Chavez's Venezuela expropriates businesses after devaluation

[Schadenfroh]

He's starting to crack lately though. Now only progressives are good. I'm still trying to figure out which test to administer to determine if a Democrat is progressive. Maybe there's some kind genetic test.

I believe the current AT P&N definition of a modern "progressive" is a Democrat that is not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition or from a red state. It is a shame that many in the Democratic party seek to rid themselves of the Blue Dogs, since they are the most powerful political group that in many cases share views similar to mine as I consider myself a Conservative Democrat.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe the current AT P&N definition of a modern "progressive" is a Democrat that is not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition or from a red state. It is a shame that many in the Democratic party seek to rid themselves of the Blue Dogs, since they are the most powerful political group that in many cases share views similar to mine.

It's a curious thing about political affiliations. We hear that Democrats are a party of diversity, until someone actually is different. Then they are crap.

It's not much different than when the Reps kicked out those who didn't pass their litmus test. Now "progressives" call for the same things.

The diversity of one way of thinking.

 

[ElFenix]

It's a curious thing about political affiliations. We hear that Democrats are a party of diversity, until someone actually is different. Then they are crap.

It's not much different than when the Reps kicked out those who didn't pass their litmus test. Now "progressives" call for the same things.

The diversity of one way of thinking.

we listen to all opinions, dismiss those that don't agree with our preivously held opinions, then call anyone who holds those dismissed opinions DINOs

 

[BoberFett]

Exactly. It's just further evidence that Craig is no better than the "right wingers" he hates.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Exactly. It's just further evidence that Craig is no better than the "right wingers" he hates.

My point is that the progressives who make the most noise around here (and I know there are exceptions- there are some progressives I can and do respect) are the ones who are among the most rigid in their thinking. There is indeed little difference between that breed of progressives and Neocons. Both have the same roots, and are just as sure of their ability and moral correctness.

I would want neither in control, because they are simply too superior. There would be little for us mere mortals to participate in without their "guidance".

I fuck up and am wrong more than I'd like to admit, and that keeps me from being "worthy". Worse, I'll listen to other opinions, and sometimes change my mind.

People like me and many here are dangerous to "progress" whether social or military.

Fascinating isn't it?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

He's starting to crack lately though. Now only progressives are good. I'm still trying to figure out which test to administer to determine if a Democrat is progressive. Maybe there's some kind genetic test.

I am sure he has it covered in his manual to determine which is which in the end.

You have to ensure the correct people are "purged" from the "party".

 

[Craig234]

You're an idiot, Hyabusa.

Your post is so far off, it's like me calling you a pedophilic person who likes to torture animals. Crazy.

Rigid? QUite the opposite, but you are too clueless and make up the wrong answer. There is nothing in common about 'rigid' between progressives and neocons, that's your own of ignorance inventing.

My point is that the progressives who make the most noise around here (and I know there are exceptions- there are some progressives I can and do respect) are the ones who are among the most rigid in their thinking. There is indeed little difference between that breed of progressives and Neocons. Both have the same roots, and are just as sure of their ability and moral correctness.

I would want neither in control, because they are simply too superior. There would be little for us mere mortals to participate in without their "guidance".

I fuck up and am wrong more than I'd like to admit, and that keeps me from being "worthy". Worse, I'll listen to other opinions, and sometimes change my mind.

I 'listen to others' a lot more than you do - as your post ironically doesn't listen, but attacks what it disagrees with with false accusations in a rigids, closed-minded manner.

I won't claim to findI'm wrong as much as you do - and you are more wron gthan you realize - but it happens when I am, unlike you. You just pile on another attacks and it's all good.


People like me and many here are dangerous to "progress" whether social or military.

Fascinating isn't it?[/QUOTE]

What's this 'dangerous' crap? Progressives going to send all their stormtroopers to come re-educate you?

No, you're dangeros of being guilty of the same things you wrong attack progressives for - your blind ideology, and inability to recognize error.

 

[Genx87]

You're an idiot, Hyabusa.

You dont say............................

 

[Craig234]

It's a curious thing about political affiliations. We hear that Democrats are a party of diversity, until someone actually is different. Then they are crap.

