Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Can you define "progressive"

"Progressive" is not a party. It is more akin to the John Birch Society or Moral Majority than to a political party. How do you define "progressive?"

157 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Regressive"

Stephen said...

Progressing with one step forward and two steps back.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"Collectivist elitist"

Anonymous said...

"retarded fuckwit"

samoasoftball said...

Progressives are Political people who are moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; opposed to retrograde. Improving. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods. Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.

Richard Marks-Progressive. "I want positive change!"

Rose said...

That's LOVELY, Richard. Now decipher that and tell me what it MEANS.

Rose said...

Let's be specific - you work your ass of, Richard - does "progressive" encourage others to do the same?

Rose said...

Make that 'off' not 'of'

Now, i thought you were a "Democrat," Richard. But a "Progressive" is not necessarily a "Democrat."

Anonymous said...

I want positive change too! So I won't be voting for Chessbro or Berg.

Rose said...

In another discussion, "Not a Native" says - If you want to be a member of a group, you’re obliged to align with the tenets of the group. In fact, you join because you choose to align. That goes whether its the US military, Audubon Society, Catholic church, Taxpayer’s League, or Northcoast Environmental Center.

He's talking about why the 'left' has turned on Congressman Mike Thompson and on Bill Bertain (Bertain because he supports port development and the Railroad.)

Thus if you are guilty of independent thought, you must be a Republican. Very funny, isn't it. The "progressive" mindset.

Anonymous said...

What! Define conservative. The problem is not the definition, but with who is doing the defining. It is handy to define your political opponent's position, or their mind set for the consumption of the masses - it is happening daily by political pundits on cable news. But the reality is propaganda. Progressives were once known as liberals. Republican propagandist, Newt Gingrich, used smears to define "liberals" and successfully produced a Pavlovian negative response in non-independent thinkers to that term. You could argue that independent thought used in such a way is subversive to democracy. You can also make the argument that corporate lobbyists subvert our elected representation in Washington D.C..... Care to argue the facts, Rose?

samoasoftball said...

Rose: Sensible development. Living Wages. (I am a union President, ya know.) Protecting and enhancing our Raw Resources into manufactured finished products. (Sawmill lumber, Particleboard, Pulp but looking further such as Milk Cartons, paper cups, tissue products done environmentally safe.) Create tourist friendly environment in the City such as Sea World type park on the at the Adorni waterfront. Affordable housing in North Eureka and Development of the Balloon Tract. Take social services to the streets where the needy are!

There you are Rose, take your shots!

exrepublican said...

the word "progressive", as a term to describe a human being is MEANINGLESS!! just like the words "conservative" or "liberal". they are words that have taken on meanings of their own. the words are meant to convey a negative stereotype about another person without really saying ANYTHING.

think back to political science class, or civics class. do you EVER remember hearing these words to describe political beliefs? NO, because they are MEANINGLESS in that sense!!! i call them the "lazy man's" way of talking politics.


the terms have REAL meaning. look them up in the dictionary when needed.im "liberal" with mustard. im rather "conserative" when applying ketchup. im all for a "progressive" tax system.

Anonymous said...

A conservative is not necessarily a republican. I'm interested to know why you would choose the John Birch Society and the Moral Majority to compare with progressives. Wouldn't the Mensa Society been more appropriate?

exrepublican said...

i guess that we need to define "progress" before we can define "progressives"......after we establish what progress is, the people who follow that path would be considered progressives....

exrepublican said...

for society, progress could mean a few things that we would ALL agree on:

longer life spans
less poor people
less crime
improved technology
improved education
access to more information

Anonymous said...

Those words take on negative connotations and are used in false straw man type of arguments. Note how Stephen Lewis uses the term Prog to project wrong footed insincerity upon everyone in the environmental movement.

exrepublican said...

just like "neocon", what in the world does THAT word really mean? is there anything positive about that word? are there "proud" neocons?

Anonymous said...

Yep

All those labels are bereft of legitimacy in the positive.

Just a whack job for the accusers

Anonymous said...

Richard,with all due respect your def of a prog is as full BS as an unbiased comentary from David Cobb. Wipe the vasoline out of your eyes and you just might be lucky enough not to need it on the other end when your progressive buddies stick it to you again.

Anonymous said...

Would socialized medicine be defined as a conservative program? Is the military being mis-used by neo-conseratives? Is a trade union a social movement? Didn't middle class wages and a forty hour work week come about through the efforts of the labor movement. Hasn't every Presidential administration since Reagan worked to weaken labor unions. Aren't The terms Republican and Democrat misleading when sometimes it's hard to tell who is who by how they vote in the legislature.

Anonymous said...

Do you ever hear the term progressive Republican used? Isn't a progressive Democrat another term for liberal Democrat? How do you define the politics of Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein?

Anonymous said...

Why is Stephen Lewis posting anonymously? Someone hand him some vasoline - I'm feeling amorous!

Anonymous said...

are there "proud" neocons?

Yes. It was originally a term used by people on the Left to describe liberals and Trotsyites that moved to the Right, but then some conservatives decided to take the label on. Irving Kristol was one of them.

Stephen said...

Someone misses my political accume I see or just misses me..

Progluddites is the accurate term used for Progressives here in Humboldt County. In 1984 fashion, Progressives here reverse the meaning of the word "progress" so that it means "regress" in overall community economic viability as Progluddites continue to attack industrial development in the community. Industrial development is the economic backbone of those communities that Humboldt County is then forced to be subsidized by, e.g. the Bay Area, LA, etc, etc. which are industrialized, experiencing the chain-reaction of increased economic prosperity because these industrialized cities have their anchor businesses, the one Progluddites want to keep out of Humboldt County. This forces an economic down-turn because there's so few really here except dope-growers with extra spendable income. So we continue to see Humboldt County at the bottom of the economic prosperity index for California counties. "Progluddite" is the useful definition of Progressive in Humboldt County.

Anonymous said...

