Why cant progressives understand

[TNHarley]

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.

Communism has never taken over... You are talking about socialism


So the socialist aspect of controlling everything scares you, but regulating EVERYTHING (fascism. Which is what dems do) is ok?

 

[Mac1958]

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

Socialism essentially removes the private market from the equation. Democratic Socialism retains it significantly.

 

[Votto]

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.

Hitler did not own all the factories and banks and businesses, yet he fully embraced a socialist state in every other capacity. He gave free medical and education and retirement, etc., etc. Is this the model of the DNC you speak of?

Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?". Hitler understood the only issue was control. He still had full control over industry even though he did not own them in name.

Looking at the US, we seem to be following a very similar model with a "privatized" Fed and bailing corporations out, etc.

 

[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.

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

Well, they're wrong. So don't repeat their idiotic mistake.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Hitler did not own all the factories and banks and businesses, yet he fully embraced a socialist state in every other capacity. He gave free medical and education and retirement, etc., etc. Is this the model of the DNC you speak of?

Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?". Hitler understood the only issue was control. He still had full control over industry even though he did not own them in name.

Looking at the US, we seem to be following a very similar model with a "privatized" Fed and bailing corporations out, etc.

Economics is NOT my thing. I have no problem with you finding a better way.
Hitler, btw, was an authoritarian ruler who did not allow people to elect leaders with a different view. I don't think you can actually use him as a comparison for what is happening in the US. I trust your overall point, though. I understand not everyone agrees with government intervention in the country's economic or financial doings in any way. It doesn't make Dems communists, however.

 

[NightFox]

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. .

You're exactly right, the "Dems" in general don't fit the mold as Communists, that would require a belief in the stateless society objective (or at least paying it lip service), what they generally represent is an unholy blend of Fabian socialism, corporatism and institutionalized patronage and the Republicans aren't any better, the only difference between 'em is which corporate and special interest sponsors get to pin their logos on the political class jackets.

 

[OldLady]

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.

If only people could be free and still have healthcare and a job that paid their bills. Unions and universal payer healthcare have a role in making life for the common citizen better, imo.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

If only people could be free and still have healthcare and a job that paid their bills. Unions and universal payer healthcare have a role in making life for the common citizen better, imo.

You mean unions where employees are FORCED to join? No thanks. They're corrupt.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

Hitler did not own all the factories and banks and businesses, yet he fully embraced a socialist state in every other capacity. He gave free medical and education and retirement, etc., etc. Is this the model of the DNC you speak of?

Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?". Hitler understood the only issue was control. He still had full control over industry even though he did not own them in name.

Looking at the US, we seem to be following a very similar model with a "privatized" Fed and bailing corporations out, etc.

Economics is NOT my thing. I have no problem with you finding a better way.
Hitler, btw, was an authoritarian ruler who did not allow people to elect leaders with a different view. I don't think you can actually use him as a comparison for what is happening in the US. I trust your overall point, though. I understand not everyone agrees with government intervention in the country's economic or financial doings in any way. It doesn't make Dems communists, however.

It's the American left that is calling for the impeachment of our democratically elected president. The right didn't call for Trump's impeachment. It's the American left that is totalitarian, not the conservatives that want less government control and for the people to be able to keep more of their own money. Your ideology is flawed.

 

[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.

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

I know and you're wrong as usual.

 

[OldLady]

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.

If only people could be free and still have healthcare and a job that paid their bills. Unions and universal payer healthcare have a role in making life for the common citizen better, imo.

You mean unions where employees are FORCED to join? No thanks. They're corrupt.

Nothing is perfect, but I don't believe employees are forced to join unions anymore. I wasn't.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Communism has never taken over... You are talking about socialism


So the socialist aspect of controlling everything scares you, but regulating EVERYTHING (fascism. Which is what dems do) is ok?

Examples of regulating everything that you so oppose would help here.

 

[Moonglow]

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

That really is not what progressive is since the person trying to curtail freedoms is a doing a regressive act of intolerance...Damn those Latin prefixes...

 

[Moonglow]

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.

If only people could be free and still have healthcare and a job that paid their bills. Unions and universal payer healthcare have a role in making life for the common citizen better, imo.

You mean unions where employees are FORCED to join? No thanks. They're corrupt.

Nothing is perfect, but I don't believe employees are forced to join unions anymore. I wasn't.

You at least had to donate blood....

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Communism has never taken over... You are talking about socialism


So the socialist aspect of controlling everything scares you, but regulating EVERYTHING (fascism. Which is what dems do) is ok?

Examples of regulating everything that you so oppose would help here.

Take the width of terlit paper, who in the hell regulated it when clearly a wider sheet would work better...For bigger hands and crevices...Along with a stick that holds wider terlit papers..and the stick is telescopic..

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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

I know and you're wrong as usual.

nawwww crackkka ass

 

[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

That really is not what progressive is since the person trying to curtail freedoms is a doing a regressive act of intolerance...Damn those Latin prefixes...

thats my point lol

 

[Pete7469]

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.

You're one of the few libs I have any respect for on the forum OL, but you know damn well the democrook party is RIDDLED with people who are nothing less than ardent communists. You might not be a red diaper baby, you might respect other people's desire to keep most of what they earn, you might respect private property and the RKBA, but most of the fools in your party do not.

 

[K9Buck]

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

That really is not what progressive is since the person trying to curtail freedoms is a doing a regressive act of intolerance...Damn those Latin prefixes...

The American left wants more and more government, more rules, more taxation and wants the average American to pony up to help foreigners that want to live here. The American left is no friend of average Americans who are looking to be free and prosper.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

You're one of the few libs I have any respect for on the forum OL, but you know damn well the democrook party is RIDDLED with people who are nothing less than ardent communists. You might not be a red diaper baby, you might respect other people's desire to keep most of what they earn, you might respect private property and the RKBA, but most of the fools in your party do not.

The Democratic Party is riddled with outright thieves too. Of course, the GOP has a few, but nothing on the scale of the Democrats. Liberals don't care, however. For them it's all about the narrative. Facts mean nothing.