'You have willingly argued that those who support Obama are not only Communists, but that they are also members of the KKK.'

I have not. It's called reading. Show me where I ever claimed Obama gets support from KKKers.

I blow no smoke, but you obvious do blow.

You have willingly argued that those who support Obama are not only Communists, but that they are also members of the KKK. Which seems odd to me but well I guess everyone wants to get on the Mindblown express and taste some of that stuff Obama used to sample in his younger days.

But at least we know that Obama's candidacy depends on people like Cosmo blowing so much smoke that no one can see what he really stands for. That of course has and will continue to be his talking point.

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic...

That noise in your head is you.

Ganga must be good in the night.

That explains alot.

My oh my. I see and what other fables are you going to spin tonight?

Do you ever even read what others type, or do you dyslexically rearrange the letters so that your left & right sides can work out online what in the real world keeps you up at night?

Did it really need to go on this long to admit your error?

'Those claiming the loudest the mantle of the progressive movement are in fact NOT PROGRESSIVES at all but are simply bastardizing a term that makes them appear moderate.'

The term does not make them moderate, an action does. Try to followe along.

'This Cosmo has been my entire thesis from the beginning and it was evidence that I pointed to that supported this claim.'

Except it wasn't. You tried to confuse terminology and got swept up in your own web.

'Once again you have proven nothing except your anger at anything and everyone who would dare disagree with your superior intellect.'

No anger, just a willingness to help. When you are next confused tying your shoes or going to the bathroom, just ask, Try not to make your life more difficult than it need be.

Actually I have been ignoring this statement for a reason but its obvious that you dont read much and fail to comprehend the English language. However you do have googling the dictionary down quite well. You have yet to grasp the fact that you have been supporting my argument from the beginning so I've grown weary of discussing this with you.

Since you keep coming back to it. Okay. No your statement is absolutely correct. Those who are claiming the mantle of progressives are much as your communist buddy or the kkk. They have violated the tenets of the progressive mantle and therefore have most definitely bastardized their own movement.

To be sure. Those claiming the loudest the mantle of the progressive movement are in fact NOT PROGRESSIVES at all but are simply bastardizing a term that makes them appear moderate.

As I previously pointed out “Heres a pretty good definition of what today is being billed as the progressive movement. Liberals who want to run away from the liberal tag”

If so then that begs the question. If they are NOT progressives then what are they? Its obvious in Barak Obama's voting record and history in the state senate that they are nothing more then Far left liberals trying to hide from the liberal mantle by usurping the progressive term.

This Cosmo has been my entire thesis from the beginning and it was evidence that I pointed to that supported this claim.

Your argument has supported my claim from the beginning but I only continued the discussion to see how deeply you would actually go to attack something I never said and never intended and never implied.

Once again you have proven nothing except your anger at anything and everyone who would dare disagree with your superior intellect. But I do find it amusing to engage in debate with someone of your obviously limited mental capacity who reads the dictionary the way some people read the bible. (can I hear a Daniel Webster)

Refute this statement: 'A movement can be as inclusive as it wants to be, but if it violates its own stated tenet, such as being conservative and violating the privacy rights of an individual, it ceases to be conservative.'

You have not and cannot.

'You have already rejected socialism even though history shows it was an inclusive element within the progressive movement.'

You are, as usual, conversing w yrself. We were not talking of the Communist movement, but the definitions of progressive vs. liberal. I showed you the def, and that progressives are more mainstream than liberals.

'I would suggest to you that the progressives of today are also bastardizing the term by implying that they are moderate when clearly the empirical data suggests that they are not.'

You have not provided any data, much less empirical. W/o Googling, can you even define empirical?

I have not claimed progressives moderate- that is what defines them. You have chosen fringe groups who misuse words as freely as you do, and point to the exceptions to define your rule.

But, logic does not work like that- not in this cosmos.

'Once again I repeat because the dictionary and Cosmo claims that the current progressive movement is moderate does not make it so.'

Well, yes it does. But radicals who call themselves progressive or moderate are not, if their actions belie the claim, just as Stalin was certainly no 'champion of the oppressed.'

You're about 0 for 17, Somebody.

You continue to evade and duck the question I put to you. Show me the evidence that the progressive movement within the liberal party is moderate. A definition from the dictionary does not make it so. The fact that your entire argument is based upon a single definition from the dictionary while I put forth empirical data to support my position suggests that you have no answer other then to continue to twist logic and change the subject by introducing illogical illustrations.

Which brings me to my final point. You continue to use the analogy of the communists and the KKK as bastardizing their respective movements.

