Why cant progressives understand

[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

 

[Pete7469]

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

 

[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

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

you sure knocked that progressive person on its straw butt. well done.

 

[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

you sure knocked that progressive person on its straw butt. well done.

Thank you!

 

[NightFox]

individual liberty and freedom is PROGRESS? Statism is REGRESSIVE. By the very definition..

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.

For the states part, it's just doing what it has done since its inception; namely acquiring, consolidating and maintaining its power to control and exploit the citizenry, individual liberty and freedom of the common citizenry are an impediment to that goal and thus must be suppressed by the most expedient available means.

" the upshot of our willingness to accept a reality, provided we do not hear it named, or provided we ourselves are not obliged to name it, leads us to accept many realities that we ought not to accept. It leads to many and serious moral misjudgments of both facts and persons; in other words, it leads straight into a profound intellectual dishonesty."
-- Albert Jay Nock

 

[Rambunctious]

They understand but their immaturity and built in rage mixed with envy and jealousy of their fellow citizen prevents them from thinking logically. Toss in laziness and you have the modern day liberal progressive which is anything but progressive.

 

[TNHarley]

These people probably would sentenced Galileo to death..

 

[Pete7469]

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

 

[NightFox]

A bit more gentle persuasion would get you further.
.

LOL, TN, "gentle persuasion"? Homey don't play 'dat.

You'll take your dosage of TN, hard, fast and loud and you'll like it, or else.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

It all runs in cycles. At one point recently the D's had the Presidency 16 out of 24 years, the stock market was setting records, I could go get darned near whatever crazy 50 cal or AK I wanted, I could buy 600 HP brand new cars and we had admitted to our healthcare system was socialized (It has been since hospitals became worth going to), we had a black president and race riots somehow and we were involved in one of our longest wars.

Now its 16 of 25 years I suppose.

Take another snap shot though and R's had the Presidency 20 of 28 years. The economy was tanked, abortion was legal, we were in two wars and oh boy the deficit. (insert your positive spin here, 2008 was really interesting though, maybe I should have used 1992).

It comes and goes. IMO both party machines are pretty good and they manage to swing their public views around to make sure they are not marginalized. Look at the shifts last election and in the late 60's for references.

 

[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.

"team worship" Not sure what that means

 

[TNHarley]

A bit more gentle persuasion would get you further.
.

LOL, TN, "gentle persuasion"? Homey don't play 'dat.

You'll take your dosage of TN, hard, fast and loud and you'll like it, or else.

aint that the damn truth?

 

[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

Wrong!

You are only a Progressive if you do things like support children having abortions without their parents consent, want to force people to bake gay cakes, or want create sanctuary states that can't even focus on doing simple tasks like keeping your infrastructure up to par by maintaining adequate dams that don't flood out your citizens. Of course, they do this as they flip the federal government the bird regarding federal laws on immigration. No wonder God targets California for all those draughts and earthquakes and fires.

 

[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.

 

[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.