Hey Progressives! It's been 4 years....and once again I ask

[OCinBuffalo]

We had to elect a new congress in 2006 because soooo many things were soooo wrong...and if we didn't act immediately, and let the progressives take over control of our government, there would be irrevocable consequences for the country.....

 

:lol:

 

.....now that we are all done laughing, and in many cases, crying...um the economy, idiots....is this how you define progress?....is this what you were going to save us from?

 

That was the the premise for Democrats taking over Congress in 2006. Spare us the BS. That was it. So again, I ask, if you are going to use the word "progressive" to define yourself....and thereby lay political claim to the word "progress"...unless you are an unhinged jackass, shouldn't you be able to point to consistent cases where your ideas have shown progress? How about your candidates? Shouldn't you be able to point to their activity and say "see there's clear and consistent progress defined"?

 

Again, words have meaning. If you are going to represent yourself as "for progress" doesn't that mean you get to take credit when it occurs, and, hold yourself accountable when it doesn't?

 

So, once again, I ask any and all progressives: Where the f is the progress since 2006? What exactly did we get for putting "progressives" in charge of Congress? (Just like I didn't blame Bush for 9/11 because IMO he was barely in the job, I can't blame Obama....yet.)

 

And, just like last time, and I am making it even more obvious this time, you don't get to blame other people when you have complete control of the government, so lets focus on the people that we "had to elect immediately in 2006". Where's the "progress"?

[Blanco_Diablo]

Can you point out what progressives were elected in 2006? Or 2008 for that matter. If you think more than 5% of the "democratic party" is at all progressive you're fooling yourself. True progressives get run out of office (Cynthia McKinney), have unfortunate "accidents" (Paul Wellstone), or get blocked out of debates a and made fun of (Dennis Kucinich). I can count the progressives on one hand across both houses. There is a difference between progressives and the democratic establishment. The democratic establishment which consists of mostly spineless money hungry, corporate entrenched, dumba$$es who could care less about any actual progress in this country (like most of the neo-conservatives).

 

Republicans have quite consistently given a **** about anything that moves us in a new direction. So again, see who has been blocking even the slightest change and then do some research on who's in their pockets. This applies to both major parties.

 

Progressive are just as mad as you about the direction of this country on many levels. We knew the billions given to corporations was stupid and would only cause inflation and debase the currency. Corporate welfare only ever helps corporations. Period.

 

Progressives and conservatives both have similar goals, but if we spend time taking shots at each other we miss the point. We need to bond together as AMERICANS and hold ALL representatives accountable. Representatives that no longer choose to actually represent ANY of us. Direct your grievances towards them, instead of trying to make a case that it's the fault of progressives. We have a very corrupt system and it needs a complete overhaul no matter what side of the fence you fall on. We need campaign finance reform to take the corporate money out of politics...now that would be progressive

[OCinBuffalo]

First of all:

Welcome to the board

Next:

Welcome to the standard OCin(wherever I am at the time) logic/fact based beating Don't worry, you aren't special, I am an equal opportunity hazer of both the left and the right.

Can you point out what progressives were elected in 2006? Or 2008 for that matter. If you think more than 5% of the "democratic party" is at all progressive you're fooling yourself. True progressives get run out of office (Cynthia McKinney),

Wait a second, giggle....Are you sure you want to start out your first post, ever, referencing this nutjob? This is who you want us to think of when we think "progressive"? Really? Buddy, I am certain that there are other progressives on this board who might even be posting as I write that McKinney is NOT the progressive poster-girl. She got run out of Congress because that's what we do when crazy gets elected....same thing we will be doing to Pelosi in 2010, same thing that happened to McCarthy...etc.

have unfortunate "accidents" (Paul Wellstone),

Uhhh.....dare I say, conspiracy wingnut? Take this with the McKinney thing, and yeah right out of the gate, this post isn't going so well for you.

or get blocked out of debates a and made fun of (Dennis Kucinich).

Kucinich single-handedly bankrupted the City of Cleveland. That alone screams "make fun of me". He is completely in the pocket of George Soros and a few other extremely wealthy benefactors in Cleveland, whose sole purpose in keeping him elected is that he will literally say whatever they tell him. He is a live action puppet. The first real breakthrough in organic androids, George hands him the money and says "tell them that 9/11 was a setup"...and lo and behold Dennis3000 says it. And that's not even the funny part(that's the sad part):

 

"We're asking our countries' leaders to understand that the world is undivided. We're asking our countries' leaders to see the world as an interconnected whole. We're asking our countries' leaders to take a holistic view of the world and to allow the globe, the sphere of the Earth herself, to exist free from an assault from space"

 

 

This is what he says when he is allowed to speak on his own.....so...it's a safe bet that this is the reason nobody cares that he is force fed what to say by Soros, etc. The fact that he intermingled Soros' "one world government" concept with what I can only assume is something right of out Scientology is....not supposed to be hysterical? We are NOT supposed to make fun of this guy? Why the hell not?

I can count the progressives on one hand across both houses.

You gonna add Hillary Clinton to that count? She, along with at least half of the House Dems currently identify themselves as progressive. So, either they are and you are wrong, or, you are calling them liars. Which is it? Remember I said LOGIC.....there are only 2 logical possibilities here. Pick one.

