Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[Dot Com]

We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.

 

[AntiParty]

You however are nothing more than a progressive drone. Let me know when actually mean what you say.

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.

•H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
•The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
•The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
•Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
•McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
•After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
•Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
•NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
•FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
•New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
•Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

HAHA!

You are stacking "progress" as Communisim or Socialism. You clearly don't know what any of the 3 mean. But you news knows what to tell you what it means doesn't it

 

[AntiParty]

We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.

You are 100% correct.

When I state that we should get money out of politics people ask me, "Well how can they afford to get on TV?"

Clearly, if money wasn't involved the media would follow the person that the PEOPLE want to hear about. Instead of the best paid. Of course, the people would have to be more involved in politics and less involved in sports. What a catastrophe.

Today, the media actually pays the politicians to pay them! How crazy is that! Obama had donations from ABC, NBC and CBS!

 

[westwall]

We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.

Yes, both parties are bad. Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country. If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.

 

[westwall]

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.

•H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
•The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
•The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
•Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
•McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
•After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
•Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
•NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
•FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
•New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
•Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

HAHA!

You are stacking "progress" as Communisim or Socialism. You clearly don't know what any of the 3 mean. But you news knows what to tell you what it means doesn't it

Wrong again. There are only two types of government, collectivist and individualist. Fabian Socialists have worked very hard at convincing people that there is a difference between fascism and "communism" (Marxist Lenninist modified by Stalin) when truthfully there really is no difference for the individual citizens of the afflicted countries.

Progressives love dictatorships. That is a simple fact. Progressives don't believe in individual rights and responsibilities, they believe that individuals exist for the benefit of the State, and when you no longer are useful to the State then you need not be alive.

 

[AntiParty]

Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.

•H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
•The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
•The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
•Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
•McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
•After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
•Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
•NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
•FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
•New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
•Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

HAHA!

You are stacking "progress" as Communisim or Socialism. You clearly don't know what any of the 3 mean. But you news knows what to tell you what it means doesn't it

Wrong again. There are only two types of government, collectivist and individualist. Fabian Socialists have worked very hard at convincing people that there is a difference between fascism and "communism" (Marxist Lenninist modified by Stalin) when truthfully there really is no difference for the individual citizens of the afflicted countries.

Progressives love dictatorships. That is a simple fact. Progressives don't believe in individual rights and responsibilities, they believe that individuals exist for the benefit of the State, and when you no longer are useful to the State then you need not be alive.

Actually, you are wrong. There are two types of government, you are correct. They are Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Collectivists and individualists are both me.

I had to edit because this moron stated that "progressives don't believe in individual rights" when they lead the war against the ban of same sex marriage. This guy is new like I was once. I hope he learns.

 

[AntiParty]

Today, we see the media teaching people what THE OTHER party thinks.

The Right teaches the Right what the Left thinks.

The Left teaches the Left what the Right thinks.

The outcome is people that think they know what the other party thinks but have never done a days work to actually understand what the other party thinks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your personal attacks against me aside, the point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.

You know this how?

He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.

He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail

I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.

For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.

The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In my opinion the attacks in this thread are a distractions to the real issue here.

AntiParty is a person who advocates the "Anti-Party" stance, which in time will become a party of its own should it garner enough members. It may be a party already, depending on how many people it takes to make an ideological group a party. Let's assume it's already a party. In that case, his stance is ironic, because he's already part of a group of people that persuades the decisions of other people on assorted topics (i,e: he's here, doing that).

And, if you notice, part of the thread title is "End the Bias!" Now, that does sound like a good thing but... his title says "Tea is the new Kool-aid." That alone is biased on account of the strong political undertones in that statement.

Championing a stance of "anti-party" or "non-biased" is extremely difficult if not impossible, because likely that same person is biased, and/or part or becoming part of a party.

You are wrong, sorry. Your post was intelligent and I thank you for that.

I love that your brain can't comprehend the anti-party part of my perspective though. I see it a lot in many but you break it down. You say that it will become a Party. It's almost an oxymoron.

