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.

 

"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!

page: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Isn't that one of the old "Radio Armenia" jokes from the Soviet Union? I always liked:


Q: “What is the difference between the capitalist and the socialist trade?”
“A: Capitalist trade means everything is to be sold. Socialist trade means everything is to be bought.”

and

Q: “Will people have money when communism is built?”
A: “Some will, some will not.”

Maybe it's time for Radio America jokes about conservatives and progressives.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


The jokes are out there, to be sure. I personally don't think there is a necessary divide between progressive and conservative behavior. While I tend to agree with the original posters contentions, (sans the vitriol), that the progressive movement has been hijacked by a modern day communist movement, I do believe that progressive politics or liberal politics is just one side of the very same coin and on the other side of that coin lies conservatism. In the United States, I was raised to believe that conservatism, or at the very least modern conservatism, came about because there were far too many people taking a liberal view of the Constitution.

If we the people are going to elect government officials expecting them to fix "social ills" they are forced to a large degree to take a liberal view of a Constitution that greatly restricts their ability to implement social programs. A strictly conservative view of that Constitution dictates that government is prohibited from acting in any way contrary to the rights of the people, and it is there that liberalism and conservative part ways. What exactly is the right of a person and who decides?

The importance of both movements is that progress is indeed a necessary motion for people, but at the same time prudence and restraint are virtues not to be dismissed. I liken the relationship between liberals, or progressives and conservatives to Daedalus and Icarus. Daedalus, being the inventor of wings that would facilitate his and his sons escape from the island they were imprisoned, was obviously no antagonist towards progress. However, he was prudent and cautioned his son to show restraint when flying with these wings lest he fly too high and have the sun melt the wax that fastened the feathers to the wings.

That Icarus ignored his fathers warnings and boldly flew where only eagles dare was a testament to his own hubris and folly, it was however, also a testament to boldness and progress as Icarus was impulsive enough or brave enough to dare such a feat, where his father could only guess at the dire consequences. Of course, once Icarus plummeted to his death, that guess became fact. It is a fiction that gets the science wrong but that is not the point. The point was the Daedalus did not encourage his son to show restraint and prudence out of animosity towards him, but out of love and concern. Conversely, Icarus did not ignore these warnings out of disrespect for his father nor animosity but did so for the love of adventure and boldness and even progress.

It is important to be willing to test the boundaries of limitations in order to know just exactly how far we can progress. That those who are willing to test these boundaries often fall prey to their own hubris marks them as tragic hero's does not in any way change the fact that they are heroic. Daedalus' own restraint, however, did not preclude him from that same heroic characteristic it only put precluded him from becoming a tragic hero.

Not all progressives are bound to fall prey to their own hubris, but those who don't usually understand the wisdom of their conservative compatriots who dared to warn them of their willingness to test the boundaries of limitations. In this regard, conservatism and progressivism are inextricably bound to each other as one has no meaning without the other.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 222938
 


Well said!! You hit the nail on the head.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
"Progressives" are nothing but filthy, lying Communists that picked a nice marketing name for their hidden goal to turn the world into one big Communist state.


Progressives are Progressives and Communists are Communists and never the twain shall meet.

Your walking right into the NWO trap by bickering amongst ourselves instead of focusing on the leashholders at the top. They love to see us fighting each other over our differences. Heck, they even encourage it by their tactics and media. It's easier to control us.

I've got news for you. You're intolence to other views is exactly the same intolerance you seem to hate. Find common ground with other organizations or groups (even ones with seemingly opposing views) and fight the real oppressors. Because just sitting around hating people gets absolutely nothing accomplished.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by thepixelpusher]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


Individualism and contributing towards a common good are not mutually exclusive. Self interest means that ones interest are in regards to the self. We are a species that are highly dependent upon each other in many ways. This is evidenced by the children we raise, by the family we care for and the neighbors and groups we are a part of. To act without regard for others is not at all in anyone's best interest. Selfishness has become a pejorative in today's lexicon but why? To have a chief concern for ones own interest is paramount to survival and to qualify such a concern with disregard for others only contradicts the first part of the definition, ignoring that others are just as paramount to survival as is our own efforts.


I agree with this completely.


Take this site and the world wide web in which we use to enjoy this site. We did not create this site someone else did and we have relied upon their creation to discuss this issue, and we along with the creators of this site rely upon the world wide web to facilitate our efforts. Every step of the way it has been and is being accomplished by individuals not collectives, yet these individuals are working together towards what we all believe to be a common good. I did not join this site out of some obligation I felt to belong to a collective, I joined this site based upon my own self interests. Presumably so has everyone else, and while we can, at times, fall prey to mindless bickering or nasty opposition, we for the most part, work together to find a greater truth. We do this as individuals working together and sometimes working in opposition of each other, but always as individuals.


