Progressives

[Big Fitz]

So Locke and Marx are the same in practice?


Are you fucking retarded?

I'm not entertaining your delusions anymore, dipshit. I've explained it fine, multiple times to you and your plebiscites, but you are not ignorant, you are obstinately stupid and I have no intent on spoon feeding you reality 101. There is no need to prove anything to a blind nobody.

Yeah, you can't be proven wrong when making assertions if you never back them up in the first place. No wonder you've never been proven wrong, you've never even bothered to prove yourself right.

Good Will Nothing, You should have at least have the intellectual honesty (obviously not taught in your school) to admit the fact I have tried to explain to you at least 4 times now the reason why the outcomes of each of these philosophies, applied, equal the same outcome.

You refuse to even comprehend the fact that this is illustrated throughout history AND logically.

Therefore there is no more reason to entertain imbecilic trolls looking for entertainment.

And as for Burke being the basis for modern Liberalism. Utter bullshit. Complete and total intellectual dishonesty and fraud. But I expect this from JBeckeuma and am only surprised when he does otherwise on those rare red letter days.

 

[Big Fitz]

Conservatism = Authoritarianism= Miltonianism = Oligarchy = Regression = Anarchy

Well there's a logical fail if I ever saw one. Using the same application of theory

Conservatism when applied creates a system of limited government which binds what the government may or may not do to the citizens, in which the liberties of man are only constrained by the rights of another. In as much so we can have a smoothly operating court system, redress of grievances, normalized trade, fairness in weights and measures and protection from foreign and domestic oppresion through force.

Authoritarianism in practice is the collection of power under a single authority or person in an effort to control all aspects of government and day to day life. Nope. No similarities when actually put into practice. If anything it bears more resemblance to every style of political theory in the LSCPMF rainbow: Control of others against their will.

Miltonianism??? I recommend you quit pulling unrecognized philosophies out of your ass.

Oligarchy: A government by the few over the many. In practice this is known as Soviet Communism or other party run philosophy, Monarchy or other Feudal system or heretical ruling or a military Junta. It is not a philosophy but a form of government control. Again, fail.

Regression is not a political philosophy but an adjective describing a state of decline. This cannot be 'applied' or viewed as a form of government or political ideology.

Anarchy. No rules, chaos, survival of the fittest, a world ruled by force. You see this in practice in Somalia and a few other African and south east Asian nations, but that's about it. All have warlords or other military forces that control as far as their alliances or forces can patrol. Any government that forgoes any law or rules descends into this. No, sorry, this has no attachment to any particular political philosophy or ideology.

But you can have a lovely parting gift of a boot to the head or a punch in the teeth. And one for Jenny and the wimp.

 

[Big Fitz]

As everyone who went to college and graduated and finally gets a REAL job learns...

Application is not the same as theory. And outcomes that are essentially the same can be reached by different tactics... making little difference to those suffering their effects.

So what you're saying is that if say Fascism can turn to Communism then they are the same thing?

No. I am saying their end results are the same, therefore making them the same ultimately. They are only different flavors of icecream. Chocolate, vanilla, Blue Moon, Pistachio. They're all Ice Cream. People may prefer one flavor to another but in the end, they all end up eating icecream if they choose any of these philosophies to follow.

Does that analogy make sense?

 

[JBeukema]

Conservatism when applied creates a system of limited government

Fail. Conservatism is no ideology. By definition, it means only the preservation of the status quo or restoration of the status quo ante. The Tories and the people beating civil rights marchers were conservatives.

Authoritarianism in practice is the collection of power under a single authority or person

Like a monarch, Torie?

Oligarchy: A government by the few over the many. In practice this is known as Soviet Communism

Really? The aristocracy, early America, and South America were all soviet systems?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My bad, I pegged you for one of those rich racist catholic we have so many of around here. My parents taught me to think with an open mind.

Topspin...

 

[Father Time]

As everyone who went to college and graduated and finally gets a REAL job learns...

Application is not the same as theory. And outcomes that are essentially the same can be reached by different tactics... making little difference to those suffering their effects.

