Progressive Liberals[W:39]

[Paleocon]

Re: Progressive Liberals

@Palecon..........That entire ideology is based on a lie. Notice they have to constantly rename themselves : Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Progressive. Now some are even claiming they are Libertarians. The latest Propaganda/Lie is to expand the definition of Socialism to include all Government functions.

You're equivocating with the word "lie". What I'm saying is that the notion that left-liberals are liars is problematic, because it's a way of blaming the abject failures of liberalism on malicious misapplication, in order to avoid acknowledging that liberalism itself is problematic. It is of course true that liberalism is based off of false premises.

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Progressive Liberals

wow...is this what happens when all your information comes from WND and radio shows like Rush and Sean?

Yes , Rush, Sean but originally from Jr High School history class and every other non partisan source. In fact aside from leftist Propagandist like Governess no one claims the actions of the FED were not the original cause of Black Tuesday.



what is WND?

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Free Market Capitalism is the only economic system that actually creates wealth and it benefits everyone involved in varying degrees. Usually the degree of involvement is in direct correlation to the benefit (in other words the effort people put in). This makes it the fairest economic system, although like anything humans create it will never be perfect.

Free Market Capitalism is not perfect, it has highs and lows, but as long as the Government doesn’t interfere too much the good times will always strongly out weigh the bad. The fact that America is the greatest most prosperous nation in all human history proves this. With Progressive/Liberal/ Socialism there are never good times just stagnation and hard times.

 

[Fishking]

Re: Progressive Liberals

1929.

Ironically came after we uncoupled the dollar from gold and created the fed reserve that was supposed to keep that from happening. The mixing of the economic foundation of the entire economy with government and private banking is most definitely not capitalism.

 

[calamity]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Yes , Rush, Sean but originally from Jr High School history class and every other non partisan source. In fact aside from leftist Propagandist like Governess no one claims the actions of the FED were not the original cause of Black Tuesday.

What Caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929? | Economics Help

what is WND?

World Nut Daily

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Anyone that believe the Nazis were a bunch of Liberals should not even try describing the evils of "Liberals". What a waste of site bit space.

Without an All Powerful Government a Holocaust, Gulag or similar situation is impossible to achieve.

The Problem with Socialism even so called Democratic Socialism is it requires a large all powerful government to function, not even Bernie denies this.

Free Market Capitalism on the other hand functions best with a limited power government, with a powerful government it can get turned to corny capitalism or fascism.

Government is made up of people and eventually bad people come along. By all accounts Lenin was sickened by the murderous actions of Stalin, but it was the all powerful government that Lenin created that enabled Stalin to murder 70 million people.

A more recent example is Bush gave the government more power by creating the Patriot Act. There is no evident he ever used it for any other purpose than to fight terrorists. Obama renewed and expanded the power of the Patriot Act. Both He and Hillary have long histories of using government power against their political enemies.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Progressive Liberals

There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1.Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2.Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Thank you for not associating with the liberal movement.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Casper]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Without an All Powerful Government a Holocaust, Gulag or similar situation is impossible to achieve.

The Problem with Socialism even so called Democratic Socialism is it requires a large all powerful government to function, not even Bernie denies this.

Free Market Capitalism on the other hand functions best with a limited power government, with a powerful government it can get turned to corny capitalism or fascism.

Government is made up of people and eventually bad people come along. By all accounts Lenin was sickened by the murderous actions of Stalin, but it was the all powerful government that Lenin created that enabled Stalin to murder 70 million people.

A more recent example is Bush gave the government more power by creating the Patriot Act. There is no evident he ever used it for any other purpose than to fight terrorists. Obama renewed and expanded the power of the Patriot Act. Both He and Hillary have long histories of using government power against their political enemies.

You have not done your reading, all powerful governments do not only come in Left Leaning forms. As I said, we have no such form of government here and will not have one, a New Nation(s) would be born if it were attempted, Americans as a whole have always hated extremists, right or left.

As a point in education: Mao and his henchmen killed even more than Stalin, just to help round out the knowledge base more.

