Quantcast

Are Progressives Really Just Communists in Disguise?

safari 2010/01/12 09:39:22
They Don't Call Themselves That Because
They Aren't The Same
Undecided
Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In this interview by Scott Wheeler, David Horowitz, former Progressive Radical and current Conservative who grew up in a Communist family, admits Progressives are Communists. Pat Caddell, former adviser to Jimmy Carter calls them crazies and warns his party members about the dangers of their presence. Scott Wheeler interviews Pat and David, to discover their analysis of the current problems and history of the Democratic Party particularly as well as how Republicans have supported the agenda with their lack of fighting it historically. Soros and Alinsky are heavily discussed as are other somewhat secretive events that many watching these videos probably have never heard of before. In my opinion these are worth every minute of your time to watch them. I've watched them twice. If you agree with me that this is important information, the kind every one should be aware of, please share this and pass it on to your friends in emails. If you are interested in Communist (Progressive) money trails, agendas, names of contributors, related organizations, media directed power and voter fraud, these videos will give you much to ponder.



Read More: http://www.davidhorowitztv.com/restorationweekend/...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Daryl 2010/01/12 18:23:20
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    Daryl
    +27
    They don't because it's bad marketing.

    Same reason they call:

    abortion, 'planned parenthood'
    race quotas, 'affirmative action'
    socialized medicine, 'health care reform'
    left-wing activism, 'social justice'

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • RetiredKansan 2012/10/12 23:32:47
    Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
    RetiredKansan
    They don't seem to have much problem with supporting OWS, who sported anti-American, anti-Capitalism, pro-Communist signs. They don't have much problem when the Communist Party of America endorses Obama. They don't seem to have a problem supporting a candidate who was raised with a Communist mentor. If it acts, walks, and talks like a Communist...it's a Communist.
  • CarlaFierro 2011/11/13 05:41:22
    Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
    CarlaFierro
    what a stupid question ..
    is semantics just another word?
  • qu1nlan 2010/08/17 18:18:47
    They Aren't The Same
    qu1nlan
    +1
    This is stupid crap. Name calling doesn't help anybody get anywhere.

    Hey, I can do it too: ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE FASCISTS! There. Ya like that?
  • malakin... qu1nlan 2010/12/11 17:27:03
    malakingdude
    +1
    Do yourself a favor and watch Glenn Beck for just a week and you wil change your mind. He predicted anarchy and riots in the UK and Greece. Many more will follow all due to people like the puppetmaster, George Soros who dictates down. You my friend are just one of those puppets and i notice you are not actually thinking and choosing by yourself but are being dicvtated to. You need to resolve with yourself, who is really at the steering wheel. Free lunch or a Free America?
  • Annette 2010/05/10 03:26:26
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    Annette
    Because they know the full impact of what that term actually means to the public at large. On the other hand to be progressive or even socialistic sounds like one big happy commune of sharing and daily picnics! This couldn't be any further from the truth if you tried to say the moon and the sun are the same. This is purely communism in all its fullness, purpose and intent - and the liberals who think otherwise will rue the day they thought otherwise. We had all better wise up and real quick before all our freedoms are gone and it's too late!
  • enlightened one 2010/02/21 20:20:10
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    enlightened one
    It would kill them politically in America. The connotation of the word "communism" is aligned with stifling government control and long lines for goods and services. But Democrat's main theme is "for the good of the people," which implies dividing and sharing of the wealth which takes away effort, achievement, and destroys potential in a person's endeavors. Why try when everyone gets portioned out the same amount, regardless? That is communism.
  • SCOOP--RIP, MY DEAR MAX 2010/02/06 20:53:18
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    SCOOP--RIP, MY DEAR MAX
    Because they think we are all stupid and don't see what they are and what they are doing. Just because their supporters "don't get it" and will follow Obama like a bunch of sheep, they don't realize that some of us do have some sense and are aware of what is going on.
  • medwreck 2010/01/16 02:57:18
    Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
    medwreck
    +1
    Some are openly socialist or anarchist or rabid environmentalist/pet rights advocates (ie Fascists), but most are good, open-minded people that see things from a different angle than conservatives on many of the major issues that humanity has wrestled with since statecraft/civilization began.
  • randall g 2010/01/15 01:27:07
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    randall g
    There aren't enough radicals---that actually consider communism a selling point---to get anything done. So they have to hide behind tamer words.
  • Denise 2010/01/14 22:57:54
    Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
    Denise
    +1
    Yes, and we want to take over the world with our "wanting an equality of opportunity that's actually equal" and "knowing what poverty feels like, so let's try to stop that because it sucks" and "why are we one of the richest countries in the world, yet we still have homeless people, and people on welfare, and children without health insurance" mentalities.

