Come on progressive libs...challenge this video

Challenge any facts brought up in it.

If you don't, I guess you concede.

BladeRunner wrote:

Challenge any facts brought up in it.

If you don't, I guess you concede.

You are kidding right?  You are asking liberals to:

1.  Stay focused for an hour and 24 minutes
2.  Actually analyze something
3.  Provide a meaningful and objective challenge to your premise

In baseball terms, that would be a swing and a miss - STRIKE 3.

Now if you had asked them to listen to the first couple of minutes and provide snarky comments, they would be all over it.

Jammer wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Challenge any facts brought up in it.

If you don't, I guess you concede.

You are kidding right?  You are asking liberals to:

1.  Stay focused for an hour and 24 minutes
2.  Actually analyze something
3.  Provide a meaningful and objective challenge to your premise

In baseball terms, that would be a swing and a miss - STRIKE 3.

Now if you had asked them to listen to the first couple of minutes and provide snarky comments, they would be all over it.

I know...it's a stretch.

And by their not commenting on it at all, they are conceding that the video is accurate.

BladeRunner wrote:
I know...it's a stretch.

And by their not commenting on it at all, they are conceding that the video is accurate.

There were many excellent points made in the video.  I am going to comment on one small thing that probably did not draw that much attention from people.  It is  around the center balanced government that our Founding Fathers gave us when they created this country.

Our progressive liberal educational system has for decades neglected to teach our youth about the US Constitution and the principles that the Founding Fathers used to create our unique system of government.  One of these basics was the concept of a center balanced government.

If you remember the illustration where they had 100% government and 0% government on the opposite ends of the scale, that is what I am referring to.  The Founders learned from the Articles of Confederation and other experiences that there was a need to balance their government between tyranny (100 % government) and anarchy (0% government).  As a result, everything they created and placed in our Constitution served to provide that center balanced government and more importantly to preserve it for us.

If the 0% to 100% government line can be called the horizontal axis, there is also a vertical axis that needs to be balanced and for that the Founders created a system of federalism.  Federalism gave us the right balance of power between the federal government at the top and state (along with local) government at the bottom.

If a person analyzes EVERYTHING (and I do mean everything) that progressive liberals do, you will soon see that they are trying to shift the balance points.  They are continually trying to move the horizontal balance point to the left where our lives will be controlled 100% by government.  However, they are also trying desperately to shift the vertical axis balance point upward to where the FEDERAL government will have that control at the expense of the states and local government.

So when the progressive liberals come out selling ANYTHING, take a close look at what the resulting liberal agenda item will actually do.  Forget about the fact that they will be doing the emotional sales job of "But it's for the kids, the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the environment or whatever noble cause they can think of".  Take a look at what their agenda is really doing and you will realize that it will move the balance point left toward 100% government control and upward to where it will be the FEDERAL government doing the controlling.

Sorry for the long dissertation.  I guess the CliffsNotes version would merely be "NEVER TRUST A LIBERAL"

Jammer wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
I know...it's a stretch.

And by their not commenting on it at all, they are conceding that the video is accurate.

There were many excellent points made in the video.  I am going to comment on one small thing that probably did not draw that much attention from people.  It is  around the center balanced government that our Founding Fathers gave us when they created this country.

Our progressive liberal educational system has for decades neglected to teach our youth about the US Constitution and the principles that the Founding Fathers used to create our unique system of government.  One of these basics was the concept of a center balanced government.

If you remember the illustration where they had 100% government and 0% government on the opposite ends of the scale, that is what I am referring to.  The Founders learned from the Articles of Confederation and other experiences that there was a need to balance their government between tyranny (100 % government) and anarchy (0% government).  As a result, everything they created and placed in our Constitution served to provide that center balanced government and more importantly to preserve it for us.

If the 0% to 100% government line can be called the horizontal axis, there is also a vertical axis that needs to be balanced and for that the Founders created a system of federalism.  Federalism gave us the right balance of power between the federal government at the top and state (along with local) government at the bottom.

If a person analyzes EVERYTHING (and I do mean everything) that progressive liberals do, you will soon see that they are trying to shift the balance points.  They are continually trying to move the horizontal balance point to the left where our lives will be controlled 100% by government.  However, they are also trying desperately to shift the vertical axis balance point upward to where the FEDERAL government will have that control at the expense of the states and local government.

So when the progressive liberals come out selling ANYTHING, take a close look at what the resulting liberal agenda item will actually do.  Forget about the fact that they will be doing the emotional sales job of "But it's for the kids, the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the environment or whatever noble cause they can think of".  Take a look at what their agenda is really doing and you will realize that it will move the balance point left toward 100% government control and upward to where it will be the FEDERAL government doing the controlling.

Sorry for the long dissertation.  I guess the CliffsNotes version would merely be "NEVER TRUST A LIBERAL"

Great analysis.

Jammer wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Challenge any facts brought up in it.

If you don't, I guess you concede.

You are kidding right?  You are asking liberals to:

1.  Stay focused for an hour and 24 minutes

Im gonna have to roll a joint first, then Ill be fine.  Just gotta find time to sit and watching a video for an hour and a half.

I've tried watching this video/movie several times and ...

1) I fall asleep

2)I find it pedestrian yet dizzying with it's excesses, then get bored and fall asleep.

3) I start laughing and can't stop and lose my spot in the movie.

4) I fall asleep

Bowers "research" seems to consist mainly of interviewing John Birchers, ex John Birchers or Neo-John Birchers. Cleon Skousen, Trevor Loudon, John Stormer and David Noebel were or are Birchers. Keep in mind that when William Buckley was fusing the Republican coalition to energize a moribund conservative movement in the 50's, he took a great personal risk to expel elements of a very popular and influential John Birch Society. Even Buckley's mother was a Bircher.

Bowers movie making is hilarious. From the surreptitious passing of the tape recorder and money before the Berkley meeting of Commies, to the mish-mash of World War II footage representing (I suppose) the Communist threat of the Cold War and then the use of footage of French Partisans fighting the Nazis during the liberation of Paris substituting as the Bolsheviks during the Russia Revolution. WTF? It's all too bizarre and transcends nuttiness.

Bowers grasp of the political spectrum is tenuous at best. His linear political spectrum graphic is fraught with errors. He places anarchism at the extreme right of the scale but ignores the fact that Communism's main goal is the abolition of the State. The same goes for syndicalism, although in fairness he doesn't mention it probably because of an unawareness. Anarchism can and does exist on the extreme Left as well. In effect the linear spectrum is more like an ouroboros, the snake eating it's tail, a circle if you will although the Right places a greater emphasis on the individual with the Left emphasizing the group.

His linear scale example makes the mistake of placing the Founders on the right side, which in it's day that would have been false. The original left/right configuration of a political spectrum comes from the French Revolution with the Reformers/Liberals sitting on the left of the Assembly and the supporters of the traditional monarchy and aristocracy on the Right. The Founding was essentially what we would call today "classically" liberal (as opposed to a FDR Liberal) and would have been logically on the left side. However the terms left/right get confusing when used in their European and classical senses and therefore are essentially meaningless the way Bower is attempting to use them.

I'm not sure if the addition of another axis as Jammer suggests clarifies the matter any if at all. Again how the terms Federalist/Federalism were used then and now is important to consider. The Federalists during the Framing were advocates of a greater power being given to the Federal government while Federalism today argues more on the side the States or what was essentially the anti-Federalist position during the Ratification debates. I'm not aware of any of the Framers intentionally attempting to achieve a "center balanced" government. I know of no such terminology. In fact a look at the Constitution's Enumerated Powers demonstrates an attempt by the Framers to limit the scope of the Federal government and yet retains for the States a much wider array of powers. And so it was until the Civil War and the massive growth of centralized government under, ironically, a Republican President.

Wars have always been used for expanding government's reach with there never being a corresponding pull back when the crisis has been vanquished. This is the problem we face today but getting traction on the slippery slope is perilous at best especially when efforts are frustrated and dismissed by the establishment within our own party.

Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

BladeRunner wrote:Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

That would be libertarian tendencies.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

That would be libertarian tendencies.

I was not aware that Libertarians had disdain for the John Birch Society?  I have stopped at their booths at a couple of events over the years.  I really don't know too much about them.  However, I always found them to be very good people to talk to and I have never found any of the information they put out to be very disagreeable.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

That would be libertarian tendencies.

When I entitled this thread with the words "Progressive Libs", I didn't intend the "libs" part to be taken as "libertarians".

Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

And, yes, the video is slow at times, and things are often repeated.

More than likely it is intended to be so in the hope for most remote possibility to enlighten the useful idiots that voted for Obama.

BladeRunner wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

That would be libertarian tendencies.

When I entitled this thread with the words "Progressive Libs", I didn't intend the "libs" part to be taken as "libertarians".

Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

And, yes, the video is slow at times, and things are often repeated.

More than likely it is intended to be so in the hope for most remote possibility to enlighten the useful idiots that voted for Obama.

I really wanted to like this video but I just couldn't get my head into it. Maybe it's unfair of me to criticize it having not watched the whole thing, but I got the gist of much of it from the 30 minutes I did watch. I really can't believe that a splinter group from an already small population of Communists could or would be capable of the trans-formative social change that Bower presents. I could have taken him more seriously if his histrionics weren't so beyond the pale.

Finally decided to take the plunge and at least begin watching the video.

Even before the 20 minute mark the words of Nikita Kruschev in 1961
popped into my head,

we do not have to destroy America with Missiles; America will destroy itself from within.

And as I continue with the video and observe what has been and is happening in this country have to admit that old shoe pounding on the podium Russian was correct!

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

That would be libertarian tendencies.

I was not aware that Libertarians had disdain for the John Birch Society?  I have stopped at their booths at a couple of events over the years.  I really don't know too much about them.  However, I always found them to be very good people to talk to and I have never found any of the information they put out to be very disagreeable.

Historically there always has been a lot of friction between the disparate elements of fusionist conservatism as elucidated by William Buckley and Frank Meyer. Modern conservatism consists of three pillars; the free marketeers/small government advocates of the libertarians, the traditionalists of the the religious conservatives and the anti-communists often best represented by the John Birchers. However the Birchers histrionics earned them the disdain not so much of the libertarian wing but of the religious conservatives (Buckley) when they accused Eisenhower of complicity with the communist conspiracy and publicly raising the issue of treason.

As a libertarian, my disdain for the New John Birch Society rests primarily in their attempts in the raising of boogeymen long dead and buried. Regardless of what Curtis Bowers says, there is no credible Communist movement in American politics anymore and certainly none with the influence that he claims in his movie. His waving the bloody shirt does nothing but detract from the real danger of the Big Government Statists that, in actuality, have assumed power in both of the political parties.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Didn't know you had liberal tendencies.  

That would be libertarian tendencies.

I was not aware that Libertarians had disdain for the John Birch Society?  I have stopped at their booths at a couple of events over the years.  I really don't know too much about them.  However, I always found them to be very good people to talk to and I have never found any of the information they put out to be very disagreeable.

Historically there always has been a lot of friction between the disparate elements of fusionist conservatism as elucidated by William Buckley and Frank Meyer. Modern conservatism consists of three pillars; the free marketeers/small government advocates of the libertarians, the traditionalists of the the religious conservatives and the anti-communists often best represented by the John Birchers. However the Birchers histrionics earned them the disdain not so much of the libertarian wing but of the religious conservatives (Buckley) when they accused Eisenhower of complicity with the communist conspiracy and publicly raising the issue of treason.

As a libertarian, my disdain for the New John Birch Society rests primarily in their attempts in the raising of boogeymen long dead and buried. Regardless of what Curtis Bowers says, there is no credible Communist movement in American politics anymore and certainly none with the influence that he claims in his movie. His waving the bloody shirt does nothing but detract from the real danger of the Big Government Statists that, in actuality, have assumed power in both of the political parties.

I would say the liberals of today are statists which in my mind isn't any different than communists.  They all initially seek the utopian dream of Karl Marx that has never existed and isn't possible yet they cling to these beliefs and they become their religion in a sense. Only government can solve our problems and capitalism is bad...blah, blah, blah.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote: 

Historically there always has been a lot of friction between the disparate elements of fusionist conservatism as elucidated by William Buckley and Frank Meyer. Modern conservatism consists of three pillars; the free marketeers/small government advocates of the libertarians, the traditionalists of the the religious conservatives and the anti-communists often best represented by the John Birchers. However the Birchers histrionics earned them the disdain not so much of the libertarian wing but of the religious conservatives (Buckley) when they accused Eisenhower of complicity with the communist conspiracy and publicly raising the issue of treason.

As a libertarian, my disdain for the New John Birch Society rests primarily in their attempts in the raising of boogeymen long dead and buried. Regardless of what Curtis Bowers says, there is no credible Communist movement in American politics anymore and certainly none with the influence that he claims in his movie. His waving the bloody shirt does nothing but detract from the real danger of the Big Government Statists that, in actuality, have assumed power in both of the political parties.

That was a very naïve statement.  It is quite simple, socialism is the path of the progressive liberals.  Whether they claim to be outright communists or not is really unimportant at this moment.  

Regardless of the moniker they go under, socialism is their goal.

http://peoplesworld.org/world-communist-parties-socialism-is-the-future


And if you would like to see where that link was sourced from, you can check the following out.

http://www.cpusa.org/party-voices/


Perhaps if the next mayor of NYC turns out to be an avowed communist you will change your mind about a credible communist movement in this country.  Oh yes, did you notice Obama's rabid support for this guy?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/16644-nyc-mayor-candidate-de-blazio-takes-flak-over-pro-red-background


There is a difference between really being intelligent and desperately trying to sound intelligent.

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

BladeRunner wrote: 

Historically there always has been a lot of friction between the disparate elements of fusionist conservatism as elucidated by William Buckley and Frank Meyer. Modern conservatism consists of three pillars; the free marketeers/small government advocates of the libertarians, the traditionalists of the the religious conservatives and the anti-communists often best represented by the John Birchers. However the Birchers histrionics earned them the disdain not so much of the libertarian wing but of the religious conservatives (Buckley) when they accused Eisenhower of complicity with the communist conspiracy and publicly raising the issue of treason.

As a libertarian, my disdain for the New John Birch Society rests primarily in their attempts in the raising of boogeymen long dead and buried. Regardless of what Curtis Bowers says, there is no credible Communist movement in American politics anymore and certainly none with the influence that he claims in his movie. His waving the bloody shirt does nothing but detract from the real danger of the Big Government Statists that, in actuality, have assumed power in both of the political parties.

That was a very naïve statement.  It is quite simple, socialism is the path of the progressive liberals.  Whether they claim to be outright communists or not is really unimportant at this moment.  

Regardless of the moniker they go under, socialism is their goal.

http://peoplesworld.org/world-communist-parties-socialism-is-the-future


And if you would like to see where that link was sourced from, you can check the following out.

http://www.cpusa.org/party-voices/


Perhaps if the next mayor of NYC turns out to be an avowed communist you will change your mind about a credible communist movement in this country.  Oh yes, did you notice Obama's rabid support for this guy?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/16644-nyc-mayor-candidate-de-blazio-takes-flak-over-pro-red-background


There is a difference between really being intelligent and desperately trying to sound intelligent.

Naive? Crikers, try reading your own links. The first link even pokes fun at the seeming lack of a Communist movement worldwide or otherwise..

