• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does the "Left" get the monopoly on Progression?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Is there something inherently wrong with White people?
I'm just curious where this seemingly broad opinion that to be White or interested in White people, is now shameful.
And no I don't mean White supremacy.
Click to expand...

Yes you do and that is what answers your first question. Whites have had advantages for so long that too many think they are entitled to them.
 
Casca XV said:
America is the greatest most prosperous nation in all human history. Limited power Govt and a free market economy are what got us there. Being a Conservative/Libertarian is about not wanting to CHANGE that to an ideology that has failed every time it's ever been tried.

Actually it's only the so called Right in America that are adaptable enough to change when needed. The Left always fails in the long run because it has no ability to adapt.
Click to expand...

Actually, I doubt there would even be a United States of America if it weren't for the Left. Change had to be forced on the right otherwise they'd still be living in back water squalor competing with slave labor.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
 
Moot said:
Actually, I doubt there would even be a United States of America if it weren't for the Left. Change had to be forced on the right otherwise they'd still be living in back water squalor competing with slave labor.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
Click to expand...

Claiming every function of Government as Socialism is another propaganda attempt to mainstream that failed ideology.

When you claim government services and infrastructure (roads, bridges, police, firefighters and military) are socialism you are basically claiming every government that ever existed is socialist. That is pure stupidity.

Even government programs that are socialist in nature (welfare, food stamps, SSI) are not example or endorsements of Socialism because we have a Free Market Capitalist economy that pays for it all.

Google “Socialism” and you will see the definition is Government controlling all economic means of production and distribution. Despite progressive Liberal best efforts we are not there yet.
 
Casca XV said:
Claiming every function of Government as Socialism is another propaganda attempt to mainstream that failed ideology.

When you claim government services and infrastructure (roads, bridges, police, firefighters and military) are socialism you are basically claiming every government that ever existed is socialist. That is pure stupidity.

Even government programs that are socialist in nature (welfare, food stamps, SSI) are not example or endorsements of Socialism because we have a Free Market Capitalist economy that pays for it all.

Google “Socialism” and you will see the definition is Government controlling all economic means of production and distribution. Despite progressive Liberal best efforts we are not there yet.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia....

"...Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism​


So who owns the roads and bridges... and who pays for the police, firefighters and military?
 
Moot said:
From Wikipedia....

"...Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism​


So who owns the roads and bridges... and who pays for the police, firefighters and military?
Click to expand...

I would continue to debate him but you're doing a much better job of getting the point across than I. I simply cannot take this guy seriously.
 
Moot said:
From Wikipedia....

"...Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism​


So who owns the roads and bridges... and who pays for the police, firefighters and military?
Click to expand...

In America today a Private Businesses under a Free Market Capitalist Economy pay for roads police firefighters military. The Roman Empire paid for theirs the same way, No one has ever called them Socialist. Trying to expand the definition to cover Govt functions is like when Socialist started calling themselves Progressive Or Liberal. it's just another way to lie about what they are. How can you embrace an ideology that constantly has to lie about itself?
 
Vox said:
Also......why the hell do we never get any PROGRESS when progressives are in power?
Click to expand...

I'm curious why nobody is willing to throw out a definition or two.

Are we supposed to have rational public dialogue with no definitions? Or do we just use Rush Limbaugh slogans and slurs as definitions?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm curious why nobody is willing to throw out a definition or two.
Click to expand...

Definition or two of what? You usual ambiguity rears its ugly head again.

Are we supposed to have rational public dialogue with no definitions? Or do we just use Rush Limbaugh slogans and slurs as definitions?
Click to expand...

You do it all the time. You seem to have flat rejected the definitions provided in the has any conspiracy theory proven true thread. Of course, no one is stopping you from offering up any definitions here.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm curious why nobody is willing to throw out a definition or two.

Are we supposed to have rational public dialogue with no definitions? Or do we just use Rush Limbaugh slogans and slurs as definitions?
Click to expand...

PROGRESS:
Forward or onward movement toward a destination.

We were promised hope and change and.......here we are--still hoping for change.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm curious why nobody is willing to throw out a definition or two.

Are we supposed to have rational public dialogue with no definitions? Or do we just use Rush Limbaugh slogans and slurs as definitions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the problem with progressivism. I love G. K. Chesterton's take on this in 'Heretics':

"The case of the general talk of 'progress' is, indeed, an extreme one. As enunciated today, 'progress' is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative. We meet every ideal of religion, patriotism, beauty, or brute pleasure with the alternative ideal of progress — that is to say, we meet every proposal of getting something that we know about, with an alternative proposal of getting a great deal more of nobody knows what. Progress, properly understood, has, indeed, a most dignified and legitimate meaning. But as used in opposition to precise moral ideals, it is ludicrous. So far from it being the truth that the ideal of progress is to be set against that of ethical or religious finality, the reverse is the truth. Nobody has any business to use the word 'progress' unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals. Nobody can be progressive without being doctrinal; I might almost say that nobody can be progressive without being infallible — at any rate, without believing in some infallibility. For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word 'progress' than we. In the Catholic twelfth century, in the philosophic eighteenth century, the direction may have been a good or a bad one, men may have differed more or less about how far they went, and in what direction, but about the direction they did in the main agree, and consequently they had the genuine sensation of progress. But it is precisely about the direction that we disagree. Whether the future excellence lies in more law or less law, in more liberty or less liberty; whether property will be finally concentrated or finally cut up; whether sexual passion will reach its sanest in an almost virgin intellectualism or in a full animal freedom; whether we should love everybody with Tolstoy, or spare nobody with Nietzsche; — these are the things about which we are actually fighting most. It is not merely true that the age which has settled least what is progress is this 'progressive' age. It is, moreover, true that the people who have settled least what is progress are the most 'progressive' people in it. The ordinary mass, the men who have never troubled about progress, might be trusted perhaps to progress. The particular individuals who talk about progress would certainly fly to the four winds of heaven when the pistol-shot started the race. I do not, therefore, say that the word 'progress' is unmeaning; I say it is unmeaning without the previous definition of a moral doctrine, and that it can only be applied to groups of persons who hold that doctrine in common. Progress is not an illegitimate word, but it is logically evident that it is illegitimate for us."
Heretics - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
 
Vox said:
PROGRESS:
Forward or onward movement toward a destination.

We were promised hope and change and.......here we are--still hoping for change.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what change one was hoping for.
 
Vox said:
PROGRESS:
Forward or onward movement toward a destination.

We were promised hope and change and.......here we are--still hoping for change.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the definition.

You were promised hope and change, but Barack did not have either in his bag of goodies. Life is so cruel, eh? ;)
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for the definition.

You were promised hope and change, but Barack did not have either in his bag of goodies. Life is so cruel, eh? ;)
Click to expand...

Did you start to say bag of tricks and then change it?

:)
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm curious why nobody is willing to throw out a definition or two.

Are we supposed to have rational public dialogue with no definitions? Or do we just use Rush Limbaugh slogans and slurs as definitions?
Click to expand...

Well T72, post a few definitions to get the dialogue going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom