Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
individual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
Pete, your signature puts a clearly biased sign on everything you say. Be more persuasive and less divisive if you want to win votes. If you want to raise an army of fanatics continue on.You aren't talking about cognizant people who critically analyse information, use facts or logic to reach a conclusion, or even desire to make the effort to think. Their frontal lobes have withered away like a paraplegic's legs. They're basically brain dead in other words. Why would anyone try to implement policy that destroys entire countries from within? If their policies were even possible enact and result in a society better off than we, are the USSR would have marched in and liberated us from Reagan.
Didn't pan out that way though huh?
Look at Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Cambodia et al. They like to point out too a few western euroweenie countries as a "success" but who provides all of their military capacity? Care to look at their dept to GDP ratio? Care to actually LIVE there? If it's so great there get your dumbass over there.
Vietnam and China maintain an authoritarian gov't, but collectivism by and large is a thing of the past.
That's why the only rational conclusion as to why regressives believe marxist dogma results in anything more than wide spread poverty and malnourished proles ruled by sociopaths, is because they are either complete blithering idiots or they're sociopaths what want to be among the ruling class.
Pete, your signature puts a clearly biased sign on everything you say. Be more persuasive and less divisive if you want to win votes. If you want to raise an army of fanatics continue on.
I have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shitindividual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
I think your definitions are running to the extreme somewhat like how every series of comparisons end up with Hitler.
If you want to win supporters for your cause the answer is not name calling but bridging the gap.
you sure knocked that progressive person on its straw butt. well done.individual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
Thank you!you sure knocked that progressive person on its straw butt. well done.individual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
Apparently the constant barrage of state sponsored propaganda and counter factual information have led some to believe that "individual liberty and freedom" is defined as having the state tell them what they can and cannot do, it's a state of cognitive dissonance which, while astonishing to behold, is also a testament to the fact that most of what the common people know just isn't so.individual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
C. S. Lewis said:We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
I have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shitindividual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
I think your definitions are running to the extreme somewhat like how every series of comparisons end up with Hitler.
If you want to win supporters for your cause the answer is not name calling but bridging the gap.
LOL, TN, "gentle persuasion"? Homey don't play 'dat.A bit more gentle persuasion would get you further.
.
Pete, your signature puts a clearly biased sign on everything you say. Be more persuasive and less divisive if you want to win votes. If you want to raise an army of fanatics continue on.
I'm not running for office.
Last I looked the democrooks have been getting their asses kicked more often than not. I think Alinsky Rule #5 works equally well, if not better against leftists pukes. Humor and ridicule stick a lot better when it's backed up by reality.
"team worship" Not sure what that meansI have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shitindividual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
I think your definitions are running to the extreme somewhat like how every series of comparisons end up with Hitler.
If you want to win supporters for your cause the answer is not name calling but bridging the gap.
I suppose it is all in the POV then TNHarley.
Consider though, your posts here have made me figure everything you type is a bit of "team worship" cheerleader quality posting.
A bit more gentle persuasion would get you further.
Unless arguing and chest thumping are what you are your goal not making people agree your point of view is best.
individual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..
"im a progressive. i believe people should only say what the govt allows"
You people are so stupid. smh
It's true. I turn off and expect no sense whatsoever from a poster who immediately calls me a communist or a Marxist. Last thing I am and anyone who thinks that is what Dems are supporting is just plain crackers. It is nothing but divisive propaganda and extreme hyperbole, alternate facts as some would say.Pete, your signature puts a clearly biased sign on everything you say. Be more persuasive and less divisive if you want to win votes. If you want to raise an army of fanatics continue on.You aren't talking about cognizant people who critically analyse information, use facts or logic to reach a conclusion, or even desire to make the effort to think. Their frontal lobes have withered away like a paraplegic's legs. They're basically brain dead in other words. Why would anyone try to implement policy that destroys entire countries from within? If their policies were even possible enact and result in a society better off than we, are the USSR would have marched in and liberated us from Reagan.
Didn't pan out that way though huh?
Look at Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Cambodia et al. They like to point out too a few western euroweenie countries as a "success" but who provides all of their military capacity? Care to look at their dept to GDP ratio? Care to actually LIVE there? If it's so great there get your dumbass over there.
Vietnam and China maintain an authoritarian gov't, but collectivism by and large is a thing of the past.
That's why the only rational conclusion as to why regressives believe marxist dogma results in anything more than wide spread poverty and malnourished proles ruled by sociopaths, is because they are either complete blithering idiots or they're sociopaths what want to be among the ruling class.
It's true. I turn off and expect no sense whatsoever from a poster who immediately calls me a communist or a Marxist. Last thing I am and anyone who thinks that is what Dems are supporting is just plain crackers. It is nothing but divisive propaganda and extreme hyperbole, alternate facts as some would say.Pete, your signature puts a clearly biased sign on everything you say. Be more persuasive and less divisive if you want to win votes. If you want to raise an army of fanatics continue on.You aren't talking about cognizant people who critically analyse information, use facts or logic to reach a conclusion, or even desire to make the effort to think. Their frontal lobes have withered away like a paraplegic's legs. They're basically brain dead in other words. Why would anyone try to implement policy that destroys entire countries from within? If their policies were even possible enact and result in a society better off than we, are the USSR would have marched in and liberated us from Reagan.
Didn't pan out that way though huh?
Look at Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Cambodia et al. They like to point out too a few western euroweenie countries as a "success" but who provides all of their military capacity? Care to look at their dept to GDP ratio? Care to actually LIVE there? If it's so great there get your dumbass over there.
Vietnam and China maintain an authoritarian gov't, but collectivism by and large is a thing of the past.
That's why the only rational conclusion as to why regressives believe marxist dogma results in anything more than wide spread poverty and malnourished proles ruled by sociopaths, is because they are either complete blithering idiots or they're sociopaths what want to be among the ruling class.
So that kind of gibberish doesn't facilitate discussion or even making someone aware of another point of view. Some of us would listen, but when they start right out with "You aren't talking about cognizant people who critically analyse information, use facts or logic or even desire to make the effort to think...." I'm pretty much not going to read the rest.