There is a difference between progressives and the democratic establishment. The democratic establishment which consists of mostly spineless money hungry, corporate entrenched, dumba$$es who could care less about any actual progress in this country (like most of the neo-conservatives).

I have asked once and I will ask again: what progress? and progress towards what, exactly? This is what pisses me off. You never tell us what the f you want to progress towards, or, how you even define progress, so that we can measure it along the way. And, how will we know when we have achieved progress, if you never tell us what it is we are striving for?

 

Seems to me that all we ever hear is some contrarian, socialist, or, anti-capitalist mantra....and problem definition(over and over and over = bitching), but never a stated goal, up front and honest. Everything is an abstraction or telling us that things are bad. None of that even comes close to defining, planning for, or achieving anything, and again, does nothing to support your claim to the word "progress" as a way of defining your views. Right now, from where I sit, you are closer to "eternal bitchive" than "progressive".

Republicans have quite consistently given a **** about anything that moves us in a new direction. So again, see who has been blocking even the slightest change and then do some research on who's in their pockets. This applies to both major parties.

Yes, and while I can see your point, I can also see the following: if I am driving down the 190...I can follow the same old path to get home...or, today, I can move in a new direction....and turn into oncoming traffic. Lord knows I hate dealing with the idiots on my current direction....but I become the idiot if I move in a new one.

 

And, this is another example of what I am talking about: abstractions like "new direction". Define that please. This is the "Scientology-Speak" that makes me suspicious of your kind. Asking me if I want to "move in a new direction" is like when they ask "do you sometimes feel stressed" or "do you sometimes whistle for no reason"? Yeah, but so what? I also like to whistle when I am taking a leak at the bar, where I went to relieve some stress, jackass.

 

Without any context or meaning behind the words "move", "new" or "direction" or how they fit together, we have no f'ing clue what you are talking about, and you sound like you are full of crap. And, this goes back to: how is that new direction defined in terms of TANGIBLE PROGRESS, there Mr/Mrs/Miss Progressive?

Progressive are just as mad as you about the direction of this country on many levels. We knew the billions given to corporations was stupid and would only cause inflation and debase the currency. Corporate welfare only ever helps corporations. Period.

And....people welfare only ever helps the people who didn't earn the money they receive....so....the welfare that your heroes were unsuccessful in sustaining is good, for people, but, bad, when its used for corporations, that employ...10s of thousands, of people? Right. Don't get me wrong...I think ALL welfare is bad. It's just that my hypocrisy alarm went off when I am reading a post that has Dennis Kucinich, welfare, and corporations in it.

Progressives and conservatives both have similar goals, but if we spend time taking shots at each other we miss the point. We need to bond together as AMERICANS and hold ALL representatives accountable. Representatives that no longer choose to actually represent ANY of us.

Jesus, you could write speeches for the very people you claim to dislike. There is nothing, NOTHING in the above that has any real meaning whatsoever. You might as well have written "I like stuff that's cool, and I hate stuff that sucks".

 

What goals? What about them is "similar"? Accountable for what? Based on what standards? How? What are they representing? Whose ideas? Mine? How? And, again, how can any of this be synthesized and/or quantified to demonstrate REAL progress?

Direct your grievances towards them, instead of trying to make a case that it's the fault of progressives.

As I said, take your pick between self identified Progressive in Congress or you. One of you is lying. Which one is it? If they are in fact progressives as they say they are, then yes, they are at fault...if they are lying what does that mean for real progressives....and what progress are you going to make in making sure people don't use your name?

We have a very corrupt system and it needs a complete overhaul no matter what side of the fence you fall on. We need campaign finance reform to take the corporate money out of politics...now that would be progressive

Sure, and you can show your good faith in that effort by immediately insisting that all labor unions be banned from contributing money to political campaigns....or, is that too "progressive" for your tastes? As soon as you get that done, I will get right to work on not allowing the health care software/device companies spend big $$$ and get a President elected who promises to spend $650 billion dollars on their worthless products/services.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

After FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Clinton all have tried to get comprehensive health care its about to get done. Cleaning up this economic mess will not be easy but the Feds seem to have stopped the worse. Obama is winding down Iraq war and it looks like he will impose the cap and trade with or with out congress. Rome wasn't built in a day

[GG]

I think progressive rock has gotten better over the last 4 years.

[Magox]

I think progressive rock has gotten better over the last 4 years.

I prefer progressive psychedelic trance.

[LeviF]

I prefer progressive psychedelic trance.

Thats's slowly being phased out by dubstep at clubs.

[Magox]

Thats's slowly being phased out by dubstep at clubs.

Damn dubstep, everytime I go to San Francisco, that's all I hear. I'm old skool, give me my psy

[VABills]

I think progressive rock has gotten better over the last 4 years.

I liked the little ditties they did in between cartoons on Saturday mornings. I learned what a bill was. I also learned about conjunctions.

