Bloom'burg Spanked Again: Federal Judge Appoints Master Due to NY Mayor Overreach

You use a label. I refute your label, and you tell me that they are imprecise. Then don't use the labels. Duh.

Conservative has a meaning to almost all who read the label. That decidedly does NOT include folks who try to ban large sugary drinks. Almost everyone who sees someone try that crap would call him a progressive.

meh to your homework assignment. If you have a point to make using those two progressives, do your own homework. I ain't interested.

I'll just say it again and move on: Bloomberg is not a conservative. He is a progressive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

You use a label. I refute your label, and you tell me that they are imprecise. Then don't use the labels. Duh.

Conservative has a meaning to almost all who read the label. That decidedly does NOT include folks who try to ban large sugary drinks. Almost everyone who sees someone try that crap would call him a progressive.

meh to your homework assignment. If you have a point to make using those two progressives, do your own homework. I ain't interested.

I'll just say it again and move on: Bloomberg is not a conservative. He is a progressive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I learned about your definition of "progressive" on the Glen Beck show a few years back.

What I learned is that "progressive" has become a reactionary curse-word for everything that is different from what people like Glen Beck like.

Roosevelt was a "progressive" because he broke up the trusts.

Wilson was a "progressive" because he advocated income tax, public education and what became the first social safety net programs.

Of the two, I would have preferred Teddy Roosevelt because he was a barrel of intelligence, action and fun, and Wilson was a racist.

Many "conservative" people will get annoyed with you if you call Teddy a "progressive" because they like his style, and do not think it too nice if you posture yourself as a patriot while making fun of the guy up on Mt. Rushmore. Roosevelt was an open carry fan. Then again, Roosevelt was also a militarist.

I rather liked both Wilson and Roosevelt's "progressive" views. Neither, I suspect, would have approved of Bloomberg's big gulp ban.

Major "progressive" ideas include giving women the right to vote and civil rights. I am also rather fond of that kind "progress."

Would we be better off with a "regressive" in any of these areas?

Nixon, the "conservative" was about expanding government to combat crime and did his best to roll back the 4th Amendment. He gave us the expansion of executive privilege and modern regulatory state. Reagan, "the conservative" brought us the basis for much of our present unbalanced budgets. Bush, "the conservative" brought us domestic surveillance, Iraq and Medicare Part D.

But you "ain't interested." You've "moved on" again. "Meh."

One problem with firing behind you while you continuously run away is that you always keep missing.

Yoo hoo! We're still here! And we'll catch you around!

I learned about your definition of "progressive" on the Glen Beck show a few years back.

What I learned is that "progressive" has become a reactionary curse-word for everything that is different from what people like Glen Beck like.

Click to expand...

that and Mark Levin wrote a book and now everyone throws the word statist around....

77zach said:

http://www.policestateusa.com/archives/45

Bloomberg worried about living in a city where police need a reason to stop someone.

Click to expand...

lol I just went to that website. The titles are pretty funny

Edit: I find them funny because they are over the top. While the stories may be true, it's the descriptive words they use like "uniformed hit squad" that make me laugh.

The Donkey said:

I learned about your definition of "progressive" on the Glen Beck show a few years back.

What I learned is that "progressive" has become a reactionary curse-word for everything that is different from what people like Glen Beck like.

Roosevelt was a "progressive" because he broke up the trusts.

Wilson was a "progressive" because he advocated income tax, public education and what became the first social safety net programs.

Of the two, I would have preferred Teddy Roosevelt because he was a barrel of intelligence, action and fun, and Wilson was a racist.

Many "conservative" people will get annoyed with you if you call Teddy a "progressive" because they like his style, and do not think it too nice if you posture yourself as a patriot while making fun of the guy up on Mt. Rushmore. Roosevelt was an open carry fan. Then again, Roosevelt was also a militarist.

I rather liked both Wilson and Roosevelt's "progressive" views. Neither, I suspect, would have approved of Bloomberg's big gulp ban.