It's not much different than when the Reps kicked out those who didn't pass their litmus test. Now "progressives" call for the same things.

The diversity of one way of thinking.

What does diversity mean? It means a few things, including the rights of others to hold their views - even while we may disagree. It means the simple presence of 'diverse' people under the party banner.

It means the respect for others not being reduced by bigotry, inappropriate things - no treating women inferior, not treating some races worse, not treating homosexuals worse, freedom of religion, etc.

It does not mean we agree with everyone's opinions. Democrats are a diverse party, having some who one position on an issue, and others who hold another position. I doesn't mean Democrats agree with both.

You can see Democrats have a lot harder time usually getting party 'lock step' voting than the Republicans, who aren't perfect at it (it's not a good thing) but are a lot better.

Don't confuse Democrats' respect for people without prejudice (ideally - people fall short, like hte Dems who vote against gay mareriage equality), with not having any right to disagree about issues.

And that's really all you have to fallaciously claim - 'democrats are supposedly diverse but they say my opinions aren't right, what liars'.

Of course, there are also Dems who compromise at times based on things like our politicial system's need to raise vast sums of money - or maybe even worse reasons. That's another issue.

You are not making any point here - just trying to play word games with 'divertisty'.

 

[Craig234]

I believe the current AT P&N definition of a modern "progressive" is a Democrat that is not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition or from a red state. It is a shame that many in the Democratic party seek to rid themselves of the Blue Dogs, since they are the most powerful political group that in many cases share views similar to mine as I consider myself a Conservative Democrat.

That's not the definition. But there is some truth to it, insofar as 'blue dog' hold some values in common with progressives and not others. They're sort of the child of a Democrats and Republican.

Because of what they hold in common, or at least what they are against in Republicans, blue dogs are Democrats, not Republicans. Because of what they don't agree on, there's an intra-party battle.

There's almost no such anything anymore as a 'liberal Republican' since Lincoln Chafee is gone as the last (and only a couple 'moderate Republicans'), but there are still some conservative Democrats, increased by the predictable distaste for the modern Republican party among many conservatives looking for an alternative.

What are you unclear about? I'd like to see a progressive Democrat replace a blue dog, just as you would like to see the opposite, and presumably we'd both like to see either before a Republican, generally.

Or maybe not. Progressives may prefer blue dogs over Republicans more than blue dogs prefer progressives over Republicans.

You seem to be alleging people want to 'get rid' of blue dogs. Other than the above, is there some other movement I haven't heard about to purge the party?

What do you even see as they key issues between the two? I dojn't want to hear platitudes, but specifics.

For example, progressives are for a strong new 'Consumer protection agency' out from under the Fed. The Senate wants to weaken or kill it. Blue dogs might want more what the Republicans want.

 

[Craig234]

we listen to all opinions, dismiss those that don't agree with our preivously held opinions, then call anyone who holds those dismissed opinions DINOs

So, your positrion is that a party has absolutely no values, beliefs, principles, and so on - anyone who believes anything is equally a member regardless of their positions.

The fact is, 'DINO' (or 'RINO') is a termed aimed at pointing out when someone has such different beliefs as to be be more an enemy than an ally in the party, perhaps.

It's a very useful term for, say, a Republican who holds Republican opinions not changing them, but switching parties because it helps him win an election, but then voting against Democrats a lot.

It's also one that can be overused - to 'purge' the party in an excessive push for one faction of the party to dominate (as Republicans did by purging out non-radical right as 'RINOs').

You exaggerate grossly te use of the term 'DINO'. I'm not sure I've ever used it; I don't see it much. I think it's fair sometimes. But what's the issue - you seem to be attacking another faction. Are you 'purging'?

 

[Craig234]

Increasing minimum wage to 'fight the effects of inflation' is stupid, and won't help.

The root cause of the inflation is, however, to be found at the printing press.

Actually, increasing the minimum wage helps the poor fight inflation, a lot.

If inflation goes up 100% over years, do you want the mininimum wage flat, or raised?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Actually, increasing the minimum wage helps the poor fight inflation, a lot.

If inflation goes up 100% over years, do you want the mininimum wage flat, or raised?

