JW

Maybe we should be asking you what you think Progressivism is:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-t***sformation-of-american-politics

There is very little difference between pure Progressivism and Marxism.

1. Both systems completely reject the idea of a Constitutional form of government.
2. Both believe that government needs to be involved in every aspect of human life.
3. Both systems completely reject the idea that there is such a thing as inalienable rights.
4. Both systems reject the idea that parental rights can ever supersede the interests of the state in the raising of their children.
5. Both systems believe government is the proper medium to create and dispense goods.
6. Both systems regard religion as unnecessary and obstructive of proper state function.

The only real difference between American Progressivism and Marxism is that the American people have not yet been convinced that government is the only true god and some still venerate the Founders, but the Progressives are still working on those.

straightUp Loc: California

mmm... I don't think you know what I mean. You just reverted back to wh**ever you were doing before. What software are you using? Standard browser should give you a "Quote Reply" button. If you're responding to a post you should click on that. You can click on "Reply" and write your response in quote/reply format inside that if you want, and we can read it, but we can't respond... the servers cut most of your stuff out when they send us the reply page. Just saying.

So other than that... I'll just disagree with everything else I see in your reply. I mean seriously, when I look at history and all the various forms of economic and political theory that you seem to be lumping together, I see a completely different picture.

As for your recommendations... back of the line. Sorry. I mean, I'll add it to my list - I'm always interested in what people are reading but yeah - back of the line. See, I remember going through this with you before. I've spent more than enough time following your recommendations and reading the clever rhetoric that either has you fooled or you're just spreading the bulls**t.

No hard feelings, just not my cup of tea.

straightUp Loc: California

Maybe you should. Just let me know if you want me to be serious or rhetorical.


Why did you decide to use the Heritage Foundation as your source?



I'll have a look at the article tomorrow - I'm already cutting into sleep time. You didn't actually ask me to explain "Progressivism", which of course fits the profile, but I'll tell you anyway... This is the point where you need to move to the next post if you don't want your virgin ears to be assaulted by the grating sound of mainstream academia, mainstream journalism and the American progressive movements themselves.

First of all that entire list is bulls**t. Again, I'll check out the article tomorrow but I don't think even the rhetoricians at Heritage are stupid enough to make those statements.

My understanding of progressive politics is that it puts emphasis on science and social structuring for the purpose of advancing the human condition. I suppose this is one point in common with all the collective systems, including Marxism. They all want to advance the human condition - imagine that? Conservatives will call that a pipe dream, a nice idea that just isn't realistic because it goes against the grain of human nature and yet they will be the first to brag about the advanced human condition that capitalism has promoted in America. Apparently, conservatives are convinced that we humans have at this point advanced as far as possible and we can never be better so let's stop trying.

Now, just because all the collectives, progressives, socialists and c*******ts want to advance the human condition doesn't mean they have anything else in common. In fact in America the progressive movements have always been committed to providing an alternate to socialism. This is often referred to as the Third Way, where the same altruistic goal of advancing the human condition is approached through capitalism instead of socialism. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican progressive... an imperialist progressive no less! His administration initiated the progressive movement that may actually have saved us from c*******m in the 20s, by offering this third way, keeping the private sector and negotiating labor terms with labor unions.

That's my understanding of progressivism.

JW

Everybody wants to improve the human condition, even ISIS. The difference between conservative thought and the rest is where they place the ceiling on individual potential and individual liberty. Collectivists cannot tolerate overachievers and actively suppress individuality in all its forms. Capitalism thrives on individual achievement.

There is no perfect system but any system that forces mediocrity on society is to be avoided at all costs. The only thing worse is one that forces conformity with its own personal standards.

Yankee Clipper

straightUp Loc: California

I could be wrong but I think ISIS is more concerned with religious compliance.


Now why do you say stupid things like that? It's like you people have this need to say the stupidest things for the sake of insult and you NEVER provide any examples or backing argument because of course there isn't any. You just reach down for the most insulting things to say and barf up utter nonsense. News flash: Achievement and individuality is encouraged by ALL Americans, including collectivists.

