Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:38 am**

mrswdk wrote:
DaGip wrote:YouTube decides to pull it because of some type of bullshit copyright infringement?

I guess that means the state's decided how it plans on responding to the latest discontent.

Yep. Communism...you can't ever get away from it. And since technology makes it easier for the state to project it's will upon the masses and the individual; communism is the inevitable destiny of any world power. This is where America will lose, because China and Russia have been at this sort of thing for a longer period of time. This is all brand new to us Americans. That's why America, China, and Russia need to just form their own alliance and take over the earth.

In my opinion, Progressivism is just watered down Communism. It's the starting point of boiling a frog. Matter of fact, I think the Chinese word for progressivism IS boiled frog.

水煮青蛙

America's only hope of fending off hordes of Chinese, Russian, and Middle Eastern invaders is to develop Nanobot Gas. Once the gas is breathed, the nanobots are able to perform multiple functions. In the beginning, the nanobots will just mimic a disease or an illness. Completely ambiguous and your enemy (and the media hounds) will just think it is an illness: Ebola, Swine Flu, etc.

And this "gas" can be dispersed around the world via "commercial" airliners. Savvy?

Now, I must die.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:54 am**

DaGip wrote:In my opinion, Progressivism is just watered down Communism. It's the starting point of boiling a frog. Matter of fact, I think the Chinese word for progressivism IS boiled frog.

For a variety of reasons, I will disagree. I don't think Progressivism is watered down Communism. But the arguments are way beyond the level of discussion on this board. The differences between the great three despotic forms of government of the early 20th century (the third being Fascism, a term that generally gets a topic sidetracked, but please remember that Fascism started in Italy in the 20's) is mostly a question of philosophical bases than anything else.

Progressivism started out in the intellectual circles of North American Cities in the late 1890's. As such, it tends to smack of American secularism, elitism, as well as twice rehashed Greek utopianism. It's first promoter on the government scale was Teddy Roosevelt, who broke away from the Republican Party to form his Bull Moose Party. Ii received a lot of it's basic form under the exceptional American bigot Woodrow Wilson, who among other things got the US into the Great War (after campaigning about how he didn't get us into the war), and afterwards tried to get the US into the League of Nations, an attempt to push progressivism on an international level. It is worth noting that the fundamental principle of progressivism was also developed by him as can be seen in the famous work of fiction by one of his advisers (Edward Mandell House) "Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935" which basically states that the bureaucracy will save the world.

Thus the principle difference between communism and progressivism is that in the former, the "elite" take direct control of everything. In the later, the "elite" delegate their power to the bureaucrats, while retaining all of the benefits of the enlightened elite class. This is why it often is seen as being "watered down."

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:08 pm**

Dude... even under communism, the "elite" delegate control to managers/bureaucrats over various departments, factories, labor, and so on. The question of 'progress' for both Communists and Progressivists was one of technical expertise by bureaucratic management. The main difference is one of degree. Communism opts for "butt loads" of control over normal human economic activity--if they can totally change the government. Progressivism opts for more control over normal human economic activity--while working within the current government. In terms of 'progress', Communists tend to exert more control.

The progressivists didn't have a revolution in the same way as Communists in Russia 1917 and China 1920s to 1949, so it's not surprising to see Progressivists exerting less government control over human activity. The story of the American Progressivists is similar to the Fabian socialists of the UK post-WW2.

Still, both are two sides of the same coin.
(Same goes for fascism).

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:51 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Still, both are two sides of the same coin.
(Same goes for fascism).

This is why I only use gold-pressed latinum.

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:44 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Still, both are two sides of the same coin.
(Same goes for fascism).

This is why I only use gold-pressed latinum.

--Andy

Quark had to use wooden chew-sticks while Rom used a latinum tooth sharpener when they were children. (DS9: "Family Business")

You're Rom, aren't you? The Progressivists will set you straight real soon.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:38 am**

DaGip wrote:Yep. Communism...you can't ever get away from it. And since technology makes it easier for the state to project it's will upon the masses and the individual; communism is the inevitable destiny of any world power.

What do you mean when you say 'communism'? Censorship and (attempted) ideological manipulation aren't actually a part of communist ideology - it just happens that communist governments have tended to have had a higher than average level of fondness for those sorts of hijinks.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:01 am**

mrswdk wrote:
DaGip wrote:Yep. Communism...you can't ever get away from it. And since technology makes it easier for the state to project it's will upon the masses and the individual; communism is the inevitable destiny of any world power.

What do you mean when you say 'communism'? Censorship and (attempted) ideological manipulation aren't actually a part of communist ideology - it just happens that communist governments have tended to have had a higher than average level of fondness for those sorts of hijinks.

The "communism" that Americans know is one in which does do such things. That is why America herself is starting to feel a bit like "communism". Of course, there is no preamble of such included in any ideology. If there were, who would want to fight for it? That's the dilemma with America. America had said one thing (freedom of speech, right to privacy, right to bear arms, etc...) and Americans fought hard to keep those, but now it is blatantly clear that the government is willing and wanting to strip those freedoms from you and establish an authoritarian police state. The first of which (right to privacy) was obliterated 13 years ago. For 13 years Americans have lived their lives without true confidence in their privacy, only to be made worse by the NSA collecting mass data from every cellphone, television, and computer.

