Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Yeah, but that's what they want you to think.
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I wish to challenge the progressive assertion. The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's. They may have dropped a couple of planks from their agenda over the last century, but I would say the drops are more due to being outdated. You seem to agree there are some/many similarities, I would just state it's my opinion that the similarities that Progressives share with Communists/Marxists are many/barely indistinguishable. Especially with all the class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called "acceptable".
BigBallinStalin wrote:In order to answer this question, I'll assume "Marxist" means "one who wishes to implement the means and seeks the ends as described in the Communist Manifesto."
Night Strike wrote:Enacting laws without Congressional approval while ignoring laws already on the books. Yesterday was the first official day of his illegal Dream Act Amnesty Program.
WASHINGTON ā With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.
Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.
"With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it," Bauer said.
There are a number of things "the President can unilaterally do," Bauer said, as evidenced by the plan Reagan announced three weeks ago to curb federal funding for organizations and groups that support abortion.
--The Administration dropped Reagan's campaign pledge to eliminate the Education Department because it could find no more than seven or eight senators who were willing to endorse the idea and "decided instead to make sure that as long as we're in office anyway that the department runs like a Reagan Department of Education, that is, to emphasize back-to-basic values, that sort of thing."
--He would oppose increasing federal funding to help border states such as California and Texas cope with the additional burden of providing services for illegal immigrants who are becoming legal under the new immigration law. In the long run, he said, the border states "are going to be helped a lot more by a vibrant long-term economic expansion than they will be by whether one categorical program in Washington has a couple billion more dollars in it or not."
AndyDufresne wrote:Night Strike wrote:Enacting laws without Congressional approval while ignoring laws already on the books. Yesterday was the first official day of his illegal Dream Act Amnesty Program.
Did Reagan and IranContra do all that?
Or, here is another good dateline from 1987:WASHINGTON ā With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.
Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.
"With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it," Bauer said.
There are a number of things "the President can unilaterally do," Bauer said, as evidenced by the plan Reagan announced three weeks ago to curb federal funding for organizations and groups that support abortion.
Also, two more fun notes from the article on Regan, especially the second item in reference to your concerns about immigration :--The Administration dropped Reagan's campaign pledge to eliminate the Education Department because it could find no more than seven or eight senators who were willing to endorse the idea and "decided instead to make sure that as long as we're in office anyway that the department runs like a Reagan Department of Education, that is, to emphasize back-to-basic values, that sort of thing."
--He would oppose increasing federal funding to help border states such as California and Texas cope with the additional burden of providing services for illegal immigrants who are becoming legal under the new immigration law. In the long run, he said, the border states "are going to be helped a lot more by a vibrant long-term economic expansion than they will be by whether one categorical program in Washington has a couple billion more dollars in it or not."
--Andy
BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.
No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:
- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)
- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)
- Workers World (Juche)
- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)
- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)
- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)
I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
is what PS probably means by "progressives."
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
thegreekdog wrote:Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.
Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.
This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.
Phatscotty wrote:I hold that the PP of today found a new, more useful way to convince their disciples to stay and serve on the plantation, and they have not changed because they realized their history of racism was wrong, but they changed because they are better and smarter and richer now and have different systems to manipulate and control people
thegreekdog wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.
Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.
This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.
PS - don't make me do this. Just address my post. Don't ignore it because I don't want to have to pull a Woodruff on you and quote it on every page until you answer.
Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.
No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:
- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)
- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)
- Workers World (Juche)
- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)
- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)
- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)
I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
is what PS probably means by "progressives."
Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer
thegreekdog wrote:Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.
Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.
This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.
No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:
- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)
- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)
- Workers World (Juche)
- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)
- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)
- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)
I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
is what PS probably means by "progressives."
Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer
Does the Progressive Party have a website? Could you post the URL so we can visit it? It might help to eradicate some of the skepticism you're facing as to whether a national political party called "Progressive Party" exists.
Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.
No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:
- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)
- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)
- Workers World (Juche)
- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)
- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)
- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)
I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
is what PS probably means by "progressives."
Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer
Does the Progressive Party have a website? Could you post the URL so we can visit it? It might help to eradicate some of the skepticism you're facing as to whether a national political party called "Progressive Party" exists.
Okay, I should not have used the word party. But, my choice of words do not change the similarities in the polices of Progressives and Communism or any other theories or philosophies based on or attributed to Marx.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Progressive Caucus, in the Democrat party. I think there are roughly 78-81 members in the House
saxitoxin wrote:Obama is a book club leftist who spent university chattering about Rosa Luxemburg over cappuccinos because it fed some prissy intellectual void in his mind, then he got old and cynical - figured the big house in Hyde Park and the Lexus was better than his 5-minute youthful dream of tromping through ...
saxitoxin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Obama is a book club leftist who spent university chattering about Rosa Luxemburg over cappuccinos because it fed some prissy intellectual void in his mind, then he got old and cynical - figured the big house in Hyde Park and the Lexus was better than his 5-minute youthful dream of tromping through ...
...a seastead with Patri Friedman - realized the money train was about to pull into his station and stapled a "For Sale Rent" sign to his forehead. An anarcho-capitalist revolution would mean the end of [Future Moneybags Inc.]. [Future Moneybags Inc.] wouldn't give millions to BBS if he were plotting to have their directors survive within a competitive legal and regulatory system.
Replace "Obama" with "BBS", "leftist" with "anarcho-capitalist" and "Rosa Luxemburg" with "Ludwig von Mises" and I think I've just inadvertently predicted the future ...
BBS - PRESIDENT IN 2016 - HAIL TO HIS HORRIBILENESS!!! HIDE YOUR WOMEN AND FEMININE LOOKING BOYS!
Phatscotty wrote:Just wanted to share a little piece I have come across in my intense research of Obama's connections to Marxism. If you can get over the person who is repeating the information, you will be able to get the information. Yes, I know most of this is "words" but these words are going to guide my investigation of where to look for the actions, and at least they are Obama's words.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users