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.

 

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

# If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
# Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?
# Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?
# If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?
# Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?
# Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?
# If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?


From one of my favorite authors, a former citizen of the USSR, just a couple questions for you to answer.

Like socratic questions, how bout answering these, if you dare?

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

My addition to the questions-

If you hated Bush soooo much-
Why would you give more POWER to the very government that someone like him, could become in power again, hell his brother Jeb is thinking of running.

Hmmmmm?




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
He has a great site here-The People's Cube

Hey, if you swing the totalitarian way, you could fit right in. Of course they are being facetious, where you just might want to be the new Stalin.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
My questions to the neighborhood progressive/liberal/democrat are as follows:

1) Why (in the U.S.) do you align yourself with the political party of the segregationists, and of the KKK?

2) Why do you feel it is OK to take time and money belonging to other people at the point of a gun and give it to others of your choosing?

3) Why do those socialists among us feel the need to align themselves with the NAZIs and the German Third Reich?

4) Why do you repeatedly support politicians who are obviously of the totalitarian/fascist/statist bent?

5) Why do you hate the Bill of Rights, and the notion of individual sovereignty?

These are my questions. Most of your statists and liberal/progressives most likely can't comprehend these questions, much less develop answers for them.


edit on 29-12-2010 by MMPI2 because:



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Ohhhhh, that article I guess caused a lot of problems so far. Several people started putting some of the questions on their facebook pages.

Caused all kinds of problems.

Head exploded.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Actually I have asked one like yours.

Why do you hate freedom and liberty for your fellow man?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Since when do Democrats align themselves with nazis? Nazis are far-right wingers.

Regarding your next question: Obama is an imperialist, absolutely, but so is every Republican president. So why would you support a president who is so obviously fascist as well?

I find it odd when the 2 parties begin attacking each other in this fashion when, to anyone with eyes, they are exactly the same (with the exception of neo-nazis being far-right).



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Author and commentator Michael Savage suggested that "liberalism is a Mental disorder."

I think he is dead on. To be a "progressive"/statist liberal, you really have to be not only a narcissist, but also a textbook psychopath.

For folks like bill clinton, harry reid, barney frank, etc., you have to be a narcissist, a psychopath and delusional. You MUST be able to avoid objective reality to the point that you almost (and perhaps sometimes completely) lose contact with it.

The questions we've presented here will not be answered in a logical manner. They will be met with invective, ad hominem slop and poorly thought-out attack.

STAR AND FLAG!!






posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


Hey IA, attack some of the questions from the articles. They are actually easy to answer, if you have the ability to think outside the box.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I will post as I choose. The previous poster came up with additional questions; I chose to address those, because they were quite silly.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


Also, for your information, the left has all the tyrants.

I will say this again and I do not care who attempts to dispute it, the scale has ALWAYS been in the past as it is now, about the power of the state.

The left is more power to the state and the right is about less power to the state.

Yes, the NEW left/right is defined as the socialists/communists on the left and the fascists/corporatists on the on the right.

But another Socratic question, where are the conservatives, the libertarians and the anarcho capitalists on this new left/right line?

Are they just not included? Are the anarcho capitalists and the libertarians supposed to be considered fascists now?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Since when do Democrats align themselves with nazis? Nazis are far-right wingers.

Regarding your next question: Obama is an imperialist, absolutely, but so is every Republican president. So why would you support a president who is so obviously fascist as well?

I find it odd when the 2 parties begin attacking each other in this fashion when, to anyone with eyes, they are exactly the same (with the exception of neo-nazis being far-right).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your comment is appreciated, but is absolutely factually and conceptually wrong.

NAZI is an acronym for Nationalsozialismus, which translates into English as "National Socialism". The socialist party and the democratic party are, in the u.s., one and the same - very much like Hitler's political, ideological military and paramilitary structures.

In many respects, mdoern democrats and the fascists of the last century have most of the same tenets. Barack obama's actions with regards to nationalization of the car, medical, banking and education industries are textbook fascist, and are a good example of this fact.