I agree with this as well.


Your notions of limiting wealth must be based on a presumption that wealth itself has a limit. As if wealth were nothing more than a pie and there are only a limited amount of slices available for all. When wealth is looked at in this regard, then those who have a larger slice than us will appear to have taken that larger slice at our expense. However, wealth is not a pie with a limited amount of slices.


My opinion is based on the concept of a social minimum. I know that wealth is not a limited resource of which there will only ever be so much. What I was suggesting was the possibility that, because there are and will continue to be those with less than what I consider the social minimum that should be tolerable to a compassionate society, the amount of individual wealth permissible could be capped, and anything beyond that (as wealth continues to eb and flow, not because I believe it to be a fixed amount) could benefit those below that social minimum. Eventually, and if implemented effectively and efficiently, I'd like to believe that those below the social minimum would eventually reach it, and go on to create more individual wealth for themselves, and so on. This is only a personal opinion/belief, though. I have no evidence, let alone proof, that this would work. It's just a pleasant thought, basically lol.


Wealth is nothing more than perceived value. What intrinsic value does gold truly have? It is a precious metal and not easily found or mined and because of this the perceived value is greater than that of a simple rock easily found on any plot of land.

Let us, however, take that simple rock and then let's paint eyes, a nose and a smile on that rock and market it as a Pet Rock and suddenly, for some strange reason, that simple rock has taken on a higher value. There was a time when Pet Rocks were all the rage and commanded a pretty penny on the market, but why? Anybody could find themselves a rock and paint a face on it, why spend good money on one when you can do it yourself?


I agree. Personally, I wish we would do away entirely with the concept of arbitrary value assignment and currency of any kind. That too, though, is just a pleasant thought and a pipe dream on my part, sadly.


No doubt some people did make their own Pet Rocks rather than spend good money on those being marketed, but most willingly paid money to purchase this simple and relatively useless product. The person who marketed this product accrued wealth by doing so and in no way did that person deprive others from wealth by doing so.


Oh, of course not. I did not intend to imply such. I just feel that if they amass wealth beyond a certain point that I personally regard as reasonable (again, this is only my opinion,) then wealth amassed beyond that could contribute to those below a hypothetical social minimum.


In economics there is a principle of supply and demand that can be very effective in understanding economies. However, there is another principle known as supply side economics that has been tragically labeled by the main stream media as "voodoo economics" or "Reganomics" for no good reason at all, other than those journalists don't understand economy either. A great example of supply side economics put in play would be when a few years back when the NFL demanded more money for their licensing fees from the television broadcasters. At that time, CBS had long had the monopoly on Sunday football but the accountants informed Larry Tisch, then president of CBS, that they were not generating enough in advertising revenue to justify paying more money for licensing fees. Tisch listened to his accountants and passed on the NFL's demands which left an opening for Rupert Murdoch to pay the licensing fees and air the games on FOX.

Dismayed at this act a journalist asked Murdoch in all earnestness that if CBS wasn't generating enough in advertising revenue to justify the cost what made Murdoch think he could generate the advertising revenue for his fledgling television station that most prognosticators had predicted could not survive the market. Murdoch admitted that he couldn't raise enough advertising revenue to pay for the NFL games but that was not the reason he made the decision. He explained that on Sunday evenings FOX was airing two programs he believed were very good shows and deserved a greater audience than they were getting. Those two shows were The Simpson's and The X-Files. It was Murdoch's strategy to use the NFL to attract new viewers to his station in hopes they would stay with the station after the games and watch The Simpson's and X-Files.

Murdoch's gambit worked and people did stay and watch those shows and they both went on to great success and the FOX channel also became very successful. Under the strict rules of supply and demand it could be argued that there was, quite simply, no demand for a FOX channel nor any demand for The Simpson's nor The X-Files. Under those rules Murdoch had more supply than there was a demand for. Under the rules of supply side economics, Murdoch found a way to make demand for his product and the effort did not hurt the other broadcasters nor did it take any wealth away from them, it simply created wealth for Murdoch and those affiliated with him.


That's actually really fascinating, and I didn't know that's what supply side economics referred to. Thanks for teaching me something new.



It is this sort of ingenuity that marks the upward surge of humanity. Before the invention of light bulbs there was no demand for them. There was, however a need for efficient and safe lighting and the light bulb satisfied that demand. It, in the end, marked the demise of the gas lamp as the preferred choice of lighting, but it was not because Edison stole the gas lamp manufacturer's pie, it is because he created a better pie. Those gas lamp manufacturers who understood the light bulb was the future and placed their investments in it, also profited from this newer and better pie, while those gas lamp manufacturer's who failed to recognize this new trend, lost their profits.

This is one of the basic premises of capitalism, that through competition the common good will be satisfied by individual self interest.