The only scrap of t***h that such a stupid statement could possibly have originated from is the notion that in a completely controlled economic system, value is set by committee, which eliminates the possibility of charging $400 for a swimsuit made from $2 worth of material or $3,000 for an insurance policy that doesn't get used. Or a $35 bank fee for an overdraft that only costs 30 cents to process.

In a free market, the purchase decisions are made by the consumers, including all the emotional buyers, desperate buyers and just really stupid buyers and THEY set the price, which means that for a greedy producer with a clever marketing department willing to rip off as many consumers as possible, the sky is the limit and they are free to "overachieve" as you say.

But even so, American progressives are still pro-market. It amazes me how you folks don't actually see that - I mean you have to be blind or r****ded not to see it. The "Third Way" that progressives seek is to keep the market because as much as we don't want our prices to be set by morons we still believe, in principal, that the purchase decision should rest with the consumer. This is why progressives are so adamant about product labeling, so that consumers at least have a chance to make informed decisions.

All systems thrive on individual achievement, not just capitalism. But what these systems (including capitalism) thrive on even more is communal achievement. 'You think Steve Jobs could have achieved what he did without Apple? 'You think J.D.Rockerfeller could have achieved his level of success without Standard Oil? This is why we have corporations, which are in fact collectives. Yes, a corporation is technically a collection of investors contributing toward a common goal. In fact, big business is technically just as collective as socialism is, the only difference is socialism is open to all citizens and corporations are limited to those with the money to play. I don't really have a problem with that, I just wish people were more aware of it because it seems there are those on the right that want our government to be the same way and I think that's a horrible idea.

See, it's amazing what you can figure out just by thinking things through instead of directly connecting the ears to the mouth and parroting what you hear others say.


I agree.

straightUp Loc: California

No, that's not it... I use color too for emphasis but you're doing something different and when you have more than one response in a single post like this...


the system DOES cut all but the last response out. Did you not notice that your conversations look different than everyone else's?

Yankee Clipper

Yankee Clipper wrote:
Actually they don't cut it out. When you go to quote/reply to respond my color print just turns to black print. There are a few others who use color print also and that's how the come to me when I respond quote/reply.

No, that's not it... I use color too for emphasis but you're doing something different and when you have more than one response in a single post like this...

[b] I didn't get any of the two paragraphs above starting with Yankee Clipper wrote: and ending with: like this...

[quote=straightUp]the system DOES cut all but the last response out. Did you not notice that your conversations look different than everyone else's? This is all I get when I click on quote/reply. I went back and looked at what you sent and part of it did not show up, I have no idea why.[quote]

Anigav6969

[quote=Yankee Clipper]Yankee Clipper wrote:
Actually they don't cut it out. When you go to quote/reply to respond my color print just turns to black print. There are a few others who use color print also and that's how the come to me when I respond quote/reply.

No, that's not it... I use color too for emphasis but you're doing something different and when you have more than one response in a single post like this...

[b] I didn't get any of the two paragraphs above starting with Yankee Clipper wrote: and ending with: like this...

[quote=straightUp]the system DOES cut all but the last response out. Did you not notice that your conversations look different than everyone else's? This is all I get when I click on quote/reply. I went back and looked at what you sent and part of it did not show up, I have no idea why.

Hey Yankee Clipper, I think what the problem was is that you were writing inside the quote.....so when someone presses quote / reply to one of your posts.( before...not this one)...it's completely blank.....that's why I had to copy your entire quote and bring it over.....not a real big deal...but kinda annoying

Yankee Clipper

Anigav6969

No problem Yankee clipper.....I enjoy the way you converse....you prove that we can disagree and not get down and dirty...kudos to you

straightUp Loc: California

:thumbup:

Chameleon12

So, basically, the people who created the broadway Mormon hit should get the crap beaten out of them by mormons?

and the piss Jesus guy should get pummeled by christians?

or are you saying that we would simply be justified in pummeling them?