Here’s a video of some of the most important progressive thinkers of the last few decades, and it also features some of the key founders of progressivism.
Oh yeah, I made this video 
-
New Comments
Bill Jenkins on Treason? fynq on Treason? velvethammer on Is Obama Racist? LisaStratus on Hey! This Isn’t Diddy Ob… Konservo on Controlled Substances Xisithrus on Controlled Substances Xisithrus on Controlled Substances Xisithrus on Controlled Substances An Offer He Could No… on Don’t Be So Hasty, … Konservo on Don’t Be So Hasty, … 
Google Reader- Capitalism and Freedom
- Economics is About Reality, Not about Economics (by Don Boudreaux)The world would be a better place if more economics professors were like this one.
- Obama Ponzi Scheme: Forbes Calls Obama Administration Worse than Madoff'Forbes on FOX' guests asked if Madoff's Ponzi scheme or Obama's spending plan will cause more economic damage.
- Treasury Is Mum Over TARP FundsThe Treasury has promised "a new era of accountability, transparency and conditions." But it isn't answering a key question: How much is left in the financial-rescue fund?
- Obama's toxic assets plan greeted with skepticism
(AP)AP - The Obama administration's latest plan to help banks get credit flowing again is drawing a tepid reaction from investors and academics, who say the proposal comes with too many strings attached and is unlikely to stimulate lending industrywide.
- When Do We Start Saving Jobs?The job numbers remain grim: Showing the labor market’s considerable strain, the number of people collecting state unemployment benefits reached yet another new record, jumping 122,000 to a seasonally adjusted 5.56 million, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The four-week average of these claims rose 123,750 to stand at 5.33 million — in itself a record […]
- Watchdogs Say TARP Is Ripe for FraudThe U.S.'s rescue of the financial system is vulnerable to fraud that could potentially cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, government watchdogs warned.
- 10 Reasons to Oppose a Stimulus Package for the StatesThe U.S. economy is in recession, and federal policymakers want to help by applying some old-fashioned Keynesian medicine. They are considering a "stimulus" bill of up to $700 billion, with substantial spending going to state and local governments for infrastructure, Medicaid, and other activities. In the latest Tax & Budget Bulletin, Cato sc […]
- Princeton Physicist Tells Congress Earth in 'CO2 Famine' -- Increase 'Will Be Good for Mankind'Dr. Will Happer, once fired by Al Gore, challenges former vice president's much-published claim that warming debate over.
- Hyperbole (by Russell Roberts)Here is Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post, commenting on Obama's State of the Union address:Not since Franklin Roosevelt delivered his first fireside chat, eight days into his presidency, have Americans been more hungry -- and more desperate -- for economic leadership. Can't agree with that. In January of 1982, Reagan gave his first State of […]
- Barack Hoover (by Don Boudreaux)I here try to vacuum up some historical misinformation.
- Economics is About Reality, Not about Economics (by Don Boudreaux)
- DjK’s Starred Items
- Bryan and Herbert (by Russell Roberts)
- McCain Did Anticipate Problems with Fannie and Freddie
- Question
- Tocqueville's Critique of Socialism (1848)
- Robert Spencer’s Connections: The James Jatras File
- Brains (by Russell Roberts)
- All Hail Al Gore!
- Me hate? Maybe…..
- My question for Zawahri
- When Speaking Out Against The Inhumane Act of Forced Marriage…
- Hot Air
- MEMRI – Latest
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
25 Comments
Do you know what “progressivism” means? Of the people that I recognized in your video, only the following are progressives:
Michael Moore
Rosie O’Donnell
Denis Kucinich
Cindy Sheehan
George Soros
Jeremiah Wright
Howard Dean
The following people are radicals:
Che Guevara
Joseph Stalin
Vladimir Lenin
Mao Tse-Tung
Karl Marx
Friedrich Engels
The following people are liberals:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Jimmy “The Hammer” Carter
Bill Clinton
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Al Gore
The following people are reactionaries:
HAMAS gunmen
Mahmud Ahmadinejad
I’m not sure how to classify Yasser Arafat.
Progressive means something like “forward movement.” As opposed to “conservative” which means to “conserve” or “protect” the way things are.
Anyone shouting “CHANGE!!!” as a political slogan is definitely a progressive.
As for your use of the word “liberal” you’ll have to clarify. Neo or Post-Modern Liberals often call themselves liberal, however, this is definitely not the case. For instance, the socialist-esque proposals of H. Clinton and Obama are certainly not liberal by any means.
In this context, “progressive” and “liberal” refer to regions of the political spectrum, which is, from Left to Right, Radical (Communist Party), Progressive (Green Party), Liberal (Democratic Party), Conservative (Republican Party), Libertarian (Constitution Party), Reactionary (Nationalist Socialist Movement).
Actually, Sergei, the following are all leftist: Communist Party, Green Party, Democratic Party, Nationalist Socialist Movement. You also left out the Socialist Party, another leftist group.
And, btw, the Democrats are not “liberal” in the true sense of the word, the call themselves liberal, but that’s because they’re engaged in a propaganda campaign. (also, I’m not saying that they don’t have some liberal policies, I’m saying that, on the whole, they’re not liberal)
Oops… I made a common, yet fatal (fatal to the truth, at least) mistake:
“Party” = Left
“Left” refers to the left half of the political spectrum (radicals, progressives, and liberals), “Right” refers to the right half of the political spectrum (conservatives, libertarians, and reactionaries). “Leftist” usually refers specifically to radicals.