I don't regard wealth as being a finite resource, as I stated above, and I do agree that competition and the individual wealth that can stem from those successful in it can contribute to the common good. However, it doesn't always, and it certainly doesn't for everyone. That's the problem in my opinion. I just wish there was a way for everyone to benefit, and to thrive at a level above a hypothetical social minimum, without doing away with the very effective forces and dynamics you just described that help create that wealth in the first place for those who can get it.

Again, this is all just the uneducated opinion of one person, though.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Good Post! I couldn't agree with you more. These people are destroying what has made this country great and all the morons that are falling for this are to blame, they are voting them it. I have tried to write some posts on different things these librals are doing, but I put to much anger into and and it never comes out right! Star and Flag.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1
Good Post! I couldn't agree with you more. These people are destroying what has made this country great and all the morons that are falling for this are to blame, they are voting them it. I have tried to write some posts on different things these librals are doing, but I put to much anger into and and it never comes out right! Star and Flag.


Our foolish ideals and lack of moral fiber will one day destroy the country!
MUA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 





"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!


Sorry can't be bothered to read the whole thread, so if this has already been said, sorry about that.

Libertarian is just a friendly name for NAZI!

[edit on 5/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


So, if Progressive is just a friendly name for Communist, then Conservative must be a friendly name for Neo Nazi fascist.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 




For example, they made murdering your baby all about the mothers choice instead of about the fact that her choice ends in the babies death.


It's death alright, but man has free will, and that free will includes not accepting an unwanted pregnancy. The death of a fetus doesn't mean anything, it's not a baby.



They created welfare and entititlements and said they were to help the poor, but really there were intended to teach people learned helplessness and government dependence.


People are not poor because they are lazy but because they are not given a chance to avoid being poor.



They created a scheme to redistribute your hard earned money to third world countries and told you they were saving you from killing yourself by warming up the planet.


Global warming is real.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
"Progressives" are nothing but filthy, lying Communists that picked a nice marketing name for their hidden goal to turn the world into one big Communist state.

Just think you probably wouldn't vote for someone who told you upfront they were a Communist, but if they lie to you and tell you they are for "Progress" then it doesn't seem so bad to vote for them.

As we all know Liberals like to make up super positive names for their most insane agendas. For example, they made murdering your baby all about the mothers choice instead of about the fact that her choice ends in the babies death.

They created welfare and entititlements and said they were to help the poor, but really there were intended to teach people learned helplessness and government dependence.

They created a scheme to redistribute your hard earned money to third world countries and told you they were saving you from killing yourself by warming up the planet.

However, when you look at their agenda they are nothing more than Communists with a friendly name about Progress. If you research their history you find that they are based in the Marxist/Communist ideologies that have failed throughout the world.

So when you see that the "Progressive" Obama Administration is full of Marxists you should realise that this is not an accident or negligence. This was intentional, because this is what the current administration believes is best for the USA. They think you would be better off in the collective. They think you would be happier if you were Communist. They seem to forget that Communism has failed over and over.

Here are just a few quotes and articles to help you on your search for the truth behind their idea of Progress. Just google "are progressives communists" and you will find many more.



All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:


* Croly: "The Promise of American Life is to be fulfilled ... by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial."

* Sociologist Lester Ward: "The individual has reigned long enough."

* Antitrust leader Henry Demarest Lloyd: Individualism is "one of the historic mistakes of humanity."

* The Outlook editor Lyman Abbott: "[I]ndividualism is the characteristic of simple barbarism, not of republican civilization."

* Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch: "[I]ndividualism means tyranny."


Source




Communist Front was originally the term used by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)[citation needed], and then later by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) to label Comintern (Communist Interational) organizations found to be under the effective control of the CPUSA, with special emphasis on those groups most active during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The term also refers to organizations not originally Communist-controlled which after a time became so, such as the American Student Union.

In 1955, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published a list of what it described as the 82 most active and typical sponsors of Communist fronts in the United States; some of those named had literally dozens of affiliations with groups that had either been cited as Communist fronts or had been labelled "subversive" by either the subcommittee or the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Perhaps the best-known - and, in the short run most successful - 'Communist Front' in the United States was the Progressive Party which nominated former Vice-President Henry A. Wallace for President in the 1948 election. The party was on the ballot in 45 states, though under various names. For instance, in California it was known as the Independent Progressive Party. In New York State, it was the American Labor Party, founded a number of years earlier, which repeatedly elected Vito Marcantonio and, in a by-election in the Bronx in February, 1948, Leo Isacson, to Congress. Isacson was defeated by a coalition candidate in November, 1948. Marcantonio was re-elected then, the only Progressive candidate to win office, but was defeated in 1950.