    Jesus. You people don't even know what Communism means.
  • analogic Denise 2010/07/25 04:01:55
    analogic
    +4
    I know what communism means, and you are by definition a frckn commie. Why don't you take a one way flight to Havana, Cuba?
  • nhatrang Denise 2012/03/08 14:56:40
    nhatrang
    +3
    Bad things happen to some people Denise because THIS AIN"T HEAVEN......S**T happens..
  • Phil Ur... Denise 2012/07/30 20:51:58
    Phil Urbanski
    +2
    Denise, we're the richest country in the world because of free market and free enterprise. We're the richest country in the world because long ago our founding fathers embraced freedom and liberty. We're the richest country in the world because everyone has the opportunity to make something of themselves. Granted it will be the hardest thing anyone will ever do, but the best things in life never come easy. We're not the richest country in the world because of socialism or communism. We're the richest and most succesful because of Capitalism. Without Capitalism, all those poor people you mentioned wouldn't be able to get the hand outs because there wouldn't be anyone to pay the high taxes. The government doesn't make money, they collect it. And they collect it from the most succesful. Obama and his cronies are out to punish success, the very thing that keeps the tax dollars rolling in.
  • A person. 2010/01/14 22:42:26
  • gr8punkin 2010/01/14 22:40:52
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    gr8punkin
    +1
    Telling the truth goes against their nature.
  • pickelllly 2010/01/14 22:19:45
    Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
    pickelllly
    Yes, and they are being controlled by a muslim.
  • LEAHCIM368~POTL~RWAC... 2010/01/14 22:18:00
    Other Comment About Progressives and Communists In The Democratic Party
    LEAHCIM368~POTL~RWAC...
    Of course they are, and I have always said it!!!!
    http://www.sodahead.com/world...
  • The Writer Guy 2010/01/14 21:48:30
    They Aren't The Same
    The Writer Guy
    No
  • diaverde08-AmericanKilljoy 2010/01/14 21:48:11
    Undecided
    diaverde08-AmericanKilljoy
    I always thought of them as moderate socialists.
  • USAF Vet 2010/01/14 20:55:07
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    USAF Vet
    +1
    No question. The corner stone of progressive ideology, in this country, was set in place by Woodrow Wilson and reinforced by FDR. Of course, the average American would never know this as the revisionist historians in the "progressive" colleges and universities (and high schools for that matter) are forbidden from so much as mentioning the evils of communism. They sugar coat thier dogma under the guise of "fairness".
  • gr8googamooga, In GOD we trust 2010/01/14 20:45:22
    They Don't Call Themselves That Because
    gr8googamooga, In GOD we trust

    The progressives and the green party as well. progressives green party

    The commies needed somewhere to go.
  • Wells 2010/01/14 19:19:08 (edited)
    They Aren't The Same
    Wells
    +1
    Communism is a form of totalitarian governance, like monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, plutocracy and fascism. In other words, communism at a national level becomes right wing ideology. Right wing ideology is based upon 'individualism', uninhibited personal liberty. Left wing ideology is based on 'collectivism', societal interdependence. When a government becomes totalitarian, it is a minority of people making decisions for the majority, ie, uninhibited individuals making decisions that assert control over others. Progressives generally seek progress in living conditions. When rightwing individuals don't get their way, they are led to blame those who don't agree with their indifference toward fellow humanity. Racism is right wing ideology.
  • randall g Wells 2010/01/15 01:41:13
    randall g
    How can it be about individualism and personal liberty and also be totalitarianism similar to monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, plutocracy and fascism? That doesn't even make any sense.
    Communism does, at a national level turn into something really ugly, but it isn't conservatism.
  • Wells randall g 2010/01/15 20:44:51
    Wells
    Communism (at the national level) enacts policy determined by a small number of individuals, no doubt thinking they know what's best for everyone. Communism is just as much totalitarian as fascism, monarchy, theocracy. For that matter 'republicanism' is closer to totalitarianism than 'democracy'.
  • randall g Wells 2010/01/15 22:09:08
    randall g
    What exactly do you think "republicanism" is? The party that calls itself republican today pays lip service to small government and low taxes, then turns around and grows the government at the same scale as the democrat party. The only real difference between the two parties is that democrats say what they want to do, and try to tell you that it will taste like candy. All the communist regimes I've heard about don't show any evidence of giving a flying fig about what's best for anyone except the thugs administering the system.
  • Wells randall g 2010/01/16 02:53:51
    Wells
    Republicanism is a form of government which entrusts elected representatives to speak for the majority. Republican politicians distort the concept of being 'representatives' to being 'the deciders'. Similarly, churches are a republican-style organization because the priests, pastors, rabbi, immams or whatever have singular control over intrepretation of scripture to form doctrine. The leaders of communist nations, whether they care about the commoners or not, certainly determine policy.

