Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The Absurdity of Anti-Progressive Blather!

So, what makes a progressive? Is it somebody who is an ultra-liberal, ie, Nancy Pelosi? Is it an all encompassing term for any Dem? Is it reserved for just the true believers like Obama and Olympia Snowe? Is it, as I suspect, an attempt to be true to the liberal cause without calling oneself a liberal?

As the economy amply exhibits, there is nothing progressive with the current set of fiscal and domestic policies coming out of the White House. There is plenty of LIBERAL, spending too much, worrying about the poor unfortunates (usually reserved for a Republican President's term), a total lack of focus on international relations, has Obama apologized to India yet? While he has accomplished the unthinkable, bringing America to the brink of bankrupcy, he has proven the one thing that only a failure can prove, that Washington is out of control and need to be replaced.

We can remain a free nation or we can become subservient to the idea that a strong central government will take care of our every need. That is what happened in Greece, what is happening in Spain and France and what Obama is trying to implement here in America. He is GW Bush redux, just coming from the left as opposed to the right. He bows to foreign leaders, apologizes at every chance for past American actions, and has never seen a tax he doesn't want to implement.

Bush was macho, Obama is a pussy!

Do you have link that supports your view of these other nations as committed to the idea that government will take care of all their needs?

Do you have some proof that these other nations are no longer free but instead subservient?

Ma, aside from your offensive use of language, I fail to see how it is ok for a state to order citizens to do something but not the federal government, at least with respect to your claim of "freedom" or "subservience."

Does it really matter who does it from those two perspectives? Yes, in theory one is closer to his or her state government, but at least in my state that is a total illusion. California is larger than many nations of Europe, so how does it matter in terms of freedom/subservience who issues an edict?

Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins

Ma, aside from your offensive use of language, I fail to see how it is ok for a state to order citizens to do something but not the federal government, at least with respect to your claim of "freedom" or "subservience."

Each state is responsible to its citizens, where Congress is responsible for the Federal authority. Each state elects representatives who make laws specifically for thier own state.

Let me turn this around for a moment, suppose we decided that the laws of New Mexico, or Montana, regarding intra-personal relationships were applied across the board in all 50 states. I fail to see how it is ok for a state to order citizens to do something but not the federal government. I ask you this because I know how you feel and you know how I feel on the subject of gay rights. I would be very unhappy at the prospect, and so would you, but what the hell, one authority that has very little to do with my state, or your state, should have the right to impose their will on everybody else. I mean, the if the fed can force the states to do what it wants them to do, why not allow the states to do the same. I mean, they reside geographically closer to CA than Washington does, they have a better understanding of what would be in the best interests of the state and region. Suppose the DOM act passed, would you want CA to be excluded?

It matters because it is supposed to matter.

This statement is nonsensical as there is very little relationship between the ideas of a free nation and a strong central government. One can be just as equally free in either a situation of no government or of a democratically elected strong federal government. Your delusion is one obviates the other which is not the case. A number of our founders sided with the idea of a strong federal government much to your consternation I am sure as it destroys the underlying premise that all of our founders were ultra conservatives who did not believe in strong federal government. The reality is we would not have had a Constitutional convention if all founders were as conservative as you would like to believe.


That is not what happened in Greece or any other country you want to list. The reality is failed economic policies is what happened in Greece.


I hope you don't think our President is a god. How about showing some respect to a foreign leader? That's no good? What about just nuking those foreigners, that ought to get some respect.
How is stepping on foreign countries toes and then saying go fck yourself ... is that more to your liking?
Bush was a juvenile cowboy and Obama shows adult traits.


this post leads me to suspect you don't understand the Constitution or you have a different version than mine

'
I think MaR is a time-traveller from the 1950's.

Well, if you mean in Congress, they do caucus together, and I don't mean the Democratic party. Within the Democratic party there are three sub-groups, the Progressive Caucus (largest of the groups), the Blue Dogs, which are basically Republicans with a D after their names (formed in 1994 after the trouncing in the election believing the party had gone too far left) and the New Democrats which sit somewhere between the two, what my high school civics teacher would have called "oatmeal" politicians.

Interesting fact, in this last election, the Progressive Caucus lost only 3 seats, the Blue Dogs lost the lions share of the Dem seats followed by the New Democrats.

Yeah, ain't it hysterical? The group that blocked more Obama campaign promises than Mitch McConnell so they could win re-election in 2010 went down to defeat in hilariously large numbers. Who says there's no justice in the world!?

I would think that would be a logical outcome. In order to get elected in the first place a Progressive (a.k.a. mod lib in hiding) would have to come from a very left-of-center district (and given the magic of gerrymaindering, extremes can easilly gain a premanent bit of political turf) and it would be very difficult for a middle-of-the-road candidate (Blue Dog Dem)to oust such an incumbant, and basically impossible for a Repub of any degree to do so. However, for a Repub to oust a Blue Dog there would be exactly the opposite factors at work. Blue Dogs get elected in a moderate district by being Repub-lite and get ousted by Repubs who can ride a wave of anger (preferably staying away from social hot button issues).

So, though it may be an "interesting fact", it is also meaningless in reference to why the Repubs are now lords of the House.
Yours,
Issodhos