Why cant progressives understand

[OldLady]

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

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 have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

 

[Mac1958]

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

Well, obviously they're just not thinking this through. They want to shut down opposing speech, they'll look for any excuse, and they don't care about collateral damage.

Look what they're doing to our kids, teaching them that if someone disagrees with you, you should shout them down, shut them down, or run to your safe space.

A whole generation of this kind of person is being created in our colleges. That's one fucked up thing to do to a kid, but the Regressives just don't care.
.

 

[TNHarley]

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

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 have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

No, you are just always wrong

 

[Votto]

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

Well, obviously they're just not thinking this through. They want to shut down opposing speech, they'll look for any excuse, and they don't care about collateral damage.

Look what they're doing to our kids, teaching them that if someone disagrees with you, you should shout them down, shut them down, or run to your safe space.

A whole generation of this kind of person is being created in our colleges. That's one fucked up thing to do to a kid, but the Regressives just don't care.
.

Now, now, at Berkley they did allow a conservative to speak. They had to call out the national guard and close down the town for a week, but they did it and they did not murder anyone.

So give credit where credit is due.

 

[Votto]

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

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 have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

Again, I call on you to distinguish between the socialist Chavez and the DNC.

Can you do it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

The Age of Enlightenment is under attack by the ignorant and the authoritarians. The use of the word "REGRESSIVE" is a childish pejorative on the ideology of the Reactionary, one who believes in the past and fears the present and future.

Trump&Co. as well as Ryan, McConnell and the current Republican Party have the same contempt for We the People as did the Kings and Czars of the past. Fellow travelers have shown by their votes that they too hold the same contempt for everyone who does not look like them or believe what they believe.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Well, obviously they're just not thinking this through. They want to shut down opposing speech, they'll look for any excuse, and they don't care about collateral damage.

Look what they're doing to our kids, teaching them that if someone disagrees with you, you should shout them down, shut them down, or run to your safe space.

A whole generation of this kind of person is being created in our colleges. That's one fucked up thing to do to a kid, but the Regressives just don't care.
.

Now, now, at Berkley they did allow a conservative to speak. They had to call out the national guard and close down the town for a week, but they did it and they did not murder anyone.

So give credit where credit is due.

...and gave counseling to the damaged snowflakes...


.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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.
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.

Well then, where did Chavez go wrong? Bernie won't answer that question.

And when Hillary was asked what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat, she won't answer as well.

Democratic socialism isn't Marxism. I know socialism is a step toward communism if that is your goal, but that if that is NOT your goal, it is not a step toward communism. It is no more sensible or accurate to call all liberals communists than it is for liberals to call all conservatives racists and Nazis.

 

[Votto]

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

The Age of Enlightenment is under attack by the ignorant and the authoritarians. The use of the word "REGRESSIVE" is a childish pejorative on the ideology of the Reactionary, one who believes in the past and fears the present and future.

Trump&Co. as well as Ryan, McConnell and the current Republican Party have the same contempt for We the People as did the Kings and Czars of the past. Fellow travelers have shown by their votes that they too hold the same contempt for everyone who does not look like them or believe what they believe.

Speaking of czars, Trump refused to appoint any unelected czars like Obama did. In fact, he has cut the Executive staff to the tune of about $20 million.

 

[OldLady]

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

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 have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

No, you are just always wrong

 

[Votto]

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.

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.
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.

Well then, where did Chavez go wrong? Bernie won't answer that question.

And when Hillary was asked what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat, she won't answer as well.

Democratic socialism isn't Marxism. I know socialism is a step toward communism if that is your goal, but that if that is NOT your goal, it is not a step toward communism. It is no more sensible or accurate to call all liberals communists than it is for liberals to call all conservatives racists and Nazis.

That still does not answer the question. What do you oppose regarding Marxism?

As you say, we are taking "steps" toward it voting for the DNC, so what step should we be avoiding so we don't step in poo?

 

[OldLady]

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

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 have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

Again, I call on you to distinguish between the socialist Chavez and the DNC.

Can you do it?

Votto, no, because I don't know much about Chavez. He united the lettuce pickers, didn't he? That's all I can tell you.

 

[Votto]

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 have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

Again, I call on you to distinguish between the socialist Chavez and the DNC.

Can you do it?

Votto, no, because I don't know much about Chavez. He united the lettuce pickers, didn't he? That's all I can tell you.

I said Marxism. Do you not know Marxism?

You seem to be knowledgeable enough to comment there is such a big difference between the DNC and Marxism but can't explain the differences?


Really?

I can tell you the difference between a conservative and a Nazi. Conservatives are not self professed socialists and are not genocidal racists like FDR locking up innocent Americans simply because they are Japanese American

 

[Thinker101]

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.