Luddite: Ned Ludd, 18th century Leicestershire workman who destroyed a knitting frame: one of a group of 18th century workman destroying labor saving machinery: broadly: one who is opposed to esp. technological change - Luddite adj.

Progluddite: Term coined by Stephen Lewis aka Buster Luce, early 20th century USA to describe and smear a group opposed to slave labor, off-shoring American jobs to free trade partners of Wall Street and the theft of Democracy through partnerships that have been created between American multi-national corporate board rooms, the American Government, the world's banking system and investment houses - and the deregulation of those agencies and their agents. Progluddites are also opposed to the destruction of natural environments for the purpose of short term profit. Progluddites support local economies and don't want to drive cars made in China from parts manufactured by jointly owned communist Chinese - American corporations based in China and shipped to American container ports located on Humboldt Bay, Los Angles, San Diego, Mexico or any other port located in North, Central, or South America. Progluddites do not want a liquid natural gas facility in Humboldt Bay. But, we generally support freedom as long as you don't destroy the environment and cause catastrophic consequences to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Anonymous said...

And if you are bringing the vasoline, Buster, make sure it has a "Made in America" label or else it's going to hurt!

Stephen said...

Or you also say Progressive stands for "Hypocrite" and be quite accurate as anon 6:14's myopic or politically motivated deliberate deletion of all the corporate made in China zuzus bought and used everyday by our local Progs. Using the blatantly false notion that tourism, pot sales, and small manufacturing geared to producing high-priced items for yuppie consumption creates a viable economy in Humboldt County. If the Progressive dismantling of Humboldt County's industrial base has produced prosperity, where is it? The sad truth is Progressives know about as much about economics as they do forest ecology which isn't much and what they do know is so grossly compromised with political bias as to be practically worthless economic theory--e.g. the very silly notion eco-tourism when fuel prices are outrageous can be the economic mainstay the region served by the Humboldt Bay harbor.

Stephen said...

Real progressive economics looks like our Palco Community Corporation which would have created hundreds of new jobs while Progs cheer HRC's elimination of even more Palco jobs with no replacement offered. You can count of Progressives to be against progressive economic development that benefits the whole community and not just the hippie/yuppie segment of Humboldt County citizenry.

Anonymous said...

Bullshit! Reference 6:14am, Stephen. Progluddites aren't the problem. You are a corporate propagandist and have no sympathy for working Luddites. You are all about short term rape of the environment for profit and don't care a shit about long term employment. You are an embattled turncoat, embittered by the long list off battles you have lost, scapegoating and guttersniping from your seldom vacated hovel. Have you ever built anything outside of your imagination that amounted to anything? Please don't mention your silly sword, or blame me for the plight of the Bear River Tribes's internal political problems or Charles Hurwitz's plan that drove Palco into the ground. It is time for you to grow up.

Anonymous said...

Neoconservatives are followers of the philosophy of Leo Strauss. They are fascists with a nicer sounding name.

Anonymous said...

Progressives are liberals who want to progressively implement positive change.

Conservatives want to maintain the status quo.

Radicals want drastic change immediately.

Populists want whatever will get them the votes.

Carol said...

It is a label, Rose. Just like right-wing, left-wing, liberal, conservative, ect. (ad nauseum). I don't particularly care for being labeled or labeling others, but is hard to keep up with the constant onslaught of labels. It is just like branding products, IMHO.

However, thank you for bringing up the discussion.

Stephen said...

Progluddites are the problem and no amount of name calling me as one individual erases the fact that Progluddites as a group are consistently anti-economic development which helps no one in our county that consistently finishes near the bottom of the California county economic prosperity index.

Anonymous said...

Some pigs are more equal, I mean, progressive, than others.

So I define progressive as

Orwellian.

Rose said...

Here's the thing - I don't buy that it is just a smear by "Neo-cons."

Because these people assign that LABEL to themselves.

Read Clark's fundraising plea and any of "Local Solutions" early stuff - it's all about how "we want a "Progressive" majority" - They are the ones who define themselves that way - they are the ones who craft the glorious mission statements, ala Richard Marks' definition above, and then so spectacularly fail to live up to it.

If it has become a slur, it because of their actions.

You can say that they were once Democrats, who decided that being called a Democrat was an insult, so they switched to "Liberal" and then decided that was an insult, and so, again, they changed definitions to "Progressive."

But these aren't your original Democrats, now are they even Liberal anymore, but something else entirely. Like militant new arm who seeks control. For what end? THey do not seek to serve, but to create a majority. THAT is the problem.

Anonymous said...

You act like that is something to be ashamed of Rose. Gaining the majority of any governing body is how you implement your agenda. I believe it was Rove who said they were building a permanent Republican majority. Luckily he was wrong since his methods were not only immoral but illegal as well.

Progressives aren't just Democrat, they can be of any liberal political party.

Anonymous said...

Seriously this has to be one of your most ignorant threads. How could some one not know the difference between political parties and political philosophies? Did Republicans decide being called a Republican was an insult so switched to conservative? Did conservatives decide it was an insult to be called conservative so switched to neoconservative? Have you been living in a fucking cave your whole life?

Rose said...

Most Republicans I know are happy to be called Republicans, they don't go around plotting to secure a "Neo-Con" majority on local boards. Maybe they should, though, fight fire with fire. It seems awfully stupid when you look at it that way - you see what I am saying?

Far as it goes, 2:58, In fact, most Republicans I know would, just a few years back, have been called Democrats, holding those values that the Democratic Party has lost.

But this isn't about the Democratic Party, or the Republican party, nor even the greens, this is about this strange permutation that pretends at being a Party, rather like someone who comes into your house and pretends to be a family member and starts telling you how to live your life.

exrepublican said...

rose,
do you think that the guy who shot the democratic party member last week thought it was about party? how about the guy who killed the unitarians? he didnt want to kill churchgoers, he wanted to kill LIBERALS.....

i listen to "right-wing" radio every day. every day, it tells americans to hate their fellow neighbors who are democrats. it even goes as far as dehumanizing such individuals and calling for violence agaisnt them.

this is ALL about party. this is why i will not vote for any repubs this election. i may stay registered as a repub, as they may change, but i refuse to be a pawn in their game of hatred and powergrabbing at the cost of the country. i love my fellow americans too much to hate every single democrat and want them dead.

i am voting for Obama as a protest vote.

Rose said...

No - I think jut-jobs who go off and murder people are just that, nut-jobs, whether it is John Hinkley or the guy who blew up the Oklahoma City Building. They're insane criminals. Whacked out of their minds.

And, I listen to the radio, too - I don't hear anyone exhorting listeners to hate others, or be violent in any way shape or form.

What I do hear is hosts asking the callers to back up their claims and statements. And I hear a great deal of debate. Those who disagree are usually moved to the top of the call list, not censored.

Anonymous said...

When are you going to pull out the thumb screws, Rose. I've heard you can get a confession out of anybody to anything if you use the right tactics. Maybe you should try pain compliance techniques perfected by the CIA...

Question:

...Are you a no good dirty rotten progressive what once was a no good dirty rotten Democrat but are a ashamed to admit it on account of you are a no good dirty rotten lying scoundrel what doesn't want a container port on the bay what would bring jobs?

Answer:

What? Punch! Slap! Toe stomp! Ok! just let me sign on the dotted line!

Anonymous said...

If you listen to Savage or Reagan and haven't heard them even going so far as to encourage violence against liberals then you must be deaf.

The only liberal calls they allow are those who are obviously not very bright and can't make a good case. Probably why people like yourself have such crazy ideas about the liberal and progressive mind set.

exrepublican said...

rose,

listen to sean hannity and then tell me that ONE debate happened during the entire show. if a caller disagree with sean just one inkling, sean goes apeshit on them. there is no debate.

orielly can debate when he is in the mood. medved is a professional level debator when its not election time and he goes into "tool" mode.

savage cant debate either. if anyone disagrees one bit, he usually pulls a sean hannity on them. although, i have 100x's the respect for michael savage than i do for hannity. savage really is a thinking man, while hannity is a yes-man.

limbaugh doesnt debate well either...i always get the feeling that when rush is challenged, he thinks, "how dare they question the great elrushbo?!?!?" that kind of unwillingness to listen to other humans stories and opinions really irks me.

Rose said...

I guess that's part of his schtick, more pomp and circumstance and show than debate, and I'd agree that Rush and Hannity 'debate' less than Medved, Boortz and O'Reilly.

You don't think the callers are articulate? I disagree. It's just that their statements don't hold up.

Rather like "heraldo" and his spitting about HSU and Target. "He" completely ignores basic reality, and his argument depends upon people not thinking it through.

Anonymous said...

The few times I have listened to Hannity the only times he has liberals on they are dip shits or people who are obviously just pretending to be liberal so he can "change their minds." A few weeks ago this guy called up and said he was supporting Obama and when Hannity asked him why, he started in with a list of right wing lies about Obama. Hannity just let him go on claiming to be an Obama supporter. They only let those on who can't debate and when one gets through who is articulate they scream at them and go into the "Why do you hate America" mode. But it keeps the right wing idiots feeling smarter than liberals and that their cause is right and they like it that way.

exrepublican said...

6:17,
that sort of "they hate america" talk is the only thing that keeps people voting against their own best interests and why republicans keep winning......its called fearmongering. i used to buy into it.

think about it, how many people in humboldt county make over 250,ooo a year(legally)? yet how many times do you hear people in humboldt county saying they dont want THEIR taxes raised by obama? face it, 99% of us on the north coast wont get a tax increase, no matter who is president. yet they try to scare you into voting agaisnt YOUR best interest. im sick of voting in favor of giving the fat cats all of the advantages and basically ignoring the working class.

notice how the repubs these days try to scare us into thinking we should spend, spend, spend, and spend in order to keep us "safer" against the islamic nazis, yet they themselves dont want to take on any greater sacrifice? if the war is so important to them, they should be willing to fork over some of THEIR own money.

be fearful of gays, be fearful of muslims, be fearful of liberals, be fearful of blacks, be fearful of ANYTHING that stands in the way of what the GOP wants.......

Rose said...

It's a nice stereotype. But I am not fearful of gays, I am not fearful of Liberals - if I was I would fear my own family :) - I am not fearful of blacks.

I admit I am fearful of any religion that thinks it is ok to butcher its women for the smallest of transgressions, to kill its daughters for having a boyfriend, and that forces women into a dehumanizing burkha, any religion that dictates no music, no dance, no freedom of thought - but what scares me more than that is the modern mindset that ignores the atrocities and instead picks at imaginary scabs.

As far as the wage/tax issue, I registered Republican when I was making minimum wage - and the primary reason is I do not believe any person should have to pay 50% of their income to any government. I do not think you should have to pay a death tax on inherited money which has already been taxed every step of the way. And I do not expect to inherit any money. It is simply a fairness issue.

Your rhetoric is why people, yourself included it seems, have been brainwashed to fear Republicans.

And to hate anyone who achieves. That seems to go along with.

But we digress.

Tell me what we stand to gain if the Orks are successful at securing a "Progressive" majority? Another DA who will file a lawsuit for them? No matter what the law says? A Bunch of Supervisors who will say "Yes, Boss!" when the handlers want to bring a Cotchett in to accomplish their goal at County expense? A City Council that will vote against the Marina Center no matter what?

C'mon, you know this is what it is about.

Anonymous said...

What a sad and twisted view you have. Based on ignorance and lies.

exrepublican said...

rose,

you made minimum wage and were afraid that the feds would take 50%? lol

thats what im talking about, IRRATIONAL FEAR!!! any single person making minimum wage doesnt pay a DIME in federal income taxes.....nice try though....

unless you make more than 250ooo as a family, your taxes wont get raised...reality has to come into play sometime, it cant all be about rhetoric.....

answer me this: since bush's tax cuts in 2001, which i supported, how many jobs have been created? and what has happened to wages? all i hear is that if you raise taxes, no jobs will be created....well hello, no jobs are being created NOW!!! even with the existing tax cuts, jobs are decreasing in both quantity and quality. its time for a change of plan.

Rose said...

Did I say I was afraid, 6:54? No. I said I do not think it is right or fair. I didn't say it would affect me, Obviously it didn't.

It isn't just feds. It's Fed, State and any number of fees, and other taxes, sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, fees for this, fees for that,,,

Oh it is way-y-y-y over 50%.

But again, we digress - I'm asking you - what do we gain by allowing Salzman and crew a "Progressive" majority on the City Council _______... the Board of Supervisors _______? What? How will it benefit the community?

Anonymous said...

Progressives are people that are smart enough to know that reasonable people become ill when they hear the word "liberal" so they attempt to redefine themselves. Then they blame everyone else for doing exactly what they are doing, i.e. hate-mongering, race-baiting, class-warfare seeking, etc.

exrepublican said...

rose,
the only advantage i see in electing the people that you are intent on smearing is to see you squirm. j/k

i honestly dont know how salzman would affect my life. is he running for office? i have always said that politicians dont affect my life one bit. if i didnt know they existed, i would be no better or worse off. ive gotten MUCH bigger headaches from government workers in city hall and the county.......elected officials provide a good debate to watch and comment on, but little is actually done that affects my life personally....

Glenn Franco Simmons said...

Some of these posts are interesting.

As a person who is often maligned by those identifying themselves as "liberal," "progressive" and even "conservative," I've seen how labels unfairly characterize people.

I was finally persuaded to respond to another blog where I was accused of using an anti-gay code word; when, in fact, the people making fun of me were using a prejudicial reference.

This was my response to such clear-thinking souls (that's satire for those of you who just don't get it):

The readers who said they lost respect for me because I used a code word totally misunderstood my point and they have unfairly and unnecessarily slimed me without knowing anything about my record or what I've stood up for: the rights of others, including people who are gay.

My comment was this:

"Real men," especially “conservative” hacks, nutcases, like me, are not supposed to like pink or rose, are they? We’re supposed to be homophobic morons.

I was not taking a shot at gays. Hardly. My gay relatives and friends can tell you that.

I have never, ever in my life discriminated against anyone. Prejudice and discrimination are repugnant. My record speaks for itself.

Also, in employment, I have never, ever discriminated against anyone, on any basis, whether for age, race, religion, creed, gender, politics or sexual preference. That is totally absurd and can be verified.

I was making fun of those who made fun of my "hot-pink" blog. I was being satirical in the sense that conservatives are often called just that: homophobic morons. I've been called virtually every name in the book. Are my critics not engaging in stereotypes, in prejudice by making such statements?

I would also like to say that I’ve been fair to those who didn’t share my views throughout my career.

While in Garberville at The Redwood Record in the late 1980s, this conservative hack gave EPIC a column. Yes, EPIC. Why? Because EPIC has a voice in this community, whether you like it or not. This can be verified with EPIC, if anyone is still there who remembers.

Furthermore, I don’t use code words. I’m very, very direct.

By making fun of "hot pink," those who took part in that were actually the ones using a discriminatory term to belittle me. This is repugnant. They were the ones being prejudicial, as if there is something wrong with hot pink. Pink has been used historically to make fun of gay men. That is also repugnant, as well as are the other stereotypes that unfairly characterize gay men.

For those participating in making fun of my "hot-pink" blog, you were actually participating in perpetuating sexual prejudices that should be broken apart and discarded. It's rather shocking. That was my point. That is why I called such irrational thinking absurd. Read it again, please.

You have totally mischaracterized me and this is why I resent anonymous blogs. You are cowards. My phone number is in the book. Call me, talk to me, to those I’ve employed and tell me I am prejudiced against gays.

Such commentary is sheer idiocy and reflects the opinions of people who hate me. Hate is vile and it corrupts the soul.

Look at my record of employment and of standing up for the rights of others, including an editorial I wrote at The Eureka Reporter in support of gay marriage. It can all be verified. I have never discriminated.

And yet you have the audacity, the stupidity to call me anti-gay?

As far as my faith goes, I'm not perfect. Are you? If you are without error, perhaps I should worship you.

...

Lastly, I have never claimed to be perfect. Being religious does not make one error-free.

That should be obvious to anyone, even a conservative nutcase hack moron like me.

exrepublican said...

7:16,
if you get sick at hearing a word such as "liberal", are you really in a position to call yourself reasonable?

i used to think that only a monkey could be trained to puke on verbal command. i have been proven wrong. or maybe you just need a doctor's appointment?

Anonymous said...

someone sounds a bit defense about having a hot pink website.......

Glenn Franco Simmons said...

Please define:
liberal
conservative
progressive

Can a person not share opinions with all three? Humans are complex beings. To categorically define someone with an irrelevant title is something I've done and I regret it.

If they identify themselves as such, then so be it.

However, even if they call themselves liberal, it is rare to find a person who has views only associated to one group.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. My doctor says I'm doing fine. Saw her about three weeks ago. No more high blood pressure. Thanks for asking, though.

Glenn Franco Simmons said...

Nope. I love my blog. It's not a Web site. I love the hot pink

What I am defensive about, admittedly, is being called anti-gay.

I resent that and responded. If it is defensive, that's the way it goes. Then that would mean, yes, I'm defensive. Duh.

Anonymous said...

Yup, we need a progressive majority in the local and national political arenas. Let the conservative talking heads blather on the radio. You can't abide their propaganda and you can't drag them behind the car, at least, I've never been a witness to that.I use the term conservative to include Bill O'reilly since he isn't GOP. These people don't have any scruples. The ability to debate is a learned skill that often has little to do with truth and a lot to do with disguising falsehood to resemble truth. Often it is just repeating the big lie over and over until people can't distinguish fact from fiction. Limbaugh will bludgeon you with a falsehood. O'reilly uses a little more skill. He tucks his falsehood into the story, but not right away - you have to pay attention to catch him at it. Not until he thinks he has gained your trust does he really go to work. One thing they all have in common is that they are all patronizing, self-important blow hards.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Republican, I'm pro-choice (not real republican) so what does that make me?