So what you're saying is that if say Fascism can turn to Communism then they are the same thing?

No. I am saying their end results are the same, therefore making them the same ultimately.

So by that logic being shot and facing the electric chamber are the same. Hey I mean dead is dead.

Your logic is very similar to the slippery slope fallacy. However you refuse to apply the same logic to conservatives. The liberal philosophy of bigger government taken to its extreme would be communism, although the conservative philosophy of smaller government taken to its extreme would be anarchy.

The least you can do is be consistent with your tortured logic.

 

[Father Time]

Conservatism = Authoritarianism= Miltonianism = Oligarchy = Regression = Anarchy

Well there's a logical fail if I ever saw one. Using the same application of theory

Conservatism when applied creates a system of limited government which binds what the government may or may not do to the citizens, in which the liberties of man are only constrained by the rights of another. In as much so we can have a smoothly operating court system, redress of grievances, normalized trade, fairness in weights and measures and protection from foreign and domestic oppresion through force.

Authoritarianism in practice is the collection of power under a single authority or person in an effort to control all aspects of government and day to day life. Nope. No similarities when actually put into practice. If anything it bears more resemblance to every style of political theory in the LSCPMF rainbow: Control of others against their will.

Miltonianism??? I recommend you quit pulling unrecognized philosophies out of your ass.

Oligarchy: A government by the few over the many. In practice this is known as Soviet Communism or other party run philosophy, Monarchy or other Feudal system or heretical ruling or a military Junta. It is not a philosophy but a form of government control. Again, fail.

Regression is not a political philosophy but an adjective describing a state of decline. This cannot be 'applied' or viewed as a form of government or political ideology.

Anarchy. No rules, chaos, survival of the fittest, a world ruled by force. You see this in practice in Somalia and a few other African and south east Asian nations, but that's about it. All have warlords or other military forces that control as far as their alliances or forces can patrol. Any government that forgoes any law or rules descends into this. No, sorry, this has no attachment to any particular political philosophy or ideology.

But you can have a lovely parting gift of a boot to the head or a punch in the teeth. And one for Jenny and the wimp.

Oh that's rich, your counterargument is basically 'but the definitions are different' which is logic you won't accept when it comes to the left.

 

[Big Fitz]

Conservatism when applied creates a system of limited government

Fail. Conservatism is no ideology. By definition, it means only the preservation of the status quo or restoration of the status quo ante. The Tories and the people beating civil rights marchers were conservatives.

Authoritarianism in practice is the collection of power under a single authority or person

Like a monarch, Torie?

Oligarchy: A government by the few over the many. In practice this is known as Soviet Communism

Really? The aristocracy, early America, and South America were all soviet systems?

You can keep whining for 2+2=5, but it ain't going to happen.

 

[Big Fitz]

Conservatism = Authoritarianism= Miltonianism = Oligarchy = Regression = Anarchy

Well there's a logical fail if I ever saw one. Using the same application of theory

Conservatism when applied creates a system of limited government which binds what the government may or may not do to the citizens, in which the liberties of man are only constrained by the rights of another. In as much so we can have a smoothly operating court system, redress of grievances, normalized trade, fairness in weights and measures and protection from foreign and domestic oppresion through force.

Authoritarianism in practice is the collection of power under a single authority or person in an effort to control all aspects of government and day to day life. Nope. No similarities when actually put into practice. If anything it bears more resemblance to every style of political theory in the LSCPMF rainbow: Control of others against their will.

Miltonianism??? I recommend you quit pulling unrecognized philosophies out of your ass.

Oligarchy: A government by the few over the many. In practice this is known as Soviet Communism or other party run philosophy, Monarchy or other Feudal system or heretical ruling or a military Junta. It is not a philosophy but a form of government control. Again, fail.

Regression is not a political philosophy but an adjective describing a state of decline. This cannot be 'applied' or viewed as a form of government or political ideology.

