Body Count

Originally posted by whodey
What do you deem a progressive position? In addtion, what makes someone a card carrying leftist?

A domestic position which helps the working class and the poor as opposed to one that increases the wealth and power of the rich.

A foreign policy position which does the same.

Your last sentence, like so many of your sentences, is nonsensical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your last sentence is an example of your brainwashed propaganda and your tendency to project unto others your own failings. I didn't vote for Obama and have voted for very few Democrats over the last 12 or so years.

Yet you continually paint the Democrats as being superior to their Republican counterparts. Why?

Originally posted by whodey
Yet you continually paint the Democrats as being superior to their Republican counterparts. Why?

Because they marginally are. Virtually every modern Republican position is an attempt to increase the power of the wealthy and many of them are specifically aimed at punishing the poor.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]A domestic position which helps the working class and the poor as opposed to one that increases the wealth and power of the rich.

A foreign policy position which does the same.

So a foreign policy that takes the wealth of the rich and redistributes it is progressive? So you would say that taking over Iraq and redistributing Saddam's wealth with the Iraqi citizens is progressive?

Also, is there no concession that simply taking X amount of dollars to give to the "poor" does nothing to elevate them out of poverty? For example, I could give a homeless person some food and walk away or I could give him food every day. Either way he is homeless. Would it not be better to educate him and prepare him adequately for life so that he does not encounter such poverty to begin with? Why then is neglect of public education acceptable but redistributing trillions of dollars to throw at the poor acceptable for progressives in combating poverty?

Originally posted by whodey
So a foreign policy that takes the wealth of the rich and redistributes it is progressive? So you would say that taking over Iraq and redistributing Saddam's wealth with the Iraqi citizens is progressive?

Also, is there no concession that simply taking X amount of dollars to give to the "poor" does nothing to elevate them out of poverty? For example, I c ...[text shortened]... g trillions of dollars to throw at the poor acceptable for progressives in combating poverty?

No, conquering another country and killing and oppressing their people isn't "progressive".

Why are you such a moron? Who, pray tell, said that the neglect of public education is "acceptable"? Republican "solutions" invariably are to de-fund public education by having taxpayers subsidize private schools through vouchers.

These conversations are a waste of time; you have no serious ideas at all as shown by your complete inability in another thread to propose cuts or increased taxes when presented with that choice - a logical corollary of your opposition to raising the debt ceiling. All you do is incessantly bitch, complain and lie.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, conquering another country and killing and oppressing their people isn't "progressive".

Why are you such a moron? Who, pray tell, said that the neglect of public education is "acceptable"? Republican "solutions" invariably are to de-fund public education by having taxpayers subsidize private schools through vouchers.

...[text shortened]... pposition to raising the debt ceiling. All you do is incessantly bitch, complain and lie.

Are you saying that the Iraqi people are more oppressed with Americans in control than when Saddam was in control? I say the American government can do for the Iraqi citizens what they have done for their own. In other words, they better buy some health insurance or else!!! 🙂

Secondly, what do conservatives have to do with the public education system coming in at #48 in the world when it comes to math and science in grades k-12? The inability to own shortcomings and blindly blaming others who try to come up with alternatives is telling.

Originally posted by whodey
Are you saying that the Iraqi people are more oppressed with Americans in control than when Saddam was in control?

Secondly, what do conservatives have to do with the public education system coming in at #48 in the world when it comes to math and science in grades k-12? The inability to own shortcomings and blindly blaming others who try to come up with alternatives is telling.

They have less chance of ever be non-oppressed as long as the US is there. The history of recent decades is replete with examples of tyrants like Saddam being successfully overthrown with minimal (comparatively speaking)bloodshed. But once the US commits massive military force it is assured that the suffering level will vastly increase and that creating a non-oppressive system can only be accomplished by armed resistance against a superpower; a bloody endeavor indeed.

I've spoken of what needs to be done regarding public education in my view; you, as usual, haven't come up with any useful ideas. Education in the US is hardly "progressive". But talk about hypocrisy; conservatives don't even want evolution taught or want non-scientific "theories" given equal time + deny global warming, yet then complain about supposed shortcomings in science education! The mind reels.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]They have less chance of ever be non-oppressed as long as the US is there. The history of recent decades is replete with examples of tyrants like Saddam being successfully overthrown with minimal (comparatively speaking)bloodshed. But once the US commits massive military force it is assured that the suffering level will vastly increase and that creating ...[text shortened]... system can only be accomplished by armed resistance against a superpower; a bloody endeavor indeed.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that once the US leaves Iran moves in or it devolves into civil war. So what is more progressive?

