Dobbs 3K Posted January 30, 2007 Report Posted January 30, 2007 Eh, to me "progressive" is a dirty term now. It implies San Francisco values and politics. I'm sure many disagree with me, but that's how I feel. It's a shame, because Bob LaFollette was a good guy.
2GOLD Posted January 30, 2007 Report Posted January 30, 2007 Whenever I hear Progressive, I think auto insurance. Not a politician. Course I never really liked or cared about the words liberal and conservative so it's obviously not aimed at me.
EricMM Posted January 31, 2007 Report Posted January 31, 2007 I3k, that's bullshit O'Reilly SP nonsense. That man bothers me like no other. I used to watch his show pretty regularly a few years ago, because I felt he had some indepenance about him. Either he changed or I did. But I've never seen anyone freak out about atheists. Or secular people. Christ. (NPI)
snuffbox Posted January 31, 2007 Author Report Posted January 31, 2007 How anyone can see/hear the word 'Progressive' and think anything besides moving forward is really odd. You should probably turn Fox off for awhile, Invader. The Republicans were really struggling with the minimum wage increase today. The Christian bloc is for it, and the Dems have added an amendment with an $8.3 billion tax benefit for small business, so the GOP angst is really going to only hurt them more & more each day. One Republican, I forget who, tried defending himself against the onslaught by saying something like "The Dems shouldnt be fighting so hard for this...there's not another election for almost 2 years!" It didn't come off so good for his Party's position. With so many Americans for it, the Christian folk included, and the small business tax cut...what possible reasons for fighting against a $7.25 minimum wage is left for the GOP?
EricMM Posted January 31, 2007 Report Posted January 31, 2007 Its a Democratic position? Minimum wages are against the free market?
Dobbs 3K Posted January 31, 2007 Report Posted January 31, 2007 I don't watch Fox, or much other cable news at this point. To give a more relevant example, there is a group out of Madison called Progressive Dane. They're pretty much a pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-government imposing on business, pro-universale health care organization. That is what "Progressive" is in 2007. Since I don't agree with any of those stances, I am anti-progressive.
snuffbox Posted January 31, 2007 Author Report Posted January 31, 2007 So you're anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-any regulation for business but supra-regulation for homosexuals, workers, or pregnant women, & anti-health care? Good 4 u!
snuffbox Posted February 7, 2007 Author Report Posted February 7, 2007 This whole bickering abouth whether to debate Iraq or not is really lame.
NoCalMike Posted February 7, 2007 Report Posted February 7, 2007 The definition of the word progressive and the "progressive" wing of the democratic party are probably different. To me, "progressive democrats" are basically the ones that agree more with the Green Party, but for whatever reason, aren't ready to fully detatch themselves from the Democrat Party, so it is kind of a middle ground. In other words, the Progressives are there to make sure, or at least try their best to make the Mainstream Democrats focus on more issues then the big talking point crowd pleasers. Thom Hartman is a good example of a progressive democrat, of course he is also very anti-illegal immigration(which makes him stand out from a lot of other progressives) for reasons other then the most common reasons the GOP hate illegal immigration(Racism, Fear of Terrorists getting through)
snuffbox Posted February 8, 2007 Author Report Posted February 8, 2007 Pelosi swung back pretty hard on this airplane bullshit this morning. Could be another glaring embarrasment for the Pentagon and/or GOP.
EricMM Posted February 8, 2007 Report Posted February 8, 2007 Links plz, my coworkers are going on about this, but this is the first I've heard of it.
snuffbox Posted February 8, 2007 Author Report Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
snuffbox Posted February 8, 2007 Author Report Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250848,00.html Heh.
SuperJerk Posted February 8, 2007 Report Posted February 8, 2007 House Republicans may be incompetent, corrupt, and criminally neglegent, but at least they don't ask for big planes.
Guest Oedipus Rex Posted February 9, 2007 Report Posted February 9, 2007 He needs his own plane because if he flew commercial he'd have to pay for two seats! Fat joke AND dated topical humor! I'm honor roll!
Edwin MacPhisto Posted February 9, 2007 Report Posted February 9, 2007 With hard-hitting news like that, I can see why the Anna Nicole Smith thing has stayed as the lead story on most sites. What a boring-ass week. Can't some more helicopters crash?
