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: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   



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.



The democratic party has traditionally hated minorities, regardless of race.

The KKK in the south was entirely democrat.
Anti-integrationists were entirely democrat.
Lynchings, obvious civil rights violations and the massive uprisings against the SNCC and MLK, Jr's goals were perpetrated almost entirely by democrats.

Lester Maddox was a democrat
"Bull" Connor was a democrat
George Wallace was a democrat
Hugo Black, supreme court justice and KKK leader was a democrat.
Robert Byrd, senator from West Virginia, was grand dragon of the KKK and a lifelong democrat.
J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore, strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame was a virulent opponent of integration
David Duke was (is?) a democrat.
Byron DeLaBeckwith was a KKK member, a democratic party hardliner, and murder of civil rights icon medgar evers.
Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore opposed integration, was a VERY powerful democrat for decades.


Make no mistake about it...democrats have been historically and are currently motivated by hatred, divisiveness, and the need for power.
edit on 29-12-2010 by MMPI2 because:

edit on 29-12-2010 by MMPI2 because:




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Why do Progressives emphasize their racial tolerance roots when they spent the late part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century further subjugating minorities and making them wholly dependent on government handouts while using that as leverage for votes to this day?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Can anyone answer the questions directly?

Arguing against the VALIDITY of a question, is not answering the question.

Please try again. It is kind of fun don't you think?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Can anyone answer the questions directly?

Arguing against the VALIDITY of a question, is not answering the question.

Please try again. It is kind of fun don't you think?


These questions are silly. I tried to answer them as best as I could. No answer will be good enough for you because I'm not ever going to say "wow, you are right!" Try looking at facts and reality for a change. I know, I know, facts and being a right-winger don't go well together.

The Democratic Party has a history of supporting racism. It's current policies attempt to combat racism. The Republican Party currently works to advance a racist agenda. Both parties seek to advance corporations over the well being of the people.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kimar
 


Wait a MINUTE.
The last question on the original set of questions applies to what you just stated.

# 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?

Just to change it a little.

How is the war on poverty going? Has putting the minority population on welfare taken them off the welfare plantation? Or has it only perpetuated a needy subset of citizens?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Why do Progressives emphasize their racial tolerance roots when they spent the late part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century further subjugating minorities and making them wholly dependent on government handouts while using that as leverage for votes to this day?



Who? Can you name these "Progressives"? Susan B Anthony? Who exactly are you talking about?

Notice how this thread has all the usual subjects, and page 1 is a conversation between basically two people slapping each other on the back over how smart they are.

Im not feeding the trolls anymore than that.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimar
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!


Promoting all cultures as equal may be sold to useful dupes as some sort of high minded respect for fellow human beings - but is actually a tactic employed as a cultural subversion strategy, first pioneered in the US by the Frankfurt School cultural marxists.


Pygmies beg UN for aid to save them from Congo cannibals By Michael Dynes, Africa Correspondent PYGMY leaders have called on the UN to set up an international tribunal to put government and rebel fighters from the Democratic Republic of Congo on trial for acts of cannibalism against their people. Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN’s Indigenous People’s Forum that during the four-year civil war his people had been hunted down and eaten. “In living memory, we have seen cruelty, massacres, and genocide, but we have never seen human beings hunted down as though they were game animals,” he said. “Pygmies are being pursued in the forests. People have been eaten. This is nothing more, nothing less, than a crime against humanity.” More than 600,000 pygmies are believed to live in the Congo’s vast jungles, where they eke out a subsistence existence. Both sides in the war regard them as “subhuman”, and believe that their flesh can confer magical powers. www.timesonline.co.uk...




There is a long history of this in the Congo:


