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.

 

The Progressive Mind and the False Right- Left Paradigm.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


As for the point that progressivism doesn’t work, well then why are most if not all of the most materially successful societies in the world progressive?

There is England, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other places who understand modernity and progressive policies that benefit the people.

They ALL have national health care, for example, and most other social services that can be called progressive somewhat, and while those countries aren’t perfect, they are considered the most successful in the world.

Where are these other countries that the OP wants America to emulate or learn from?

Some imaginary society out of his imagination or a real flesh and blood society that America can emulate.

No one in America wants to be like Russia, but there are many other countries like I mentioned above that if Americans weren’t so brainwashed with the arrogance of their own exceptionalism they would be able to learn from these societies.

Progressivism is only a methodology to garnish fairness, freedom, and justice for all, particularly those on the lowest rung of the ladder.

The Op talks about soon the government will be telling us to do this and that.
But isn’t it the conservatives who want to ban abortion and make woman have babies they don’t want and tell you what to watch on TV or to abstain from sex make drugs illegal.

The countries mentioned above don't have the tyrany that you fear; so what are you really talking about but Glenn Beck propaganda




It is interesting that you think the op is a victim of propaganda. My friend I fear it is you who is the victim. You believe progressive talking points are reality, and anybody who challenges your conditioning is wrong. I am not attacking you personally. I am only begging you to research, and prove with analysis what you believe.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


You are making the same mistake and assuming I'm talking about Left vs Right agenda. I am not. Both the Right and the Left attempt to buy us and control us for the same reason. A Republican today is the same as Democrat was the first time I voted. To understand this you have to throw the idea of the Right and Left out the door and understand the elite know no such distinction. To them it is like a game of Chess they are playing and the prize at the end is the same for the winner and loser; complete control.

There is no Right and Left, but there is right and wrong, free or enslaved. Political Parties and all these varied political beliefs are all a ruse to control by dividing us. It works so well, that if you are reading along you will notice it's almost impossible to have a conversation about it.

Only when you understand that Bush, Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr. and all of them lately are the same person, answering to the same masters for the same reasons, can you start to see through the fog they have created to blur your vision.

I just had to rewrite my response to you because you almost drew me into that false argument again by listing countries all on the brink of financial ruin due to the actions of both the Left and the Right.

The fabricated Left will blame the fabricated Right and the Right will blame the Left and these people I'm speaking about here will pocket all the rewards not caring which side they are on because they created the whole concept to control us.
edit on 1/18/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   


You see it is you who thinks the word Progressive only applies to one side. That is as they wish it to be in fact. The fact is they exist in equal I think, although small numbers on both sides. The whole idea of a Party system is to keep us at each others throats. Behind closed doors do you really think these Progressives who have taken control are not best of friends who script what we see according to a plan? You see it's easy to control us by keeping us at each others throats. Don't confuse what I'm talking about with Partisanship and the false Left-Right Paradigm I mentioned in the title, so people would hopefully understand that I'm not taking any side.
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You see, I think the problem here is that words do have meanings, and the sort of elite you are talking about, who manipulate the political debate, but who are largely apolitical themselves, could hardly be called "progressive." When you use the term "progressive" in a modern conversation, it describes, through consensus agreement, a member of the political left, generally far left, even. Using a political term to describe an apolitical group is clearly confused thinking at best.
You can say you are taking a view beyond the false left/right dichotomy that is scripted, but when use the term "progressive" to describe the boogey man (these elites we probably agree about in general) you play right back into the left/right bs you earlier criticize. It's simply sloppy? Or deliberate? Or possibly unconscious? Think about it and perhaps you'll realize that you have indeed brought your own political leanings and biases into the discussion without (perhaps) meaning to.

edit on 19-1-2011 by joechip because: grammar

edit on 19-1-2011 by joechip because: clarification



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by Blaine91555
 




You can not have a calm conversation with any Progressive I've ever met in fact. They tend to view debate as an attack and when they attack with threats, intimidation and name calling it is OK as they are right and the majority of us are wrong.


