Affordable Health Care is passed.

[eodx9000]

(Since I don't feel like re-editing my post just to fix any retarded HTML/BBC coding problems, I also meant to of course mention the War on Terror as being another progressive pet project nowadays.)

[HeyYou]

(Since I don't feel like re-editing my post just to fix any retarded HTML/BBC coding problems, I also meant to of course mention the War on Terror as being another progressive pet project nowadays.)

 

That's because it makes money for the military/industrial complex. I would also point out, that the two wars were started by a republican. Was King George a Progressive?

[eodx9000]

(Since I don't feel like re-editing my post just to fix any retarded HTML/BBC coding problems, I also meant to of course mention the War on Terror as being another progressive pet project nowadays.)

 

That's because it makes money for the military/industrial complex. I would also point out, that the two wars were started by a republican. Was King George a Progressive?

 

Whether started by a neocon or not is not what matters NOW. What matters is that "progressives" are NOW defending and supporting the War on Terror despite campaigning against it over 4 years ago. Of course, just like there are conservatives (like Ron Paul) that have refused to support Bush's wars, there are some progressives (2 of which are a couple of the very few politicians I like - Dennis Kucinich & Ralph Nader) that refuse to support the same wars, however, by'n'large, "progressives" support it now against their former stance.

[marharth]

"Progressives" have forced people to comply with the corporate statehood."Progressives" have forced people to associate with people they prefer not to."Progressives" have declared needless amounts of wars, just like neocons."Progressives" have forced people to pay for corporate welfare. I shouldn't really need to be any more direct.

Can you give specific examples?

 

New Deal

Great Society

Section-8 Housing

Affordable Healthcare Act (the quintessential definition of corporatocratic legislation)

"Civil Rights" / "Equal Opportunity"

War on Drugs (supported by progressives with the same neocon mantra, in fact)

World War II (FDR illegally declared war on by using interventionist measures prior to invasion at Pearl Harbor)

Bosnia

Vietnam (supported by LBJ)

Iran & the Middle East (both sides are undoubtedly guilty of stirring up wars in the middle east just so their oil pals can get money)

Guantanamo Bay (4 years later, no closure)

 

Intellectual Property

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T.

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. 2

N.D.A.A.

A.C.T.A.

C.I.S.P.A.

S.O.P.A.

P.I.P.A.

(Whether started by, most are continued to this day by "progressives" that claim to be for progress when instead are actually for good old dictatorships.)

Most of those are things that were continued by people who called themselves progressives. That or people like Obama, who simply acted like a progressive to get elected. They weren't actually progressives. Democrat does not equal progressive.

 

What is wrong with civil rights? Why do you consider a lot of those policies bad?

 

FDR might of provoked Japan a bit by stopping trade and some other things, but that was due to the importance of China. Entering WW2 is not an illegal war at all. Congress approved it and Europe needed.

 

Do you think laws to protect IP are a bad thing? We require some laws for it do we not? Of course, it would help if the laws would be updated more frequently to match recent times, but that is another thing from not having it at all.

 

For the most part you seem to be confusing progressive with democrat.

Edited July 5, 2012 by marharth

[eodx9000]

Most of those are things that were continued by people who called themselves progressives. That or people like Obama, who simply acted like a progressive to get elected. They weren't actually progressives. Democrat does not equal progressive.

 

Then you have not been paying attention to my use of quotation marks, but that's like most people in general anyways.

 

What is wrong with civil rights? Why do you consider a lot of those policies bad?

 

Every single one uses violence to force people into complying with something that is a moral or relative issue.

 

FDR might of provoked Japan a bit by stopping trade and some other things, but that was due to the importance of China. Entering WW2 is not an illegal war at all. Congress approved it and Europe needed.

 

Franklin D Roosevelt issued trade embargoes against Japan from middle eastern oil prior to Pearl Harbor, left Pearl Harbor wide open for an attack, and was racist towards Japanese people. Furthermore, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamato knew of the consequence of attacking Pearl Harbor and remarked about how they awoke the sleeping giant shortly after the attack started.

 

Do you think laws to protect IP are a bad thing? We require some laws for it do we not? Of course, it would help if the laws would be updated more frequently to match recent times, but that is another thing from not having it at all.

 

Intellectual property laws also use the threat of violence in order to enforce something relative.

 

For the most part you seem to be confusing progressive with democrat.

 

Like I said, I used quotes. To be blunt, I gave you the ability to disassociate yourself. Just like on the right, I'd be accused of calling all Republicans conservatives despite that I give them the same ability.

 

But as for me, I see no progress in the willingness to use tools of violence outside of self-defense and objective offenses.

Edited July 5, 2012 by eodx9000

[marharth]

Most of those are things that were continued by people who called themselves progressives. That or people like Obama, who simply acted like a progressive to get elected. They weren't actually progressives. Democrat does not equal progressive.

 

Then you have not been paying attention to my use of quotation marks, but that's like most people in general anyways.

 

What is wrong with civil rights? Why do you consider a lot of those policies bad?

 

Every single one uses violence to force people into complying with something that is a moral or relative issue.

 

FDR might of provoked Japan a bit by stopping trade and some other things, but that was due to the importance of China. Entering WW2 is not an illegal war at all. Congress approved it and Europe needed.

 

Franklin D Roosevelt issued trade embargoes against Japan from middle eastern oil prior to Pearl Harbor, left Pearl Harbor wide open for an attack, and was racist towards Japanese people. Furthermore, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamato knew of the consequence of attacking Pearl Harbor and remarked about how they awoke the sleeping giant shortly after the attack started.

 

Do you think laws to protect IP are a bad thing? We require some laws for it do we not? Of course, it would help if the laws would be updated more frequently to match recent times, but that is another thing from not having it at all.

 

Intellectual property laws also use the threat of violence in order to enforce something relative.

 

For the most part you seem to be confusing progressive with democrat.

 

Like I said, I used quotes. To be blunt, I gave you the ability to disassociate yourself. Just like on the right, I'd be accused of calling all Republicans conservatives despite that I give them the same ability.

 

But as for me, I see no progress in the willingness to use tools of violence outside of self-defense and objective offenses.

That is kind of how laws work. You threaten someone with a consequence to be sure everyone is safe and treated fairly, and to keep order.

 

FDR did not expect Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Military intelligence pointed to other locations. Also once again, China was too important to ignore.

[eodx9000]

That is kind of how laws work. You threaten someone with a consequence to be sure everyone is safe and treated fairly, and to keep order.

 

Yes, I know how "law" works. That doesn't make it right, though.

 

It may not be "fair" to you for me to refuse to associate myself with you for whatever reason, but it's not any less "fair" than for you to use force in making me cooperate with you. However, at least my refusal of association does not prevent you from moving on, whereas the moment you've chosen to use force only prevents me from moving on.

 

You also may think it's not "fair" that I'd not give someone a dime of charity, but the idea that you think you can just force a dime out of my fruits of labor is not any more "fair" either. Likewise with the previous, I had not prevented the person from going elsewhere, but your use of force has prevented me from moving on.

 

In both cases though, the idea of fairness is relative except that you would use force on me and not the other way around, all because of your moral beliefs.

 

FDR did not expect Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Military intelligence pointed to other locations. Also once again, China was too important to ignore.

 

What Really Happened - Pearl Harbor

[marharth]

Even if there was some kind of conspiracy, is it really that bad that FDR wanted to help Europe from getting taken over by Nazi Germany, or later on the Soviet Union?

[Ghogiel]

Even if there was some kind of conspiracy, is it really that bad that FDR wanted to help Europe from getting taken over by Nazi Germany, or later on the Soviet Union?

Wanting to and how you go about doing things are two different things. Nazi Germany was bad news sure but lack of integrity often doesn't cover up very well.

[csgators]

This forum needs a like button. eodx9000 is kicking so much behind all I want to do is sit back and hit "like". I don't have the time or patience to try and educate our young friend on force and how government has a monopoly on it's use. marharth, you continue to support the use of force to make people comply with what you think is right. You really need to think about it for a long, long time. If I feel force is the right way to go and I get control, it is you that will be in the wrong end of the gun.