"Note to Glenn Beck types who conjure up a monolithic "world communist conspiracy": it just ain't so"

And as to the possible new Democrat Mayor of NYC, Deblasio will differ from Bloomberg how? Bloomberg is a prime example of nanny government statism being promulgated by the establishment Republicans. From his myriad nutty health initiatives to his brazen defiance of the 2nd Amendment to his tax increases coupled with his unwillingness to reduce the size of the NYC bureaucracy, Bloomberg personifies an intrusive and tyrannical government style that mirrors exactly what Deblasio will seek to emulate in an overbearing government. Will it be worse under Deblasio? Perhaps, but Bloomberg has set a mighty high bar for him to beat.

Yet you are so busy looking in your rear view mirror that you've lost the ability to pay attention on what is happening in front of you. In your eagerness to embrace Curtis Bowers demagoguery of Communism's past dangers you fail to see the larger dangers now looming in front of you.

Socialism is a spreading problem not only in this country, but around the world.  This is not a new phenomena.  It has been going on for many centuries under different names. Back in the days of our Founding Fathers, the word socialism did not exist.  They used the terminology of "leveling" to refer to the disease called socialism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_stealthy_spread_of_sociali.html

Socialism has never ever built a country or society from the ground up.  They are parasites that look for a worthy host and then they latch on sucking the life out until the system collapses.  

It is difficult to track this socialist movement as it morphs and changes to meet and adapt to the challenges it faces.  I have my own personal opinion on what this path has been in this country.

Probably the first credible organization that made significant progress was the Intercollegiate Socialist Society.  The ISS was formed in 1905 and existed under that name until 1921.

http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/iss.html

By 1921, the violence and atrocities occurring in Russia made the word socialist a bad word.  Therefore, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society changed its name to the League for Industrial Democracy.  However, by then the ISS had been successful in infiltrating our system of higher education, the newspapers, media and Hollywood.

The League for Industrial Democracy was essentially the demise of the word DEMOCRACY. Through several channels they changed the meaning of democracy to the point where many people in this country think that our form of government is a democracy.  And many people believe that the nationalization of anything from public lands to the wealth of an individual where it can become the property of all the people is good.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2998380/posts

The League for Industrial Democracy has like its predecessor morphed over time and changed its name.  It has existed as the Student League for Industrial Democracy and Students for a Democratic Society.

The violent radicals of the 1960's once again tended to give its organization a bad name. Therefore, they looked for ways to morph and change their name in order to cover their tracks once again.  The reason for this is that their agenda would be so much more difficult to reach if the average person on the street understood the goal was socialism.

At this point, I believe is where they were able to completely hijack the progressive movement to serve as their host.  They used any of the valid or useful concepts of the already questionable progressive movement to serve as cover for their pursuit of socialism.

Today, I think these scum have reached the point where they essentially have used the progressive movement to hijack the Democrat Party.  The political party of Harry Truman no longer exists, the socialists who started out as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society have taken full control of the Democrat Party.

That also might serve as at least a partial explanation for the rampant growth of RINOs in the Republican Party.  Many of the traditional Democrats who had an ounce of character recognized that something was wrong at home and they moved across the aisle.  Well actually they philosophically stayed put, they merely slid the aisle to the other side of them.  They continue to believe in big government, high taxes and feel good solutions.

Jammer wrote:Socialism is a spreading problem not only in this country, but around the world.  This is not a new phenomena.  It has been going on for many centuries under different names. Back in the days of our Founding Fathers, the word socialism did not exist.  They used the terminology of "leveling" to refer to the disease called socialism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_stealthy_spread_of_sociali.html

Socialism has never ever built a country or society from the ground up.  They are parasites that look for a worthy host and then they latch on sucking the life out until the system collapses.  

It is difficult to track this socialist movement as it morphs and changes to meet and adapt to the challenges it faces.  I have my own personal opinion on what this path has been in this country.

Probably the first credible organization that made significant progress was the Intercollegiate Socialist Society.  The ISS was formed in 1905 and existed under that name until 1921.

http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/iss.html

By 1921, the violence and atrocities occurring in Russia made the word socialist a bad word.  Therefore, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society changed its name to the League for Industrial Democracy.  However, by then the ISS had been successful in infiltrating our system of higher education, the newspapers, media and Hollywood.

The League for Industrial Democracy was essentially the demise of the word DEMOCRACY. Through several channels they changed the meaning of democracy to the point where many people in this country think that our form of government is a democracy.  And many people believe that the nationalization of anything from public lands to the wealth of an individual where it can become the property of all the people is good.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2998380/posts

The League for Industrial Democracy has like its predecessor morphed over time and changed its name.  It has existed as the Student League for Industrial Democracy and Students for a Democratic Society.

The violent radicals of the 1960's once again tended to give its organization a bad name. Therefore, they looked for ways to morph and change their name in order to cover their tracks once again.  The reason for this is that their agenda would be so much more difficult to reach if the average person on the street understood the goal was socialism.

At this point, I believe is where they were able to completely hijack the progressive movement to serve as their host.  They used any of the valid or useful concepts of the already questionable progressive movement to serve as cover for their pursuit of socialism.

Today, I think these scum have reached the point where they essentially have used the progressive movement to hijack the Democrat Party.  The political party of Harry Truman no longer exists, the socialists who started out as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society have taken full control of the Democrat Party.

That also might serve as at least a partial explanation for the rampant growth of RINOs in the Republican Party.  Many of the traditional Democrats who had an ounce of character recognized that something was wrong at home and they moved across the aisle.  Well actually they philosophically stayed put, they merely slid the aisle to the other side of them.  They continue to believe in big government, high taxes and feel good solutions.

Wow! You certainly have some serious problems with your timelines and organizational charts.

For one thing, "... the first credible organization that made significant progress was the Intercollegiate Socialist Society." is blatantly incorrect. The Socialist Party of America was formed before the ISS, running Eugene Debs for President in 1904. It had elements of the short lived Social Democratic Party in it that had run Debs for President in 1900. In fact, the ISS was the unofficial student wing of the SPA.

As to the where and why the Intercollegiate Socialist Society changed it's name, it had little or nothing to do with the violence and atrocities happening in Russia tainting the word "Socialist". Harold Lewack writes in his "Campus rebels; a brief history of the Student League for Industrial Democracy":

During this period, a discussion arose as to the possible change in the name of the League and an expansion of its scope. The reasons for this discussion were numerous. The name had led many mistakenly to assume that the Society had some affiliation with the Socialist Party and that all its members were committed to a belief in Socialism, Secondly, during the years of the Society's existence, the student and city chapters had in no sense confined themselves to a discussion of Socialism but had dealt in their lectures and discussions with a wide variety of labor and social problems. Thirdly, many members of the Society were anxious to adopt a name which would not seem to exclude non-collegians from its membership and activities. This discussion resulted in a change of name to the League for Industrial Democracy and to a broadening of its aims and purposes.

And just as an expanding scope and an inclusive attempt to increase membership appear to be the driving force behind the 1920's name change so was a shrinking membership and a moribund organization that sparked the change to Students for a Democratic Society when a small group of student activists took over in the '60s

When the scope and purpose of SDS changed/evolved during the 60s moving from a reformist group to a revolutionary movement, the SDS splintered and almost collapsed from it's own inertia. One splinter group, the Revolutionary Youth Movement even split in two with one group becoming the infamous Weathermen which then in a fit of political correctness renamed itself the Weather Underground so as not to offend women members.

While the "New Left" had impacted the "Old" Democratic Party politics, it certainly wasn't the ISS or SDS that took it over. It was the anti-establishment anti-war McGovern faction that took over. Hell the SDS-Worker's Student Alliance, the largest remnant of the old SDS, rejected "New Left" politics and even protested McGovern's nomination in Miami in 1972. By 1974 SDS-WSA had disbanded and surviving members joined the Committee Against Racism.

I think perhaps you've watched "Agenda" a few too many times.