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.
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.

Well then, where did Chavez go wrong? Bernie won't answer that question.

And when Hillary was asked what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat, she won't answer as well.

Democratic socialism isn't Marxism. I know socialism is a step toward communism if that is your goal, but that if that is NOT your goal, it is not a step toward communism. It is no more sensible or accurate to call all liberals communists than it is for liberals to call all conservatives racists and Nazis.

Yet there are so many liberals that call all conservatives racists and Nazis...go figure.

 

[Mac1958]

I have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

Again, I call on you to distinguish between the socialist Chavez and the DNC.

Can you do it?

Votto, no, because I don't know much about Chavez. He united the lettuce pickers, didn't he? That's all I can tell you.

I said Marxism. Do you not know Marxism?

You seem to be knowledgeable enough to comment there is such a big difference between the DNC and Marxism but can't explain the differences?


Really?

Votto, I can't speak for OldLady, but I personally view her as an actual liberal, not a Regressive. And that's a compliment.

She's not into the wild hyperbole and constant attacks that have infested our politics.
.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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.
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.

Well then, where did Chavez go wrong? Bernie won't answer that question.

And when Hillary was asked what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat, she won't answer as well.

Democratic socialism isn't Marxism. I know socialism is a step toward communism if that is your goal, but that if that is NOT your goal, it is not a step toward communism. It is no more sensible or accurate to call all liberals communists than it is for liberals to call all conservatives racists and Nazis.

That still does not answer the question. What do you oppose regarding Marxism?

As you say, we are taking "steps" toward it voting for the DNC, so what step should we be avoiding so we don't step in poo?

Well, when the government owns all the factories and banks and businesses and is the landlord to us all, we ought to worry. What has always worried me more than that is that when communism takes over, millions of its own people end up being killed. Why it must always be authoritarian and repress human rights, I don't know. But that has been its track record.

 

[K9Buck]

Democratic Socialism? LOL. They're still putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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.
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.

Well then, where did Chavez go wrong? Bernie won't answer that question.

And when Hillary was asked what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat, she won't answer as well.

Democratic socialism isn't Marxism. I know socialism is a step toward communism if that is your goal, but that if that is NOT your goal, it is not a step toward communism. It is no more sensible or accurate to call all liberals communists than it is for liberals to call all conservatives racists and Nazis.

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

Again, I call on you to distinguish between the socialist Chavez and the DNC.

Can you do it?

Votto, no, because I don't know much about Chavez. He united the lettuce pickers, didn't he? That's all I can tell you.

I said Marxism. Do you not know Marxism?

You seem to be knowledgeable enough to comment there is such a big difference between the DNC and Marxism but can't explain the differences?


Really?

Votto, I can't speak for OldLady, but I personally view her as an actual liberal, not a Regressive. And that's a compliment.

She's not into the wild hyperbole and constant attacks that have infested our politics.
.

I made this thread because of what she said.. lol

 

[K9Buck]

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.

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.
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.

Well then, where did Chavez go wrong? Bernie won't answer that question.

And when Hillary was asked what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat, she won't answer as well.

Democratic socialism isn't Marxism. I know socialism is a step toward communism if that is your goal, but that if that is NOT your goal, it is not a step toward communism. It is no more sensible or accurate to call all liberals communists than it is for liberals to call all conservatives racists and Nazis.

That still does not answer the question. What do you oppose regarding Marxism?

As you say, we are taking "steps" toward it voting for the DNC, so what step should we be avoiding so we don't step in poo?

Well, when the government owns all the factories and banks and businesses and is the landlord to us all, we ought to worry. What has always worried me more than that is that when communism takes over, millions of its own people end up being killed. Why it must always be authoritarian and repress human rights, I don't know. But that has been its track record.

Leftists are usually that way. That's why conservatives support limited government and more freedom for the people. Leftist ideology is no friend of the common citizen.

 

[OldLady]

I have to "win supporters" for freedom. Holy shit

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.

arguing and chest thumping
and knee jerk insulting

Again, I call on you to distinguish between the socialist Chavez and the DNC.

Can you do it?

Votto, no, because I don't know much about Chavez. He united the lettuce pickers, didn't he? That's all I can tell you.

I said Marxism. Do you not know Marxism?

You seem to be knowledgeable enough to comment there is such a big difference between the DNC and Marxism but can't explain the differences?


Really?

I made a general observation that communism is not the same as socialism and that socialism does not necessarily lead to communism. I don't know how that became a compare and contrast exercise on the DNC and Marixism.
Maybe you are the one who needs to expound on that, since you seem BRIMMING with knowledge about it that you are just dying to share.