I would suggest to you that the progressives of today are also bastardizing the term by implying that they are moderate when clearly the empirical data suggests that they are not. It is not I who claims them moderate. It is you. The burden to prove this hypothesis rests on your shoulders not mine.

Once again I repeat because the dictionary and Cosmo claims that the current progressive movement is moderate does not make it so.

And Stalin said he was 'a revolutionary for the people.' Was he? The Wobblies claimed to be decent supporters of the working class. Were they? The KKK claimed to be defending whites from black depredations. Did they?

Similarly, when a so-called liberal wants to ban a book like Huck Finn on PC grounds, they forfeit the claim of liberalism.

The definition is not bizarre, your misinterpretation of it is. Such as in this paragraph, when you conflate terms wantonly: 'Thus we find that if you address the progressive MOVEMENT you will see that it is nothing more then an element that makes up the liberal movement. The empirical evidence does not support a moderate definition but rather supports a far left and somewhat radical agenda.'

I always think. Would the same was true on the other end, and this thread would be a bit shorter.

Oh?

But we do. Cosmo. We do.

Conservativism is described thusly: Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement. Therefore all those who embrace conservative prinipals are inclusive in the conservative MOVEMENT. Webster is not the referee. He does not distinguish who or what they are but Rather they be moderates, extremist or abnormal they are inclusive in the movement.

Thus your postulate:Anti-abortionists are not Conservatives, Goldwater was. Is greviously in error. Because a movement is inclusive. You choose to exclude only those which fit your bizarre definition.

Thus we find that if you address the progressive MOVEMENT you will see that it is nothing more then an element that makes up the liberal movement. The empirical evidence does not support a moderate definiton but rather supports a far left and somewhat radical agenda.

But thank you for responding. At least you are taking the time to think. That sometimes seems to be beyond most progressives.

Rather easily, if you had read my prior comment: 'All of this is 100% anathema to being anti-abortion, involving oneself in end of life issues, outlawing drug usage, etc. yet how many Right Wing Extremists call themselves Conservative, when they are clearly not? How many Supreme Court judges call themselves conservatives when they do not even read the Constitution, nor respect stare decisis?'

As you have shown, others abuse words as freely as you do, w/o knowing their meaning.

'I am using established definitions of the progressive movement by the people themselves who claim the progressive movement as their own.'

And Stalin said he was 'a revolutionary for the people.' Was he? The Wobblies claimed to be decent supporters of the working class. Were they? The KKK claimed to be defending whites from black depredations. Did they?

When you type things like the above you show yourself to be detached from reality, which is why you are so routinely debunked, by me and many others.

Again, you nor a bunch of fringe extremists do not decide the definitions of words. The CP and Wobblies were not Progressives, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were. Anti-abortionists are not Conservatives, Goldwater was. It may not fit into your universe, but that's a small vessel where the rest of us will not fit, and even if some could, I doubt many would want to.

Oh I just love a good history debate with Daniel(Noah) Webster.

Well here is something you might not like. The progressive movement during the turn of the century included the socialist party which at one time had over 56 mayors elected to office.

Now square with me if you can how this moderate, mildly liberal progressive movement would embrace the socialist party into its fold?

No Cosmo you can try to sell your flimsy argument by turning to the good book(can I hear an amen!) for your definition but it is not MY definition that we are talking about. I am using established definitions of the progressive movement by the people themselves who claim the progressive movement as their own.

Which actually brings me back to my point and reinforces the validity of the argument that I was trying to make. The progressives are attempting to hijack the Democratic party with their far left leaning excesses cloaked in double talk,(Wow Just like Cosmo has been doing) mirrors and now are fuming because they have been called to task and now must explain themselves.

So you'll have to show me some empirical proof besides a quote from Daniel (Noah)Websters dictionary to then build an imaginary argument against an establishment that does not exist except in Daniel(Noah) Websters world.

All of this is 100% anathema to being anti-abortion, involving oneself in end of life issues, outlawing drug usage, etc. yet how many Right Wing Extremists call themselves Conservative, when they are clearly not? How many Supreme Court judges call themselves conservatives when they do not even read the Constitution, nor respect stare decisis?

You can call yourself Halle berry, but I don't think you'd equal her in a bikini, no?

In short, you, nor any other single person, gets to derange standard definitions to suit your own agenda- not the Far Left nor Far Right. Because they bastardize speech does not mean you are right in doing so.

Progressives are definitionally and historically more center than liberals. Don't like. Too bad. The definition preceded you, and will outlast you.

In short, your opinion on the matter means bupkus.