From what I've seen anyone that calls themself a "progressive" is a fraud.

What's wrong with just voting an issue? Do what's right not what your party wants.

Anonymous said...

A neo-republican?

mresquan said...

I am a registered republican.Does that mean I'm a conservative?The term "progressive" has nil to do with party affiliation.

Rose said...

I agree with that, mresquan - and with whoever it was above who said most of us have elements of all the parties. There are many, many pro-choice Republicans, just as an example.

When did the be all and end all become what box you checked on some form?

But again - what great and wonderful things will happen if we achieve the nirvana or a John Birch Society majority on the City Council?

Anonymous said...

Political philosophies are not political parties. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, radical Republicans and conservative Greens, liberal and conservative Libertarians. You can be any party you choose. There is no litmus test to join. You can change your party affiliation easily. Changing your political philosophy is much harder. You have to open your mind and give consideration to different views, read to gain historical perspective, research and fact check, ask questions, and apply logic. With diligent application you too can become a progressive liberal.

Anonymous said...

Correct if I'm wrong, but the John Birch Society is an extreme right wing organization. Or are you disowning them now too?

Rose said...

I'm not for extremists of any kind, not partisans, either.

What's the difference between "Progressives" and the John Birch Society or the Moral Majority?

Anonymous said...

Or the Citizens for Real Economic Growth ?

Anonymous said...

Have you ever had your IQ tested? I think it may be defective.

Anonymous said...

Rose, do you support McCain's basic tax structure?

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

Rose said...

Reading Daily Kos again, eh?

Anonymous said...

No comment?

Anonymous said...

You can use another chart if you feel it to be more accurate than the Washington Post chart-

Rose said...

Eric has a nice post up about that if you're feeling chatty. SoHum Parlance: Comparing the tax plans

But - essentially yes, I support McCain's approach over Obama's - more than that, I support the idea of The Fair Tax replacing the current structure altogether -

I'm for positive change, you see.

More "Progressive" than you.

Anonymous said...

So I must then be a "progressive" and also not interested in "positive change." I'll remind myself of that tonight.


It is very difficult to have a positive discussion with you Rose-

exrepublican said...

a progressive tax system uses multiple levels of payment, depending on income....

the "fair tax" system uses ones consumption as a basis for paying taxes. poor people use FAR FAR more of their income to meet basic needs. the "fair tax" is a reverse progressive system that punishes the poor and lets the elite skate free........

exrepublican said...

do the elite really need MORE power? mcCANE cant even remember how many homes he owns!!! he thinks 5 million a year is a STARTING point for taxation!!

im beginning to get the feeling that jobs or national security or oil independence are the LAST thing on the GOP's mind these days. their only mission now seems to get more money for themselves and screw the rest of the country.....

Rose said...

Maybe if I had the feeling you WANTED a positive exchange, 6:03 - you'd be surprised.

As for my ex-Republican friend - you haven't read The Fair Tax, I guess (I have a copy I'll loan ya) - the notion of the poor and low income has been addressed - they would receive a check every month that more than covers any anticipated sales tax, so for them it is either a neutral or in some cases a net gain, money wise.

More than that, though, for once the TRULY wealthy, people like John Kerry for example, would actually pay taxes - because they would be paying taxes as they purchase all the SUVs and yachts and the like - whereas now, since his money is not INCOME.

There are many plusses to it - for one thing, it eliminates the IRS.

What's not to like?

This is REAL CHANGE. Not more of the same old same old.

mresquan said...

I like the Fair Tax concept.Actually,so does John Edwards.Love the elimination of the IRS concept.

Rose said...

There are some ideas we can all get behind. :)

It also removes the embedded costs of complying with all the IRS regulations and filings.

And for those who think Americans buy too much stuff, too much useless junk and future landfill - in theory, this would encourage people to consume less. there'd be real incentive to save.

exrepublican said...

rose said, "the notion of the poor and low income has been addressed - they would receive a check every month"

wow, i cant beleive you would support that. sounds like socialism. i guess if you market and package anything correctly, people will buy it...

Rose said...

Can you think of a fair way to do it differently, ex?

For someone on a low income, to have to pay taxes is a real burden, as you have noted. Thus, in this case, the costs are anticipated, and the burden is offset, so as to ensure they do not pay taxes, and do not pay that disproportionate tax burden you referenced above.

You prefer the current system where they pay in and then get a refund?

Anonymous said...

I really appreciate hearing from GFS on this post, Rose.

One thing we all have in common is that we do care about our community, our country and in truth, each other. We may not agree all the time, have different life views, but we can come together as humans.

Rose said...

I agree - and it is good to hear from Glenn. :) I'm not surprised his blood pressure is down!

exrepublican said...

rose,
low income workers dont get federal taxes taken out in the first place...in your example of yourself working a minimum wage job, you would pay NO federal income tax upfront. the main tax that low income workers pay is the SSI tax. you cant get around that one.

but you are so much more "progressive" than me, with your idea that poor people should just get free checks in the mail in ANTICIPATION of how much they will spend.....

my solution is to cut 50% of federal spending, including cutting AT LEAST 50% of the military spending and ALL foreign aid....bringing the power back to the states and reducing federal power would be ideal to me...

Rose said...

When I get time I'll pull up the exact definition of how that would work, ex.

As for cutting 50% of all spending - I am with you there! Let's start at the State level and get California back on track, eh?

Although, at the Federal Level - I'd caution, in the Clinton years we started decommissioning bases, and cutting back because we thought we were safe and the world was done with war. Then came 9/11. We weren't taking the Middle East seriously, and that was a mistake. A big one.