Knowing that my emails can be accessed behind my back by my government at any time they want for no reason at all, or the government being able to come into my house and search without a search warrant makes myself and most Americans suspicious of their government. Trust has been lost between the government and the People; when the People are supposed to be the government.

Once the right to privacy is lost, all other rights are easier to strip away; and therefor, tyranny is more apt to manifest no matter what form of government you put into place. The only chance America (or any other country for that matter) has at reclaiming such trust and freedom is for her citizens to recognize its loss and for a leader to be humble enough to champion a Constitutional government.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:32 am**

Maybe the American government cares more about controlling its citizens than guaranteeing their constitutional rights, but that doesn't make it communist.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:09 am**

The main difference between the US and an openly authoritarian government is that an openly authoritarian government can't hide behind a false democratic synthesis, whereas the US government can lay blame wherever it wants and convince enough people that there is a reasonable debate to be had.

If you tried that in China, they'd call bullshit.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 6:48 pm**

Ask yourself what it is progressivism is progressing to? It sure isn't Liberty. It sure isn't Independence. It sure isn't Freedom. Progressivism is all about moving away from American principles and values.

btw, Communism is most associated with Marxism :twisted:

"Scientific Socialism/Communism has killed more people in the 20th century than all religious wars combined in every century combined since the beginning of time"

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:25 pm**

mrswdk wrote:Maybe the American government cares more about controlling its citizens than guaranteeing their constitutional rights, but that doesn't make it communist.

No. It doesn't make it communist, but my question is: "For what end does the government want to 'control' her citizens?" We have now entered an era where the United State's government has collected billions of computer, internet, and phone conversations. At anytime this insidious entity can create an instantaneous dossier on anyone within this "system" for its own ends. The ends justify the means...that's the new philosophy.

Anyone that attempts to run for public office or anyone that is deemed suspicious to the state, can have info pulled up and used against such individuals as leverage.

That means if I were to run for senate, all my porno searches would be subject to inquisition.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:50 pm**

You have a price tag on your life and the NSA's just making the tag easier to read.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:16 am**

I just Googled 'Progressivism'. 'A belief in progress'. lawl. Sounds like every political party or movement ever.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:58 am**

DaGip wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Maybe the American government cares more about controlling its citizens than guaranteeing their constitutional rights, but that doesn't make it communist.

No. It doesn't make it communist, but my question is: "For what end does the government want to 'control' her citizens?" We have now entered an era where the United State's government has collected billions of computer, internet, and phone conversations. At anytime this insidious entity can create an instantaneous dossier on anyone within this "system" for its own ends. The ends justify the means...that's the new philosophy.

Anyone that attempts to run for public office or anyone that is deemed suspicious to the state, can have info pulled up and used against such individuals as leverage.

That means if I were to run for senate, all my porno searches would be subject to inquisition.

I take it your image gif is symbolic to the way Obama never actually defeated anyone in Illinois government. oh, except for that one guy who was not even from Illinois and holds the title for most likely to be described as 'that one crazy ass black Republican pastor Alan Keyes. Yes, Barack Obama won an election against the hardcore carpetbagger. Before that he got his power by using supposedly 'confidential' information against some opponents, and got the rest who wouldn't willingly bow out of an election against him tossed of the ballot and disqualified.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:39 pm**

Is it me, or did Katee Life's breasts get bigger as the video went on? I mean, they're plenty big enough without the additional enhancement. Ain't nothing better than a toned woman with large breasts and a womanly behind.

As far as I know, the censorship of speech is not communist (or progressive) in and of itself. I would think Marx would be in favor of free speech, but I have no idea if he ever commented on the subject.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:14 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Is it me, or did Katee Life's breasts get bigger as the video went on? I mean, they're plenty big enough without the additional enhancement. Ain't nothing better than a toned woman with large breasts and a womanly behind.

As far as I know, the censorship of speech is not communist (or progressive) in and of itself. I would think Marx would be in favor of free speech, but I have no idea if he ever commented on the subject.

I noticed the gradual breast enlargement too. I don't know why the animator of the gif decided to make her boobs balloon up. She didn't need it.

And you are correct about censorship not being solely a communist device. Government itself (regardless of affiliation) tends to censor information. I think freedom is best coveted by the meek, but it is horded by those in power. I am confident that any political affiliation supports the idea of freedom, but it is another story when they actually come into power.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:32 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I would think Marx would be in favor of free speech, but I have no idea if he ever commented on the subject.

Given that Marx advocated the creation of a society in which government did not exist at all, it's probably safe to assume that he did not endorse censorship.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:48 pm**

Who dictates the definition of "free speech".

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:23 am**

warmonger1981 wrote:Who dictates the definition of "free speech".

Depends on who has the guns.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:17 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
warmonger1981 wrote:Who dictates the definition of "free speech".

Depends on who has the guns.

Dude! I've read your posts for years, and only now am I convinced you are a friggin' genius!

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:48 am**

DaGip wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
warmonger1981 wrote:Who dictates the definition of "free speech".

Depends on who has the guns.

Dude! I've read your posts for years, and only now am I convinced you are a friggin' genius!

TGD has always been a genius. This is precisely why he never works pro bono.

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:53 pm**

DaGip wrote:

I just watched a video of her masturbating with a dildo.

Posted: **Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:16 am**

tkr4lf wrote:
DaGip wrote:

I just watched a video of her masturbating with a dildo.

Conquer Club

Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?

Re: Communism and Progressivism...is there a difference?