 

[coldjoint]

Re: Progressive Liberals

There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1. Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2. Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Some more on progressives:

Contempt and Disregard for People's Free Choices

I explained that while "progressives" often use the rhetoric of "democracy" and respect for the dignity and diversity of people, the reality is that that they wish to override the choices people make in their everyday affairs to fit the presumed "right" and "rational" and "socially conscious" courses of actions that the proponents of political paternalism are convinced are the only "enlightened" and "just" ones.

The world is to be reduced to and confined within a narrow corridor of forms of "good behavior" that people will be either penalized for violating or subsidized for doing through government regulation and spending.

I reminded my new friend of the words of the British political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, who declared that until people are ready for freedom they can only hope to be ruled by a wise and benevolent dictator. But that Mill's contemporary, the noted British historian and political writer, Thomas Macaulay, replied by saying that Mill's suggestion reminded him of the fool in the story who said he would not go into the water until he knew how to swim. Unless freedom is exercised, individuals will never learn the lessons that may lead them to make wiser and more intelligent decisions over time. Otherwise, we run the risk of maintaining large portions of the population in a form of permanent childhood, living off and dependent upon the commanding decisions of those in political power.

The Arrogance and Abuse of Power

I also explained the argument and insight of the Austrian economist, Friedrich A. Hayek, that the more complex the society the less it is in the capacity of any one person or any group of people, no matter how well trained as "experts" in the art of political paternalism, to know enough to successfully manage and direct the affairs of the society better than leaving such matters to the individuals themselves in their own circumstances as they see and understand it best.

I pointed out to him that leaving such vital and essential matters in the hands of those in political authority and to the presumed "experts" in the government bureaus, agencies and departments ignores what we all, pragmatically, know to be true: the misuse and abuse of power and position by those in government for their own self-interested purposes and for those who assistant them in remaining in power.

Much more in the article.

Doug Ross @ Journal: The Modern Progressive's Insatiable Thirst for Tyranny

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Progressive Liberals

What Caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929? | Economics Help




World Nut Daily

Tejvan Pettinger (the author the article you pasted) once expressed sadness over the fall of the USSR. I will pass over considering him a credible source. You also seem to have missed the comments on that article correcting him about the FED. Next time quote Paul Krugman at least he is an American far left economist, considering the subject that is more appropriate.

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Progressive Liberals

You have not done your reading, all powerful governments do not only come in Left Leaning forms. As I said, we have no such form of government here and will not have one, a New Nation(s) would be born if it were attempted, Americans as a whole have always hated extremists, right or left.

As a point in education: Mao and his henchmen killed even more than Stalin, just to help round out the knowledge base more.

Actually it's you who did do all of the reading. I explained that a Large all Powerful Government if a danger for both the Right and Left. But while Free Market Capitalism functions very well with Limited Power Government and Individual Freedom,,,Socialism requires a Large all Powerful Government and Individual Oppression just to exist.

I am very aware that Stalin killed 7 times more people than Hitler and that Mao beat Stalin by a few million. I also know that the Castro Regime (who Obama just saved) per capita of people under their power killed more than Hitler.

 

[calamity]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Tejvan Pettinger (the author the article you pasted) once expressed sadness over the fall of the USSR. I will pass over considering him a credible source. You also seem to have missed the comments on that article correcting him about the FED. Next time quote Paul Krugman at least he is an American far left economist, considering the subject that is more appropriate.

:shock:

 

[calamity]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Ironically came after we uncoupled the dollar from gold and created the fed reserve that was supposed to keep that from happening. The mixing of the economic foundation of the entire economy with government and private banking is most definitely not capitalism.

Uh...no.

Some economic historians, such as Barry Eichengreen, blame the gold standard of the 1920s for prolonging the economic depression which started in 1929 and lasted for about a decade.[30] Adherence to the gold standard prevented the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply to stimulate the economy, fund insolvent banks and fund government deficits that could "prime the pump" for an expansion. Once off the gold standard, it became free to engage in such money creation. The gold standard limited the flexibility of the central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply. In the US, the central bank was required by the Federal Reserve Act (1913) to have gold backing 40% of its demand notes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

 

[Gina]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Moderator's Warning:

The baiting and trolling needs to stop. Be productive in the thread or thread bans and/or points are possible.