If there's on thing the Federal Government is supposed to do above all else it is make sure we are safe, and defend us from all enemies. You may hate Bush all you want, and pretend Clinton didn't bomb anyone, but the fact remains.

Bill Holmes said...

The "Fair Tax" is a complete fraud Rose.

The first clue is that the obnoxious Neil Boortz supports it.

Here's an idea: Let's eliminate all taxes except for a tax on oil. A tax of a few hundred bucks a barrel of crude will pay for all US government expenses and then we can eliminat ALL other federal taxes.

Now THATS simple and fair.

have a peaceful day,
Bill

Anonymous said...

I love how 911 was Clinton's fault

You are a funny SOB Rose!

mresquan said...

Bill,a "Fair Tax" if implemented correctly,could work.

Rose said...

Did I say 9/11 was Clinton's fault? No. I did not.

Anonymous said...

ex.. it's been a while since I found anything you say that I can agrree wit. This time you are right on brotha. " if you market and package anythin correctly,people will buy it" You have nailed the baykeeper,epic models to the cross. Good work ex.

exrepublican said...

rose,
you implied that clinton caused 9/11 by causing bases. i would contend that 9/11 had nothing to do with military spending.....we had plenty of intelligence and tools, we just didnt act on the threat that was posed. bush was warned multiple times in the months leading up to 9/11.....no safety measures were taken to secure the airlines...

we could cut 50% of the military budget, bring our troops home from germany, england, korea, ect, and make ourselves safer in the meantime....

exrepublican said...

oops...that last post should have read, "clinton closed bases"...not "clinton caused bases".....

Rose said...

Two separate trains of thought,

1. We closed bases because we thought the threat of war had ended. A brief but glorious period of time.

2. Those who hate Bush and insert the reference to war into every conversation always fail to acknowledge that Clinton bombed Bosnia as well as Saddam's troops who violated the air space agreement,

Ever President has to prepare to engage in war, even Saint Obama will have to be up to the challenge should it arise again. And he will learn things in his first months in office that will turn him prematurely grey, while we obliviously go on with our day, talking like we have a clue.

exrepublican said...

rose,
i didnt mention bush making war, i mentioned him NOT SECURING AIRPLANES....nice way to change the topic.

Rose said...

Then we are actually in agreement, ex - I said we did not take the threat posed by Middle Eastern Terrorists seriously. Starting with the Achille Lauro. We did not take it seriously after the first World Trade Center Bombing. Our movies portrayed them as bumbling fools, and we felt invincible. We are paying the price for that, and for not responding decisively when attacked. We are seen as weak, by people who have no respect fro weakness.

I just don't start frothing at the mouth and invoke the anti-Bush mantra.

Anonymous said...

How dumbed down Americans have become. The JBS strives to uphold the Constitution. Period. That used to be a noble task.

Anonymous said...

And once we did start taking terrorism seriously we attacked the wrong country - and still occupy it for purely humanitarian reasons. After all of the violence that has been unleashed on that country, thank god the the surge is working. Who would have thought the Iraqi govt. and the vast majority of it's citizens would be so ungrateful?

Some people wouldn't froth at the mouth if they had just eaten a live toad.

Rose said...

Has your hair been turned grey by being privy to the real facts? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Ya, (shrug) no big deal - if you don't stop and chew.

samoasoftball said...

This thread quir being "progressive" about 50 comments ago.

Rose said...

Let's be REALLY honest about what "Progressive" means here, Richard.

It MEANS we hate Palco, we hate corporations, we hate Marina Center, and we hate Rob Arkley. We are against all progress. And we are dead set in making sure that there is no business development anywhere anytime in Humboldt County, period. We dedicate ourselves to that aim.

That's what it means to be "Progressive."

Scared of everything and convinced everything is bad. Sold to earnest souls that this is about preventing Bush and Cheney, the fascists from taking over Humboldt County.

C'mon, you know the drill.

samoasoftball said...

I am a "progressive" and I don't hate all those things you claim. You have painted a picture in your head and are generalizing. Some might call it "profiling." Just as bad as those who yell "neocons" this or that.

Anyways, I defined progressive earlier in this thread, and I have seen no evidence of well stated argument. So there. I am a pompous "progressive." And proud of it.

Rose said...

Hate to tell ya, Richard, but if you don't fit the profile, you ain't a "Progressive."

What's wrong with being a Democrat?

Jennifer Savage said...

This thread brings to mine one of the many lessons I learned in Glenn Stockwell's (RIP) fine poli sci class at CR.

Most political issues in our society fall into one of three catagories: individual freedom, social order, equality of opportunity.

For the Democratic party, the priorities go in this order: equality of opportunity, individual freedom, social order.

For Republicans: social order, individual freedom, equality of opportunity.

For Libertarians: individual freedoms, then the rest of it.

So... for "progressive"?

Anonymous said...

What did I tell you about chewing on the toad before swallowing, Rose. Why don't you go ahead and change the Title of this thread to, "How to create a false profile and define your political enemies". Progressive may have been "just a label" but now it is more than that. Thanks, but your full of toads. Take a break.

Rose said...

Good question, Jennifer.

Rose said...

Tell ya what, 5:04 - I am still waitin' to hear one shining example of what good the "Progressives" have done in any office in any town in this County.

What "Progressive" thing have they done?

Rose said...

Here's one - they got Gallegos in office. Yippie Yay! And look what that has done.

DOWN IN FLAMES by the way. Misrepresented the law. Failed to provide exculpatory evidence.

The good "Progressive."

Anonymous said...

Oranges and apples. Progressive is not a political party. Why didn't your side turn out to vote against Gallegos? How can you blame everything on a label. They aren't a political party. Maybe your side thought they offered enough money for signatures that would have stolen the process? Define that. How do you define Richard if he doesn't fit the progressive profile as you define it? Perhaps you are going to sub-label Richard as an apple pie progressive to distinguish him from that other kind of progressive.