CANNIBALISM IN THE AFRICAN CONGO Nearly all the tribes in the Congo Basin either are or have been cannibals; and among some of them the practice is on the increase. Races who until lately do not seem to have been cannibals, though situated in a country surrounded by cannibal races, have, from increased intercourse with their neighbours, learned to eat human flesh. Soon after the Station of Equator was established, the residents discovered that a wholesale human traffic was being carried on by the natives of the district between this station and Lake M'Zumba. The captains of the steamers have often assured me that whenever they try to buy goats from the natives, slaves are demanded in exchange; the natives often come aboard with tusks of ivory with the intention of buying a slave, complaining that meat is now scarce in their neighbourhood. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that they prefer human flesh to any other. During all the time I lived among cannibal races I never came across a single case of their eating any kind of flesh raw; they invariably either boil, roast or smoke it. This custom of smoking flesh to make it keep would have been very useful to us, as we were often without meat for long periods. We could, however, never buy smoked meat in the markets, it being impossible to be sure that it was not human flesh. The preference of different tribes for various parts of the human body is interesting. Some cut long steaks from the flesh of the thighs, legs or arms; others prefer the hands and feet; and though the great majority do not eat the head, I have come across more than one tribe which prefers this to any other part. Almost all use some part of the intestines on account of the fat they contain. A young Basongo chief came to our Commandant while at dinner in his tent and asked for the loan of his knife, which, without thinking, the Commandant gave him. He immediately disappeared behind the tent and cut the throat of a little slave-girl belonging to him, and was in the act of cooking her when one of our soldiers saw him. This cannibal was immediately put in irons, but almost immediately after his liberation he was brought in by some of our soldiers who said he was eating children in and about our cantonment. He had a bag slung round his neck which, on examining it, we found contained an arm and leg of a young child.
www.heretical.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Why not address any question? Is there a validity problem?

edit to add, this was not my work, it is as I said, from an author from the USSR.

Do you not think that just MAYBE, he could have some type of insight?
edit on 29-12-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I'd be happy to.


Theodore Roosevelt, Magaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, FDR...You need to understand that what Progressive means is not what the definition of the word in the dictionary would have you believe. These people were White Supremacists, they were eugenicists, propaganda experts, and rabid segregationists.

Progressives created the Federal Reserve, progressives used zoning laws to create the ghetto we know and love today. Progressivism isn't so much a 'they' as it is an 'it'. G. W. Bush is a progressive republican. So was Teddy Roosevelt. Progressivism is a superiority complex wrapped up in a convoluted political and social philosophy.

And who's trolling? You're the one who shot off a question and now you're taking your ball and going home before it can even be answered?

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

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

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



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I'd be happy to.


Theodore Roosevelt, Magaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, FDR...You need to understand that what Progressive means is not what the definition of the word in the dictionary would have you believe. These people were White Supremacists, they were eugenicists, propaganda experts, and rabid segregationists.

Progressives created the Federal Reserve, progressives used zoning laws to create the ghetto we know and love today. Progressivism aren't so much a 'they' as it is an 'it'. G. W. Bush is a progressive republican. So was Teddy Roosevelt. Progressivism is a superiority complex wrapped up in a convoluted political and social philosophy.

And who's trolling? You're the one who shot off a question and now you're taking your ball and going home before it can even be answered?

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

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


I would also add that progressives created the federal income tax, the IRS, the federal reserve board, fannie mae and freddie mac and the entire economic mess we are in right now.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Very true..

I hope that the next ten years is known as the decade we finally ended progressivism in this country.
edit on 29-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I am going to try and re-orient this thread, and ask my questions again.

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.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by kimar
 


Wait a MINUTE.
The last question on the original set of questions applies to what you just stated.

# 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?

Just to change it a little.

How is the war on poverty going? Has putting the minority population on welfare taken them off the welfare plantation? Or has it only perpetuated a needy subset of citizens?


The war on poverty is going horribly. The right-wing is fighting (quite successfully I might add) for the continued systemic racism, sexism, and homophobia that has existed for centuries. Putting the minority population on welfare? You're joking, right? In the US, more white people are on welfare than black people are. Yes, percentage wise, more blacks are on welfare, but they have a history of slavery (thus they started at the very very bottom of the social hierarchy) and live in a white dominated society where systemic racism is prevalent. Welfare in the United States was created for whites only. It was originally a white program. Read this: academic.udayton.edu... Facts can by annoying to the right-wing, eh?

It is so easy to blame already oppressed minority groups instead of going after the bigger problems of systemic prejudices, I know. But doing so doesn't fix anything and it never will.

I love being a leftist. Facts and reality are my friends!

And to whoever said that Bush is not an idiot: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kimar
 


Well, just a quick perusal of the link, that was in the beginning, not getting into that component of it, I am just going to ask again.

How is the CURRENT welfare, housing, etc etc etc systems doing for the minority culture? Have the welfare class been able to extricate themselves from it? Or has it perpetuated a continual lower class?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


It certainly has continued to perpetuate it. And it was done by design.

Check the link in my sig.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
I am going to try and re-orient this thread, and ask my questions again.

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?


This is highly misleading as the Republican party was actually formed by Democrats who split from their party in opposition to slavery, as well as Whigs.


Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.