 

[D_NATURED]

Re: Progressive Liberals

This Ideology no matter what you call it; Socialism, Communism, Progressive or Liberal over the last 100 years has caused more misery, death and destruction than any religion or other political ideology. If a person had a time machine they could go back kill Hitler and save millions of lives, or they could kill Karl Marx and save billions of lives.

At the time of Karl Marx, there were fewer than two billion people on earth. Besides, your desire to indict socialism, and not authoritarianism by any name, is very typical of someone who has ignored more than they've learned. How do you type so legibly with your ass?

 

[Mr Person]

There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1. Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2. Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

This is about as useful an OP as if I started a thread saying that people who are "Libertarian -Right" are either "anarchists or nazis".....

 

[joG]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Capitalism needs that threat of force as well, though. Without a strong government or security force protecting the rich minority what would stop the workers from taking over the means of production? Without the threat of government force unions would kick the owners to the curb.

The central state monopoly on force only reduces the cost of security and tends to make it less slanted towards the rich, because they no longer maintain personal forces.

 

[joG]

There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1. Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2. Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

That tends to be correct in theory. History supports the theoretical analysis also. You are on terra firma.

 

[joG]

Re: Progressive Liberals

This is an unfounded claim.

That depends on what you mean.

 

[joG]

Re: Progressive Liberals

This Ideology no matter what you call it; Socialism, Communism, Progressive or Liberal over the last 100 years has caused more misery, death and destruction than any religion or other political ideology. If a person had a time machine they could go back kill Hitler and save millions of lives, or they could kill Karl Marx and save billions of lives.

This is certainly true.

 

[joG]

Re: Progressive Liberals

Well, for one thing, Bernie Sanders doesn't lie about his socialist bent. #2 doesn't apply to him because he has been a socialist pretty much all of his life. By the way insulting people makes for a very weak debate position.

True. He lies about, what it means. Or do you think he is stupid enough not to know?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1. Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2. Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

There are two types of people who, though not being liberal, try to define liberals:

1) Uneducated conservatives who, since they are illiterate, have learned everything they know about liberalism from watching right wing pundits on TV.
2) Stupid right wing hacks for whom the extent of their political intelligence is "right wing good, left wing bad". These people tend to avoid watching the pundits because they use too many "fancy" words like "the".

This is not all conservatives, but for both of these groups of people, it is important to remember that their opinion is meaningless, since, as one can see from points 1 and 2, they are incapable of defining the term that they are attempting to define.

 

[RetiredUSN]

There are two types of people who, though not being liberal, try to define liberals:

1) Uneducated conservatives who, since they are illiterate, have learned everything they know about liberalism from watching right wing pundits on TV.
2) Stupid right wing hacks for whom the extent of their political intelligence is "right wing good, left wing bad". These people tend to avoid watching the pundits because they use too many "fancy" words like "the".

This is not all conservatives, but for both of these groups of people, it is important to remember that their opinion is meaningless, since, as one can see from points 1 and 2, they are incapable of defining the term that they are attempting to define.

And both of you are acting bigoted with those sort of conclusions.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And both of you are acting bigoted with those sort of conclusions.

Actually, my comments are a tongue in cheek response to his stupid assertions, demonstrating how dumb they are by making mine seem just as dumb. It gets the point across.

The difference is that I know that the stupid stuff I said is stupid. My guess is that he believes that the stupid stuff he said isn't.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Actually, my comments are a tongue in cheek response to his stupid assertions, demonstrating how dumb they are by making mine seem just as dumb. It gets the point across.

The difference is that I know that the stupid stuff I said is stupid. My guess is that he believes that the stupid stuff he said isn't.

It certainly did get the point across, and I missed the (tic) part.

But then again, I'm not the sharpest tool in the bag. Cheers!