Major "progressive" ideas include giving women the right to vote and civil rights. I am also rather fond of that kind "progress."

Would we be better off with a "regressive" in any of these areas?

Nixon, the "conservative" was about expanding government to combat crime and did his best to roll back the 4th Amendment. He gave us the expansion of executive privilege and modern regulatory state. Reagan, "the conservative" brought us the basis for much of our present unbalanced budgets. Bush, "the conservative" brought us domestic surveillance, Iraq and Medicare Part D.

But you "ain't interested." You've "moved on" again. "Meh."

One problem with firing behind you while you continuously run away is that you always keep missing.

Yoo hoo! We're still here! And we'll catch you around!

Click to expand...

Your friend Teddy was a racist, him and Wilson's ideologies were very similar.

Your term of applying both progressive to government grasps of power and then calling not doing that regressive is just plain silly.

Progressive and liberal were both terms that were hijacked by those with more socialistic ideals.

Your willingness to buy the states version of history is on you. It did not happen the way you say it did no matter how many times you say it did.

EMNofSeattle said:

that and Mark Levin wrote a book and now everyone throws the word statist around....

Click to expand...

LOL....yea that's were it came from ..... the statist Mark Levin called someone else a statist so everyone who uses that word must be followers are of the same set of Mark Levin....what utter hogwash.

sudden valley gunner said:

Yep of the two major parties there is no liberal one, there are two conservative (maintaining the status quo of increasing government intrusion) parties.......

Click to expand...

Pretty much the only correct (not to mention semantically useful) use of labels in the past page.

Props to you.

sudden valley gunner said:

LOL....yea that's were it came from ..... the statist Mark Levin called someone else a statist so everyone who uses that word must be followers are of the same set of Mark Levin....what utter hogwash.

Click to expand...

Dont worry, I have no doubt in my mind you use the word statist without ever reading mark levins books.....

EMNofSeattle said:

Dont worry, I have no doubt in my mind you use the word statist without ever reading mark levins books.....

Click to expand...

It's an excellent word for describing folks like you.

The Donkey said:

But for a very loud few, the open carry movement is just another way to display what regressive twits they are.
.

Click to expand...

Donkey,

Could you define "regressive twit". The use of the word twit sounds mildly pejorative, but the term regressive sounds quite appealing. Regressing to a state where constitutional rights are respected, the size of government is small, money was worth cold hard gold, activist judges had not yet been created, federal power and courts were limited, and the police were peace officers sounds great. Yeah, call me regressive

Live free or die,
Thundar

EMNofSeattle said:

Dont worry, I have no doubt in my mind you use the word statist without ever reading mark levins books.....

Click to expand...

Because I actually understand what it means and it's history, Mark Levine doesn't he has more in common with your friend Teddy Roosevelt....it was his era the word came to be commonly used to describe politicians and a political system like him.

marshaul said:

It's an excellent word for describing folks like you.

Click to expand...

+1 Since he doesn't like his statism being pointed out he wants to demonize those who use it.

Thundar said:

Donkey,

Could you define "regressive twit". The use of the word twit sounds mildly pejorative, but the term regressive sounds quite appealing. Regressing to a state where constitutional rights are respected, the size of government is small, money was worth cold hard gold, activist judges had not yet been created, federal power and courts were limited, and the police were peace officers sounds great. Yeah, call me regressive

Live free or die,
Thundar

Click to expand...

Most of the definitions for "twit" one finds on urbandictionary.com would not pass standards and practices muster here on OCDO. Here are a few of my favorites:

1. twit​

​

​

The kind of person that makes a retarded chimp look smart. They often can be found leaving definitions for their own name or the names of their friends on urbandictionary.com​

Joe smith definition:​

​

1: joe smith is the coolest man alive, look at me i wrote my name i am joe smith​

​

2: joe smith is a twit

3. Twit​

​

According to Oxford Student's Dictionary: a foolish person​

You twit​

5.