Hard to find truer words spoken than these.



Allow me to introduce myself! I am a self-identifying progressive who truly enjoys calmly and rationally discussing politics. I like a good political debate with anyone and everyone, but especially with those who have a different opinion than mine. This is because for me, discussing politics with someone who believes the same things I do is just two people preaching in unison to the choir. Don't get me wrong, I like talking about my political beliefs with fellow progressives, but it is the discussions with other opinions that I find the most exhilarating! The way I figure it, the whole point of discussing politics is to exchange ideas.

I can name plenty of times I've come away from a good political debate with someone whose ideas are different than mine and have ended up tweaking my own beliefs to reflect something new I learned. The last thing I do when debating politics is attack with threats, intimidation and name calling, because that's the quickest way to shut down the conversation. Heck, I just want to keep on talking!

At our level, I think it kills the fun when we approach political debate as a contest. It shouldn't always only be about who's right and who's wrong, but should be more about the thrill of finding out as much as we can about each other's viewpoints. Besides, I don't know about you guys, but when I lose my cool, I lose my ability to think straight and end up looking stupid. Who wants to look stupid? And also, how can a person be truly confident and sure of what he/she believes if he/she hasn't considered all of the possiblities? An informed opinion should always be something to strive for. Uninformed opinions are a turnoff, but the only thing that makes me pull out of a serious political debate is overt or bald-faced hatred and insults. Also, a solid opinion is one that can be backed up with facts, so it's always good to know how to site credible sources.

So there you have it. Now you can say you've met a progressive you can have a calm yet lively conversation with. Looking forward to some doozies in the future here at ATS!

edit on 19-1-2011 by dalloway because: spelling



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by Blaine91555
 




You can not have a calm conversation with any Progressive I've ever met in fact. They tend to view debate as an attack and when they attack with threats, intimidation and name calling it is OK as they are right and the majority of us are wrong.


Hard to find truer words spoken than these.



How about mine verifying Ronald Reagan poor fiscal stewardship?

Is this new information going to help you, or are you going to ignore because it is unfortunate?

Take care



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
It's a shame, because your post is very well put together with the exception of your misunderstanding of Socialism.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


The idea of progressivism in the political sense is different from the ideology. Progressivism in a political sense suggests extreme liberalism, and even changing status quo. The ideology is one of statism, absolute power, and control. You could argue correctly that many believe the political belief system is an ideology. What most do not realized is that this political ideology is cover for the real statist ideology. Similar to freedom being cover for imperialism. The statist ideology is supported by members of both parties, and even beyond one single nation state. Calling an ideology for what it is, and not buying into the marketing of the word is important. If you believe that progressivism has a meaning politically it is similar to believing any right/left misrepresentation. Ideology and rhetoric are radically different things. One must move past labels to the core of the issue.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head.

It is about fueling statism with a left/right paradigm because, well, everyone is still convinced that they must choose a team to run their lives. This is why if you are not right leaning, you are a bleeding heart-hippy-jerk and if you are not left leaning you are a nazi-redneck-a**hole.

Ah, language. I am so happy to be known as the former by my conservative friends and the latter by my liberal friends. You can't be pigeonholed if you KNOW FOR A FACT that you are not a pigeon.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
There is a left and a right. But the sides shift and change players. The two sides are;
Who will benefit from those in power.
And who will NOT benefit from those in power.

The names are just salad dressing.

My side, I want them to win, so that I may benefit. Currently, I am not benefitting from this side, hence, I am against it.

2 drachmas.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Of course, when I hear the word progressive I don't think specifically about politics. I usually think of this little gem from Trey Parker and Matt Stone:


SMUG ALERT




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


As for the point that progressivism doesn’t work, well then why are most if not all of the most materially successful societies in the world progressive?

There is England, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other places who understand modernity and progressive policies that benefit the people.

They ALL have national health care, for example, and most other social services that can be called progressive somewhat, and while those countries aren’t perfect, they are considered the most successful in the world.

