It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps

page: 14
46
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

Add one more...

The hypocrisy of encouraging people to go to college, get a good education and get a high paying job or go into business.

Then spit on people when they make it into the 1%.





posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Here, this will do for most of us:



The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists; and thus claimed that measures were needed to address these problems.

Progressivism - Wikipedia


Although, I bet Beezz would like this one better, as it comes from Conservapedia - Progressive:



In US politics, progressive is sometimes used as a more specific word for "liberal", used to show the specific area that they want to focus on. Progressive policies, in political science, are those which make progress towards goals seen as benefiting society. Since all politicians claim that their ideas and policies are meant to benefit the public, calling a policy "progressive" may be thought of as meaningless.

They often use the term to describe themselves and their policies in contrast to "regressive" policies of their opponents. For example, progressives will ask rhetorically, "Do you want to go back to the 1950s?" implying that women were oppressed by being forced to be housewives and men were oppressed by being falsely accused of favoring Communism (see McCarthyism).

The term progressive was recently revived by politicians who considered themselves to be liberal. This revival occurred shortly before the 2006 elections. It was implemented to help distance politicians, mainly Democrats, for the negative history associated with various members of the party at that time. It was also meant to create a belief that conservatives were not able to think of a progressive future for the United States. The most famous historical usage of the term was in the 1890s to 1920s, sometimes called the Progressive Era. During the Progressive Era, politicians of both parties and various ideologies adopted the term, notably Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who founded the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party) and Woodrow Wilson.


But, since that (surprisingly even-handed) description basically equates liberals and progressives, maybe not.

Here, I think this bit from Glenn Beck's site is probably closest according to the Gospel of Beezzer:



Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government. They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult. “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.

Source: glennbeck.com



PS: The latter, as probably made evident to many from its source, is also absolute horsepucks ... but leave it to these "freedom loving conservatives" to tell us exactly what we think and believe ... regardless of what we think and believe.
edit on 22Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:02:02 -050015p102015366 by Gryphon66 because: Trimmed quote and spruced up



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



Aren't you also. . . . . Canadian?


Ssshhhh...




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Heheh. Still not addressing the issue and now you're trying to focus on me.

I see Progressives aren't the only ones utilizing Alinksy, eh?

(No, bro, I ain't mad ... more amused than anything.)




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Heheh. Still not addressing the issue and now you're trying to focus on me.

I see Progressives aren't the only ones utilizing Alinksy, eh?

(No, bro, I ain't mad ... more amused than anything.)



You placed the focus on yourself by using your ideology as a counter to another's assertions.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Textbook Alinsky. (Yes, I have read the book.)

So, Beezzer, how is it that Conservatives, freedom-loving folk that you all are, feel free to push their own labels, definitions, and beliefs about others onto those others, regardless of what they themselves say?

I mean, people are free to believe what they want, right? No one should tell them what they believe, as the post I responded to did, right?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks Gryphon66 for a quick sec I didn't know who I was supposed to be, based off my political beliefs ..lol



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Not to be totally off topic, but our family may make a trip to Canada this summer to take a first-hand look at your evil country.

We may sample syrup but will avoid your evil pseudo-bacon.

It's always interesting to visit other countries with different sociological and ideological ways of life.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks Gryphon66 for a quick sec I didn't know who I was supposed to be, based off my political beliefs ..lol


As opposed to the definitions that some here (cough right wingers cough) want to impose on others, I say, and I bet you'd say (correct me if I'm wrong) that no political ideology informs all of any given individuals thoughts, beliefs, hopes and desires.

Because we're not the simplistic, one-dimensional caricatures that some want us to be, right?

(Except of course, for those who make themselves into partisan caricatures, mimicking everything that comes across their particular media stream ... )



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Textbook Alinsky. (Yes, I have read the book.)


Not surprised.


So, Beezzer, how is it that Conservatives, freedom-loving folk that you all are, feel free to push their own labels, definitions, and beliefs about others onto those others, regardless of what they themselves say?


Fail. I don't speak for all conservatives. With my viewpoint on gay rights and legalization of pot, I doubt that conservatives would even call me as such.


I mean, people are free to believe what they want, right? No one should tell them what they believe, as the post I responded to did, right?


You have the freedom to believe whatever you want. Just as long as your actions never infringe upon the rights of others, I could really care less.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Ah, now we're to the cutting and pasting portion of the program.

(I hate that part of the program and don't like to play.)

So, in order of your responses:

1. If you haven't read Saul's book, I have to say, you're just a natural at the tactics he describes.

2. I didn't fail, I asked you a loaded question. No, you're not the perfect conservative anymore than I'm the perfect liberal -- no one is perfect.

3. Yay! I can think what I want to! /dances



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your post is too long to quote in it's entirety even though it should be. The three definitions you've found for "Progressive" nicely show us 'regressive' tactics.

The first is a bland description of the word with some history. It doesn't show any overt bias and is informative.

The second, shows a distinct bias (implying that women were not opposed in the 50s nor people with communist affiations) and takes a defensive and reactionary stance to the word itself.

The third refers us back to our old favorite - shout the other guy down and call him all sorts of names in the process.

I wanted to quote an early section from an op-ed (opinion/editorial) from Truth-Out called "Is It Time to Disband the Republican Party". About the history of the Republican Party:


Back on March 20, 1854, a group of abolitionists met in a small schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, to fight back against the expansion of slavery.