My position is single topic, single opinion and NEVER agree to a platform. It's really that simple.

If my "party' ends up becoming popular, then it means Americans can think for themselves again instead of being lead by the Corporate leaders of America.

You can agree with 100% of a parties stance and not submit to that party. Once you submit the party might take a wrong turn and since you are 100% on board, you will turn with them. We have seen this happen with all parties in America today, not both, all.

Your position only makes sense to you because you assume that you are always right.

By the way, no one agrees 100% with a party platform. It would be impossible for any self aware human being to hold so many contradictory ideas inside their head at the same time. People vote for a party because, in general, they agree with the methods that party uses to achieve its goals, not because they agree with the party platform.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"

My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.

Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today.

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.

The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.

You however are nothing more than a progressive drone. Let me know when actually mean what you say.

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....What's important to you? The people or the profits? You can learn a lot from that statement.

I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)

Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"

Which explains why Mattel, the only company that was actually importing toys that contained lead, was exempted from the law that requires all toys to be tested by an outside laboratory for lead content.

Wait, it actually doesn't.

 

[AntiParty]

You know this how?

He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.

He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail

I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.

For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.

The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.

So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.

You are new to the concept.

 

[AntiParty]

You however are nothing more than a progressive drone. Let me know when actually mean what you say.

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

You confuse "Progressive" with "Research and knowledge" that sometimes puts a stop to Corporate profits.
Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....What's important to you? The people or the profits? You can learn a lot from that statement.

I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)

Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"

Which explains why Mattel, the only company that was actually importing toys that contained lead, was exempted from the law that requires all toys to be tested by an outside laboratory for lead content.

Wait, it actually doesn't.

Your idiocracy is all over the place. It does, it doesn't.

How about Fracking. It's the current "lead in toys" debate. You probably support it and you probably paint me as a "Leftist" for standing against it because you don't know that it's killing people yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.

He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail

I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.

For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.

The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.

So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.

You are new to the concept.

There you go again.

My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.

I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.

 

[AntiParty]

I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.

For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.

The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.

So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.

You are new to the concept.

There you go again.

My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.

I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.

Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.

To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I mean what I say.

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

You confuse "Progressive" with "Research and knowledge" that sometimes puts a stop to Corporate profits.
Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....What's important to you? The people or the profits? You can learn a lot from that statement.

I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)

Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"

Which explains why Mattel, the only company that was actually importing toys that contained lead, was exempted from the law that requires all toys to be tested by an outside laboratory for lead content.

Wait, it actually doesn't.

Your idiocracy is all over the place. It does, it doesn't.

How about Fracking. It's the current "lead in toys" debate. You probably support it and you probably paint me as a "Leftist" for standing against it because you don't know that it's killing people yet.

I have been accused of being a right wing extremist and a left wing extremist on the same day because I argue from my beliefs, not a position. Some of my beliefs are right wing, some are left wing, and I always get jumped on by both sides.

You, on the other hand, get accused only of representing one side. You seem to think the fat that only right wingers hate you proves you are doing something right. All it really proves is that you are biased.

I don't paint you as anything, you do that all by yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.

You are new to the concept.

There you go again.

My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.

I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.

Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.

To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.

I see you haven't actually read the Constitution, what a surprise.

 

[AntiParty]

Government isn't "Evil"

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.

 

[AntiParty]

There you go again.

My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.

I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.

Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.

To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.

I see you haven't actually read the Constitution, what a surprise.

The Constitution IS Government...

It states that the people can change it throughout time. How progressive of it! In fact, our generation is the ONLY generation that hasn't changed it.

It also regulates business which is a direct stance against the Free Market and personal interests, Libertarians and the Tea Party will never teach you about the Commerce Clause.

Government is GOOD. You have to stand up for what is CORRECT to ensure it stays GOOD.

These small brains taking the easy way out stating that the Government is all bad are the smallest brains in politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government isn't "Evil"

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.

Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?

 

[AntiParty]

Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say.

Congress and the President work for We The People.

Government is a good thing.

We The People are failing because of monetary interests.