[N_Fiddledog]

And Marriage means union between a man and a union, not members of the same sex, and pollution speaks of something that is toxic in levels you might find in the real world, not a theoretical possibility of some possible chain reaction crisis some unknown place down the road.

And I could go on and on with Orwellian redefined terms from Progressives.

But here's what Progressives don't like. Let's look at reality.

Bernie Saunders is a self avowed Socialist. He's also the founder of the Progressive Caucus. If Milton Friedman is against raising taxes and adding government regulation then Bernie isn't very Milton is he?

Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva is an Allinsky trained, Communist financed, one time far left activist. Ron Paul was a doctor.

One time progressive caucus member Nancy Pelosi works on a theory that the more food stamps you give out the better it is for the economy. Sounds just like Ayn Rand, doesn't she? [sarcasm]

But yeah, if you look for positive ways people will self define, then yeah, you will find similarities all over the place. I imagine the Nazis wrote themselves a definition that said some positive stuff too. But leaping from similar complimentary stated ideals in definition of term to say therefore a Libertarian is a Progressive is asinine.

Progressives are big tax, big government, big regulation. Libertarians are less tax, less government, less regulation. Progressives are liberal with your money and how it should be spent. Libertarians want liberty from that kind of 'we're liberal in the way we control your one-time liberty' way of thinking Progressives have.

And I would expect a "Libertarian Economics Professor" to know this stuff. It's pretty basic.

[Thanos]

Conservatives and Republicans are quite socialistic when it comes to the massive corporate welfare that their major donors continually receive. They love the kind of high-end socialism that benefits those they associate with at the country club but they absolutely hate the kind of low-level socialism that might benefit in the tiniest way any of the demographics they typically are antipathetic towards.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Conservatives and Republicans are quite socialistic when it comes to the massive corporate welfare that their major donors continually receive.

Can be. So can Progressive Democrats. Therefore, are they the same thing?

It might sound good to say "yeah they're all alike", but Cruz=Pelosi doesn't equate under scrutiny.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Conservatives and Republicans are quite socialistic when it comes to the massive corporate welfare that their major donors continually receive. They love the kind of high-end socialism that benefits those they associate with at the country club but they absolutely hate the kind of low-level socialism that might benefit in the tiniest way any of the demographics they typically are antipathetic towards.

If that were all, Cons would be harmless, since they wouldn't have any voting power. Their trick of getting average shlubs to vote against their own economic self-interest because they think they're just a couple of good years away from joining that country club, or because they're horrified that Adam and Steve might move in next door, worse yet, Trayvon and Latisha, is what makes them dangerous.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

If that were all, Cons would be harmless, since they wouldn't have any voting power. Their trick of getting average shlubs to vote against their own economic self-interest because they think they're just a couple of good years away from joining that country club, or because they're horrified that Adam and Steve might move in next door, worse yet, Trayvon and Latisha, is what makes them dangerous.

And I imagine that is different than your magic land of Progtopia where you have the right to be told you are happy, rather than the right to 'pursue happiness'.

But here's the actual point. Even though both some Republicans and some Democrats can be 'socialistic when it comes to the massive corporate welfare that their major donors continually receive', Republicans and Democrats are still different, right?

That's my point. Seeing the odd similarity in definition or even behaviour doesn't make two ideologies fundamentally the same.

You see it clearly if you hope to get a ridiculous statement taken seriously like "Libertarians are the same thing as Progressives". That's beyond nonsense.

[Thanos]

Nope. One's a two-faced hypocrite that has no intention of ever shutting off the government cash pipeline to his already wealthy buddies. The other can at least hide behind the plaintive appeal that the government is saving jobs by helping industries in distress with subsidies. By this standard Mitch McConnell is a huge corporate socialist because without him the American coal industry would have entered into it's long overdue and completely natural downswing as the sensible (i.e. non-American) parts of the world have been steadily moving towards altogether eliminating the most polluting fossil fuel of them all. He isn't a low-level socialist though because any jobs he's helped to save have merely been a coincidental happenstance to the corporate masters he's working for. Whether or not any lowlife black lung types can still put food on the table or pay their rent isn't a concern that crosses his radar very often, if at all.

