Originally posted by KazetNagorraJohn Conyers would be a progressive anywhere.
I guess we have a different view of what it means to be "progressive". Anyway, I can't tell much from Conyers' voting record because there haven't been votes for things like a 75% top income tax bracket, 90% cuts in defense spending, legalizing gay marriage, legalizing all drugs, significant electoral reform, etc. He also appears to be quite conservative when it comes to foreign trade policies.
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Conyers.htm
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
Originally posted by sh76You mean sink the economy?
So, now who is it that wants to sink the government?
The difference is that they're demanding that Obama invoke the 14th Amendment, or issue Platinum coins. They aren't threatening impeachment if Obama saves the economy unilaterally.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
So how many people read anywhere in the mainstream press that the entire Progressive Caucus voted "no?" You know that 95 Democrats voted that way. But you don't know why, nor that the Progressive Caucus makes up almost all of them. There's a story in there. It's not being covered.
Originally posted by KunsooEveryone knew it was the liberal Congressmen who voted against it. That was all over the place on the cable news shows last night. Whether they referred to it as the "progressive caucus" or not is irrelevant.
So how many people read anywhere in the mainstream press that the entire Progressive Caucus voted "no?" You know that 95 Democrats voted that way. But you don't know why, nor that the Progressive Caucus makes up almost all of them. There's a story in there. It's not being covered.
On a related note, Kunsoo, I really have to tell you... Although I respect your opinions and positions and thoughts, on this issue, you're coming out a bit hypocritical. When Boehner and Co. were apparently willing to risk a default for their principles you went bananas on them calling them every name in the book, telling us how they don't care about the country, etc. Now, you're apparently very much in favor of the progressive caucus voting to risk default based on their principals.
It seems to me that all that stuff about Boehner and the GOP being so horrible for refusing to play ball with Obama wasn't so much about the refusing to raise the debt cap but more about that you don't like their principles.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
Originally posted by sh76Again, the difference is that they were not threatening Obama with impeachment should Obama have invoked the 14th Amendment, which Obama would have done in the absence of a deal. The Tea Partiers wanted it to happen, so that the country would learn some cosmic lesson and never "let it happen again."
Everyone knew it was the liberal Congressmen who voted against it. That was all over the place on the cable news shows last night. Whether they referred to it as the "progressive caucus" or not is irrelevant.
On a related note, Kunsoo, I really have to tell you... Although I respect your opinions and positions and thoughts, on this issue, you're coming out a ...[text shortened]... t the refusing to raise the debt cap but more about that you don't like their principles.
Originally posted by sh76You got it. There are other plans not covered by the mainstream press. Nobody is talking up the John Birch Society's plan, or even the Tea Party's. The press is only covering those in the center, neither of which really address the problems of overspending.
Oh yes, the NY Times, Washington Post and the major networks are sooooooo anti-liberal.
Boo Hoo.
:'(:'(:'(
Uh, Kunsoo and Rachel: That plan is not getting a lot of press because [b]nobody has the chance of passing it through either house.
The GOP plan can (and did) pass the House. The Obama plan would likely be passed by the Senate and signed b ...[text shortened]... he final compromise.
In other news, why doesn't the media cover Ralph Nader's plan?[/b]
Rachel is simply a far left, may I say collectivist, probably to the left of Marx, Hegel, Lenin or Stalin. She and the rest of her MSNBC talking heads have the microphone and airtime to do what she says the press will not. Unfortunately, people have remote controls and her audience is mostly curiosity seekers wanting a laugh for the evening.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
Originally posted by normbenignAnd her ratings are climbing!
You got it. There are other plans not covered by the mainstream press. Nobody is talking up the John Birch Society's plan, or even the Tea Party's. The press is only covering those in the center, neither of which really address the problems of overspending.
Rachel is simply a far left, may I say collectivist, probably to the left of Marx, Hegel, Len ...[text shortened]... remote controls and her audience is mostly curiosity seekers wanting a laugh for the evening.
Hegel wasn't very political by the way. Maybe you were thinking of Engels?
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYou got it. There are other plans not covered by the mainstream press. Nobody is talking up the John Birch Society's plan, or even the Tea Party's.
You got it. There are other plans not covered by the mainstream press. Nobody is talking up the John Birch Society's plan, or even the Tea Party's. The press is only covering those in the center, neither of which really address the problems of overspending.
Rachel is simply a far left, may I say collectivist, probably to the left of Marx, Hegel, Len ...[text shortened]... remote controls and her audience is mostly curiosity seekers wanting a laugh for the evening.
The plan put forward by Republicans contained many provisions advocated by the Tea Partiers, so much in fact that their plan, although closer to reality as opposed to the world of surreal idealism the tea people seem to inhabit, seemed almost identical to the Tea Party plan. Weren't they pressing for tax cuts for the wealthy, brutal cuts in public services, and just your usual formula of slash and burn politics?
In what way was this fundamentally different to the Tea Party plan?
Rachel is simply a far left, may I say collectivist, probably to the left of Marx, Hegel, Lenin or Stalin
I hear a lot about the American "far left" and how certain media figures obviously are part of it, about Marxists and Communists, but strangely enough they never seem to profess any belief in the central tenets of these ideologies, regardless of how many times these labels are carelessly thrown around. KN is right, many of these so-called left-wing liberals are center-right by international standards.
Unfortunately, people have remote controls and her audience is mostly curiosity seekers wanting a laugh for the evening.
Yes, presumably because everybody gets their daily fix of the serious news from the trusted fair and balanced network we all know and love, Fox News.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
Originally posted by generalissimoBy "far left" he means anybody to the left of Newt Gingrich.
[b]You got it. There are other plans not covered by the mainstream press. Nobody is talking up the John Birch Society's plan, or even the Tea Party's.
The plan put forward by Republicans contained many provisions advocated by the Tea Partiers, so much in fact that their plan, although closer to reality as opposed to the world of surreal ideali ...[text shortened]... the serious news from the trusted fair and balanced network we all know and love, Fox News.[/b]