Source


[edit on 2-12-2009 by HotSauce]

Not all "Progressives" are Communists. Some are just useful idiots.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Polynomial C
 


Thanks for posting. Why don't you explain what you see as the differences between Communism and Stalinism. I would be interested to hear your view. From my point of view Stalinism is what becomes of Communism when you factor in human nature and the fact that some group of people will always want to exploit another group of people for their own gain.

Putting everyone under a Communist collective framework where the masses all become equally powerless and disabled just makes the formation of a Dictatorship all the more easy for those who want power and will break all the rules to get it.


you are bang on the money- it annoys me greatly when people whine

"STALINISM IS NOT TRUE COMMUNISM"


There is no such thing as "true communism" (at least not outside of a text book)-

Stalinism is VERY Much Communism in reality, like you say, when human nature, feelings, differences etc kicks in.


How many examples in the world does one need from tyrants who emerge from the well spring of "true communism"- North Korea (millions dead in famine as well as God knows how many murdered by the state), Ethiopia (mass state killings and state inspired famine), Pol Pot/Cambodia, China/Mao- anyone who still supports communism, in light of EVERYTHING we know that it brings, deserves to be given a kicking



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 
Progressive is also just a friendly name for Communist. And Republican is just a friendly name for Communist-Lite, or Socialist. A rose by any other name...




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
As a progressive ultra-liberal I have to disagree. I could never be a communist since it appears to be of christian origin.

www.biblegateway.com...

Acts 2:44-45

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-37

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” - Marx



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
As a progressive ultra-liberal I have to disagree. I could never be a communist since it appears to be of christian origin.

www.biblegateway.com...

Acts 2:44-45

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-37

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” - Marx


that is how it may "appear" to you, but it isn't- Communist is about utopia on earth whereas Christianity realise that it is not possible in a land of sin, so focuses on spiritual matters


It must have been really cool to think that though



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

that is how it may "appear" to you, but it isn't- Communist is about utopia on earth whereas Christianity realise that it is not possible in a land of sin, so focuses on spiritual matters


It must have been really cool to think that though


“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Same thing as the bible says. At risk of sounding like a christian, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Communism: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

That is exactly what is described by the above quoted verses. It is so much like modern communism that a man and his wife were even put to death by "the head of state" for selfishly holding back part of the money for the land they sold (Acts 5). So much for individualism in christianity. It is the communist collective or nothing.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I can't wait to destroy the world!!!

I would like to thank all my progressive friends in history who defended the merits of the burning of witches, flat Earth theory, slavery, opposed the female vote, stoning and all the things we love.

And yes Jesus believed if you were hungry get a job or two, pssshhhh, eat your hand, not his problem really. Jesus knew if you fed a hungry person they would become lazy and more hungry, because lack of food does not cause hunger really.

LONG LIVE MOTHER RUSSIA!!!

We will break you!



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
The lack of intelligence in this thread does not surprise me at all. You bandy around terms--communist, stalinist, liberal, whatever--w/out the most basic understanding of these terms.

Is this an American phenomena? It seems to be. You have been brain-washed well.

The truth is we live in an oligarchy, a wealth pyramid. By the very views you embrace and propogate, you weaken your class. You are your own worst enemy. And you're not helping anyone else either, except the rich who have brain-washed you.


I always find that people don't understand that there are many different definitions of communism and most of them are right. So go ahead and tell me which person you believe used an incorrect definition and I'll try and correct you if they were actually correct... and they probably were.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by truthquest]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Same thing as the bible says. At risk of sounding like a christian, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.



What you are doing is hearing a dog barking and calling it a duck



Communism: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

That is exactly what is described by the above quoted verses. It is so much like modern communism that a man and his wife were even put to death by "the head of state" for selfishly holding back part of the money for the land they sold (Acts 5). So much for individualism in christianity. It is the communist collective or nothing.


you quoted some random parts of the bible about people voluntarily sharing- the bible also goes onto state that the earth will be perpetually in a state of disarray due to the fact of man's nature and sin- there is no utopia on this earth, only the next. Communism is clearly not voluntary, takes no account of human failings and seeks a utopia on earth (people who seek utopia are doomed to failer and inevitably succumb to policies which brutalise)



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
I can't wait to destroy the world!!!

I would like to thank all my progressive friends in history who defended the merits of the burning of witches, flat Earth theory, slavery, opposed the female vote, stoning and all the things we love.

And yes Jesus believed if you were hungry get a job or two, pssshhhh, eat your hand, not his problem really. Jesus knew if you fed a hungry person they would become lazy and more hungry, because lack of food does not cause hunger really.

LONG LIVE MOTHER RUSSIA!!!

We will break you!


Dude,

You are proof positive of alternate realities.

If you are being sarcastic I apologize, but everything you said is a reversal of the truth. Everything you mention was opposed by progressives.

Happy new Year in Bizarro world.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join