Rose said...

Richard Marks, from what I am told, is someone who has put his money and his life where his mouth is when it comes to Union matters - traveling all over and having his life threatened. I know from reading his writings that he works long hard hours. I know that he is a passionate Democrat. I know that he was fucked over by the Salzman machine. He knows that, too.

He can call himself a "Progressive" if he likes, and they'll be happy to use him as window dressing to boost their credibility.

As to "my side" - people, in general, were sold a complete bill of goods with Gallegos - all the pretty words, and all the fancy rhetoric - "Justice for all!" "Timber yes, Fraud, No!" You were told that Palco was trying to buy its way out of a (winning) lawsuit. People were justifiably horrified with that - and they stood united against it

Well, we now know that his case was meritless. That the "Fraud" is all on Gallegos/Salzman/Stoen/Miller's side.

You now know that you have a DA who files cases on behalf of his backers, and that he does not care what the law is.

And you now have a second case - the Douglas and Zanotti persecution - utterly without merit.

This next time, people will know the truth.

Anonymous said...

Well then, let democracy ring! You make Gallegos sound an awful lot like George Bush. Damn progressives!

Rose said...

Oranges and apples...

You're right - my point exactly - so what's a comparable statement to "we have to get more Progressives" elected" ?

We have to get more alcoholics elected? More warmistas elected? More sociopaths (like Gallegos) elected?

What are you accomplishing if you get that "Progressive" majority? A solid block of NO votes on Marina Center? That's what I see. Nothing more.

Ain't nuthin' "progressive" about a "Progressive."

Anonymous said...

Get more warmistas elected for sure. More sociopaths (like Bush/Cheney) elected - oops, sorry to break the monopoly you are trying to create. Negative profiling is such an iffy business. You keep saying that there is nothing progressive about a progressive. You are so dedicated to this myth that you have told Richard Marks that he isn't a real progressive, but, only window dressing . You once said what you and Heraldo do is not so different. Is that like window dressing too? So, if god loves wondrous variety, why does he let you categorize the majority under progressive? Maybe Steve Lewis can provide some spiritual insight.

Rose said...

You're still not pointing to ONE thing that "Progressives" have done for this community.

By extension, one can then ask - what good will it do to elect a "Progressive" majority? Or will it in fact be a HUGE mistake?

"Progressive" does not equal "Democrat" - nor even "Green" - it equals "anti-" - and I would still contend that, for the most part, Richard Marks is not an "anti-" - But I could be wrong.

samoasoftball said...

I certainly don't consider myself anti anything. Bring forward a project with merit, or a candidate I feel I can trust, I will back it or them. I am a working class/tax paying/fiscally responsible/pro labor-worker Democrat who would like to see positive growth for our county. I consider that "progressive."

I have friends who are all over the political spectrum. I try to make no enemies. Time is too short for that.

Rose said...

Then you are the PERFECT guy to answer the question. What "Progressive" thing has been done by a "Progressive?" Besides getting elected

Anonymous said...

What positive thing? Working with people across the political spectrum for positive growth. That would be Richard Marks and Larry Glass. There are more. I'm sure you will reclassify any progressive that I list into the window dressing category.

Rose said...

See how nice that SOUNDS? But it says nothing 4:47.

By that definition everyone on the Council is already a "Progressive."

And Jeff Leonard has actually accomplished something besides just "working together."

Larry Glass has turned out ok, and is well liked, BECAUSE he has turned out to be NORMAL.

Anonymous said...

So now Larry Glass is no longer progressive because you have reclassified him as NORMAL? Crap! Does anybody ever play SCRABBLE with you more than once?

Not A Native said...

Old thread I just saw.

No Rose, you don't understand what I wrote, at all. Has nothing to do with Thompson or Bertain.

Franklin Roosevelt was called a "traitor" to his class" by the Republican party. He aligned himself with the tenets of Democrats and helped define what that meant. James Webb, a Republican, decided his independent thinking was better heard by Democrats than his chosen party and is now a Democratic Senator.

Being a member of a group doesn't eliminate independent thought but it does constrain it. Unless you're Rose who is totally constrained by her personal definition of Republicanism.

Rose said...

Constrained? I don't think so.

Just because I checked a box on a form doesn't mean I follow any party line, and that's the thing no one gets.

I'd sit in meetings, and people would start bad mouthing Republicans. At one point I finally confided in a friend, you know, I'n not a Democrat. After that I'd be in meetings, and the Republican bashing would begin and sooner or later someone would elbow another person and whisper "Rose is a Republikannnn"

And for a long time I shrugged it off because it really didn't matter. Then I got tired of it.

What they hell is it that makes you think you can define me by that?

And since then I have been speaking out.

Because the funny thing is - "my personal definition' of republican encompasses everything those friends held dear once upon a time.

Before they turned nasty and bitter.

So - there.

Not A Native said...

You are what you are. Just as you discern others, they discern you.

Do you believe that your abilities of discernment are vastly superior to the abilities of others?

James Whitcomb Riley, sometime around 1883-1885:

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

Rose said...

The point is, NAN, that UNTIL the label was applied, everything was normal. As soon as they heard that the dreaded 'R' label applied, then it became all whispers and weirdness. I'm sick of it.

And it happened again last night, in a group of people with whom I have never had a problem. The "R" topic came into play, and suddenly they're apologizing to me because they said something negative about the pledge of allegiance. Like finding out you are labeled changes your personality or your DNA or something. It's insane.

I don't define myself that way, but the "Progressive" have chosen to declare themselves star-bellied-sneetches. So I am still waiting for an answer - WHAT GOOD has the "Progressive" community done for us here? Point to something.

'Cause they're asking us to elect a "Progressive" majority like that is going to be a good thing. So tell me WHAT is good about it?

I don't see a single goddamn thing. I see a bunch of sniveling whiners who use the law as a weapon, people who like to tell others what to do and how to live their lives. Nothing at all like what Richard Marks so devotedly describes.

