It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Hazardous1408
In the same breath, though, progress isn't always positive, and can take many different paths, many of which are destructive, not helpful.
Progress, by very definition, is a positive noun or adjective.
What you're alluding to, isn't progress.
It is change.
There is a major difference between progress & change.
So then by default whatever progressives want is good, because they're progressives and have deemed it to be progress? And if you disagree with their idea of "progress" then you just want change, not progress?
Some pretty circular logic there.
Nope, that's not what I said... So you'll have to try again.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
That is what is conveniently ignored here. People are still 'outraged' because there are people who still don't want certain people to have the same rights as others.
originally posted by: intrepid
REAL communism is neither conservative or liberal. What we have seen in the last 100 years is NOT communism. Communism is about the health of the community with an emphasis on personal responsibility. That's why it's so difficult to do. People are selfish and many lazy.
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66
Is it not rather common for "Progressives" to be appealed towards Marxist ideas (Marxism)?
Is Communism not Marxism?
The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:
1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Shamrock6
Allow me to break down what I was trying to say.
Progressives, as Kali stated, are epitomised by my Avatar.
They want betterment for everyone.
Hillary Clinton wants to change things. Not to progress, necessarily.
Although she calls herself "progressive"... is she though?
Am I making sense now?
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Gryphon66
Without a doubt mate.
She is a Neocon to the fullest, in my own opinion.
Of course, our political universe in Britain is much different to yours in the States.
From what I've seen there isn't truly a left wing party in America.
That anyone takes notice of anyways.
Bernie could have been the shining light, I suppose.
But even he gets a mixed reception now from his supporters.
I've tried to point out before the only meaningful political spectrum is "authoritarianrevolutionary"
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66
I've tried to point out before the only meaningful political spectrum is "authoritarianrevolutionary"
Exactly. Conservatism would be on the authoritarian side of that spectrum because they seek to keep things as they are and do not invite the changes necessary to grow and evolve as necessary.
"Revolution" is necessary for evolution.