A couple months later in July of 1854, the Ripon group joined with thousands of other anti-slavery activists in Jackson, Michigan, and together they formed what would be called the Republican Party.

The Republican Party was formed on strong anti-slavery sentiments, and, at least for its early history, did some good for our country and for the US people.

In fact, the early Republican Party was pretty progressive.

After all, it was the Republican Party that invented the income tax during the Civil War.

And by the end of the Civil War, the Republican Party had created a national banking system, established new taxation laws and provided funding for schools and homes across the United States.

Decades later, the party was still showing its progressive roots.

When he was president at the dawn of the 20th century, Republican Theodore Roosevelt railed against the wealthy elite, despising the, "small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power."


www.truth-out.org...

RIP - GOP.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chronogoblin

Who's 'facts' exactly? Man's or God's? People IN GENERAL tend to gloss over what they don't take to heart.



Who's god are you talking about? Mine? Yours?

I stopped reading - I think I've decerned the Fifth way.

When it doubt say "It's gods will" or "god told me".



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Yep, it's definitely what I have been hearing from people regarding them. There "handy work" is clearly on point with the article as well. I guess they have been doing the same stuff since I was born.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



Not to be totally off topic, but our family may make a trip to Canada this summer to take a first-hand look at your evil country.


I'm Crazy-glueing thousands of beer cases together to build a wall along the Pembina-Emerson border crossing as we speak...


We don't want none of your oober-conservative-velveeta-cheese-loving kooties in these here parts.



But we'll happily take your fiat money.

Just hand it over to the Pembina border guards and they'll send it our way...

We've got a running agreement with those guys... for every $100 US dollars you folks donate to the 'Stay Out of Canada Fund', we'll trade one bottle of premium Canadian beer with the hard working boys and girls at the border booths. They seem to be quite happy with that free trade agreement so far.

The guy on the left (that's Jerry), he's super friendly and will happily take your money for us (we suspect he may be an alcoholic though - so use your own judgement):




Your Conservative kind™ travelling this way is not off-topic at all. It's a very important political issue !



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I agree. Left or right they are both authoritarians. Let them kill each other.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I would even hazard a guess to say that Mr. Reagan wouldn't make it in the party that considers him a saint.

Teddy Roosevelt is a great example of why I don't mind being called Progressive, then or now.

Bully!



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryph,

#.1 and #.2 - I cited DIRECT BOLD FACE LIES from Obama, the very top

#.3 Hillary showed ZERO compassion for the dead - I did not "fabricate" anything

#.4 Occupy wall street - street violence, confrontations with Police, garbage, etc -
Tea party group remained civil

The left is so used to lying it does not even realize when they do, and then they accuse others of what they do.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: CharlesT




Your long term memory needs a little refreshing. The deep south had been fanatically democratic until just the past 10 years or so when they realized that the national democratic party had abandoned and betrayed their constituents values and religious beliefs. You must realize that the deep south has historically been a deeply christian society.


You must be trying to prove the OP correct. And you have done a fine job of it.

With that you have

1. Ignore Facts
2. Make Up Your Own Facts
deep south


In case you can't read that the voting switched in 1964 not 10 years ago.
Seems my long term memory is just fine yours however.




Being a voting member of the Democratic party was a deeply held long lasting tradition in the south until just recently.


Ahemm.






You speak from ignorance when you believe the deep south has always been republican. Maybe conservative but definitely not republican. That idea couldn't be any further from the truth.


There is step number.

4. Shout Down Your Opponents

If nothing else works, belligerence will. Many of the top right-wingers use this strategy.

So you have just proven step 1, 2, and 4 from the OP.




My bad. I reread your post and realized you did not mention any particular party but what I said here still holds true.



Yeah I know you were building a strawman from things I never said however you were not doing a very good job because you were making up facts as you went.

A couple people even gave you stars meaning they were as clueless as you.

Thank you for demonstrating the OP next time try to fit in number 3 while you are at it.


As I already stated previously.

Until the late 20th century the party had a powerful conservative and populist wing based in the rural South, which over time has greatly diminished.

www.ask.com...


This is what you stated previously.



The deep south had been fanatically democratic until just the past 10 years or so


Are you trying to prove the OP correct again? First you say 10 years now you say 20th century. Is your memory going bad or are you simply demonstrating number 2.

Make Up Your Own Facts

This is the opposite of ignoring facts, for in this case conservatives are inventing new ones.

The "fact" in this case would be that you said 10 years. Try multiplying that by 5 and you would be accurate.

It is not like you would purposely lie about what you claimed so it must be a memory issue.

So as you said to me.




Your long term memory needs a little refreshing.


Please refresh your memory on what you claimed with the link below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryph,

#.1 and #.2 - I cited DIRECT BOLD FACE LIES from Obama, the very top

#.3 Hillary showed ZERO compassion for the dead - I did not "fabricate" anything

#.4 Occupy wall street - street violence, confrontations with Police, garbage, etc -
Tea party group remained civil

The left is so used to lying it does not even realize when they do, and then they accuse others of what they do.



M5xaz,

Let me see if I understand you ...

Everyone on "The Right" (Republicans, Koch-libertarians, Teapartiers, et. al.) always tells the truth, never misappropriates facts, always shows empathy and is always polite and considerate in all their dealings.

Do I have that correctly? If so, do you see how utterly absurd such a statement is?



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join