Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

[Skullbone]

Why did Progressivism begin?

In America the short answer is because self proclaimed masterminds wanted the power they saw other governments wield, so they exploited the perceived systemic shortcomings of day and promised "hope and change" in plots to undermine the Constitution and consolidate power. They, like every tyrannical mind before them, believed that they were uniquely qualified to "arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard." It's a rejection of the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. It rejects individual liberty, nature's law, and jurisprudence. It is a proclamation of utopianism, collectivism, balkanization, despotism, and tyranny. It's a reinstitution of serfdom disguised as humanitarianism.

It springs up in populist political movements designed to take advantage of and appeal to society's disenchanted populous through promises of unachievable goals such as equality of outcome by implementing grand social engineering plans. It also usually requires a straw man for those disenchanted to foster blame for their plight. They all end with the subjugation of the individual and an erosion of liberty.

The truth is that utopianism and progressivism are lies. Heaven on Earth is unattainable. Human beings are imperfect, fallible creatures every one. Even the masterminds. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that any men are capable of and worthy to control all the planned and unplanned complexities of the individual's nature.


"For he that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary." - John Locke

 

[Vols4us]

Or as my much loved (now deceased) father-in-law, who was MIA and a POW in WWII once said to me, "Ain't no man worth a shat."

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Yes, progressivism is racist, and no I don't agree with your analogy. For the record I loathe Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is a progressive himself. He's often in favor of rejecting Constitutional restraints so long as it's to advance his preferred authoritarian personal agenda of the week. Nixon's above the law stuff was progressive. It was wrong, and so is progressive thought today which is heavily fostered within the Democrat Party platform. Progressives hate the restraints of the Constitution as they believe in an unrestrained, benevolent dictatorships often cloaked in populism. Heck yes, progressives today are racist. The very idea that an entire race of people have to be treated like they're handicapped is racist to me, and progressives love to do that. Just like the eugenicists. That's why they created the abortion industry and defend it today. They think of it as population control for lesser people.

This is just uninformed. You're just using the word "progressive" as a blanket term for anything you disagree with. It's intellectually dishonest. So is equating abortion to eugenics. It's missing the point completely.

Funny how you claim to hate Trump so much but your rhetoric mirrors his so closely...

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

In America the short answer is because self proclaimed masterminds wanted the power they saw other governments wield, so they exploited the perceived systemic shortcomings of day and promised "hope and change" in plots to undermine the Constitution and consolidate power. They, like every tyrannical mind before them, believed that they were uniquely qualified to "arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard." It's a rejection of the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. It rejects individual liberty, nature's law, and jurisprudence. It is a proclamation of utopianism, collectivism, balkanization, despotism, and tyranny. It's a reinstitution of serfdom disguised as humanitarianism.

It springs up in populist political movements designed to take advantage of and appeal to society's disenchanted populous through promises of unachievable goals such as equality of outcome by implementing grand social engineering plans. It also usually requires a straw man for those disenchanted to foster blame for their plight. They all end with the subjugation of the individual and an erosion of liberty.

The truth is that utopianism and progressivism are lies. Heaven on Earth is unattainable. Human beings are imperfect, fallible creatures every one. Even the masterminds. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that any men are capable of and worthy to control all the planned and unplanned complexities of the individual's nature.


"For he that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary." - John Locke

Progressives are literally Big Brother :crazy:

Nevermind the fact that it was a conservative president and republican dominated congress that widely expanded the government's power to spy on its own citizens and that a huge portion of the people who want the government to have the power to compel private companies like Apple to jailbreak their products for them are conservatives.

 

[Skullbone]

This is just uninformed. You're just using the word "progressive" as a blanket term for anything you disagree with. It's intellectually dishonest. So is equating abortion to eugenics. It's missing the point completely.

Funny how you claim to hate Trump so much but your rhetoric mirrors his so closely...

Well I reject everything that you just said.

 

[Skullbone]

Progressives are literally Big Brother :crazy:

Nevermind the fact that it was a conservative president and republican dominated congress that widely expanded the government's power to spy on its own citizens and that a huge portion of the people who want the government to have the power to compel private companies like Apple to jailbreak their products for them are conservatives.

The fact that you think that was a conservative president says a lot. Contrary to popular belief being a member or the Republican Party does not make one a conservative. George was a good man and held some conservative positions but he was no conservative. The Bush family battled against conservatives inside the party going back to Reagan. And it's Obama s government who heads the FBI now. I recall conservatives like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul warning against overreach in the case of mass surveillance and armed drone use.

 

[volnpowell]

Surprised and disappointed we have not heard more news on the other recruits that visited the O & W game. I thought the tweet thread would have several of the recruits tweeting about the visit etc.

EDIT: Did not look close enough at what thread I clicked on... thought it was the "on topic" one.

 

[Catbone]

Cruz wants to have surveillance and patrols in muslim neighborhoods

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

The fact that you think that was a conservative president says a lot. Contrary to popular belief being a member or the Republican Party does not make one a conservative. George was a good man and held some conservative positions but he was no conservative. The Bush family battled against conservatives inside the party going back to Reagan. And it's Obama s government who heads the FBI now. I recall conservatives like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul warning against overreach in the case of mass surveillance and armed drone use.

You're just being subjective now. Sure to you Bush may not be a conservative, but to people in every country besides the US, Sanders is a conservative. The Bushes were and are conservative. Just because they're not as conservative as others doesn't make them not conservatives. You can keep on claiming that everyone on your side of the political spectrum who's done a bad job is on the other side, but it's disingenuous to say the least.


As for Cruz, I think he's on the right track with his views of mass surveilance. That's one of the things I give him credit for. But it's worth noting that he got some flak for crossing the aisle on that.

 

[Vol464]

You're just being subjective now. Sure to you Bush may not be a conservative, but to people in every country besides the US, Sanders is a conservative. The Bushes were and are conservative. Just because they're not as conservative as others doesn't make them not conservatives. You can keep on claiming that everyone on your side of the political spectrum who's done a bad job is on the other side, but it's disingenuous to say the least.


As for Cruz, I think he's on the right track with his views of mass surveilance. That's one of the things I give him credit for. But it's worth noting that he got some flak for crossing the aisle on that.

Bush is not conservative.

 

[Vols4us]

Again, Darth, Bush was not a conservative. Nor is the Bush family. At all. He would pick a couple of safe issues to be conservative about to give the appearance when is was politically expedient to do so. There are wings to the progressive movement. They all come back to the primary body of belief - that certain groups of people have all the answers with the desire to control everybody else in support of their beliefs. They then get the wealth, power, fame, etc. they think they want. To get there they conspire together at times. Surely, you can see this condescension in their demeanor.

Oppression is from Satan and is used by his tools on earth in an ill fated attempt to thwart God and the terrible end he faces along with his helpers throughout history. Unfortunately, unwitting participants may be Christians. I would label Bush as one of those. When you make decisions affecting God's created people that potentially circumvents his intent there are repercussions. Bush's decisions emptied the treasury of the country and has mired it in a part of the world that has always been a pit of death. Obama's has made us become a slave of debt for generations to come along with sowing huge seeds of discontent within the nation. Clinton's was not targeting the early signs of cancer and glorifying the excesses of the land of plenty. The Clinton's would be excellent historical examples of ancient Roman leaders. They are all different - and they are all part of the same body of progressives in that they represent themselves and the clan of elites who claim control of nations. The real conservative knows that all of those situations created by all three of those individuals/families are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible as well as common logic.

Each one did things on the world stage to demonstrate their participation in the progressives. Some were blatantly obvious like Obama's open mic event with the Russian President. Real conservative politicians know their responsibility is to the people they serve, not to themselves or to the kings of the world. They lead and vote accordingly. They know to protect the people's interest and not just pay them lip service.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Because we can't have a discussion about progressivism without bringing Satan into it or bringing up the decadence of Rome. A person doesn't have to care a lick about the bible to be a conservative.

Have some perspective. If we lay out the political spectrum of all of the politicians in the US, even our most liberal ones would be just left of center. Just because a politician is informing their decisions based on facts and evidence instead of ancient tomes doesn't preclude him/her from being a conservative.

 

[CroKev]

Because we can't have a discussion about progressivism without bringing Satan into it or bringing up the decadence of Rome. A person doesn't have to care a lick about the bible to be a conservative.

Have some perspective. If we lay out the political spectrum of all of the politicians in the US, even our most liberal ones would be just left of center. Just because a politician is informing their decisions based on facts and evidence instead of ancient tomes doesn't preclude him/her from being a conservative.

"If we lay out the political spectrum of all of the politicians in the US, even our most liberal ones would be just left of center."

Darth, buddy, me thinks you don't know what you're talkin' about here...

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

"If we lay out the political spectrum of all of the politicians in the US, even our most liberal ones would be just left of center."

Darth, buddy, me thinks you don't know what you're talkin' about here...

I'm talking about a complete political spectrum, not just one comprising of the politics of Americans. By European standards, Bernie Sanders is at best a moderate.

My point was that it's about perspective. A lot of people around here have it in their minds that Obama and Clinton are communists and that Bush is a progressive, but that's not really the case. You can make an argument that they're all far to the left of the spectrum, but you have to clip off a HUGE chunk of it for that to be the case.

edit: I guess I should have elaborated on that.

 

[edyeary]

Obama is a MARXIST in many ways. The whole democrat party has gravitated towards that. Some more than others.

 

[Sin City Vol]

Who was the QB from Florida we recruited so hard last year that went to Ohio St and has he done anything

 

[InVOLuntary]

Who was the QB from Florida we recruited so hard last year that went to Ohio St and has he done anything

Torance Gibson? I think I read where he switched to WR.

 

[Vols4us]

Because we can't have a discussion about progressivism without bringing Satan into it or bringing up the decadence of Rome. A person doesn't have to care a lick about the bible to be a conservative.

Have some perspective. If we lay out the political spectrum of all of the politicians in the US, even our most liberal ones would be just left of center. Just because a politician is informing their decisions based on facts and evidence instead of ancient tomes doesn't preclude him/her from being a conservative.

Just one thing - have some perspective and include the history of the world. It tends to repeat. But if you are all about what's happening' now - have at it. Good luck with trying to figure it out since about 20% of the world's population believes in Islam.

 

[mrorange211]

Cruz wants to have surveillance and patrols in muslim neighborhoods

That's cause he's a fascist dressed up as a republican. He's the damn devil incarnate.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Just one thing - have some perspective and include the history of the world. It tends to repeat.

I get the old adage, but there's really no reason to compare the current plotical climate to anything much further back than the beginnings of the industrial age. Politically, pretty much the entire civilized world came in three flavors before the late 18th century - monarchy, oligarchy, or theocracy. You can draw up some interesting parallells between current countries and ancient ones, but comparing their political ideologies is more of an ivory tower endeavor than anything else.

But if you are all about what's happening' now - have at it. Good luck with trying to figure it out since about 20% of the world's population believes in Islam.

I'm not exactly how that's relevant. Muslims have a wide array of ideologies that can fit on a political spectrum as well, ranging from those who want a theocracy to those would be considered moderate or liberal by our standards. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and it's a republic with a presidential system. The party of their current president was founded by a woman and has close ties to other liberal and progessive parties throughout Southeast and East Asia.

 

[Vols4us]

I get the old adage, but there's really no reason to compare the current plotical climate to anything much further back than the beginnings of the industrial age. Politically, pretty much the entire civilized world came in three flavors before the late 18th century - monarchy, oligarchy, or theocracy. You can draw up some interesting parallells between current countries and ancient ones, but comparing their political ideologies is more of an ivory tower endeavor than anything else.



I'm not exactly how that's relevant. Muslims have a wide array of ideologies that can fit on a political spectrum as well, ranging from those who want a theocracy to those would be considered moderate or liberal by our standards. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and it's a republic with a presidential system. The party of their current president was founded by a woman and has close ties to other liberal and progessive parties throughout Southeast and East Asia.

You are stuck in political philosophy. Try cultural practices. The central theme that destroys is the decay within promoted by those seeking their own way over the will of others. One of the major ways to do that is to devalue human life while claiming the reverse. Open the cultural norms up so that the people become engrossed in activities that do not interfere with the aims of progressive leadership. Deflect, manipulate, lie if you need to as long as the ends are achieved. Which is why the parallels still apply. There are always principles that apply from history.

Even the currently assumed moderate Muslims you mention respond as called by their leaders and are strict in their adherence to Mohammed's teachings and commands. Indonesia is not a theocracy - it is an officially recognized and stated as a secular country. They even have a half dozen other officially recognized religions. Yes, Islam is the dominant religion and they are 99% Sunni. There is a government stated belief in one god. The point of Islam I was making is that when the time comes even the moderates are called to respond to their version of the end times in support of Islam and Mohammed. If they fail to do so they will be killed. It is required. Other Muslims will kill them. This is ingrained into their culture going back 1500 years. The allure of wealth only goes so far in their culture.

 

[Vol464]

That's cause he's a fascist dressed up as a republican. He's the damn devil incarnate.

Lol

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

You are stuck in political philosophy. Try cultural practices. The central theme that destroys is the decay within promoted by those seeking their own way over the will of others. One of the major ways to do that is to devalue human life while claiming the reverse. Open the cultural norms up so that the people become engrossed in activities that do not interfere with the aims of progressive leadership. Deflect, manipulate, lie if you need to as long as the ends are achieved. Which is why the parallels still apply. There are always principles that apply from history.

The discussion I started was about politics, not history. And the decline by decadence narrative is played out and shows a poor understanding of history. It makes for a good cautionary tale or anecdote, but when you look at the decline and fall of empires throughout history, there's almost always more relevent geo-political and economic factors than vague ramblings about decadence.

