The Practicality and Reality of the Progressive Movement

This is for general discussion of the pros and coons of the progressive movement and aspects thereof. Such as Affirmative Action, Minimum Wage, The Department of Education, and so on. I find myself personally on the fence on the issue now that I think of it I usually find the ideas to be noble and well meaning but that they can go too far and don't quite work in practice like they do in theory. Discuss. My stances taken in the Food Safety thread I'll admit were a bit callous but at that point I was thinking form a purely pragmatic point of view. Sorry again for acting like a dick.

edited 2nd Apr '11 11:32:35 PM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Pretty freaking dumb, in the US anyway since everyone else has had plenty of time to catch up with the whities. Benefits should only go to those in situations that can change, in other words, economic status and some other area depending on what we're talking about. Otherwise, this can easily crowd out white people who may have deserve X more than the other non-white person on the sole basis that that person was not white.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

"Department of Education"? Is there a move from some groups in the U.S. to abolish the entire department?

Yes. It's actually a mainstream opinion among the right.

edited 2nd Apr '11 11:38:27 PM by EnglishIvy

Much more insane than I thought...

I agree whole heartedly with the Progressive Movement, mostly because I believe in a future of equality, and fraternity.

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.

But you also have to understand how it works in practice not just in theory. I'd love it if we could all get along and helpe achtoher but as it stands thats just not somethign that can be forced in people through law.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Affirmative action I think is not needed that much anymore I admit.

Getting rid of the department of education? The hell?

I guess since they didn't use it, they don't really feel its needed huh?

The argument against it is that it has no constitutional basis. As well as the fact that it drives private school prices up because of lack of competetive nature and comdnems the poorest fractions of the population to the worst possible education.

Ammendment: I would like to note that I myself am in support of a universal voucher system that would allow the poor and middle class to have choice in schools as much as the wealthy.

edited 2nd Apr '11 11:50:28 PM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

So our entire basis of law should be what the constitution says, and if its not in it, its null and void?

Thats the dumbest thing I have heard all weekend.

@Trapper

No, once again. It's more of pertaining to how the government should hand out scholarships and grants and how it should treat race ratios in colleges.

edited 2nd Apr '11 11:51:26 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I would have to agree with that Thorn. if something not in the constitution is nessecary it will be ammended otherwise if the federal government excercises any powers it is not explictly granted in the const itution it is commiting treason.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

What, really? How does that work? Do they really think a less educated workforce is better for the economy? Is the idea to get a boom from all the kiddies working down coal mines and in textile factories?

Seriously, how are they arguing that this would be a boon to the economy?

Edit: Oh, it's an argument about the assignment of scholarships and grants, not abolishing the department all together? I can see the point of arguing that. (Not sure of my opinion, given I don't know how the U.S. assigns scholarships and grants, but the argument sounds more sane.)

edited 2nd Apr '11 11:55:44 PM by TrapperZoid

I think it's because ending the DOE would increase "freedom", or somesuch.

From my understanding most of them are advocating a voucher systems that would allow parents to choose any private school they like for their children isntead of being forced in to public school due to low income.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

@tnu

Wait, you are saying you agree with me its dumb, or is it your belief that if its not in the constitution its treason?

Because if its the later, I can't buy such crock. If thats the case, then the constitution better be FUCKING HUGE.

You can't run a nation with 27 short blurbs.

I'm pretty sure you can. the glory of the constitution is that it it is simple and serves one purpos. to protect the liberty of the people by limiting our government.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

EI, quite misrepresenting the people you don't agree with. The Education branch is alive and well, it's just a matter of discussion on how they should treat equal representation in schools.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

You can't run a country with simple and broad strokes.

There are SO MANY tiny yet important laws needed to run a country that broad strokes can never cover them all correctly.

Also if the constitution is so simple, why do we argue what a certain amendment means over and over and over again?

Alright. Got into one of these threads early on. This should be fun.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Because people have an agenda and they take advantage of the fact that words change their meaning over time to fulfill that agenda. Gun controll nuts and the word regulate for example. If we read it in it's Plain Text sense that wouldn't be a problem. If you relaly feel somethign is nessecary ask for an ammendment. If the general populace thinks its nessecary or worth while it will get passsed. if we used the constitution like you suggested the government could get away with whatever the hell it wanted.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Wait, are you arguing that people use the vagueness of words to their advantage?

THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THE LESS SIMPLE THE BETTER.

No we just need to take the word of James Madison to heart on this one. read the constitution according to the lexicon of the time of ratificaiton of its individual parts. and if not a simple constituiton with the aim to preserve our liberty from the state what would you advocate?

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Using the Bible instead, since critical analysis of it is far more advanced

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Please tell me your joking.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

I wanted to bring this up in the gun control thread, but here's as good a place as any-In the 2nd amendment, the word "regulated" has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. "A well regulated maintained militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It only explains the reasoning for the important part- "The right [...] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The main issue people have is with what exactly counts as 'infringing' on said right.

Following a law to the letter rather than the spirit is just as bad as trying to figure out what the spirit is to fit whatever you want it to mean.

edited 3rd Apr '11 12:27:10 AM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?