Twit
​

a) an imbecile
b) a user of the social network Twitter​

a) He's such a Twit
b) He's such a Twit​

8. Twit​

​

​

​

a pregnant goldfish
evolution
omg, he is totally a twit
hes a pregnant goldfish?
.....

9. twit
n. someone who is a pompous idiot

I really don't see why that woman doesn't get off welfare, hire a Nanny, and get a job. I mean McDonalds is always hiring.
Shut-up you twit!

10.

TWIT
​

Train Wreck In Training

See the pictures of so-and-so's 9 yr old sister's stripper boots? She's a TWIT.

11. TWITs

TWITs stands for 'Teenage Women in Their Thirties' and refers to 30-something women who have extended their adolescence, as well as those who, after starting a family, have entered a second teenage lifestage. The poster girls might be Pink, Victoria Beckham and Gwen Stefani.

As noted by Australian social researcher Mark McCrindle (www.mccrindle.com.au), the popularisation of lifestyle segments began in the 1980’s most notably with the Yuppies (Young Urban Professionals) and then the DINKs (Double Income, No Kids). The 1990’s introduced us to the SNAGs (Sensitive New Age Guy) and the WAGs (Wives And Girlfriends –notably of sporting stars). Other recent labels include KIPPERS (Kids In Parents' Pockets Eroding Retirement Savings), NETTELs (Not Enough Time To Enjoy Life), the Downagers, the Silver Stylersand the Boomerang kids.

"Did you see those TWITs at the bar?"




That said, I did not have any of these definitions in mind when I used this word. When modified by "regressive" I guess that I mean people who want to roll back things that I see as social progress: like racial equality and women's rights. Government is to some extent necessary for that. Without the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, other "progressive" legislation, and judges who notice that times are a changin', you have things like segregated lunch counters; literacy tests; the British common law rule which the US inherited at the time we declared independence that men had the right to hit their wives with sticks so long as they were no thicker than their thumbs; and widows and their children starving in the streets.

Of course, there are things done in the name of "progress" that I do not like. Pollution, union busting, "stop and frisk," and "assault weapons" bans are examples. You can count me in as a "regressive" on those.

As to activist judges, the greatest activists were the 19th and early 20th century judges who interpreted the constitution as protecting mercantile interests, and tried to invalidate virtually every law that would have interfered with what JP Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockafeller wanted to do. I suppose that now many who think of themselves as "conservatives" would see the Supreme Court justices who brought us Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut as "activists" too. To some extent, they are right. But if the Supreme Court overturns the provision of Obamacare that requires health care plans to cover contraception, that would also be "activist" in the same way. It is impossible for Judges to do their jobs without interpreting governing documents. When doing that, I do not want Judges to pretend that we are all running around in powdered wigs. You probably do not either, because if you did, the 2A would be "interpreted" as the right to keep and bear migluets.

This morning a received a gift coffee mug from my mother in law which has the Bill of Rights printed on it. When I pour in hot coffee, many provisions fade away, but a select few others remain. It does not have the 14th Amendment on it, but in my mind, the 14th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights .

IMHO, a "regressive twit" would be somebody who imagines a past where the Bill of Rights looks like what is written on my mug when it has hot coffee in it, and wants things to go back to the way they imagine things once were. Coincidentally, for some reason, the "regressive twits" who want that also seem prone to inaccurately calling others who they disagree with things like "progressive," "statist," and "socialist" in a perjorative manner.

On reflection, the "regressive" part is probably unnecessary. Just "twit" is fine.

As for me, I prefer a place where "the People" recognize that times change, and try to adapt to it, but also notice that some things are worth preserving. So I have both "progressive" and "conservative" views. When someone tries to stick a label on me, they usually don't stick to the material well.

Fail , you don't get to roll in progress of racial and gender equality with other progressive ideas, and then insinuate if you are against state backed unions you must be against racial equality.....

sudden valley gunner said:

Fail , you don't get to roll in progress of racial and gender equality with other progressive ideas, and then insinuate if you are against state backed unions you must be against racial equality.....

Click to expand...

I do not insinuate that at all.