    There are many conflicting differences between republican and democratic political ideology. Republicans look after the least number of 'individuals' whose wealth is the result of funnelling money upward. Democrats look after the far greater number of 'individuals' within organizations, associations, communities etc, whose well-being is dependent upon a more equal distribution of wealth.

    Slavery is a republican ideology.
  • randall g Wells 2010/01/16 13:53:48
    randall g
    +1
    The vast majority of politicians on both ends of the political spectrum distort the concept of being 'representatives' to being 'the deciders'. Nevertheless, The republican concept was that they would represent.
    No matter what kind of spin you can apply to the issue, I don't know anybody (on the right or the left) that agrees with slavery. And it's usually the people on the left that continue to perpetuate racial division.
  • Wells randall g 2010/01/16 18:33:44
    Wells
    That's an exaggeration, Randall. Most elected representatives just try to do their jobs writing and enacting legislation to serve constituents, or in the executive branch, leadership. The Left points out existing racial inequality - not the same as 'perpetuating' racial inequality.

    Slavery is the epitomy of individualism in that the least number of people believe their individual liberty justifies control over others. In the modern world, wage-slavery (labor) has supplanted actual slavery. A good health insurance reform allows workers to switch jobs and keep their coverage. Some people are slaves to their jobs just to keep their health care insurance.
  • randall g Wells 2010/01/16 19:49:00
    randall g
    Maybe "vast majority" is an exaggeration. Maybe it isn't. It is true however that the "deciders" are on both ends. In some cases it's because they think they "know what's best" for us, and in other cases, it's because they like power.
    When the left "points out racial equality" where there actually is none, it causes anger to flare and before we know it, it has become a racial issue.
    Case in point: Every time I say anything about Obama, somebody makes it racial. I never cared what color he was, I would have been thrilled if Alan Keyes had made it. If somebody like Herman Cain was running, I would be all over that in a second.
    If, on the other hand, Hillary got elected, well, I've already seen the dystopian nightmare she tried to inflict on us in 1994. In a sense, she would probably get it worse. "You just hate her because she's a woman" doesn't seem to have the same effect. Plus a whole lot of the people that can't stand her are women. Same with "You just hate Kerry because he looks like Herman Munster" or "You just hate Gore because he looks like a used car salesman." That kind of logic is only good for comic relief. In Obama's case, I'm still hoping, in the back of my mind, that he will prove me wrong. He hasn't really caused the damage I was afraid he would, but he still hangs ...

    Maybe "vast majority" is an exaggeration. Maybe it isn't. It is true however that the "deciders" are on both ends. In some cases it's because they think they "know what's best" for us, and in other cases, it's because they like power.
    When the left "points out racial equality" where there actually is none, it causes anger to flare and before we know it, it has become a racial issue.
    Case in point: Every time I say anything about Obama, somebody makes it racial. I never cared what color he was, I would have been thrilled if Alan Keyes had made it. If somebody like Herman Cain was running, I would be all over that in a second.
    If, on the other hand, Hillary got elected, well, I've already seen the dystopian nightmare she tried to inflict on us in 1994. In a sense, she would probably get it worse. "You just hate her because she's a woman" doesn't seem to have the same effect. Plus a whole lot of the people that can't stand her are women. Same with "You just hate Kerry because he looks like Herman Munster" or "You just hate Gore because he looks like a used car salesman." That kind of logic is only good for comic relief. In Obama's case, I'm still hoping, in the back of my mind, that he will prove me wrong. He hasn't really caused the damage I was afraid he would, but he still hangs out with some pretty scary people. Hillary is one of them, and already proved her scariness a long time ago.
    I'm sure that slavery is the epitome of something, but I wouldn't say individualism. Individualism is meant to work for all individuals, not just certain ones. "You run your life and I'll run mine" is nothing but a platitude when it means, "I'll run mine and own a dozen or so others".
    But I can't disagree much with you on the employment situation. I can say that I have the right to change that, but not much in the way of resources, lately, to get it done. I don't mind working hard. That has always done me more good than harm. It just that, not so long ago I was able to demand a living wage for it, but now it seems like a lifetime ago.
    (more)
  • Wells randall g 2010/01/16 20:15:45
    Wells
    Many on the Left are nearly as critical of Obama as they were of Bush (the original Decider), but I give Obama credit for being a centrist; in other words, he's trying to represent the majority of both Left and Right views. It's Bushco that scares me. Did you hear what he said about Haiti? Get this: "Many people say send food or blankets. Just send your cash." What a dufus. He could've said the same thing a little less cold-heartedly.

    I look at the Left-Right divide like a Yin-Yang symbol. We all mature individually, but always within the context of an interdependent society. Both perpectives are important (to a degree). No one is really independent.