Moreover, if you study political ideologies, "right-wing" and "left wing" are passe and hackneyed terms that are meaningless. What you might consider hardcore "rightists" and hardcore "leftists" are best characterized as "statists" A statist believes that an elite group of leaders should rule the populace. Adolph Hitler was a statist. Josef Stalin was a statist. Barack Obama is a statist.

To a much lesser extent, G W Bush was a statist. However, he was nowhere near as hardcore as Hitler or Obama.

If you are interested in this stuff, read Mark Levin's excellent "Liberty versus Tyranny." It is a seminal work on the lies the statist tells to maintain power over his fellow man.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


I will have to read that book, I think Levin and I have been thinking along parrallel lines or something.

I have always thought the left right argument-socialist on one side and fascist on the other has been a created misnomer.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I don't like the meaning that has been given to progressives by ignorant people. Progression is moving forward. Understanding more. How the hell is Unesco going to help with that? Why argue in a circle if you don't have an agenda? It is thanks to real progressives that you can write freely on a site with no fear of reprisal. It is thanks to progressives everybody of age is able to vote. It is thanks to progressives there are things as human rights and equal oppurtunity(not yet for everyone, because people forget what it means to support progressive ideas).

Really. Saying no to a progressive mentality on a place like ATS is just weird, but that is my opinion.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zamini
 


So, you are arguing that the founders of the united States of America, were progressives in modern day language?

Is that you debate answer to the discussion at hand?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

# If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
# Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?
# Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?
# If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?
# Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?
# Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?
# If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?


From one of my favorite authors, a former citizen of the USSR, just a couple questions for you to answer.

Like socratic questions, how bout answering these, if you dare?

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

My addition to the questions-

If you hated Bush soooo much-
Why would you give more POWER to the very government that someone like him, could become in power again, hell his brother Jeb is thinking of running.

Hmmmmm?


1. I dare you to name a single "culture" on this planet that promotes cannibalism. Going to the absolute extremes to make a point makes your argument look weak and silly.

2. I don't know anybody who promotes "equal pay for no work." I do know many people who believe in social programs to protect the vulnerable. It really bugs me when right-wingers consistently attack society's most vulnerable (in this case the unemployed) yet turn a blind eye to those who are responsible for the economic situation that this world is in. A very few people at the very top of the social hierarchy are addicted to greed and corruption and who's actions have led to the complete devastation of countless families the world over. But let's get angry at the unemployed and allow for the fat cat bastards on wall street to continue their immoral ways.

3. Hmmmm take a look at history, my friend. Males have oppressed women for centuries. It is the male dominated world that is mostly responsible for the inequality that exists today. I'm going to take a guess and say that you are one of those who are all up in arms as to why there isn't a "straight pride day." I suggest you read up on the witch hunt, one of the saddest parts of human history.

4. Again, please provide evidence where people say "all beliefs are equal."

5. It probably is way too late to save our planet. But I know! Let's allow corporations to profit further from raping the environment!

6. It depends how you define "truth." Promoting the oppression of minority groups by the majority is not truth. Doing so might make some people feel more powerful, but it's still hate.

7. Very silly. Right-wingers make me laugh (and make the world a more unequal, unjust, and miserable place). I can only wish that there actually were politicians who ran on eliminating poverty.

Just because Bush's government was terrible (and it was), doesn't mean government is terrible. I like government when it works for the benefit of the people and not corporations and the rich.
edit on 29-12-2010 by kimar because: spelling

edit on 29-12-2010 by kimar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
I don't like the meaning that has been given to progressives by ignorant people. Progression is moving forward. Understanding more. How the hell is Unesco going to help with that? Why argue in a circle if you don't have an agenda? It is thanks to real progressives that you can write freely on a site with no fear of reprisal. It is thanks to progressives everybody of age is able to vote. It is thanks to progressives there are things as human rights and equal oppurtunity(not yet for everyone, because people forget what it means to support progressive ideas).