I believe that trade unionism is a good idea all on its own -- irrespective of racial issues.

In some of those "good old days" trade unionism was more valued and more protected than it is now.

So does my support of trade unionism make me "progressive" or "regressive?"

The "ists," "ives" and the "isms" have a way of twisting one up like that.

The Donkey said:

The "ists," "ives" and the "isms" have a way of twisting one up like that.

Click to expand...

See, I'm right there with you on most labels. Nobody really has the slightest idea what liberal means when used by someone else (does it mean liberal or illiberal, for chrissakes?). Same goes with "progressive", "conservative" (is social conservatism even conservative? Likely not.), etc etc etc.

Statist, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous meaning, independent of one's partisan affiliation or even philosophical stance on government.

My dictionary:

statism |ˈstātˌizəm|
noun
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs: the rise of authoritarian statism.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, while one might describe certain actions or policies as "statist" purely on their own merits, it's far more common to use it to refer to a mentality. Specifically, while a person might decide, on a given issue, to apply government intervention (where another person would not), it isn't meaningful to describe this mere fact as "statist." "Statism" is meaningfully the attitude which defaults to and presupposes government oversight/intervention in vast swarths of human activity (if not all of it), and/or the consistent display of apologia for the state, usually of a remarkably single-sided and irrational variety.

You'll note that the latter description fits Primus to a "T", and the former fits our friend EMN equally well.

I suppose I'm one the few who finds your own presence on this forum unremarkable, and while I might, on the balance and assuming a binary state, classify you as "statist", I don't find your statism sufficiently distinct from – or of sufficiently greater magnitude than – the petty statism of a great many of the so-called "conservatives" (whatever that means) on this forum to be worthy of explicitly attaching the label.

marshaul said:

See, I'm right there with you on most labels. Nobody really has the slightest idea what liberal means when used by someone else (does it mean liberal or illiberal, for chrissakes?). Same goes with "progressive", "conservative" (is social conservatism even conservative? Likely not.), etc etc etc.

Statist, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous meaning, independent of one's partisan affiliation or even philosophical stance on government.

My dictionary:



Furthermore, while one might describe certain actions or policies as "statist" purely on their own merits, it's far more common to use it to refer to a mentality. Specifically, while a person might decide, on a given issue, to apply government intervention (where another person would not), it isn't meaningful to describe this mere fact as "statist." "Statism" is meaningfully the attitude which defaults to and presupposes government oversight/intervention in vast swarths of human activity (if not all of it), and/or the consistent display of apologia for the state, usually of a remarkably single-sided and irrational variety.

You'll note that the latter description fits Primus to a "T", and the former fits our friend EMN equally well.

I suppose I'm one the few who finds your own presence on this forum unremarkable, and while I might, on the balance and assuming a binary state, classify you as "statist", I don't find your statism sufficiently distinct from – or of sufficiently greater magnitude than – the petty statism of a great many of the so-called "conservatives" (whatever that means) on this forum to be worthy of explicitly attaching the label.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I am not familiar enough with Primus or EMN to express an opinion really, but I basically agree with the rest.

I suppose that any support for the state is in some sense a step down the road to possible tyranny, in the same way that dismantling government is a step down the road to possible anarchy. My own history and experience has given me every reason to distrust human institutions in general, and governmental institutions in particular. So my inclination tends toward less government, all other things being equal, which they rarely are.

At least US governmental institutions are theoretically organized around principles of democracy, public interest, and pluralism -- which gives the individual somewhat more of a fighting chance than with corporate, kleptocratic, or authoritarian institutions. Those models are far more common at present and historically. In some respects, those who control such institutions are far more powerful than our "statesmen." I treasure those aspects of our state which serve to balance against those institutions and warped personalities which/who if left unrestrained would crush us all.

Plato asserted that democracy is the most amenable form of government, but unfortunately also the most short-lived. As I learn how things really work in ours -- and don't -- and how self-interest, lack of imagination, and hardened belief is eroding democracy and the interests of future generations, I can get cynical and pessimistic sometimes. But I choose to believe -- in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary -- that it is still possible to make our democracy durable, and that by interacting with government and with people, we might help make things better -- or at least more tolerable -- in the future in some small way.