    Anyway, good discussion. You formulate your position pretty well and fairly. Good for you.
  • randall g Wells 2010/01/16 21:31:18
    randall g
    I know I'm a lot closer to the right than I am to the left, but really can't seem to get on board with either one of the major parties and can't really find a minor party that I completely fit in with either. When I talked of the problems I had with some of Bush's policies, people on the right would shoot me down, libertarians would say,"Oh yeah, really, but oh, it's 5:00 the Simpsons is coming on" and people on the left would start talking about boiling all right wing fascists in oil. Whether Obama is center, remains to be seen, but so far he hasn't borne the results of the radical leftist I thought he was. Hopefully he won't.
    I didn't catch that thing Bush said about Haiti, but I know articulation has never been his strong suit.
    So thanks for keeping the discussion civil and respectable.
  • Wells randall g 2010/01/17 01:59:44
    Wells
    Bush II drove a lot of Lefty's crazy with fear, myself included. I do try to think in politically Moderate terms (balance, Yin-Yang) and the same thing happens to me; I'm neither Left enough nor Right enough for either side. It's like the divide between two parties instead of being a picket fence is more like a 20' tall reinforced concrete wall. But the truth is there are Moderates on both sides who share values. It's the extremists that cause the most division and they're the minority, in my opinion. Good one. Thank you too.
  • Marty9957 Wells 2010/01/17 02:43:25
    Marty9957
    Not so. The ratio is 2:1 in favor of conservatives.
  • Wells Marty9957 2010/01/17 05:54:19
    Wells
    Not so what? 2:1 favoring conservatives what?
  • Marty9957 Wells 2010/01/21 01:01:38
    Marty9957
    Those identifying themselves as conservatives as opposed to liberals.
  • Wells Marty9957 2010/01/21 19:07:30
    Wells
    There are cities notably conservative and others notably liberal, and few where conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1, Marty, nor the other way around. The way I see it, conservatives are indoctrinated in misinformation like this and worse - fear, bigotry, intolerance, character defamation, hatred, ignorance, incitement to violence. Most conservatives won't stand for all that, but there are many who are worse reactionaries than any liberal radical, Timothy McVeigh, KKK, militia, segregationists. Our own military plays psychological tricks on troops, known as grunts to commissioned officers. Rumsfeld looked down his nose at Vietnam soldiers calling them "worthless".
  • Marty9957 Wells 2010/01/27 23:51:45
    Marty9957
    I don't really think you have a clue what you are talking about. Conservatives will assemble and there will be no violence. Violence always comes when liberals find one thing or another to protest for lack of better things to do. Those you site above are not conservatives. one was affiliated with terrorists, the KKK were Democrats.

    The militia is constitutional necessity to guarantee that our government does not become tyrannical and Rumsfeld had to reconstruct our armed forces into a smaller more powerful fighting force of the 21st century. Now you tell me what have the liberals done.
  • Wells Marty9957 2010/01/28 20:33:20
    Wells
    The KKK were "Dixiecrats" who switched to their true party affiliation, Republican, because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some militia members are entirely nutcase racists. The federal government is not plotting a takeover. State's Rights is still the law of the land. But some federal regulation is required to create equitability between states. Rumsfeld's idiotic theories were not embraced by the military brass. There was no Exit Theory. The cost of mercenary forces is much more than enlisted troops. Mercenaries are less reliable and cause more trouble and dissent within occupied cities. His departure was a big turning point in the Iraq War. May he rot in his grave.

  • Marty9957 Wells 2010/01/28 22:31:47
    Marty9957
    The KKK were always and will always be Democrats. Prime example, Bird from West Virginia. Were it not for the Republicans, the Civil Rights Act never would have passed. The Democrats were the ones voting against it. When you find a nut case, you associate him/her in the nut case category, not any particular party. So far the Federal Government has taken over the banks, the auto industry and if we let them would take over the health care industry as well. History will be the judge in Rumsfeld's case, you are not wise enough to write the book on him. He transformed the unit make up and along with that the armed forces rewrote the book on tactics. The exit theory for the United States Military is victory. The only thing that I will agree with you on is the fact that it took him as long as it did to get the troops in there that we needed to win.
  • Wells Marty9957 2010/01/29 02:03:57 (edited)
    Wells
    We lost the Iraq War and were losing the war against Muslim extremist Al queda. President Obama is presenting the face of real Americans. You're hawkish hero's are not in command because they were incompetent and immoral.

    The Southern States after the Civil War were loyal first to the democratic party because they hated republican President Lincoln for kicking their racist asses. Southern racists today are republican because a democratic President Johnson tried to teach them the meaning of human rights, and they believe (in their warped little minds) that States Rights entitles them to be racist.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 05:52:37

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals