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: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
I totally get what you are saying with this post but....


originally posted by: beezzer
I'm sick of PEOPLE obeying the dictates of government and parroting the same vomit about how they think they know better.


That's their business, not yours.


Sure, as long as they DO NOT infringe on any of my rights, I could give a damn what seat of government they bow to and worship!




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: luthier
Civil rights was also not in any way a progressive issue. It was started by Republicans and is a fundamental liberal idea pioneered by Republicans.


No it wasn't. It was started, finalized and completed by the PEOPLE.


Sure but pioneered by Republican ideals.


In the 1860s.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The real question that affects how you are influenced or how you try to influence others is:

Are you a liberal libertarian or liberal authoritarian?

I am a conservative libertarian. There is no reason why someone like myself cant find MORE reasons to agree with you than not.

If you think the government should regulate and intervene for a greater good no matter the will of the people, you are then an authoritarian.

if a liberal libertarian, you may think that people should decide for themselves, like If your community is mostly like yourself and think liberal ideals are cool, then you should be able to make laws and do as you please to make those liberal ideals true.

if you are an authoritarian you will impose on my community of conservatives to be liberal whether we like it or not with ideals that are not our own.

But labels over all are retarded.

I think the people owe it to themselves in a democratic society to always stay close to center and only swing to oppose the tendency of government. The more Government swings to one side or the other in a left to right fashion, we should then swing to the other side to keep them in check and preserve balance.

I could be slightly left of center if a strong republican government is in power. NOW? I am slightly right. I owe it to myself and my own.

EDIT TO ADD:
That said, the repulse from conservatives towards liberals in the US is this: Modern American liberals are authoritarian when a liberal government is in power and are later suddenly libertarian when a conservative government is in power. Thats the flip flop argument that is often the root of arguments against. It is also the root of distrust. Rightfully so mind you.

If you stick to your guns and are always a libertarian no matter who is in charge, I will be right there at your side. That is having integrity and not making a political system an avenue of tactics and partisan BS.

American Conservatives do this too, but generally tend to stick to being libertarian out of dislike of big government.

IMO, "progressive" is a buzzword and the associated culture behind it is the result of social engineering by the elite.

"Oh progress , PROGRESS is PROGRESSIVE and Progressive culture represents PROGRESS, thats nice, what ever that is I support it doh di doh"....

Progress can go both ways. We can revert /regress to tyrannical days if our goal is propping up the power elite behind walls of taboo like PC language limitations are. Criticism can be made out to seem to be racist, bigoted or what ever if the power elite claim the identity of "progressive".... Look at Obama, if you criticise him you can be called racist. Thats undemocratic and a regression. We Then just made progress into regression. If progress is suppressing local identity and national idiosyncrasy in favor of globalism under the guise of multiculturalism then we just progressed into oppression by only allowing the government or power elite to define who we are or can be.


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



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Just checking back in on page 6.

Wondering how these labels are working out.

The only label I try to put on anyone is....Friend.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The Progressive Party either got exposed big time, or went through a progressive change over in the 1940s.



The United States Progressive Party of 1948 was a left-wing political party that ran former Vice President Henry A. Wallace of Iowa for president and U.S. Senator Glen H. Taylor of Idaho for vice president in 1948. While sharing the name of the parties that Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette ran on as third party candidates in the presidential elections of 1912 and 1924, respectively, it was not related to either.

Progressive Party (United States, 1948)



I say they got exposed.




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Labels Bro...

They will be the death of us all.


Exactly

I have been called a libertariand by some and a progressive by others.

I have no time for silly label games.


People who put faith in labels normaly cant think for themselves.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Progressive? Regressive? Those are just made up labels to differentiate Idealists from Realists. I'm sure Rome thought they were a progressive state until they ran out of territory to rape and plunder to bring in a continuous supply of resources to sustain them. I guess they thought conquest and plunder was just a necessary effort to sustain their progressive lifestyle. But look what happened when the plunder ran out.

I started to just refrain from even commenting here because I just see the futility in even getting involved. We sit at our devices and debate this issue but none of this matters. What does mater is how we are nothing more than cattle to the 1%. They see us as just another resource to plunder in their pursuit of hoarding their wealth and power. We don't mean squat to them.

I suppose progressives think NAFTA was a progressive move but all that did was allow the 1% to exploit other countries. We started shipping low cost corn to Mexico, driving their own farmers out of business so they started coming across the border, displacing US citizens in the labor force, trying to find alternative opportunities to support their families. The 1% killed 2 birds with one stone. Open markets to exploit and reduced labor costs here at home.

I watched a documentary last night about food. In that program they told of the largest slaughterhouse in the world in, I think, South Carolina where they processed 32,000 hogs a day but the surrounding community was living below the poverty level. The locals refused to work there because of the poor, low paying, fast paced and dangerous environment in that factory. The company had resorted to busing workers in from 100 miles to work there. That is some progressiveness, isn't it?

Progressive also means food for all, doesn't it? Monsanto is driving all independent farmers out of bushiness if they don't buy their seeds every year. A farmers crop of open source seed gets inadvertently mixed with GMO pollen and Monsanto sues. The end result of all of this progressive farming is a decrease in variety and a whole lot of high carbohydrate nutrient depleted filler that is making all of us fat and stupid while, at the same time, destroying our environment. The Pacific ocean is dying from acidity and pollution from all of this great progressiveness.