Thinking and acting that way, I hope, makes it more likely that we can push things in the right direction, or at least stop us from becoming part of the problem.

Evil and cynical "individualism" are of a kind. The world pushes us in that direction. Never stop pushing back.

marshaul said:

See, I'm right there with you on most labels. Nobody really has the slightest idea what liberal means when used by someone else (does it mean liberal or illiberal, for chrissakes?). Same goes with "progressive", "conservative" (is social conservatism even conservative? Likely not.), etc etc etc.

Statist, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous meaning, independent of one's partisan affiliation or even philosophical stance on government.

My dictionary:



Furthermore, while one might describe certain actions or policies as "statist" purely on their own merits, it's far more common to use it to refer to a mentality. Specifically, while a person might decide, on a given issue, to apply government intervention (where another person would not), it isn't meaningful to describe this mere fact as "statist." "Statism" is meaningfully the attitude which defaults to and presupposes government oversight/intervention in vast swarths of human activity (if not all of it), and/or the consistent display of apologia for the state, usually of a remarkably single-sided and irrational variety.

You'll note that the latter description fits Primus to a "T", and the former fits our friend EMN equally well.

I suppose I'm one the few who finds your own presence on this forum unremarkable, and while I might, on the balance and assuming a binary state, classify you as "statist", I don't find your statism sufficiently distinct from – or of sufficiently greater magnitude than – the petty statism of a great many of the so-called "conservatives" (whatever that means) on this forum to be worthy of explicitly attaching the label.

Click to expand...

If your going to pull guys into a conversation at least be right about something. Statism actually has many DEGREES, from Minarchist to totalirianism. Your dictionary doesn't mean anything unless you are some how a citable source now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism?s=t

noun
1.
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2.
support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

So I guess the next time someone says they want a a republic back or who votes for States rights, you can call them an evil statist. It's a matter of how much or to what degree. Some guys try to make things black and white when not many (if anything) is.

Primus said:

If your going to pull guys into a conversation at least be right about something. Statism actually has many DEGREES, from Minarchist to totalirianism. Your dictionary doesn't mean anything unless you are some how a citable source now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism?s=t

noun
1.
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2.
support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

So I guess the next time someone says they want a a republic back or who votes for States rights, you can call them an evil statist. It's a matter of how much or to what degree. Some guys try to make things black and white when not many (if anything) is.

Click to expand...

You know nothing of the history of the word statist/statism.

The Donkey said:

I do not insinuate that at all.

I believe that trade unionism is a good idea all on its own -- irrespective of racial issues.

In some of those "good old days" trade unionism was more valued and more protected than it is now.

So does my support of trade unionism make me "progressive" or "regressive?"

The "ists," "ives" and the "isms" have a way of twisting one up like that.

Click to expand...

Oh you did my friend by lumping them all together, both democrats and republicans do this. I can't tell you how many times a "conservative" has called me a progressive because I pointed out his parties demagoguery.

Primus said:

If your going to pull guys into a conversation at least be right about something. Statism actually has many DEGREES, from Minarchist to totalirianism. Your dictionary doesn't mean anything unless you are some how a citable source now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism?s=t

noun
1.
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2.
support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

So I guess the next time someone says they want a a republic back or who votes for States rights, you can call them an evil statist. It's a matter of how much or to what degree. Some guys try to make things black and white when not many (if anything) is.

Click to expand...

Go back and read my post again. There is nothing written here not explicitly addressed therein, and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

Incidentally, "my" dictionary is no more nor less credible than any other published dictionary. That's really quite irrelevant to the credibility of my argument.

Welcome to Semantics 101...

Am I the only one who believes we may have an infiltration of agents provocateur in OCDO lately? Pax...:uhoh:

P.S. Back the the OP... it's about time somebody "spanked Bloomputz"!