Where are these other countries that the OP wants America to emulate or learn from?




Well im from Norway, and i have to say that that is simply not the case. Poverty is ironically fairly abundant in Norway, and most poeple couldn't care less. Health care is complex and a goddamn beureucracy (i might have mispelled this word) Doctors throw you out as fast as they can so they can ease statistics.
'You are sick you say? Well take three paid weeks of and relax.. Yes its that easy)

For some reason, Castro 'the evil dictator' has somehow magically conjured a healthcare system that seems to work alot better, or so i'v heard?

And as far as i know, and by just observering the swarm of young swedes coming to work here, simply because they cannot find work in theyr own country, you come to understand that there's stuff going on on a scandinavian scale as well as an global scale. EU is just another UN to some extents. And as if the timing is perfect and the flow of immigrants are recognized, there is currently a HUGE blown-out-of proportion political national debate regarding our immigration politics.( TPTB recently threw out one of our 'non-papers' immigrants from Russia after she wrote an award winning book on _JUST_ this subject. Hm!

It all just seems to well planned to me. But then again i overanalyze.

Right now, the poeple are wrong and the government currently in place are right. (I think they will tighten the grip on immigration, bail out because of the poeple's uproar, and the political party that is currently the 'left' of the current 'right' (SV) will step in and stall even more time.

Then they drink tea together in the aftermath, all good and dandy. This is becoming more and more obvious here like everywhere else. Are we growing smarter or are they growing restless?

We never actually voted YES to an Euro Union, but somehow were still obligated to follow EU sanctions and regulations.. But we 'the poeple' dont care, we gutz the moneh (whats left anyway) and fake tans.



The point was anyway, if i am ever to make one, that the same applies here. There's no different tactic. Divide and conquer.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Quest4unity because: Didnt add my own comment the first time, whops.


Though i'd like to add that you obviously focus on the illusion of the leftright paradigm, but yet consistently tell me i should beware of the so called 'progressives', us vs them, creating ultimately another leftright discussion.

How about; They are different. They think this and are blessed with the gift of their own opinion. All we have to do is think for ourselves and they're power will diminish, any paradigm illusion or not, right?
edit on 19-1-2011 by Quest4unity because: add



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You have done your own thread a terrible disservice because you have chosen to play fast and loose with terminology. The convention is one of right versus left. Left includes progressives. Now you claim there is a right wing progressive which is not just confusing to me but to other people as well.

How can we rise above the dichotomy to have intelligent debate to fix the country with you adding to the confusion which I might add obscures whatever position you hold.

edit on 19-1-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


When you discuss the narcisistic mentality held by those leaders of the right and less I feel you are completely correct. How else do they get to the top of their respective parties or organisations. Unfortunately if you look at what passes for communism you would realise the abject poverty of the average people versus the wealth of the elites.

The right accepts this gap between the rich and poor and are actually proud of it as a differentiator btween itself and "communism". But even in the right there is blatant narcism and the "do as I say as opposed to do as I do". The right has the complete complete footsoldier/general mentality as does the left.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Corporatism is the by product of capitalism. The left had the theory off pat long before that economic hit man book was written. BasicallyWhat is called corporatism is just another evolutionary step that capitalism is the root of. Alongside corporatism we now have transnational corporations which may make the right very happy as free enterprise works but the kicker is that these companies have no conception of patriotism just share holder profits. Most shareholders are only interested in their dividends.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


I see the dilemma for you. The meanings of words do not change for me simply because one side or the other decides they wish to be referred to by a different name this year.

I was being truthful when I said that the Democrats of yesterday are the Republicans of today. Playing with the meaning of words does not change their original meaning. My own Father, who would have taken a bullet for his beloved Democratic Party would not give them the time of day were he now alive. Like all Democrats then, he was very Conservative on government and financial issues. JFK was a supply side believer and his Brother Ted was the exact opposite. No way to keep up with peoples word games. As long as people get my point that is all just obfuscation is it not; to muddy the water?