Even the currently assumed moderate Muslims you mention respond as called by their leaders and are strict in their adherence to Mohammed's teachings and commands. Indonesia is not a theocracy - it is an officially recognized and stated as a secular country. They even have a half dozen other officially recognized religions. Yes, Islam is the dominant religion and they are 99% Sunni. There is a government stated belief in one god. The point of Islam I was making is that when the time comes even the moderates are called to respond to their version of the end times in support of Islam and Mohammed. If they fail to do so they will be killed. It is required. Other Muslims will kill them. This is ingrained into their culture going back 1500 years. The allure of wealth only goes so far in their culture.

First of all, you're grouping a lot of groups of people into one monolithic culture with that statement. That's a pretty shallow way to look at things. It's better to break things down regionally and ethnically than just lumping in all followers of a faith together. You wouldn't place christians into a monolithic culture, would you? People in different places and environments put different amounts of emphasis on their faith. There's a pretty big cultural difference between your catholics in Ireland, your pentacostals in the Bible Belt, and your Turkish Christians for example.

The same can be said for muslims now and throughout history. The muslim extremism that has flourised throughout the middle east and in parts of South Asia over the past 100 years or so does not comprise the culture of all muslims worldwide. A lot of people in Indonesia would probably consider themselves to have closer cultural ties to other Southeast Asians than to Pakistanis or Saudi Arabians.

Second of all, historically speaking today's wave of Islamic extremism is a bit of an outlier and many would argue that it's underlying economic and political factors are just as important to the movement as Islam itself. The middle east was enjoying their wealth and luxury and ignoring the inconvenient bits of their holy books just fine when they were the world's middle-men for global trade. Steady economic decline and decline in power and agency can provide a hot bed for all kinds of crazy radical ideas to take hold though.

Generalizations don't do anyone any good. Islamic extremism is a huge problem the world is facing today. To combat it, we have to try to understand it and the conditions it has grown under. Lumping in all muslims together and chalking up extremism to their culture only lays the groundwork to exacerbate the problem. There's a lot more to it than just "islamic culture." It's an incredibly complex problem encompassed by culture, religion, geopolitics, economics, and history. To treat it otherwise is short sighted at best.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

The discussion I started was about politics, not history. And the decline by decadence narrative is played out and shows a poor understanding of history. It makes for a good cautionary tale or anecdote, but when you look at the decline and fall of empires throughout history, there's almost always more relevent geo-political and economic factors than vague ramblings about decadence.




First of all, you're grouping a lot of groups of people into one monolithic culture with that statement. That's a pretty shallow way to look at things. It's better to break things down regionally and ethnically than just lumping in all followers of a faith together. You wouldn't place christians into a monolithic culture, would you? People in different places and environments put different amounts of emphasis on their faith. There's a pretty big cultural difference between your catholics in Ireland, your pentacostals in the Bible Belt, and your Turkish Christians for example.

The same can be said for muslims now and throughout history. The muslim extremism that has flourised throughout the middle east and in parts of South Asia over the past 100 years or so does not comprise the culture of all muslims worldwide. A lot of people in Indonesia would probably consider themselves to have closer cultural ties to other Southeast Asians than to Pakistanis or Saudi Arabians.

Second of all, historically speaking today's wave of Islamic extremism is a bit of an outlier and many would argue that it's underlying economic and political factors are just as important to the movement as Islam itself. The middle east was enjoying their wealth and luxury and ignoring the inconvenient bits of their holy books just fine when they were the world's middle-men for global trade. Steady economic decline and decline in power and agency can provide a hot bed for all kinds of crazy radical ideas to take hold though.

Generalizations don't do anyone any good. Islamic extremism is a huge problem the world is facing today. To combat it, we have to try to understand it and the conditions it has grown under. Lumping in all muslims together and chalking up extremism to their culture only lays the groundwork to exacerbate the problem. There's a lot more to it than just "islamic culture." It's an incredibly complex problem encompassed by culture, religion, geopolitics, economics, and history. To treat it otherwise is short sighted at best.

Paralysis by analysis..yep that's gonna stop it. If you get cancer you destroy it, or it destroys you. Sitting around for months, mulling over your options...gets you dead as a hammer.

 

[Skullbone]

That's all drivel. There are only two true political philosophies. Liberty and tyranny. Tyranny has many names and many apllications but one common theme, the subjugation of man. The founders understood this. John Locke, Edmund Burke, Charles deMontesque, Adam Smith, and Alexis deTocqueville understood this. It's the entire premise of the United States.