The point being that what is "progressive" can be interpreted a myriad of ways. That is why statism is such a threat. No matter what they do, they can spin it as "helping the oppressed". I believe that "W" used the term "spreading democracy".

Originally posted by no1marauder
[ I've spoken of what needs to be done regarding public education in my view; you, as usual, haven't come up with any useful ideas. Education in the US is hardly "progressive". But talk about hypocrisy; conservatives don't even want evolution taught or want non-scientific "theories" given equal time + deny global warming, yet then complain about supposed shortcomings in science education! The mind reels.[/b]

I have come up with suggestions, but apparently you were not impressed. Now that's a shocker!!

All I see from progressives in Washington is complaining about what kids eat for lunch, not how they are scoring internationally. Again, there is no progressive leadership in Washington despite many of them being "progressive". They own it 100%. There is no private entity standing between the government and education.

In addition, I never once said anything about evolution or global warming other than Al Gores movie should not be shown in public schools since it was declared propoganda by a court in England because it has a myriad of untruths in it. Also, I don't recall any other posters suggesting these things either. Go figure?

Originally posted by whodey
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that once the US leaves Iran moves in or it devolves into civil war. So what is more progressive?

The point being that what is "progressive" can be interpreted a myriad of ways. That is why statism is such a threat. No matter what they do, they can spin it as "helping the oppressed".

Funny, Iran "hasn't moved in" over the last couple thousand years. Civil war is always a possibility in any country that hardly means foreign occupation is desirable.

Besides make up your mind; you started the thread complaining about the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan but are now defending the Iraq invasion and occupation! It's pretty obvious that you have no consistent views on these matters and only parrot right wing talking points.

Originally posted by whodey
I have come up with suggestions, but apparently you were not impressed. Now that's a shocker!!

All I see from progressives in Washington is complaining about what kids eat for lunch, not how they are scoring internationally. Again, there is no progressive leadership in Washington despite many of them being "progressive". They own it 100%. There is no ...[text shortened]... s in it. Also, I don't recall any other posters suggesting these things either. Go figure?

What? You and other posters don't deny the scientific evidence as regards Man's role in global warming? English courts should decide what movies get shown in American public schools? Wonder what the Founders would have thought of that!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Funny, Iran "hasn't moved in" over the last couple thousand years. Civil war is always a possibility in any country that hardly means foreign occupation is desirable.

Besides make up your mind; you started the thread complaining about the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan but are now defending the Iraq invasion and occupation! It's pre ...[text shortened]... hat you have no consistent views on these matters and only parrot right wing talking points.

Insurgents have been pouring in from Iran, so you are wrong. Additionally, I never said that those concenrs are a reason for staying, rather, what I am saying is that a progressive is never short of reasons to increase state control to "help the oppressed" whether it be domestic or international in nature.

Originally posted by whodey
Insurgents have been pouring in from Iran, so you are wrong. Additionally, I never said that those concenrs are a reason for staying, rather, what I am saying is that a progressive is never short of reasons to increase state control to "help the oppressed" whether it be domestic or international in nature.

"insurgents have been pouring in from Iran"

Is there some actual proof of this?

The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with helping the "oppressed" and a lot to do with helping the super-rich. You should take a look at Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine to see how quickly multinational business interests tried to take over the Iraqi economy with the full support of US military might. Unfortunately, those pesky insurgents ruined the business climate and those annoying elections kept being won by Iraqis who resisted such blatant grabs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Left does not equal the Democratic Party.

But even at that an authorization to use force against terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks is not a vote for an endless occupation of Afghanistan (a country not even mentioned in the resolution).

And a majority of Democrats (57😵 in Congress voted against the Iraq resolution while 97% of Republicans voted for it.

I could give a s**t about republican support of the wars. I was merely responding to your fraudulent claims that no one on the left supported the wars. 57 % is hardly a startling majority. In the senate more democrats supported the Iraq invasion than opposed it.

Originally posted by whodey
Since the left has now chosen to ignore the wars abroad after beating "Bush is a murderer" drum every day when he was in office, I decided to start beating the drum again. In doing so, I found some interesting peices of information.

Basically, I took the last two years in "W"'s administration in terms of US deaths on the battle field in both Iraq and Afgh ...[text shortened]... it? Discuss.

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

http://icasualties.org/oef/

...and Obama and the Democrats are left to clean up this mess, as well as a rotten economy left by Bush and the G O P. So...what's to discuss?? 😞