Parties and political ideologies are just a ruse to keep our eyes off of these people I chose to call Progressives, based on the real meaning of the word, rather than the spun meaning coined for political expediency. Next election you will likely find a gaggle of new names and new word meanings.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 


Sorry, I don't agree and those who called themselves Liberals at one time, who earlier called themselves Progressives as they do now are not basing anything on that. It's just PR games.

However bickering over word meanings when the intent is known does destroy a conversation and people often knowingly use it to derail conversations do they not?

"Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action." What ideologies leaders does this not apply to I wonder? The very concept that government knows best and we are incapable is the definition of Progressives and Narcissists. Calling something pretty that is really ugly, does not change the fact it is ugly and make it pretty.

Democrats were never Liberals either. What is liberal about wanting more government and cradle to grave care mixed in with more regulation? Nothing, the name made no sense at all. Republican leaders are not conservative either, not by any stretch. They say they want otherwise, but when they are in office they do the exact same thing as those who call themselves Progressive for the moment and who will change that word shortly as it's getting a bad reputation.

You see how their influence has in fact now caused an argument over semantics? What the meaning of the word is, is? You don't think that is contrived? I do. Also why would a difference in opinion on a word cause a person without an agenda to derail to start an argument over it? It would not. It just means that one side or the other is offended because they are themselves ideologues blinded by the same divisions I'm talking about here.

Face it, politics is like sports and people blindly follow the team they root for. Our leaders count on that in fact and carefully orchestrate the things they use to divide us.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   


You see how their influence has in fact now caused an argument over semantics? What the meaning of the word is, is? You don't think that is contrived? I do. Also why would a difference in opinion on a word cause a person without an agenda to derail to start an argument over it? It would not. It just means that one side or the other is offended because they are themselves ideologues blinded by the same divisions I'm talking about here.


A discussion about the meaning of a word, a prominent term in your title, need not become an argument, and hardly derails the larger discussion. It is a valid point to consider, because words have meanings, and I believe you have chosen poorly in your word selection. I recommend Ron Paul's "The Revolution" for excellent apolitical and non-hyperbolic language in discussing this exact topic; chapter 1, The False Choices of American Politics is an excellent discussion, resonant with your OP, free of the labeling technique you seem so unwilling to abandon. Happy reading!
edit on 19-1-2011 by joechip because: grammar and clarification

edit on 19-1-2011 by joechip because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

"Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action." What ideologies leaders does this not apply to I wonder? The very concept that government knows best and we are incapable is the definition of Progressives and Narcissists. Calling something pretty that is really ugly, does not change the fact it is ugly and make it pretty.


By that definition you are calling the founding fathers progressives, they advocated a maliable government so much
they created the ability for us to change our government and things around us with the government, with our vote
being our stake in the whole thing.

Tell me Blaine, how do you create change or reform with inaction???

Lets discuss this, answer a couple questions since this is your thread, please

NAME ONE LARGE REFORM TO OUR SOCIETY IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS THAT DIDN'T INVOLVE GOVERNMENT or GOVERNANCE? HOW ABOUT TEN YEARS?

NAME ONE MODERN POLITICIAN WHO DOES NOT USED GOVERNMENT TO EFFECT REFORM OR CHANGE?

you are setting the pace here, answer me and we can dig deeper

I am not sure what you are for, because your entire definition seems to be against citizens governing themselves.




edit on 19-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
most people know that the two party system is a farce; no matter who wins an election, its always someone the powers that be wants...in other words, those two elected officials running for office on separate parties are both acceptable candidates for the powers that be...and who are the powers that be? The Illuminati Elite....



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Well I think progressives are the people who want to see social progress. Thus they do not want to see social breakdown. They want to see a farer and better society. I know this was the view back in the day. If you are an elected representative of a poor area then being progressive is a vote catcher and a way to personal advancement.

This is great! I am worried about the national debt and alsothe expansion in Government. I do not have the solution.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join