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.

 

So... I'm a progressive... You can regress all you like.

page: 17
39
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Back on topic:

I think an individual can be "progressive" and still have conservative/traditional values. I can still be an advocate of progressing man's potential, while still valuing self-reliance and personal responsibility. I don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive.


I agree ... In the respect of reviewing traditional values and keeping those that serve the whole best.
Also the same applies in the consideration of new ways/ideas ...




posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: MystikMushroom




I hear a lot of people talking about no government, but I'm trying to actually picture it in my mind. I don't think we'd have self-driving cars or space probes to Pluto without governments. I don't think we'd have fMRI machines to diagnose cancers as quickly, or have sequenced the human genome without some form of organized set of rules for people to live by.

I mean, that's fine if someone wants to live in a cabin in the woods and trap/hunt for their own food. I just don't believe that everyone wants that, nor should be forced to accept that way of life. People choosing to shun society can do that, but forcing everyone to shun society is a lot less fair


We are each responsible for governing our affairs ... we are each a part of a community ... People would still invent things and could share those ideas with their other communities ... there could be co operation ... we could have it all if we wish so long as there is a balance ...

However what real progress requires is a different way of thinking ... Independence but with responsibility ... co operation ... tolerance ... allowing each to reach their full potential .... caring for one another ... a pipe dream perhaps but I am a dreamer and so are many others ... Something has to change and all we can do is be the change we wish to see ...


It's called interdependence.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom


Another issue with progressives: "kilometers"
It's a ridiculous unit of measurement. One mile = 5,280 feet = 63,360 inches Everybody knows that. A damned yard is 3 feet... haven't the people advocating progression to the metric system realized that our football fields would become obsolete under a metric system? "He got that one by centimeters, John." "He did Pat, BOOM! He hit the hole and gave the Washington Offended, Downtrodden, and Descrimnated Against Indiginous Proud People a First and 9.144 meters." "John, let's not forget today's game is sponsored by Cat's Ass Tofu... 'It may taste like a cat's ass, but it's tofu so you knew what you were in for from the start" Cat's Ass Tofu, available at most overpriced condescending retailers everywhere."

Again, no progress for me. I'll continue to drag my knuckles and live my life proudly as God intended me to do.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think there would be a central location for disputes and treaties to be signed...but it would NEVER be permanently inhabited by any organization. The buildings would be very modest and only be used when the countries needed to come together and discuss trade, travel, defense, ect...

I also think to provide for true autonomy of these new countries, no laws or policies that effect all the new countries could be laid down unless there was a 100% agreement. Anything agreed to by all the countries would also have a life-span (say 10-20 years). After that time is up, it would take a 75% majority to keep whatever over-arching agreement was made by all the countries. This would (I would hope) maintain the sovereignty of these countries and keep any kind of "Federal" government from gaining foothold.


Not a bad idea, a sort of ad hoc government. However I want to remind you that Corporations were chartered for specific purposes over a specific span of time for the benefit of all the people. I believe it was Delaware that first gave out open ended charters and we see where that has taken us.

I do like the idea, both in business and government (which now are run by the same few people according to net worth), of a rotating leadership at all levels where all members of a certain set (using math language to avoid confusion) or domain serving a limited and specific term in office. Now that would be beneficial to all - an overarching National and Production Service approach to governance of all things.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Back on topic:

I think an individual can be "progressive" and still have conservative/traditional values. I can still be an advocate of progressing man's potential, while still valuing self-reliance and personal responsibility. I don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive.


Depends on how you define progressive.

Again, is the Patriot Act, patriotic?



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I just realized another significant differences in most/many progressives and regressive. Though I will admit, without reservation that many progressives fall into the same trap on occasion but not nearly to the extent nor fanaticism as do regressive.

The difference is in argument styles. Regressives (and for the sake of this specific post, I'm including self-styled conservatives and libertarians even though strictly speaking they can be quite progressive at times when using the dictionary definition of progressive) argue theory and progressives argue practise. One cannot have a reasoned discussion or argument between theory and practice. Theory required absolutism whereas practice requires compromise.

If one party is talking about theory 'say the ideal of 6" diameter oranges, and the other is talking about the practice growing oranges, the details of sorting and packing, you will never solve anything regarding oranges whatsoever.

One Side: We must have only 6" oranges.
Other side: They come of the tree in different sizes.
One Side: Only use the 6" oranges; anything else isn't an orange.
Other Side: that's wasteful.

.... you can see how the discussion would continue.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well see, that's an issue.

I think we can agree on some simple terms here:

Liberal ... as in to liberally apply peanut butter to toast

Conservative .. as to conservatively apply peanut butter to toast

When it comes to "progressive" however, why is this a title given strictly to "liberals" or "Democrats"? I mean Jesus was pretty progressive in his time, and so was the Protestant Reformation.

I think a lot of the time we are getting our beliefs about the scope and intended jurisdiction of government (big vs. small) mixed up with out morals and beliefs. Liberal (more) government or conservative (less) government. I don't really think that progress is even applicable to the equation.

*thoughts I'm chewing on*

EDIT: The more I think about it, adding the moniker "progressive" to the Democrat/liberal platform seems like a ploy to make them seem more relevant than conservatives of Republicans. I mean, you can be a progressive Republican scientist and make breakthroughs in STEM, right?
edit on 15-4-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think it was progressive to have the 13th and 15th Amendments. Because it allowed for MORE freedom.

But when I see "progressives" today stating that the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished, then they are promoting LESS freedom.

I'm a classical liberal, or social anarchist, or flying monkey fart. Who knows and who cares.

But progress (in my mind) is having MORE freedoms.

Regressive ideologies promote LESS freedoms.

Yet "progressives" promote less freedoms.

Progressives aren't just democrats.

Bush was a progressive.
Obama is a progressive.
Clinton was a progressive.
His wife Hillary certainly is a progressive, she's even stated it.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



He got that one by centimetres, John."


Terms similar to that are common terminology for sporting commentators at least here in Australia . Rolls of the tongue a lot better than " He got that one by 3 sixty-fourths of an inch , John ." . Speaking of tongues , i hope yours was firmly planted in your cheek when you made the comments above .



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

THis is another good summary.

If we can't take care of our own with what I already pay...then we can't afford something.

In my home when i can't afford something....i either cut it, or slash other elements in my budget.

Im already taxed. That is my contribution to governmental efforts to feed the needy. If it ain't enough...then cut something else.


This is a bad (and well perpertrated) comparison. It's like comparing a single-celled organism to a complete and much more complex mammal.

Comparing the way your household economies operate to the vastly more complex scope of a national economy is a faultly comparison due to vastly different scope, intent, and utility.

But the repressive elements in society want you to think it's the same when there are very few similarities between the two.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

How should we compare and factor the regressions of the American progressive economic program failures since the 1930s?

Poverty gets worse.

Crime gets worse.

Aye

Progressive = Regressive




posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


Accounting is accounting. Account codes roll up into ledger reports and balance sheets. Its just accounting. Debits/credits.

Yes, there are intense complexities in the farce that has been created in legal financial frameworks. But one truth will never fail: zero is zero, and negative is negative. Micro and macro economics are not like GR and Quantum Theory.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FyreByrd


Accounting is accounting. Account codes roll up into ledger reports and balance sheets. Its just accounting. Debits/credits.

Yes, there are intense complexities in the farce that has been created in legal financial frameworks. But one truth will never fail: zero is zero, and negative is negative. Micro and macro economics are not like GR and Quantum Theory.



Actually accounting is a means of measuremet only and subject to intrepretaion. Every hear of 'creative accounting'.

Here is an example how macro accounting and micro accounting produce two diametrically different views. Let's look at inflation over the last 30 or so years.

We'll look at the macro system accounting (US only); it tells us that inflation in the US over the time period has been negligiable. This 'accounting' is based on 'durable goods' cost, such items as vehicle cost, manufacturing equipment, etc.

Now, you and I know, on a mirco level that the real individual cost of living has at least tripled in that time.

Both are accurate in there particular sphere and scope, but do you which will you make your personal or public economic decisions upon??

Accounting is not the same at all scopes - accounting can be made to make 'numbers' say whatever the 'employer' wants. One of the first things accounts ask new clients is "what do you want the numbers to say".



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

you are giving examples of differences in statistics. Not accounting.

Accounting is pure, raw, perfect. Is it always performed perfectly? Nope, least of all by me. But accounting is a purity.

Statistics, on the other hand....there is that old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure". And you are right....statistical analysis can give all manner of deviations from analysis to analysis. Mostly because statistics is as much art as science, and you still have human "artists" that forget basic/simple logic like "correlation is not causation". That one, in particular, is a bane to financial statistics (at least in my own personal experience).

Silly humans like to apply a correlative relationship and twist it into a "silver bullet". End result: they spend a few months chasing their tail until some director somewhere puts them out of the companies misery.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"Torture numbers long enough and they'll give you any answer you want."
-anon



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Drones

Operating cost: $30,000 per flight HOUR

Cost per: $100,000 to $Millions

Planned spending next decade: $40 BILLION

The US Drone: A Fact Sheet


The default financing of the standing "Make the world safe for Democracy" armed forces is progressive.

There would have been no WW1 or WW2 or Cold War without the progressive movement.