Helping the poor keep up with inflation sounds like a great idea :awe:

I wonder if there might be some unintended consequences, though :hmm:

Ahh, who cares. If it doesn't work out, let's tax the rich some more :awe:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're an idiot, Hyabusa.

Your post is so far off, it's like me calling you a pedophilic person who likes to torture animals. Crazy.

Rigid? QUite the opposite, but you are too clueless and make up the wrong answer. There is nothing in common about 'rigid' between progressives and neocons, that's your own of ignorance inventing.



I 'listen to others' a lot more than you do - as your post ironically doesn't listen, but attacks what it disagrees with with false accusations in a rigids, closed-minded manner.

I won't claim to findI'm wrong as much as you do - and you are more wron gthan you realize - but it happens when I am, unlike you. You just pile on another attacks and it's all good.


People like me and many here are dangerous to "progress" whether social or military.

Fascinating isn't it?

What's this 'dangerous' crap? Progressives going to send all their stormtroopers to come re-educate you?

No, you're dangeros of being guilty of the same things you wrong attack progressives for - your blind ideology, and inability to recognize error.[/QUOTE]


Of course you listen to people. That way you can call them idiots. You show complete contempt for others. I can be an arrogant SOB at times, but hell most of us can. You? Your shit don't stink, and that's why people get great pleasure out of giving you grief.

Seriously, you go on these "Republican conservative evil" sprees like you are the fucking Messiah. Well, some of them suck but hey, guess what? That makes them a whole lot like everyone else. What they are depends on what they do, and while you are oh so diverse and holy, and they are the devil incarnate, you are just being what you claim to detest, narrow minded and self righteous.

Hint- Not all liberals/conservatives/progressives are bad and not all are good.

You? I think you want to do good, but you are tied to your ideology so securely that you aren't willing to consider any other way.

So yeah, my negative opinions of Progressives are shaped by their loudest proponents, which here is you.

I'll continue to enjoy my on line relationships with others who consider themselves Progressives, simply because they aren't stuck up priggs. We may not agree with each other on many issues, but on some we can. Regardless, we're human and recognize that.

You continue to be above us all, and I genuinely feel some compassion for your situation even if it is of your own making. By setting yourself as the absolute standard (which you have whether you acknowledge it or not) by which others are judged, you have isolated yourself here with few allies and fewer friends.

At least get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself and others so seriously. It's the friggin internet. Regardless of your political beliefs, cultivate a sense of humor and be able to joke a bit. Your ass is so tight you squeak.

 

[Craig234]

Helping the poor keep up with inflation sounds like a great idea :awe:

I wonder if there might be some unintended consequences, though :hmm:

Ahh, who cares. If it doesn't work out, let's tax the rich some more :awe:

Well, the wages at the bottom are such a small part of the money, that increasing them has neglible 'unintended consequences'.

For example, I saw a chart recently pegging the bottom 20% of workers as earning 3.5% of all income.

So, if you give them a 10% raise, the cost to the economy is a 0.35%increase.

On the other hand, the top 20% - I don't recall a number, but a majority of the income - 10% is a LOT for the conomy to bear. Unfortunately, that's the only group who IS getting the increase, after inflation.

 

[ElFenix]

we listen to all opinions, dismiss those that don't agree with our preivously held opinions, then call anyone who holds those dismissed opinions DINOs

So, your positrion is that a party has absolutely no values, beliefs, principles, and so on - anyone who believes anything is equally a member regardless of their positions.

The fact is, 'DINO' (or 'RINO') is a termed aimed at pointing out when someone has such different beliefs as to be be more an enemy than an ally in the party, perhaps.

It's a very useful term for, say, a Republican who holds Republican opinions not changing them, but switching parties because it helps him win an election, but then voting against Democrats a lot.

It's also one that can be overused - to 'purge' the party in an excessive push for one faction of the party to dominate (as Republicans did by purging out non-radical right as 'RINOs').

You exaggerate grossly te use of the term 'DINO'. I'm not sure I've ever used it; I don't see it much. I think it's fair sometimes. But what's the issue - you seem to be attacking another faction. Are you 'purging'?