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 9, 2007 Report Posted February 9, 2007 So you're anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-any regulation for business but supra-regulation for homosexuals, workers, or pregnant women, & anti-health care? Good 4 u! You mean, you weren't already aware that Invader is essentially a closet Neo-Nazi "nationalist"? Come on now. With hard-hitting news like that, I can see why the Anna Nicole Smith thing has stayed as the lead story on most sites. What a boring-ass week. Oh, please. No news is good news!
snuffbox Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Posted February 10, 2007 According to the TSMpedia I am well aware of Invader's putrid viewpoints. I just thought I'd phrase it in such a way as to show him, again, how disturbing he is.
Dobbs 3K Posted February 10, 2007 Report Posted February 10, 2007 So you're anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-any regulation for business but supra-regulation for homosexuals, workers, or pregnant women, & anti-health care? Good 4 u! You mean, you weren't already aware that Invader is essentially a closet Neo-Nazi "nationalist"? Come on now. To clarify, I am not anti-gay. As a Christian, I don't believe it is a moral choice, however. I don't have anything against gay people. One of the great things about America is that you can basically live your life how you want. However, I do think marriage is logically between a man and a woman. If they want civil unions or whatever, fine. I'm pro-life, actually for regulation for business. As far as health care...I don't see where this opinion has come from that everyone is entitled to health care coverage from the government, but whatever. I am a nationalist.
snuffbox Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Posted February 10, 2007 Logically, indeed. My take on universal healthcare is this- If we can be taxed so heavilly, there is no good reason why some of that can be used to provide something actually worthwhile for the money, like healthcare. But instead we have to focus on marijuana, Mexicans, breaks for the wealthy already, 3 tons of cash for Iraq, etc.
SuperJerk Posted February 10, 2007 Report Posted February 10, 2007 As a parent, I'm paying almost $200 a month in health care premiums for my child. But, you know, screw universal healthcare because it might cause my taxes to go up.
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 10, 2007 Report Posted February 10, 2007 So you're anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-any regulation for business but supra-regulation for homosexuals, workers, or pregnant women, & anti-health care? Good 4 u! You mean, you weren't already aware that Invader is essentially a closet Neo-Nazi "nationalist"? Come on now. To clarify, I am not anti-gay. As a Christian, I don't believe it is a moral choice, however. I don't have anything against gay people. One of the great things about America is that you can basically live your life how you want. However, I do think marriage is logically between a man and a woman. If they want civil unions or whatever, fine. I'm pro-life, actually for regulation for business. As far as health care...I don't see where this opinion has come from that everyone is entitled to health care coverage from the government, but whatever. I am a nationalist. My opinion of you came more from your posts regarding immigration (particularly singling out Hispanic ones in a disgusting, Pat Buchanan-like manner... I take it you must have heard of State of Emergency?) than anything, although hearing other opinions makes me disagree with you even more.
Dobbs 3K Posted February 10, 2007 Report Posted February 10, 2007 My opinion of you came more from your posts regarding immigration (particularly singling out Hispanic ones in a disgusting, Pat Buchanan-like manner... I take it you must have heard of State of Emergency?) than anything, although hearing other opinions makes me disagree with you even more. And yet I can sleep fine at night.
NoCalMike Posted February 11, 2007 Report Posted February 11, 2007 As a parent, I'm paying almost $200 a month in health care premiums for my child. But, you know, screw universal healthcare because it might cause my taxes to go up. That's the irony about it all. People are paying premiums that are going through the roof, and show no sign of slowing down, yet are so hung up on the word "tax" that they would rather pay a premium that is likely 250% higher then any type of health tax would be.
snuffbox Posted February 11, 2007 Author Report Posted February 11, 2007 It comes from the same region of the American psyche that makes people believe George McGovern is a hippie, John Kerry sent a doppelganger to Vietnam, and Barry Goldwater wanted to bomb blonde children.
Guest Grossman=Fag Posted February 11, 2007 Report Posted February 11, 2007 What shits me about national health care is the fact that I have no kids, and don't want to be taxed for your brat's runny nose.
SuperJerk Posted February 11, 2007 Report Posted February 11, 2007 What shits me about national health care is the fact that I have no kids, and don't want to be taxed for your brat's runny nose. That's ridicules. Universal health care wouldn't just be for my "brat," but also YOU, your kids (if you ever have any), your neighbor's kids, and your nieces and nephews, etc. Americans (myself included) are already paying big money for health care in the form of premiums, copays, and miscellaneous costs. The argument that replacing these costs with higher taxes would place some enourmous tax burden on us is a false choice. You need to get off your fucking "I shouldn't have to pay for this" mentality long enough to realize you already are getting your pockets picked by insurance companies and that you're already going to have to pay the money.
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 11, 2007 Report Posted February 11, 2007 That's ridicules. "Ridiculous". (only because you've made the same mistake a few times, and it bugs me each time)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now