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: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: xuenchen

Banking is a rich man's experiment for control of wealth and tax systems are a good thing.


Now, for the 4th time...

Why do you not want to progress from the current state of the world?


Why would I not want progress?

I just want to know how the Progressives plan to get out of the current problems they caused.

Especially the national debts of most countries.





posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I read about that in Russian page few days back, this was new to me.
Well that doesn´t change the fact child brides do exist


Between 2011 and 2020, more than 140 million girls will become child brides, according to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). If current levels of child marriages hold, 14.2 million girls annually or 39 000 daily will marry too young. Furthermore, of the 140 million girls who will marry before they are 18, 50 million will be under the age of 15.

WHO

Why to marry underaged girls? What is the main idea and reason behind? To make them .. how you like them.. progressive though.

edit on 13-4-2015 by dollukka because: typo



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
For Ketsuko & Butcher...



Of course it's fair...

We've already discussed that a surgeon has to do 7 years medical training etc and is in a pressurised environment...

So they've earned the wage...



A shelf stacking job to get on the ladder should still have a decent wage though.


Like I said shelf stacking is just an example...



Here is another...

I worked for the lowest NHS wage doing a job of looking after medical records...
Making sure they were filed and delivered correctly so people didn't die in surgery or have a allergic reaction as an inpatient...


Then I did a receptionist job which was a whole 3 pounds more an hour just for checking patients in...
Basically clicking buttons on a computer...


Is that fair?


I did both jobs...
& I don't think so.


And in the course of things your job was important in making sure the supplies needed where they were supposed to be and took pride in your work and deserve a living wage.

But then I'm a socialist - and think the well-being of all serves the well-being of the individual.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The first time I was called a "progressive", I thought it was just bad grammar to use it as a noun but I still took it as a compliment. The second time somebody called me it, I realized it was meant as an insult.

I was baffled. What's the opposite of progressive? Regressive. I've been since thinking of those types of people as "regressives" ever since.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

A quick way to determine. .

People (liberals, conservatives, etc) have different solutions to the social problems, all within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Progressives want to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to solve the problems.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
For Ketsuko & Butcher...



Of course it's fair...

We've already discussed that a surgeon has to do 7 years medical training etc and is in a pressurised environment...

So they've earned the wage...



A shelf stacking job to get on the ladder should still have a decent wage though.


Like I said shelf stacking is just an example...



Here is another...

I worked for the lowest NHS wage doing a job of looking after medical records...
Making sure they were filed and delivered correctly so people didn't die in surgery or have a allergic reaction as an inpatient...


Then I did a receptionist job which was a whole 3 pounds more an hour just for checking patients in...
Basically clicking buttons on a computer...


Is that fair?


I did both jobs...
& I don't think so.


And in the course of things your job was important in making sure the supplies needed where they were supposed to be and took pride in your work and deserve a living wage.

But then I'm a socialist - and think the well-being of all serves the well-being of the individual.


Its fine to be socialist in a democracy like switzerland but you dont want the government to be socialist. Being personally socialist and having impact on a community is great. But not for government. The government needs to have a limited function to obtain personal liberty. Take marriage for instance why are they granting anyone else the rights they already have? Socialism is just left it works both ways. A person with the powers a socialist leader can amass is dangerous if their intent is sinister.
Eventually you get a bad apple.

Really a limited government role is the only way to limit the governments role in your life. Its much better for local people to help each others local problems. Its been proven time and time again when people know someone else will help (big gov) people stop caring for each other.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

Progressive, can be either negative or positive.. depends pretty much what each of us see morally, ethically right. Same applies to regressive too. Often it is connected in our traditions, way of life and expectations. Both can be right and both can be wrong.
edit on 13-4-2015 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

A quick way to determine. .

People (liberals, conservatives, etc) have different solutions to the social problems, all within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Progressives want to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to solve the problems.


you mean like they did when they gave women the vote?....maybe you might want to run that amendment by the women in your family, and see if they want that taken away...you know, because it was a progressive cause.
edit on 13-4-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Progressives want to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to solve the problems.


And how many "amendments" have been added to the Constitution since it's inception?
Like I said earlier in this thread, times change and society has to as well. Or would you say that the 13th Amendment was a bad idea?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

A quick way to determine. .

People (liberals, conservatives, etc) have different solutions to the social problems, all within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Progressives want to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to solve the problems.


you mean like they did when they gave women the vote?....maybe you might want to run that amendment by the women in your family, and see if they want that taken away...you know, because it was a progressive cause.


It was not a progressive cause nor supported by democrats.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer
Progressives want to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to solve the problems.