Bombardier in Canada is roughly the same thing. A company that would have no hope at all of surviving on it's own without huge government contracts has been propped up for decades by both Liberal and Conservative governments. Not that the Conservatives wouldn't love to nail Bombardier with some of that libertarian free market bullshit they allegedly believe in, but the negative costs in Quebec of any massive job losses should Bombardier finally go under would hurt them too much politically. Hence they end up propping up a perpetually-doomed company as thoroughly as any Liberal, or liberal, ever would.

Personally I really don't care anymore. I wish that the industry I work in had been as drenched with as much government support that ones like American coal or Quebec aerospace are. If it was I'd be working today and wouldn't have lost my house. The only point I have left in discussing any of this nonsense is to point out how utterly ridiculous this over-concentration you place on party and ideological identification really is. The conservatives you support have been as much a group of overspenders as any pack of liberals anywhere ever has been. You don't complain about them because you don't dislike the ones conservatives give the money to as much as you do the ones that liberals give the money to. It's all it comes down to really. Just some weirdo tribal identification pathology so lacking in any subtlety that it'll never ever escape from the juvenile playground politics of us-good them-bad that loyal troopers and fellow travellers from all sides eventually turn every single issue in to.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Progressives are big tax, big government, big regulation.

No. The term for that is socialist. Not liberal. Not progressive. Socialist. We don't need a second term, let alone a third.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I imagine that is different than your magic land of Progtopia

Socialistopia, fucknuckle. Progtopia is where Rush, Fates Warning, King Crimson, Dream Theatre and old Genesis tunes are played non-stop.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Nope. One's a two-faced hypocrite that has no intention of ever shutting off the government cash pipeline to his already wealthy buddies. The other can at least hide behind the plaintive appeal that the government is saving jobs by helping industries in distress with subsidies.

But even if your belief in the purity of leftist motives over the right were true, the two would still be fundamentally, ideologically different, even though we can find similarities, right?

That's my only point here.

[Thanos]

Society shouldn't be run solely for the benefit of the wealthy who have the resources to protect themselves from any trauma, resources that (more often than not) they use their influence on their political connections and their practical ownership of the entire political system to deny to practically everyone else. That public money invariably finds it's way into the hands of those who don't even need it, or whose activities have been instrumental in creating practically all of the economic crises of the last forty years, is nothing less than an obscenity. If believing this, which is essentially no different than believing that no criminal should ever profit from committing a crime, makes me a lefty then call me a lefty.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I imagine that is different than your magic land of Progtopia

Socialistopia, fucknuckle.

My apologies Sweetpea. Did I get the name of your magic land wrong.

Progtopia could be seen a Socialistopia for now. Progressives are continuously incrementally "progressing" towards a far and farther left ideology. You're right. You guys are pretty much socialists right now. I imagine if you guys ever do arrive at your magic land though, you'll be doing that Orwell thing you do where you just use whatever name you like and adjust the definition.

[Lemmy]

"You guys"? How is anything about me socialist? Drawing conclusions absent evidence seems your stock in trade.

[Tyler_1]

My magic land is Catopia.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

"You guys"? How is anything about me socialist? Drawing conclusions absent evidence seems your stock in trade.

And making bareass false statements in the face of the obvious contradiction of reality is yours.

Of the two of us I'm the only one who has produced evidence.

Progressives are progressing farther left because when you look at the actual progressives who are managing the movement that's what they're doing.

I showed you how the founder of the progressive caucus is a socialist, the current leader is reeking of Communist influence, the most influential member is peddling the nuttiest Moonbattery of socialist policy.

Evidence of you being a Prog is pretty much that you just told us so when you tried to pass off the ridiculous notion of Progressivism being Libertarianism. You used to try to pretend you were a libertarian.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And making bareass false statements in the face of the obvious contradiction of reality is yours.

Go fuck yourself, shithead.

Fucknuckle Fucknuckle:

Progressives are progressing farther left because when you look at the actual progressives who are managing the movement that's what they're doing.

No. Progressive means "to improve". Those of the socialist bent would likely consider moving to the left progressive. Those of my political ilk would see reducing government as progressive.

Fuclnuckle Fuclnuckle:

Evidence of you being a Prog is pretty much that you just told us so when you tried to pass off the ridiculous notion of Progressivism being Libertarianism. You used to try to pretend you were a libertarian.

Why do you keep talking about me? You're the dipshit who just criticized people for taking a word and applying their own meaning to it. That's what you're doing with "progressive". I'm just taking the word back from you. I let it go when you fuckers took liberal and made it into something ugly. You're not going to do the same with progressive.

No go spin me some fucking King Crimson.