The progressive solution is at least as bad as toxic nuclear gaseous waste.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: beezzer

Well see, that's an issue.

I think we can agree on some simple terms here:

Liberal ... as in to liberally apply peanut butter to toast

Conservative .. as to conservatively apply peanut butter to toast

When it comes to "progressive" however, why is this a title given strictly to "liberals" or "Democrats"? I mean Jesus was pretty progressive in his time, and so was the Protestant Reformation.

I think a lot of the time we are getting our beliefs about the scope and intended jurisdiction of government (big vs. small) mixed up with out morals and beliefs. Liberal (more) government or conservative (less) government. I don't really think that progress is even applicable to the equation.

*thoughts I'm chewing on*

EDIT: The more I think about it, adding the moniker "progressive" to the Democrat/liberal platform seems like a ploy to make them seem more relevant than conservatives of Republicans. I mean, you can be a progressive Republican scientist and make breakthroughs in STEM, right?


Progressive comes from the idea that society can be made to progress faster if some one could make all of the no brainer decisions that normally go unaddressed.

Of course that some one or someones would have to control all of reality in order to have the power to make the decisions stick.

Hence progressives are always in favor of totalitarianism. As in "it's not totalitarian when we do it".

Historically, progressive is derived from the Whig theory of history. The Whigs held that society progresses over time, kind of like the way we expect technology to do. The progression of society could be sped up if everyone got on the same page and did the right thing.

The real problem with that is-- nobody knows what the right thing to do is. The progressives know what outcomes they want, but they don't respect reality enough to follow the natural course of human behavior, i.e. the free market and maximum individual discretion, in order to get they want.

Maximum individual discretion yields the maximum use of human intelligence. Every person using as much of brain as he cares to, with the free market giving every person the maximum of honest information.


Murray Rothbard's Lectures

The History of Economic Thought from Marx to Hayek

Lecture 1 (Begins with the Whig Theory of History) 107 minutes




edit on 16-4-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FyreByrd

you are giving examples of differences in statistics. Not accounting.

Accounting is pure, raw, perfect. Is it always performed perfectly? Nope, least of all by me. But accounting is a purity.

Statistics, on the other hand....there is that old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure". And you are right....statistical analysis can give all manner of deviations from analysis to analysis. Mostly because statistics is as much art as science, and you still have human "artists" that forget basic/simple logic like "correlation is not causation". That one, in particular, is a bane to financial statistics (at least in my own personal experience).

Silly humans like to apply a correlative relationship and twist it into a "silver bullet". End result: they spend a few months chasing their tail until some director somewhere puts them out of the companies misery.


There is nothing 'raw' about accounting, nor is it perfect as it only deals with summary numbers which have been built up transacation by transaction over time and so is 'stastical' by it's very definition. You want 'raw' numbers look at each transaction. Like I always say bookkeeping deals with reality, accounting is a modern art form.

Statistics is also a summary of individual data points (analogous to a transaction). So (to go back to high school):

Statistics is to data points as Accounting is to transactions.

So my metaphor stands.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

Money isn't the only human motivator. One of the flaws of our society is to reduce all human desire into dollars. You may be motivated solely by money. . .all your boys may be motivated by money, but it doesn't mean everyone is solely motivated by money.

That whole argument that science or medicine or fill-in-the-blank wouldn't happen without monetary reward is about as valid as creationism. . .and the people who use it are sadly caught in the role that makes employers really value the ease of which they allow their labor and time to be exploited.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
Liberal means freely given, giving of plenty. What's wrong with that?

What is it Conservatives are trying to conserve? Privileges for the few? Less responsibility to one's fellow? Keeping power in the hands of the few?

I also am a Liberal progressive and damn proud of it. progressive means moving forward. If you're not progressing you're stagnating, dead, useless.

Spot on rant, brother.



Conservative and Liberal are both related to the federal government.

Conservatives wish to use the federal government conservatively. Would more like to have the individual states have power, something along the lines of cutting federal taxes so that the states themselves have more funding. Believing that indiviual states should have a right to choose to accept gay marriage or not, etc.

Liberals with to use the federal government liberally. They think the federal government should be involved in everything.
It is anti-republican in nature. You can see this when Al Sharpton calls for a federal police force to replace state police, Obama wishing to use the federal government to oversee healthcare. Obama trying to block states from choosing their own stance on gay marriage, etc.

This is why I am a conservative. I have no problem that California itself wishes to bankrupt itself by putting illegal aliens through college and paying for their welfare services, as long as they don't try to demand that my state of Nevada do the same. That is exactly what happens though when Liberals in Congress try to pass federal laws like giving illegals drivers licenses or crying to Eric Holder that another state wishes to enact Voter ID laws to maintain the security and accountability of politicians.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join