Source

Trying to paint this as a party specific issue, in our nations history is just dishonest and propaganda to let the kiddies forget that, technically, Abrahan Lincoln was a Whig. and that Whigs


The Whigs were unable to deal with the slavery issue after 1850. Their southern leaders nearly all owned slaves. The northeastern Whigs, led by Daniel Webster, represented businessmen who loved the national flag and a national market, but cared little about slavery one way or another.


Thus the party that, for all intents and purposes, became the Republican party, had it's issues with slavery and racism as well.

This was a national issue - not one of partisan separation or exclusivity.


Originally posted by MMPI2

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?


Ignoring that "...at the point of a gun..." and "...of your choosing" are absolute bunk - I can only ask you the same question. There have been 9 Republican Presidents in the 97 years since the 16th amendment was passed, comprising a total of 48, of the last 97 years, in power. Have these Presidents used their power to repeal, cancel, or to place a moratorium upon taxes?

Again, making this a partisan issue is opportunistic, misleading, and dishonest.


Originally posted by MMPI2

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


A Democratic President waged, and won, a war against Nazi Germany so your statement is simply not applicable and totally devoid of fact or substance.


Originally posted by MMPI2

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


That is a good question. Why would you argue for the party that gave us such shining examples of freedom as extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Acts 1 and 2, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006?

To claim that the Democratic party is wholly responsible for the erosion of rights is simply delusional.


Originally posted by MMPI2

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


Another question that is devoid of substance or merit and is simply designed as an ad hom distraction.


Originally posted by MMPI2

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


Generalizations, especially in the negative, are usually a sign of a weak argument and are meant to try and cast dispersions upon the opposition without actually having to debate or source substance.

Kind of like if I were to say "OK, answered your little questionnaire, so run and scan your library of Glen Beck tapes to find better angles of attack."

~Heff
edit on 12/29/10 by Hefficide because: not lovin' the bb tonight



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by kimar
 


Well, just a quick perusal of the link, that was in the beginning, not getting into that component of it, I am just going to ask again.

How is the CURRENT welfare, housing, etc etc etc systems doing for the minority culture? Have the welfare class been able to extricate themselves from it? Or has it perpetuated a continual lower class?


The current system is woefully insufficient. Now if you want to talk about a successful welfare program in the US, there are the very generous corporate welfare programs that I'm sure the richest of the rich can tell you all about.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kimar
 


Precisely.

I want to see an end to all welfare by eliminating any need for it. But I would start with corporate welfare. I admit I am guilty of not talking about corporate welfare as much as I should, but I'm going to change that. The practice of subsidies to corporations has caused an artificial spike in consumer prices over time. Look at the way the health care system works in this country. FULL of subsidies and yet that spending has done little else than cause what amounts to hyperinflation in the industry.

Corporate welfare MUST BE the first form of welfare to kick the bucket in this nation if we are to survive.
edit on 29-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Yeah, I was using information gleaned from your thread and from Quadrivium's.

Just read through yours again with the additional posts.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


well howdy there, sport...!

I thought you had disappeared off of this website!

Read and learn...Read and learn.

FACT: The leadership of and the rank and file of the KKK has been entirely represented by democrats. Case closed.

FACT: Segregationists that fought against the civil rights act were wholly democrat. Case closed.

FACT: The men who killed MLK, Medgar Evers, the four little girls in Birmingham back in '63 were ALL democrats. Case closed.

FACT: The 15th amendment, the federal reserve, the IRS and every single tax increase, including the largest increases in United States history have been orchestrated and authored by democrats/progressives. Case closed.

FACT: Trying to confuse an issue by attempting to cite obscure and manifestly irrelevant historical factoids is pointless, and an obvious sign of a weak argument. Democrats have been a corrupt party that has perpetuated hate for as long as they have been in existence. Case closed.

FACT: Barack Obama, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, and every other murderous tyrant in history has been a classic statist. Case closed.

FACT: The progressives (read - the old hippies and former card-carrying communists now wearing 4000$ suits in the white house) in the Obama administration have done more to undermine the bill of rights and the erode the notion of individual sovereignty than any other single group of people in this country's history. This is fact. Case closed.

FACT: The current financial disaster facing our country and most of the modern world can be laid at the feet of american and european progressives. Case closed.

FACT: Calling a question that you are incapable of answering either by virtue of lack of knowledge or general incapacity "devoid of substance or merit and is simply designed as an ad hom distraction" is a FAIL of the highest order. Case closed.

CASE CLOSED

Pack it up and go home.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join