|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 21, 2010 23:52:48 GMT -8
It's an important topic, since Obama is not a socialist as some maintain, but a progressive. (I prefer the term authoritarian collectivist.) But what kind of progressive, and just what is progressivism? A LONG article, but one that presents a very detailed history of progressive thought and how Obama fits into the picture. Here is a particularly juicy passage about progressivism. It is a short step from the original progressives' belief that developments in morals and science had obviated reasonable disagreements about law and public policy and dissolved concerns about the impartiality of administrators to the new progressives' belief that in domestic affairs disagreement is indefensible and intolerable.www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/10/obama__the_rhetoric_of_progressivism_108197.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 22, 2010 7:46:39 GMT -8
Interesting to a point. I was more caught up in the string of examples of Obama's promises and his failure to deliver on those promises. There is real hope for independent thinkers it would appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 22, 2010 10:59:35 GMT -8
William, you never post any article that it not some conservative screed. When challenged on the articles you fail to respond. I have been reading your links for years. It has really time wasted.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 25, 2010 19:38:19 GMT -8
It's an important topic, since Obama is not a socialist as some maintain, but a progressive. (I prefer the term authoritarian collectivist.) It is interesting that libertarians use Randian terms, in particular "collectivism" and its variations while Rand looked down her nose at libertarians. And using the term "authoritarian" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the academic definition of authoritarian political systems. In short Will, you're offering commentary in subjects of which you have little knowledge. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 26, 2010 7:51:11 GMT -8
William, you never post any article that it not some conservative screed. When challenged on the articles you fail to respond. I have been reading your links for years. It has really time wasted. Funny how that would be even mentioned. What would you expect from William know his history, a link to "Socialism, your Salvation" or "Socialism, Treadmill to Oblivion"? Is is not normal to cite things with which you agree or articles that promote ideas that you abhor? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 26, 2010 7:55:45 GMT -8
It's an important topic, since Obama is not a socialist as some maintain, but a progressive. (I prefer the term authoritarian collectivist.) It is interesting that libertarians use Randian terms, in particular "collectivism" and its variations while Rand looked down her nose at libertarians. And using the term "authoritarian" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the academic definition of authoritarian political systems. In short Will, you're offering commentary in subjects of which you have little knowledge. =Bob This is the least effective method of discussion or debate that I can think of. You question the knowledge of someone one the other side of an issue based on what? I would suggest that at the very least your failure to see that your liberal views alone suggest that you come up a little short in both knowledge and understanding of what you think you do know. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 26, 2010 10:47:17 GMT -8
William, you never post any article that it not some conservative screed. When challenged on the articles you fail to respond. I have been reading your links for years. It has really time wasted. Funny how that would be even mentioned. What would you expect from William know his history, a link to "Socialism, your Salvation" or "Socialism, Treadmill to Oblivion"? Is is not normal to cite things with which you agree or articles that promote ideas that you abhor? He posted 12/21. When challenged to defend his post there is only the sound of crickets. That is William's way. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 26, 2010 12:57:05 GMT -8
Funny how that would be even mentioned. What would you expect from William know his history, a link to "Socialism, your Salvation" or "Socialism, Treadmill to Oblivion"? Is is not normal to cite things with which you agree or articles that promote ideas that you abhor? He posted 12/21. When challenged to defend his post there is only the sound of crickets. That is William's way. A specific example would help me understand what is in question. He could and should not be expected to defend something he has cited. If it is a point he has made in discussion then you need to explain what you mean. Often a point made in opposition to a liberal idea needs no further discussion.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 31, 2010 16:28:38 GMT -8
It is interesting that libertarians use Randian terms, in particular "collectivism" and its variations while Rand looked down her nose at libertarians. And using the term "authoritarian" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the academic definition of authoritarian political systems. In short Will, you're offering commentary in subjects of which you have little knowledge. =Bob This is the least effective method of discussion or debate that I can think of. You question the knowledge of someone one the other side of an issue based on what? I would suggest that at the very least your failure to see that your liberal views alone suggest that you come up a little short in both knowledge and understanding of what you think you do know. Of course, that doesn't address my comment at all. I offered a fact - Rand didn't care a whit about libertarians and, in fact, looked down her nose at them: tinyurl.com/5hqllUnfortunately, libertarians, such as Will, generally don't know enough about Randian thought beyond having read a couple of her books to really understand how incredibly selfish her "philosophy" was. But beyond that, in the end, she was nothing more than an intelligent huckster who used her philosophy to engage in rather deviant behavior. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 31, 2010 16:31:18 GMT -8
He posted 12/21. When challenged to defend his post there is only the sound of crickets. That is William's way. A specific example would help me understand what is in question. He could and should not be expected to defend something he has cited. If it is a point he has made in discussion then you need to explain what you mean. Often a point made in opposition to a liberal idea needs no further discussion. Pooh, in order to defend a point would require you to actually make a point, something you never do. I suppose it's sometimes fun to read your trolls, in the end you really come off as the court jester who has nothing more than old jokes to offer. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 1, 2011 8:39:12 GMT -8
A specific example would help me understand what is in question. He could and should not be expected to defend something he has cited. If it is a point he has made in discussion then you need to explain what you mean. Often a point made in opposition to a liberal idea needs no further discussion. Pooh, in order to defend a point would require you to actually make a point, something you never do. I suppose it's sometimes fun to read your trolls, in the end you really come off as the court jester who has nothing more than old jokes to offer. =Bob I guess that means it is a waste of time to make a point with you or any liberal since you and they have an aversion to logic, a lack of knowledge, little interest in facts and a giant overdose of laziness. If you can't recognize when a point has been made it is time to toss in the towel. |
|