Anarchy. No rules, chaos, survival of the fittest, a world ruled by force. You see this in practice in Somalia and a few other African and south east Asian nations, but that's about it. All have warlords or other military forces that control as far as their alliances or forces can patrol. Any government that forgoes any law or rules descends into this. No, sorry, this has no attachment to any particular political philosophy or ideology.

But you can have a lovely parting gift of a boot to the head or a punch in the teeth. And one for Jenny and the wimp.

Oh that's rich, your counterargument is basically 'but the definitions are different' which is logic you won't accept when it comes to the left.

Juuuuust when I think you're capable of learning something. Nope. Ya prove me wrong. Way to go.

So by that logic being shot and facing the electric chamber are the same. Hey I mean dead is dead.

Ask the person executed. From "All in the Family"

Gloria: Daddy, did you know that 56000 people last year died because of handguns?
Archie: Would it make you feel any better little girl if dey wuz thrown outta windows?

Your logic is very similar to the slippery slope fallacy.

Except it's not a fallacy. Thought terminating phrase that has no truth only opinion.

However you refuse to apply the same logic to conservatives

False, but you go ahead and correct me, professor. Application, not theory and please explain to me how other than Conservatism and Anarchy any of the rest are political ideologies?

The liberal philosophy of bigger government taken to its extreme would be communism, although the conservative philosophy of smaller government taken to its extreme would be anarchy.

You are arguing duality, not the nature of the topic and ignoring the goals of the political philosophies, plus attempting a reducto in absurdum argument which... is sillier since it does not fit here.

The least you can do is be consistent with your tortured logic.

I'm not the one denying what history has shown is the application of the LCSPMF rainbow of tyranny, death and destruction.

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? The aristocracy, early America, and South America were all soviet systems?

Oh look another deliberately false twist of what I said out of context! Yaaaayyyy! More intellectual dishonesty from JBullshit.

 

[Father Time]

Ok then prove that fascism as defined in the dictionary will always lead to socialism, same thing with liberalism (and before you start, saying it has in the past is not proof that it will always happen). That's why I mentioned the slippery slope.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ok then prove that fascism as defined in the dictionary will always lead to socialism, same thing with liberalism (and before you start, saying it has in the past is not proof that it will always happen). That's why I mentioned the slippery slope.

I have never made that assertion. I assert that when applied all the leftist rainbow LSCPMF become the same thing: totalitarianistic tyranny from cradle to grave where citizens are nothing more than cattle. All the while protecting a group of self selected elite who are immune to the life they enforce on those below.

The roads on how they get there may differ, but they all become the same thing.

In contrast, conservatism as it is currently defined, Classical Liberalism, seeks to maximize freedom of the individual against the duties and responsibilities of government. When taken to it's furthest extent, depending on the ability of a people to coexist peacefully, it may resemble anarchy since no law but common custom can be relied on to address grievances and protect the freedom of everyone as much as possible.

 

[JBeukema]

Conservatism when applied creates a system of limited government

Fail. Conservatism is no ideology. By definition, it means only the preservation of the status quo or restoration of the status quo ante. The Tories and the people beating civil rights marchers were conservatives.


Like a monarch, Torie?

Oligarchy: A government by the few over the many. In practice this is known as Soviet Communism

Really? The aristocracy, early America, and South America were all soviet systems?

You can keep whining for 2+2=5, but it ain't going to happen.

 

[JBeukema]

Was PI banned back in Nov 2009?

 

[JBeukema]

Liberalism = Socialism = Marxism = Communism = Progressivism = Fascism
.

Liberalism, seeks to maximize freedom of the individual against the duties and responsibilities of government. When taken to it's furthest extent, depending on the ability of a people to coexist peacefully, it may resemble anarchy

 

[Big Fitz]

Liberalism = Socialism = Marxism = Communism = Progressivism = Fascism
.

Liberalism, seeks to maximize freedom of the individual against the duties and responsibilities of government. When taken to it's furthest extent, depending on the ability of a people to coexist peacefully, it may resemble anarchy

Once again, you're a dishonest fuck.

The full quote

In contrast, conservatism as it is currently defined, Classical Liberalism, seeks to maximize freedom of the individual against the duties and responsibilities of government. When taken to it's furthest extent, depending on the ability of a people to coexist peacefully, it may resemble anarchy since no law but common custom can be relied on to address grievances and protect the freedom of everyone as much as possible.

You know... you are the totalitarian idealist. Any lie for the political advantage and the party.

 

[eric1]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. Boy, we sure could use some anti-trust legislation today.

 

[JBeukema]

Classical Liberalism is, by definition the Liberalism of Locke et al I mentioned earlier- which you said is the same as communism but now claim is basically heaven itself.

That you call me a totalitarian is hilarious, especially given my numerous criticisms of modern 'progressiveness' as totalitarian socialists and my use of Shachtman's 'beuracratic collectivism' critique of the CCCP.

I'm not going to bother explaning to you what Right Shachtmanism, Social Democracy, The Capitalist Mode of production, decentralized social safety nets, minarchy, The Frankfurt Declaration, the Left Opposition, anti-Stalinism, economic democracy, the Third Way, a mixed economy, market regulation, the free market, progressive taxation and secularism are, because it's clear that they all contain too many syllables for you to understand.

 

[Big Fitz]

What trust would you desire to bust? What good would it do to bust the perceived trust you see? I'm just asking cause Sherman Anti-Trust Act is still the law of the land, and it didn't stop this. The Derivatives market is what is totally unregulated right now, and in that, yes, there is need for SOME regulation to prevent global disasters.

We made our financial house far worse by the fact we created the monsters of Freddie and Fannie, which are also hip deep in derivatives as well.

But now as I was listening to Thom Hartmann have his daily "It's Reagan's Fault" meltdown, I realized something. The derivative market would not exist in the US if it were not for the repeal of key financial regulations under Clinton thanks to that globalist git Phil Gramm among others that allowed this mess. Congress fucked the pooch with a railroad tie on this one. But also the derivative market did not exist till even HW Bush was out of office, so the whole bullshit of blaming this on Reaganomics and Art Laffer and Milton Friedman or Supply Side economics is patently false.

Combine even further with Greenspan's loosey-goosey monetary policy and anti-redline banter from the government... all the worse and on board with the government, making it the hub of alllllll the financial mess we're in.

So, who in the private sector should get busted?

What we really need to do is clean house in all financial regulation purge the works and create a new unified financial and tax code. Purge the exceptions, purge the subsidies and penalties and get back to a more lasseiez faire style capitalism in as much that government regulates but does not set or participate beyond enforcing the requirements of fair play, consumer protection and competition.

Government IS the problem.

 

[Woyzeck]

I'm not entertaining your delusions anymore, dipshit. I've explained it fine, multiple times to you and your plebiscites, but you are not ignorant, you are obstinately stupid and I have no intent on spoon feeding you reality 101. There is no need to prove anything to a blind nobody.

Yeah, you can't be proven wrong when making assertions if you never back them up in the first place. No wonder you've never been proven wrong, you've never even bothered to prove yourself right.

Good Will Nothing, You should have at least have the intellectual honesty (obviously not taught in your school) to admit the fact I have tried to explain to you at least 4 times now the reason why the outcomes of each of these philosophies, applied, equal the same outcome.

You refuse to even comprehend the fact that this is illustrated throughout history AND logically.

Therefore there is no more reason to entertain imbecilic trolls looking for entertainment.

And as for Burke being the basis for modern Liberalism. Utter bullshit. Complete and total intellectual dishonesty and fraud. But I expect this from JBeckeuma and am only surprised when he does otherwise on those rare red letter days.

I like how I'm the intellectually dishonest one, when you're counterarguments boil down to insults and "No, you're wrong" with no evidence suggesting otherwise. You even refuse to admit what you're actually railing against, authoritarianism, and called me intellectually dishonest for pointing out that's what you're actually against. I like how I'm the intellectually dishonest one, when you flat-out contradict yourself when it supports your own views.

If I'm intellectually dishonest, I shudder to think just what you might be. Give you a hint, it's not 'honest.'