support abortion is not relevant. I am saying that the conservative goal of making abortion no longer available to women is the height (the fing height as Tanq would say) of "wielding power".

I would say the military draft I was subject to was he height of wielding power. They literally had the power of life and death over me. Pleas of “its my body” and I don’t want it where you want it were unheard by those with the power - LBJ et al.

On more modern terms, I would say the IRS wields a lot of power, and the more taxation, the more power.

Yes. Nobody would argue either of those points.

Outlawing abortion will also lead to a life or death situation for some women.

Usually, the person dying is the child.

But, yes, occasionally the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Any stats on how often that happens?

From the American College of Obstetrician/Gynocologists:

"More women die in the US from pregnancy-related complications than in any other developed country. The US is the only industrialized nation with a rising maternal mortality rate, and between 2000 and 2014, there was a 26% increase in the maternal mortality rate.i Racial disparities in maternal mortality are staggering -- black women are three to four times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related complication than non-Hispanic white women."

From USNWR (published today):

"ABOUT 700 women die of pregnancy-related problems every year in the U.S., at a rate of 17.2 deaths per 100,000 live births between 2011 and 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

*edit* I don't have the rates for maternal mortality specifically in women who were seeking an abortion.

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

The concept of a tax cut is so absolutely anathema to progressive ideals (either the explicit ones about fair share, or the implicit one about the 'Santa Claus' party, or the implicit one about seeking control) that any such cut (or yielding of power) has to accompanied by an equal taking of power (i.e. the call for 'uniform' tax cuts for 'all' people, regardless if they pay taxes or not).

I will grant you that 'limiting access to abortions' is wielding power. No doubt. How does that stack up against a federalized health care system? Or the power of taxation? Or a federalized and forced retirement system that is nothing more than a fing transfer of wealth? Or how about the federal system of not so long ago that *mandated* how every state had to set speed limits within its borders?

Any 'wielded power' in the abortion issue seems kind of fing pissant in scope to all the other actual and ongoing progressive avenues of wielding power I would say.

(06-12-2019 01:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

No one is arguing that, in general, Dem positions result in a federal, state, local government that is more active and has more control/power. The issue at hand is George’s desire to try and psychoanalyze the underlying reasoning for those policy positions, and that fundamentally (you know, what those ideas are built on) is the desire for power. I refute that hypothesis and think it is an incredibly smug position to hold.

I stand by that hypothesis because it is accurate.

Advancing a hypothesis supported by history and experience is not smug. Adamant refusal to recognize that hypothesis is.

I'm surprised the reaction has been so strong. "Progressives" could say "Come to think of it, you've got a point: a lot of my views probably are rooted in a desire to tell other people what to do." That doesn't seem so hard, and at least it's honest.

Perhaps the fact that even a "progressive" is not yet willing to declare bossiness a virtue shows that, at some level and for the time being, there may be hope yet.

Your thesis is built on governments abusing power - is it true that every government that labels itself as progressive has abused its power?

I still find your fundamental idea that progressive/left ideals being built on a conscious or subconscious desire for control to be ridiculous. No doubt that some who fly that banner do have that idea, but you’re cutting too large of a swath. I would definitely fit into the Democrat/left designation based on our country’s definition, and I really don’t care to control others by fiat if there are alternatives. On a regular basis I am managing subcontractors and fellow employees in the field. One of things I like least is to use my authority to tell them what to do - I much prefer if we’re at a cross roads to discuss the issue and come to a consensus that we can all agree on.

My views are primarily rooted in the idea that there is a place for someone to provide oversight and guide the country. Environmental laws are perfect examples of this - our economic system does not consider negative externalities that bear no costs onto the user (pollution) but do impose a negative externality on non-users (say, someone drinking polluted water). I believe it makes sense to find a way to capture said costs to protect non-users. And that has nothing to do with a desire to control others.