And how many "amendments" have been added to the Constitution since it's inception?
Like I said earlier in this thread, times change and society has to as well. Or would you say that the 13th Amendment was a bad idea?


I think a lot of people are confusing the literal word progressive and the political part called progressive which was started by some very racist, sexist, classist pigs.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I 've always wondered just what's wrong with "Socialist". If I can get any non-Birch answers, that is lol


socialism is slavery
how do i know this? because if you don't give of your own free will, then the law is forcing you and if the law is forcing you to give, it is literally extracting your energy against your will.


And that is no different the the wage-slavery we have today. I, literally, know dozens of people who would do more productive work if they could pay their bills, raise and educate their children doing things to help others but are unable to (and this includes myself) because the pay is too low to allow them to survive.

All I hear (and I like the term regressive rather then conservative) from regressives is fear and anger. Those destructive emotions are aimed at nearly everyone and everything and clouds judgement and reason. Waiting on others to produce a libertarian (or any other perfect) paradise is the defining characteristic of the regressive.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You can't answer a question with a different question.



gulp.fumble.flop



Again... I didn't.

I said I don't know quite clearly, but that it will take progress.

Oh - the wealthy are 'progressing' quite nicely, thank you.



Now, for a third time...
What's wrong with using progress to fix the system?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

A quick way to determine. .

People (liberals, conservatives, etc) have different solutions to the social problems, all within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Progressives want to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to solve the problems.


Amendments. Most of the rights that conservatives cling to (rightfully) are from amendments. Why are they so afraid of amendments, then? The Constitution is a living thing and never meant to be static nor the contents eternal. It is to serve our needs as our nation grows.

Aside from that, I can't think of anything that's "progressive" that violates the constitution. Unless you are talking about extreme lengths that some anti-gun folks go but that's not what I consider "progressive".

Having a liberal or progressive ideology and being a defender of the constitution are totally compatible positions a person can simultaneously take on. Just like a right-winger can be socially liberal (look at Ron Paul). We can both attach silly actions to both camps but it doesn't really change the true meaning behind those camps.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I 've always wondered just what's wrong with "Socialist". If I can get any non-Birch answers, that is lol


socialism is slavery
how do i know this? because if you don't give of your own free will, then the law is forcing you and if the law is forcing you to give, it is literally extracting your energy against your will.


And that is no different the the wage-slavery we have today. I, literally, know dozens of people who would do more productive work if they could pay their bills, raise and educate their children doing things to help others but are unable to (and this includes myself) because the pay is too low to allow them to survive.

All I hear (and I like the term regressive rather then conservative) from regressives is fear and anger. Those destructive emotions are aimed at nearly everyone and everything and clouds judgement and reason. Waiting on others to produce a libertarian (or any other perfect) paradise is the defining characteristic of the regressive.
.

Why would socialism help? All that does is make the government have more power in your life. There should be an obvious safety net prob a guaranteed income because we are prosperous. But that's not progressive or socialist. Just give people their money 12-15k a year and cut all the crappy programs.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

You want to add an ammendment that will provide for more freedoms and individual liberties then bring it on!

You want to add an ammendment that will restrict, inhibit, deny freedoms and individual liberties, then you're a progressive.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Names change, definitions change, labels change.

Basically; if you want more authoritarian government control, ie socialised medicine, government mandated vaccinations, government mandated housing, food programs, etc, if you are for less individualism and less personal liberty, then you are a progressive, as I see it.

Don't really care what you call yourself, that's just how I will identify that mind-set and ideology.


And it follows logicall that regressives/conservatives/libertarians/republicans want authoritarian Corporate control.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
You want to add an ammendment that will restrict, inhibit, deny freedoms and individual liberties, then you're a progressive.


I'm pretty sure that slave owners back in the mid 19th century saw abolition in much the same way. The 13th.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
" In the course of every attempt to establish or develop free government, a struggle between special privilege and equal rights is inevitable. Our great industrial organizations are in control of politics, government, and natural resources. They manage conventions, make platforms, dictate legislation. They rule through the very men elected to represent them. The battle against corporate takeover of government will be the longest and hardest ever fought for democracy "

Robert LaFollette 1909 Founder of the progressive movement

100 years later the fight rages on...


edit on 13-4-2015 by HighFive because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer
You want to add an ammendment that will restrict, inhibit, deny freedoms and individual liberties, then you're a progressive.


I'm pretty sure that slave owners back in the mid 19th century saw abolition in much the same way. The 13th.


Since your misquoting history...
Republicans did that
Progressives were against women voting, and allowing blacks into public service read up son.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join