RSS Feed
Loading ...
You’ve got that right pal! If you don’t believe him, go ask Michelle Malkin!
The so-called liberal “progressives” are without a doubt the most rascist bunch out there.
|
|
|
26 Responses to “The so-called liberal “progressives” are without a doubt the most rascist bunch out there.”
Leave a Reply
» Liberal Anthem: Proud to Be a Liberal
» Pelosi:”Anybody knows not to mess with me”
» Linda Ronstadt
» W’s Debacle - Not
» Bill Kristol On Joining The New York Times: “I was flattered watching blogosphere heads explode,” Kristol told Politico. “It was kind of amusing.”
» Campaigning 101 via the Liberals
» Dear Senator Kerry
» Some Democrats Want To Know Where The Money Is
» Using The C-Word Is Okay On The Today Show..
» Remember Chapaquiddick!
<< Take Me Back Home!
October 28, 2007 - 03:49 PM on October 28th, 2007
Yet they so piously believe they are pure and wonderful and so quickly point the finger of accusation at others…
October 29, 2007 - 08:49 AM on October 29th, 2007
This is a basic tenet of the mentally ill left. They DO believe that minorities can not get anywhere with out the liberal whitey giving them a hand or marrying them.
October 29, 2007 - 09:06 AM on October 29th, 2007
But just try to point that out and you will either be shouted out or ignored. Just look at who all ignored this thread?
October 29, 2007 - 09:37 AM on October 29th, 2007
3, that is the usual response, BonBon. Truth to a lib means nothing if it doesn’t hurt Bush. Everything else is to be ignored.
October 29, 2007 - 10:58 AM on October 29th, 2007
Historically, progressives of the early 20th century (the kind Hillary says she is) were communists.
Look it up.
Why repeat the failed policies ofthe past?
October 29, 2007 - 12:53 PM on October 29th, 2007
Hillary imo is a soviet-style Marxist. She believes in the classic Marxist tenets, but not for everyone, only for the proles, the masses. Elitists such as herself are above it, just like the Communist Party members in the Soviet Union.
Anyon who supports HilLiary exhibits one or more of the following attributes:
woefully ignorant
brainwashed
a fellow Marxist/Communist
BHDS
a Demcorite Virtual Plantation dweller firmly locked into the fealty system of votes for bennies
The Founders would be so disgusted, even despondent to see what so many Americans have become.
October 30, 2007 - 09:44 AM on October 30th, 2007
“Historically, progressives of the early 20th century (the kind Hillary says she is) were communists.”
——————————-
Huh. Is that so?
Soooo…Communists brought you a 40 hour work week? Communists brought you a minimum wage? Communists brought you labor laws that protect employer AND employee?
Please.
Everyone knows that political progressives, be they left or right, have done everything from give women the right to vote to ending jim crow laws.
October 30, 2007 - 09:46 AM on October 30th, 2007
“They DO believe that minorities can not get anywhere with out the liberal whitey giving them a hand or marrying them.”
—————————–
Wrong.
LOL…this coming from people on the Right who get less than 10% of the black vote, and a minority of the hispanic vote.
THIS…is why you fail.
October 30, 2007 - 10:09 AM on October 30th, 2007
What does the left do for that minority vote? Promise them a lifetime of government assistance with no hope of ever getting off the plantation?
October 30, 2007 - 10:22 AM on October 30th, 2007
“Huh. Is that so?”
Yes, it is factually correct. If you research the history of the early 20th century Progressives you would see that. For example, they beleieved that corporations should be governement owned in the interest of the prolateriat. This centralizing of manufacturing is a communist concept. The shared many other such ideas, although not all of them.
“Soooo…Communists brought you a 40 hour work week? Communists brought you a minimum wage? Communists brought you labor laws that protect employer AND employee?”
It is amazing to me how you do not know the history of your own beliefs.
Communist and Progressives gave us none of these concepts, but liberals did. These are concepts that I completely agree with, and concepts that I refer to when saying that liberals have had great contributions to this nation. But this is why what is happening within the Democratic party- you are ignorant of your own values. You confuse liberalism with Progressivism. This is why George Soros and movceon.org control your party, becasue you trip along in ignorant bliss seeing the power upon the horizon not realizing that it is going to come at a terrible, terrible price.
“Please.”
Your welcome.
“Everyone knows that political progressives, be they left or right, have done everything from give women the right to vote to ending jim crow laws.”
No, they haven’t as I have aptly pointed out.
October 30, 2007 - 11:45 AM on October 30th, 2007
8. the ostritch known as SFL is the one who is wrong. You want examples? YOU really want them as an enima??
October 30, 2007 - 01:00 PM on October 30th, 2007
“Communist and Progressives gave us none of these concepts, but liberals did.”
Uhh, Ted…that was exactly my point. (!)
Social Progressives gave women the right to vote, gave us the 40 hour work week, protected workers with a minimum wage, and gave Americans economic safety nets; preventing millions of elderly from falling into poverty.
You said early 20th century progressives were mostly communists in #5.
How can you agree to support these liberal policies and at the same time say that they were QUOTE “failed polices” created by communists.
October 30, 2007 - 01:04 PM on October 30th, 2007
“Everyone knows that political progressives, be they left or right, have done everything from give women the right to vote to ending jim crow laws.”
——————–
My point here from #7 also supports the reasons why minorites vote OVERWHELMINGLY for Democratic candidates.
Minorities KNOW who is was who supported them in the past, and who is a safe bet to support them in the future.
Republicans and conservatives now treat them like they are stupid.
People can tell when they are being talked and looked down upon, and they vote accordingly.
October 30, 2007 - 01:06 PM on October 30th, 2007
“George Soros and movceon.org control your party”
———————–
Only as far as the primaries go, apparently.
The right has their own well funded and connected special-interest 400lb gorrila called: The Religious Right.
October 30, 2007 - 01:14 PM on October 30th, 2007
13, SFL, you are projecting your own faults upon us. You are the ones talking down to minorities and you don’t have any in real leadership.
October 30, 2007 - 01:18 PM on October 30th, 2007
“Uhh, Ted…that was exactly my point.”
So, you are agreeing with my point that Progressives are not liberals, but they are communist.
“Social Progressives gave women the right to vote, gave us the 40 hour work week, protected workers with a minimum wage, and gave Americans economic safety nets; preventing millions of elderly from falling into poverty.”
No they didn’t. These are ideas of liberals, not Progressives. What you mean by “social progressive” is vague. What I am talking about is today’s Progressive, which is largely based in those of the early 20th century who share many ideas of Communism and Marxism.
“You said early 20th century progressives were mostly communists in #5.”
I see the confusion. Let me restate:
Historically, Progressives of the early 20th century (the kind Hillary says she is) were communist (as in, the vast majority of idealogies Progressives had were based or identical to in Marxism and Communism).
Progressive doesn’t not equate to Communist, but they are damned close in idealogy.
Liberalism however, is completely different. They hold some socilaistic ideas, some of which are admirable (the road system, 40 hour work week, etc). I beleive you confuse liberalism with Progressivism. Let me restate why this is dangerous:
Communist and Progressives gave us none of these concepts, but liberals did. These are concepts that I completely agree with, and concepts that I refer to when saying that liberals have had great contributions to this nation. But this is why what is happening within the Democratic party- you are ignorant of your own values. You confuse liberalism with Progressivism. This is why George Soros and movceon.org control your party, becasue you trip along in ignorant bliss seeing the power upon the horizon not realizing that it is going to come at a terrible, terrible price.
SFL, you do need to study the history of you belif system. Progresivism, especially that of the ilk of George Soros and Hillary Clinton, would be a great bane to this country. If gone unchecked, the ramifications will destroy it, just as it has other civilizatios. However, liberalism is a great contribution as you pointed out.
Clear now?
\
October 30, 2007 - 01:19 PM on October 30th, 2007
We don’t need to place token minorites in places of leadership for appearances only, like your team does.
As far as minority representation in congress, guess which party has more?
Republicans? wrong.
Democrats? yup.
CLEARLY your party is losing out on the minority vote, and with a hispanic majority not to far away, you stand to lose much more.
October 30, 2007 - 01:22 PM on October 30th, 2007
“Only as far as the primaries go, apparently.”
We’ll see about that- Hillary Clinton is nothing like her old man. Her brand of governement is identical to what Soros wants. The only saving grace may be her greed, as she may refuse to tender power to them.
“The right has their own well funded and connected special-interest 400lb gorrila called: The Religious Right.”
Of course they do, but it is not this. Neoconservatism, which was founded in progressive Trotskite communism, is the great danger there. They have a large government social mentality like Progressivism do, and actually share that root.
October 30, 2007 - 01:29 PM on October 30th, 2007
“So, you are agreeing with my point that Progressives are not liberals, but they are communist.”
No, not at all. Many were communists, sure, but you can’t say that ALL progressives were “red”. That’s a major over-generalization on your part.
———
Ted, I completely disagree with your seperation of progressives and liberals.
I am very familier witht the history of my ideological beliefs, but where I think YOU are getting it wrong here is by listening to biased sources.
Lets go to a dictionary.
Progressive: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs - noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
——
Right off the bat here Ted, the terms seem pretty similar to me. And to anyone else who takes the time to look in a dictionary.
October 30, 2007 - 01:34 PM on October 30th, 2007
Liberals and progressives are cut from the same fabric.
I do not deny that there were many communists calling themselves progressives AND liberals in the early 20th century, shortly after the 1917 revolution and before it took a turn for the worse with totalitarianism.
But to seperate the two, beyond one being more radical than the other, is pretty intelectualy dishonest.
October 30, 2007 - 01:35 PM on October 30th, 2007
Ted, what books are reading?
October 30, 2007 - 01:39 PM on October 30th, 2007
damn.
What books are you reading?
Where are you getting this soros paranoia from?
I love reading political writings, from both the left and the right. I started off as a conservative reading Rushs books from the 90’s. I’m in school again now working on my second degree, so I can teach high school history. I’m always looking for politicaly themed books to get from the library, and am courious where you are getting this anti-soros fever from.
October 30, 2007 - 01:39 PM on October 30th, 2007
man, not typing/spelling well today at all!
October 30, 2007 - 02:01 PM on October 30th, 2007
SFL, I predict you’ll be the typical NEA union goon. No ideas other than diseminated from the union. You resort to an inapropriate souce for your definitions, try a real Social Studies text from before the 60s or a Poli Sci text from the same vintage.
You are the same wonk that tries to get by citing wikipedia articles that have been discredited as inaccurate pieces of liberal propaganda.
October 30, 2007 - 02:29 PM on October 30th, 2007
It has now ate 3 posts…so no more for now.
October 30, 2007 - 06:43 PM on October 30th, 2007
Ted, there were spambots in here all day…I think it is over though!
Let me know if you want some of the most filthy links ever!
/ there are thousands of them!