Really. Saying no to a progressive mentality on a place like ATS is just weird, but that is my opinion.



Thank you too for your post. However, your statement(s) are factually and conceptually wrong.

When the questions that were proposed earlier by the OP and by me are addressed, I'll tell you how. For now, though, I'd like to redirect responses to the material of the thread - i.e., the questions that have been posed.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kimar
 



1. I dare you to name a single "culture" on this planet that promotes cannibalism.


there are "cultures" in and around the jungles of new guinea that are actively cannibalistic. The korowai are still active, as are several large groups in the belgian congo, sierra leone, the ivory coast and in liberia.

also, there are some religious sects in india that eat chunks of meat off of their dead relatives.

I should also mention that at least one New York Times reporter has practiced cannibalism. William Seabrook obtained a large piece of muscle tissue from a medical school, cooked it and then ate it. He said:


"It was like good, fully-developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable."


Of course, we can't know if the reporting staff of the NY Times practice cannibalism as a "culture", but you need to assume that liberal reporters would likely eat each other or their own children if they thought it could get them a pulitzer.

Now, rather than arguing the details of the question, could you please address the question itself and stop the deflection and distraction?

Thanks.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


I cannot find any evidence of modern day cannibalism, other than psychopaths. If people want to eat dead relatives for religious purposes then that is their business. It just goes to show that religion makes people do weird things. Catholics actually believe that they are eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood when they partake in communion. Again, religion can be pretty messed up. Is this cannibalism?

If you want to make a valid argument, stop using the most extreme out-there examples. I get that many right-wingers despise equality, but they must have better points to make rather than resorting to cannibalism!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kimar
 


yeah...yeah...

can you respond to the material of the questions? Give it a try....seriously!






posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 



Since when do Democrats align themselves with nazis? Nazis are far-right wingers.


Right-wing has generally come to be regarded as a conservative policy or favoring direct action (such as the military). The two are, on an ideological level, mutually exclusive, therefor making right-wing a rather useless descriptor.

The Nazis were for a socialized economy and fascist government. That is, they were for business and government becoming the same thing and providing a common standard of living. This is not all that different from the democratic party, which has demonstrated a willingness to exercise government control over businesses and expand entitlement spending.

Of course, that doesn't mean democrats are for killing blacks and hispanics (their electorate). So, likening them to Nazis may be a little more extreme than needs to be.


Regarding your next question: Obama is an imperialist, absolutely, but so is every Republican president. So why would you support a president who is so obviously fascist as well?


A lack of support for Obama does not equate to a support for Bush. I will say that I liked President Bush a hell of a lot more, because he was not an idiot. His public speaking skills were certainly inferior, but he could actually handle an unscripted debate.

Bush was, however, nowhere near fascist to the extremes that Obama and his supported policies have been. However, the U.S. is already quite fascist in nature - as people insisted the Government have the authority to regulate private business, the power the government had grew by virtue of precedents. This made lobbyists in large corporations far more powerful and has blurred the lines between government and business. The nature of government contracts also doesn't help to define realms of business and government.


I find it odd when the 2 parties begin attacking each other in this fashion when, to anyone with eyes, they are exactly the same (with the exception of neo-nazis being far-right).


Conservatism and liberalism are polar opposites. The two parties are a flurry of different extremes of conservatism/liberalism and fascism/libertarianism.

The neo-nazis are neither right nor left in the standard sense. They are, for all intents and purposes, condensed beings of hatred spawned out of a region experiencing some extreme cultural clashes. They are popular in the southwest, along the border, because they have the plan and the government is pretending like it knows better. Until we deploy the military to the border, build a wall, and man watch rotations, the neo nazis are only going to see greater membership and its leaders exhibit warlord-like traits with the ability to destabilize local governments.

Right now, they are mostly a reaction to a set of unfavorable factors in their life. I am not 100% sure how they differ from traditional nazis in their philosophies, but they are more closely related to a civil rights union than a political party.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join