I left out the Socialist Party because a) I was merely giving an example for each term and b) there never was an American organization called the “Socialist Party”.
The National Socialists are so right wing they make Ron Paul look like a hippy on welfare.
Oh, I suppose I was thinking of the ANSWP (American National Socialist Workers Party). I don’t know about the National Socialist Party.
But, anyway, the very concept of having a “party,” seems, to me, to be a by-product of socialism.
Okay, I just checked out the National Socialist’s webpage. They are extremely totalitarian socialists!:
On drugs:
On homosexuality:
From their “What is National Socialism” page:
The NSers are not really “nationalists,” since they don’t recognize the boundries of established nations, but in their own minds they speak for the “aryan” nation… they’re confused. But, they are indeed socialists who seek to organize society by race. This is a pseudo-division which they take to be natures guideline, so while they claim to desire freedom, they really want to segregate and further subjugate people based on perceptions of “race.” This is radical Racial Socialism.
p.s. if you find their site, don’t post a direct link here.
p.p.s. http://www.sp-usa.org/
By the way, listen to this from the SPUSA:
Obama on healthcare:
More from Obama:
You do know that both Obama and the Socialist Party carefully crafted those speeches.
Don’t tell me words don’t matter!
Still think that “Obama has never mentioned “socialism”, nor do any of his policies resemble it” ?
“But, anyway, the very concept of having a ‘party,’ seems, to me, to be a by-product of socialism.”
The party system predates socialism by a very, very long time.
“They are extremely totalitarian socialists!”
That sounds left wing to you?! While they are certainly totalitarian, they are definitely not socialist.
“Still think that “Obama has never mentioned “socialism”, nor do any of his policies resemble it” ?”
Do you really think that you can source an idea by finding a source that does not agree with you, quoting it, and then inserting your idea in brackets? It may well be different in philosophy, but in my fields if you were to try to do that you’d be laughed off the campus.
The words in the brackets have nothing to do with my point. Here, I’ll be very clear:
Obama says: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter”
Socialist Party says: “The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few”
Obama website says: “He believes firmly that health care should be a right for everyone, not a privilege for the few”
Sergei says: “Obama has never mentioned “socialism”, nor do any of his policies resemble it”
I ask: Sergei, do you still stand by those words?
—
Also, note that the National Socialists and the Socialists share a common belief… socialism!
They seek to “produce,” “organize,” or “plan” a society… that’s the definition of socialism.
Let me again remind you that the definition of socialism is “an economic system in which all the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.” You’re confusing the specific concept of socialism with the very general topic of government.
That may be, Sergei. However, the emboldened text below covers both Obama and the NSers:
Obama is not really a democrat he is a stalinist.
Care to elaborate? How many people has Obama sent to the gulags?
Sergei,
Didn’t you notice in the video when they sing:
Russian:
Transliteration:
Translation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Anthem_of_the_Soviet_Union#Anthem_of_the_Bolshevik_Party
Right at the word “Lenina” and the word “Stalina” you see either Hill or Obama…
That’s a bit suspicious if you ask me.
“Right at the word “Lenina” and the word “Stalina” you see either Hill or Obama…”
Only if you have a vivid imagination.
I do, however, see “McCain” (well, “Mak cain,” but spelling was never the Soviets’ strong point) in the 1944 anthem. Specifically, the line “Мы к славе Отчизну свою поведём!” looks like it says “McCain will lead our Fatherland!” And here I’d thought Putin (via Medvedev) had already won that election.
I’m saying that I sync’ed the pictures of Hillary and Obama to appear at the part of the song when they sing “Party of Lenin, Party of Stalin”
If you want to put out anti-McCain propaganda, you’ll have to produce your own video.
Ah, OK. That makes more sense. I thought you were saying that “Ленина” looks a bit like “Hill” and “Сталина” looks a bit like Obama. Although you could make a case for that, you’d need to have a pretty high blood alcohol level in order to do so.
How is it suspicious?
“How is it suspicious?”
eh… I was just messing around. I made the video, so it’s not suspicious at all.
lololol – too funny.
Well if the Moooooooooslim scare isn’t going to work .. maybe the red scare will.
Sergei makes a good point – national healthcare does not make any of these people socialists. I mean if we’re going to go down this route – taxes in general are the foundation of socialism and Bush did a wonderful job of distributing excesses to the less fortunate – how many times now?
There’s a saying “One person’s modus ponens is another person’s modus tollens.” Roughly, it means when one person thinks about a situation s/he draws one conclusion but a different person could draw the opposite (kinda sorta like the half-empty / half-full glass).
Sergei believes that:
I believe that:
This is actually from a different yet related discussion found here.
Republicans are Rightwing Socialists and Democrats are Leftwing Socialists.
That’s pretty much how I see it, Trajan.
The problem is that the Leftwing Socialists of the Democratic party are being replaced by the “Progressive” Neo-Stalinists!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Obama’s uncle served Stalin in the Red Army. Avid’s remark that Obama is a Stalinist seems to make sense. For more info and video, check out Little Green Footballs This entry was [...]