[3rdnlng]

After FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Clinton all have tried to get comprehensive health care its about to get done. Cleaning up this economic mess will not be easy but the Feds seem to have stopped the worse. Obama is winding down Iraq war and it looks like he will impose the cap and trade with or with out congress. Rome wasn't built in a day

 

 

It's surprising that a President as conservative as JFK was would endorse anything like universal health care.

[Adam]

It's surprising that a President as conservative as JFK was would endorse anything like universal health care.

That was a different era, before the parties ran their politicians. The democrats and republicans wouldn't stand for anything like that today. By the way- if what I have been reading is true about how the healthcare bills will be combined, then you can get ready for the public option becoming a reality and there will be no way to stop it

[IDBillzFan]

That was a different era, before the parties ran their politicians. The democrats and republicans wouldn't stand for anything like that today. By the way- if what I have been reading is true about how the healthcare bills will be combined, then you can get ready for the public option becoming a reality and there will be no way to stop it

The public option is dead for the initial round. With a public option, Reid loses Lieberman. Not to say it won't be added later, but Obama has to go with the Senate plan, which is why you hear Pelosi grumbling about compromise.

[Magox]

That was a different era, before the parties ran their politicians. The democrats and republicans wouldn't stand for anything like that today. By the way- if what I have been reading is true about how the healthcare bills will be combined, then you can get ready for the public option becoming a reality and there will be no way to stop it

I'm pretty sure it's on life support right now with Ben Nelson, Lieberman and Blanche sitting over the death bed with their hands on the plug.

[Magox]

Not to say it won't be added later, but Obama has to go with the Senate plan, which is why you hear Pelosi grumbling about compromise.

I don't think so, it's pretty much at this time or a generation from now.

[3rdnlng]

The public option is dead for the initial round. With a public option, Reid loses Lieberman. Not to say it won't be added later, but Obama has to go with the Senate plan, which is why you hear Pelosi grumbling about compromise.

 

 

If the Senate version passes it will only serve to postpone the inevitable. There won't be a public "option" There will eventually be universal healthcare. Private insurance will cease to exist. The fines are so small that it won't make sense to buy health insurance until you get sick. With the provision forcing insurance providers to insure regardless of pre-existing conditions, the private health insurers will only have a pool of sick people paying for insurance. The only way they can keep insurance rates where they are now is that they are insuring a much larger group that includes a majority of people who don't spend as much money on doctor/hospital visits as they do on insurance premiums. They will have to raise the rates up so high that the government will step in with their plan. Game, set, match.

[Adam]

I'm pretty sure it's on life support right now with Ben Nelson, Lieberman and Blanche sitting over the death bed with their hands on the plug.

I read that they are going to have closed meetings with a limited amount of people- all democrats. This is something I have never heard of before, but if it is actually being done I assume it is legal

[Magox]

I read that they are going to have closed meetings with a limited amount of people- all democrats. This is something I have never heard of before, but if it is actually being done I assume it is legal

Yes, they are hashing it out behind closed doors, but it's not as if they can come out and say "Hey guys, this is the bill" then send it to the president to sign off.

 

The only way they can just do that is if the House Democrats sign off on the Senate's version of the bill without making any changes, then the bill can go straight to the president.

 

If they change the bill, then it goes back to both chambers where they have to vote again, in which they would need all 60 votes again from the Senate to pass.

 

Since Nelson and Lieberman, two of the most vocal democrats that have opposed the Public option, are sticking with their opposition, it is very unlikely that they will bring it out of Conference with any major changes.

[Adam]

Yes, they are hashing it out behind closed doors, but it's not as if they can come out and say "Hey guys, this is the bill" then send it to the president to sign off.

 

The only way they can just do that is if the House Democrats sign off on the Senate's version of the bill without making any changes, then the bill can go straight to the president.

 

If they change the bill, then it goes back to both chambers where they have to vote again, in which they would need all 60 votes again from the Senate to pass.

 

Since Nelson and Lieberman, two of the most vocal democrats that have opposed the Public option, are sticking with their opposition, it is very unlikely that they will bring it out of Conference with any major changes.

Thank you- that clears a lot up

[IDBillzFan]

If the Senate version passes it will only serve to postpone the inevitable. There won't be a public "option" There will eventually be universal healthcare. Private insurance will cease to exist. The fines are so small that it won't make sense to buy health insurance until you get sick. With the provision forcing insurance providers to insure regardless of pre-existing conditions, the private health insurers will only have a pool of sick people paying for insurance. The only way they can keep insurance rates where they are now is that they are insuring a much larger group that includes a majority of people who don't spend as much money on doctor/hospital visits as they do on insurance premiums. They will have to raise the rates up so high that the government will step in with their plan. Game, set, match.

This is why you keep hearing Democratic leaders saying things like "Before we build the mansion, we need to build a house." They know that once they have a piece of it, in time, they'll have set it up so that private insurers fail and the government has no choice but to take all of it over.

 

All of this in spite of the fact that most American's don't want the Senate bill.

[DC Tom]

This is why you keep hearing Democratic leaders saying things like "Before we build the mansion, we need to build a house."

 

Never heard that before.

 

 

And if you're going to build a mansion, it's cheaper in the long run to skip the house and build the !@#$ing mansion to start with.