Liberal/Progressive=Socialist/Communist

[mcgyvry]

I was sure that there would be enough people here that could try explaining the difference between liberalism and socialism or progressive and communism. It would seem to me nothing more than Madison Ave. re-branding. Lets see how many pretzels we can twist around this.

[riplipper]

Whaaaaat???? I am really looking foreward to paying higher taxes so the lazy azzes that dont want to work can sit at home and watch freakin Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!!!!! AND....AND... blame me for thier kids bad grades :mad:

[mcgyvry]

I was talking to a guy at work the other day who said Hillary wasn't a socialist but a liberal progressive. I told him it just means she's a socialist that wants everyone else to live as communists. From each according to their abilities to each according their needs.

[chuam]

And conservative equals religious fundamentalist/facist?????

Liberal thinkers are what improves society and moves people forward. The human race wouldn't be where it was today had it not been for liberal policies. If you want to go back to living in the dark ages then feel free. But being a liberal has nothing to do with being a communist. Get a clue.

[jeffcroci]

thanks Chuam I couldnt have said it more plainly

jeff

[mcgyvry]

[QUOTE=chuam]And conservative equals religious fundamentalist/facist?????

You may be right. But I'm neither so it sounds good but offers nothing to the question. I'm an American who was born here into a Representative Republic not a democracy.

Liberal thinkers are what improves society and moves people forward. The human race wouldn't be where it was today had it not been for liberal policies. If you want to go back to living in the dark ages then feel free.

This is true however socialist today would like to co-op the accomplishments of those in the past by using the term liberal to describe what they are trying to do today. Our founding fathers were anything but socialist.

But being a liberal has nothing to do with being a communist. Get a clue.

I didn't say being a liberal had anything to do with being a communist. Socialist's are guttless communist at least they have the courage of their convictions to take it to the next level.

Also you may want to know
Fascisim = a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etWho would thisc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Doesn't this sound like it could apply to alot of the liberal progressive agenda?

[chuam]

Since you want to get nit picky:

And conservative equals religious fundamentalist/facist?????

You may be right. But I'm neither so it sounds good but offers nothing to the question. I'm an American who was born here into a Representative Republic not a democracy.

But by your initial post you were basically saying liberal was equal to communist.

Liberal thinkers are what improves society and moves people forward. The human race wouldn't be where it was today had it not been for liberal policies. If you want to go back to living in the dark ages then feel free.

This is true however socialist today would like to co-op the accomplishments of those in the past by using the term liberal to describe what they are trying to do today. Our founding fathers were anything but socialist.

Please lay out who the socialists that are trying to do this and take credit for liberal thinkers in the past.

But being a liberal has nothing to do with being a communist. Get a clue.

I didn't say being a liberal had anything to do with being a communist. Socialist's are guttless communist at least they have the courage of their convictions to take it to the next level.

I was sure that there would be enough people here that could try explaining the difference between liberalism and socialism or progressive and communism. It would seem to me nothing more than Madison Ave. re-branding. Lets see how many pretzels we can twist around this.

Yeah that sounds nothing like equating the two.

Also you may want to know
Fascisim = a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etWho would thisc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Doesn't this sound like it could apply to alot of the liberal progressive agenda?

Let's start with some examples:

Fascisim = a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etWho would thisc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Bush rescinding a lot of our freedoms with the patriot act.

The Whitehouse outing Valerie Plame as political payback for her husbands criticism.

Bush basically saying that you are with us or against us when it came to criticism of any of his policies.

The republican party bending over backwards to the religious right to remove some of our rights, abortion, right to free speech, right to be able to listen to, watch and read what I would like to.

We are pushing a pretty aggressive nationalism.

Doesn't this sound like it could apply to alot of the liberal progressive agenda?

It sounds like a lot more of an agenda that is being currently pushed by conservatives than anything that liberals would want.

[mcgyvry]

Simply restating your first post with more words in between isn't making your point but thanks for the input and you might want to try finding some original Bush bashing rhetoric rather than copying bullet points off of the moveon.org site.

[chuam]

Simply restating your first post with more words in between isn't making your point but thanks for the input and you might want to try finding some original Bush bashing rhetoric rather than copying bullet points off of the moveon.org site.

You obviously had an agenda when you posted other than to ask an innocuous question as to the differences. You broke down my thread and I broke down your post. I have never been to moveon.org and don't plan on going there. I consider myself a conservative liberal. I hunt and I fish but I can't back the repubs and the way they pander to the religious right.

And by the way you should come up with some of your own rhetoric that doesn't come from Rush :rolleyes:

[Mikerotch]

I consider myself a conservative liberal
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Myself, I'm more of a liberal conservative, which is quite rare in a white, black guy like myself. I must admit; however, I'm having a hard time determining if I'm a smart dumbass or a dumbass smart guy. I guess it may have something to do with the fact I'm a blonde brunette. One thing is for sure though, I'm not a queer straight guy, only straight.
Just out of curiosity, as a "conservative" liberal, does that mean you believe in limiting the amount of my money you vote yourself to fund projects that you and other liberals believe in ? If so, thank you.

Mikerotch, Conservative Conservative, or Libertarian

[aaron proffitt]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now that's funny....

[chuam]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Myself, I'm more of a liberal conservative, which is quite rare in a white, black guy like myself. I must admit; however, I'm having a hard time determining if I'm a smart dumbass or a dumbass smart guy. I guess it may have something to do with the fact I'm a blonde brunette. One thing is for sure though, I'm not a queer straight guy, only straight.
Just out of curiosity, as a "conservative" liberal, does that mean you believe in limiting the amount of my money you vote yourself to fund projects that you and other liberals believe in ? If so, thank you.

Mikerotch, Conservative Conservative, or Libertarian

Nice troll but I'm not going to bite.

[mcgyvry]

You obviously had an agenda when you posted other than to ask an innocuous question as to the differences. You broke down my thread and I broke down your post. I have never been to moveon.org and don't plan on going there. I consider myself a conservative liberal. I hunt and I fish but I can't back the repubs and the way they pander to the religious right.

And by the way you should come up with some of your own rhetoric that doesn't come from Rush :rolleyes:

Innocuous question with an agenda? It sounds good but doesn’t make any sense like most of the vague points you make. The question was simple is the liberal moniker adopted by democrats being used to avoid the correct description of their policies as socialist? And with their ever increasing slide to the left are progressives the new communist wing of the party something similar to what formed in the 1920’s progressive movement. It appears that democrats while purging their ranks of anyone moderate (Zell Miller,Joe Leiberman ect..) began using liberal to describe the mainstream of their party to dodge the socialist label being given them. Let’s face it liberal conservative sounds so much better than socialist conservative doesn’t it, very euro.

I find it interesting that your fascist list didn’t include nationalizing 1/5 of our economy (Hillary Care). While I don’t agree with much of what the republicans do albeit for reasons I’m sure are 180 deg out of yours. Here’s a list that you should give thought to. How do the two parties handle the crooks thieves liars and perverts in their midst’s.
Republicans
Nixon,Foley,Cunningham,Abramoff
Democrats
Clinton (Bill+Hill),Kennedy, Frank,Berger,Jefferson
The list could go on for ever on both sides but what is important is that at least the republicans purge themselves of these people while the dems elevate them. Who is evolving and who is devolving?

You have reduced your politics to a high school football game our team good their team bad. Whatever we do good whatever they do bad. If you’re not on my team you must be on their team. It may make it easier for you to understand but you will only experience half the game with that mindset. I maybe all wrong but my thoughts are my own that is why you had such a hard time finding a bullet point to copy in response. Work on raising your I.Q rather than your E.Q. or as you so eloquently put it “get a clue” dude.

[chuam]

You want my response here it is. Here is my take on a conservative liberal. I don't support the gun control that some of the far left democrats want to push through. I think that in some cases we spend to much money on social programs. i do believe we need to spend money on social programs. I am for govt. watching over business. Companies are in it for their own best interests not their employees or the environments interest. I don't think there should be religion or prayer in school unless you go to a perochial school. There are a lot of other things but I think you get the point.


I should have said "seemingly" innocuous question. You obviously feel anything that the democrats do is considered socialist. Other than Hillary's attempt at universal healthcare please quote other supposed socialist policies. Universal healthcare is a great idea but to get it to work in our economy and country would be an almost impossible task. I could call the repubs religious fundamentalists that are trying to turn the counrty into a theocracy. Both parties have been pandering more and more to their fringe elements. There are still quite a few moderates in each party unfortunately the party leadership of both seem to be supporting the less moderate candidates more and more. This is not a democrat only issue.

I find it funny you mention Abramoff. The White House has been denying he had any influence yet they are finding more and more links. Also what about Rove and the Plame case. He is obviously connected as is coming out more and more in the court case but he still has a job. Foley was caught at a bad time. I would be willing to bet that if it had not been near an election he would have got a slap on the wrist. While we're on the subject what about all the Repub leadership that knew about the problems with Foley and did nothing to stop it? If you look hard enough you can find bad apples that have not been dealt with in each party.

I have not reduced this to a good team vs. bad team debate. You started that in your initial post. I was only pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement.

Just because I find myself to be affiliating myself with democrats does not make me a socialist. I'm very moderate in my views and sometimes I feel the repubs have a better take on certain issues. Please stop spouting what you hear from the fringes of the repub party. Not every democrat is a socialist and not every repub is a religious fundamentalist. You want to know why the country is more divided politically right now that ever? It's because of stupid assumptions by both sides and throwing out blanket and baseless names and stereotypes on the other party.

[Spearchuckerz]

More scary facts about liberals:

They oppress those who they claim to represent. Why would the selfless liberal do that? To secure their power hungry personal interest. Massive social programs (that are only made more complex every term) are the tools used by the left to keep their constituents DEPENDENT on the handouts that the left is so proud of. If they are not dependent on social programs (handouts) they will be forced to get an education, shit maybe even a job!

What happens next is the kicker. As the masses are forced in to actually working and paying taxes, some will want to achieve and go beyond the status quo! (Hillary screams: OOOOHHH NNOOOOOOO) Why is Hillary so concerned?

The more money and success a person gains, they become less likely to vote the democratic ticket! Get it? The liberals do not want their constituents to break the chains of poverty and dependency on the government. They will loose the votes of the ignorant.

****ed up huh?

[BobK]

Just because I find myself to be affiliating myself with democrats does not make me a socialist. I'm very moderate in my views and sometimes I feel the repubs have a better take on certain issues. Please stop spouting what you hear from the fringes of the repub party. Not every democrat is a socialist and not every repub is a religious fundamentalist. You want to know why the country is more divided politically right now that ever? It's because of stupid assumptions by both sides and throwing out blanket and baseless names and stereotypes on the other party.

Kinda the bottom line here is whether you think citizens should get a free ride or pay their own way. For example, do you think I, as a fairly well off engineer, should pay significantly more for police protection, which I seldom need, then someone of far lesser means, who uses that same protection every weekend ? Do you think that I should give some of the money I personally earned to someone of lesser means, not necessarily far lesser, because they have a bunch of kids ? Should I, as one of those in the upper 25% of the tax bracket, pay for ALL of the government services of those in the lower 25%, who not only pay nothing, but actually get money back that they didn't put in ?

The Democratic party demands that I support all of these things, the Republican party thinks that citizens should be free to succeed - or fail.

So, naturally, bright, successful people gravitate to the Republican party, and those who are less successful, well, they generally know what and how they can suck resources from the rest of us....

[jackpine savage]

I refuse to partake in a political system that I am commited to overthrow.

[mcgyvry]

I refuse to partake in a political system that I am commited to overthrow.

:lol: I now have a new motto to live by :lol:

[mcgyvry]

Anybody catch Hillary's lastest speach? She going to take those evil big oil co.'s money and use it for the greater good as soon as she becomes El Presidente.
:allhail:

That's mighty socialist of her don't you think er uh I mean Liberal. I don't know but it sounds more like Hugo Chavez progessive to me but what do I know.

[riplipper]

Kinda the bottom line here is whether you think citizens should get a free ride or pay their own way. For example, do you think I, as a fairly well off engineer, should pay significantly more for police protection, which I seldom need, then someone of far lesser means, who uses that same protection every weekend ? Do you think that I should give some of the money I personally earned to someone of lesser means, not necessarily far lesser, because they have a bunch of kids ? Should I, as one of those in the upper 25% of the tax bracket, pay for ALL of the government services of those in the lower 25%, who not only pay nothing, but actually get money back that they didn't put in ?

The Democratic party demands that I support all of these things, the Republican party thinks that citizens should be free to succeed - or fail.

So, naturally, bright, successful people gravitate to the Republican party, and those who are less successful, well, they generally know what and how they can suck resources from the rest of us....

dude....I like the way you think....very well said... :thumps:

[Wayward Son]

I went to a software developers conference some years ago. I think it was 1994, so enough time for their tax rate to have changed since then, no idea what it is now.

Point is, I met a team from Denmark & we got talking. I was told their income tax rate *started* at 50% for your 1st $20,000. It went up 10% per $10K increment after that, so make from:

$20,001 - $30,000, taxed at 60% for the amount over $20K (with 50% for the 1st $20K)
$30,001 - $40,000, taxed at 70% for the amount over $20K (with 50% for the 1st $20K, 60% for the next $10K)
$40,001 - $50,000, taxed at 80% for the amount over $20K (with 50% for the 1st $20K, 60% for the next $10K, 70% for the next $10K, 80% for the rest)

80% was the max tax rate at the time.

Now, it could be said that they "got a lot for their money", I suppose. All health care was free. All education was free. They could go back to school for any degree they wanted, paid for.

However, they paid these rates all the time, year after year, for their entire lives. IMHO it was excessively confiscatory & punitive & despite the govt provided goodies it doesn't appeal to me.

That was just the income taxes. Other taxes were also horrible. Imported vehicles were taxed at 100% (at least, memory isn't perfect & it may have been higher) & since they had no domestic makers, all cars were imports. A 5 year old used Honda at the time cost one of these guys more than a brand new one, current model year, would have here in the states. For what a new one would cost the guy, here we could easily buy a very nice luxury car.

I really don't want my govt doing that much for me. I prefer to retain what freedom I can, including the responsibilities & consequences that go with it.

[jackpine savage]

My brother lives in Denmark, the auto tax rate is 180%. Of course the mass transit is absolutely amazing. The thing I found about some of the countries with a high tax rate is that most appreciate what their governemt does for them and their society. I m not agreeing with their system but they like it so who cares. I think our taxes would be considered reasonable if we got what we paid for. Unfortunately bit the Dems and GOP spend our money like drunken sailors in a whore house. I think their priorites on how they use our money is what is screwed. Perhaps if they used it wisely then they wouldn't need so much of it.

[Wayward Son]

Wow! It may have been that much back then, I just don't recall. I do remember being shocked by it.

They were some great guys, I liked them. But they lived & worked under something very, very different conditions in many ways than what we do, or that I ever want to.