Call me regressive if you want to but you haven't seen regressive reality yet. Just wait a few more years and you will see real regression. Get ready because reality is getting ready to slap all of us down and it won't be pretty.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Labels Bro...

They will be the death of us all.


Exactly

I have been called a libertariand by some and a progressive by others.

I have no time for silly label games.


People who put faith in labels normaly cant think for themselves.


Especially when people don't even know what the labels mean.

It's dangerous, we should look for ways to unite.

What if we called the Republicans....Porkchoppers

And the Democrats....Buttdarters

At least we could laugh about it...It's all just so ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I'll bet most everyone on this thread lives in a relatively progressive country. If we're talking progress then we should start with most of the Middle East, Africa and some parts of Asia. If you live in the US or the EU, you have it better than pretty much anyone in the history of mankind. Enjoy and don't worry about who sells a cake to whom. Worry about mass killings, mutilations and people being tossed off of buildings or set on fire. I'm sure someone was tossed off a building while on fire this week. That's the garbage that needs to get collected.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


American politics and republican/democrat lablels of th mid 1800's bare little resemblence to today.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: luthier
Civil rights was also not in any way a progressive issue. It was started by Republicans and is a fundamental liberal idea pioneered by Republicans.


No it wasn't. It was started, finalized and completed by the PEOPLE.


Sure but pioneered by Republican ideals.


In the 1860s.


And led the way for the next 100 years with legislation for black Americans when democrats wouldn't touch it. Until JFK and Johnson.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: luthier

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.


American politics and republican/democrat lablels of th mid 1800's bare little resemblence to today.

Well most of the quote is about the 1900's but you would have to know history I guess.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:09 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.


Not quite. You're confusing it with the Marxist Theory, which I don't go by. I prefer definition one, thank you verra much.

Always been a bit amazed at the folks caught in things. Always amazed at those who value the individual, what the individual posesses, over the community as a whole. Better to stand united that die separate.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke

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.


Not quite. You're confusing it with the Marxist Theory, which I don't go by. I prefer definition one, thank you verra much.

Always been a bit amazed at the folks caught in things. Always amazed at those who value the individual, what the individual posesses, over the community as a whole. Better to stand united that die separate.


How so?

Marx believed society would eventually consolidate wealth into less than 1 percent and the work force would eventually naturally realize they can make all the stuff and why not just trade and cut out the big guys. It was from capitalisms' extreme it would naturally evolve.

Socialism is when a select few government officials decide where the resources go.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Should progressives be accepting and understanding of people that have differing opinions and beliefs?


Should conservatives be accepting and understanding of people that have differing opinions and beliefs?

Or should they continue to limit or attempt to limit the rights of gays?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Thats true. Modern republicans would be shunned by their counterparts of former days. Ron Paul was the closest we ever got to a real republican...and he was "unelectable".

I have a real question I am slightly embarrassed to ask.

What are the political trends as far as left VS right and libertarian VS authoritarian of the UK and what major parties fall in line with them?

I have NEVER properly informed myself on your political system. I am a little ashamed since most in the Uk are better informed about our political system in the US than some of our own people. LOL

I would like to hear it from one of you and since I trust what you have to say, I would love if you could break it down for me. Anyone who knows really.


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



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't want a shelfstacker for a surgeon!



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Again, read the definition. There are two definitions. One, the Marxist one, is what folks believe is the be-all and end-all of Socialism. I much prefer the other, where a community has all things in common. What Marx envisioned was, on the surface, similar, but ultimately and inevitable devolved into a sort of Capitalism-for-the-Elect. Kind of a one percenter's wet dream, tbh. Socialism, true socialism, says that no, one person cannot have all the toys. It's not perfect, and yeah, there are aspects I dislike..but it's better than America;s current "heads I win, tails you lose" pseudo-capitalist oligarchy we've got going on.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Yes, you get it worldwide progression...

I've drifted from my own thread because it went from a rant about world issues to the political mudpit focused on the constitutional & anti-constitutional left and right of the U.S...


I'll just read along and see if it returns to its intended destination.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: luthier

Again, read the definition. There are two definitions. One, the Marxist one, is what folks believe is the be-all and end-all of Socialism. I much prefer the other, where a community has all things in common. What Marx envisioned was, on the surface, similar, but ultimately and inevitable devolved into a sort of Capitalism-for-the-Elect. Kind of a one percenter's wet dream, tbh. Socialism, true socialism, says that no, one person cannot have all the toys. It's not perfect, and yeah, there are aspects I dislike..but it's better than America;s current "heads I win, tails you lose" pseudo-capitalist oligarchy we've got going on.


What does the definition have to do with what Marx wrote in the manifesto? Nothing.
Marxism was never tried. It has to come about when the people have all the skills and the elite all the money. Then workers will natural begin to barter services for each other.
The totalitarianism called communism did not come from capitalism it cam from destitute poverty stricken agricultural societies and had nothing to do with the philosophy of Marx.
Marx can be libertarian and is almost the ultimate libertarian that's the real secret. He says we will eventually just cut out our leaders and bosses and trade with each other.




top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join