- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,110
- Reaction score
- 58,833
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In total? No. I don't believe so. But it may be worse.
You concede the point then.
In total? No. I don't believe so. But it may be worse.
You concede the point then.
Ok, I am lost a little here, what point are you saying I should concede?
dayum... I don't think i've ever read a thread with 16 pages of deflections ... 3 or 4 sure.. but 16?... wow
That the current liberals are marxist where you yourself stated they don't try and implement the ideology.
No, I believe to be clear I would say for the record, that the current crop are progressive/marxist...IOW, progressive first, with marxist, collectivist, authoritarian leanings. Is that better?
How would this be possible due to the following:
1. There is no set progressive ideology, one could be a progressive conservative or a progressive liberal for example, so this is a meaningless point.
2. We already covered the marxist point where you conceded that they do not implement the proscriptions from marx (again, democrats are not anarchist for example)
3. You may be correct in collectivist, but there is nothing wrong with it either, so long as its not too collectivist (just like one should not go too far in the direction of individuality)
4. Give me a mainstream political party that isn't authoritarian.
5. Many of these labels contradict each other.
No, you are mischaracterizing that...I said that they don't use ALL of the tenants...That doesn't mean that they don't pick and choose...
Does individuality scare you? Why?
One should never justify the other.
Much of the last four years have been a direct contradiction of what was promised. So then, if my answer doesn't make sense, it could be because that is the intent of the current administration, and their surrogates...Or it could just be that they are run of the mill statists.
Which, by definion means they don't mean the fundamental basic criteria of that terminology.
I am quite individualistic, but I recognize the value of community and its role in increasing prosperity and well being, the best economic and social solutions have elements of both.
Good point, but some level of authoritarianism is needed for society to even function. Even libertarians recognize that, if in a very limited way. So authoritarian in and of itself doesn't need justification.
Their intent is to confuse you?
Ok, call em, 'neo-marxists' then...I don't care, both are in the practice of taking away my labor for the benefit of others that I owe nothing to.
Lucky for us that those are spelled out in writing, and not left to the whims of any current administration. Right?
Limited is the key....It is that power that has been in the sights of expansion by both parties even the current one in power.
Absolutely! Confusion makes the lie easier to spread.