And Gallegos isn't helping your cause.

Anonymous said...

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Rose, sober up. Stop being abusive. Try to act NORMAL.

Anonymous said...

You seem to have that Arkley "I will destroy you" thing going, Rose. How many drinks before the verbal abuse turns into something physical?

Rose said...

Sigh. And once again, you cannot answer the question.

Anonymous said...

Now that you have beat your progressive straw man into compost I am relieved to find that you are a champion of bi-partisan politics. Let me be the first to extend my hand across the aisle in the spirit of bi-partisan solutions to local issues that concern all fair minded citizens of our fair County. May the future of Humboldt politics be free from the gutter sniping and name calling of the past as we move forward to build a better future. Yours truly,

anonymous

Anonymous said...

It always seems to me that Progressives wish to increase the empowerment of government....the same government that they claim has screwed everything up. Its still just a matter of a group's arrogant thinking that their ethics are the best....

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that progressives want a government that answers to the needs of people - to protect them from those things that are beyond their ability to deal with on their own. They want to have their voices heard when forces more powerful than themselves attempt to impinge on their freedom, their health and safety and that of the environment. They are vigilant to the danger that government poses when officials elected to represent them trade up to do the will of big money interests such as oil, pharmaceuticals, weapons manufactures, resource extractors and others that leave would us and our environment vulnerable to predation of our lively hoods, our safety and our lives. Those who would not take responsibility for such vigilance are guilty of unpatriotic behavior and share blame for the loss of freedom and safety promised to us in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Anonymous said...

Advocates for small government get less oversight on institutions that prey on the weak. We are all weakened when financial institutions need to be bailed out, our jobs off shored, and our currency weakened. Yet those advocates for smaller government fight wars for and pay a much higher rate of their income in taxes than do the wealthiest among us. Yet, with every act of theft on the middle class and the poor, the sorriest amongst us willingly vote against their own to empower their tormentors.

Anonymous said...

First, why bail them out? But what oversight are the progressives proposing? The elimination of corporate personhood for one. Eliminate that and you eliminate financial institutions. No need for oversight. Caveat Emptor. You invest your money, you roll the dice. Bullshit on the tax rate. The highest 10% income pays 90% of the taxes. 40% of people receiving tax "refunds" paid no taxes or had no income. We dont tax "wealth" we tax income. I am all for taxing the wealthy....Income and wealth have nothing in common. Just ask ol Ted Kennedy. He is wealthy but has little income. Just look at his trust fund. Joe Biden only worth $250,000? Wonder how many accountants he has.

Anonymous said...

Why bail them out indeed. The problem was allowed to happen in the first place. People who get refunds over paid their "share". You do not eliminate financial institutions by eliminating corporate personhood. We cannot allow financial institutions and corporations free rein on how they make their money. Life savings and and livelihoods get sacrificed to the bottom line. The collapse of the American economy and it's financial institutions would have a world wide effect. Oversight of these Goliaths of the world's economy is the job of the Federal Government. There needs to be a separation of the Washington lobby and our government for the protection of American citizens as well as citizens of countries we do business with. If American citizens are going to be continually bailing out failed financial and other corporate institutions then nationalize those bandits and make them pay the money back.

Rose said...

My God! How have we survived all these years! Didn't our forefathers know how put upon they were? didn't they know the value of sniveling and begging for the "government" to take care of them. The great nanny state, the succor of the masses, why today, people actually have to work to make money - how grotesquely unfair! It's the corporations, I tell ya, the root of all evil, our oppressors. If we could just hogtie them all would be rainbows and flowers, with warm cocoa and all the pot you can stand to smoke.

Anonymous said...

I don't smoke pot. I work seven days a week. I own a limited liability corporation. People have always had to work to make money. The great nanny state my foot. The great majority of the people in this country are like me, financed to the gills and working to keep what they have. I don't know how many accountants Joe Biden has, but he isn't worth any more than I am and I have only one. But you are wrong if you think large corporations do not need oversight, ...or paid for. Get over yourself, Rose.

Not A Native said...

Rose, you depiction of forefathers is a big fat myth.

The Government gave land essentially for free to those local forefathers you claim did it all on their own. And later the Government provided here military security, public work(including levees and roads), and subsidized railroads and other "private" ventures.

In fact, the Government provided so many incentives that by the 1930's, it found a need to break up Trust and Monopolies created courtesy of Government largesse.

Anonymous said...

Brrrrrrrrrump bump!

Anonymous said...

People who get refunds over paid their "share".

Are you nuts? %40 (that is FORTY PERCENT!) OF PEOPLE GETTING A CHECK FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR A TAX RETURN HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME AND PAID NO TAXES TO BE REFUNDED. They simply get earned income credit, child tax credits, etc.

Rose said...

I dunno, NAN - I forget, is that in Lakoff's book?

Rose said...

This Palin thing is bringing about a TON of discussion about "Liberal/Progressive" and Republican/Conservative. and what it means...

Here's one interesting post and thread - - The Republican Party - the party of Abraham Lincoln - was borne in 1854 out of opposition to slavery.

- The party of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan was, as Jeffrey Lord points out in an article at the WSJ, the Democratic Party. And Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) is the only living member of the Senate who was once a member of the KKK.

- The 13th (abolishing slavery), 14th (due process for all citizens) and 15th (voting rights cannot be restriced on the basis of race) Amendments to the Constitution were enacted by Republicans over Democratic opposition.

- The NAACP was founded in 1909 by three white Republicans who opposed the racist practices of the Democratic Party and the lynching of blacks by Democrats.

- In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. My own belief is that the military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.

- It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.

- Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He "proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s." Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the "Little Rock Nine" incident, "Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school."

- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK - but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision....

Anonymous said...

Wow! that is a large percentage of people getting earned income credits that have no taxable income. What a great Country we live in that gives tax credits to corporations to move their base of operations to Communist China and still gives earned income credit to families so their children can be clothed and fed. God bless America! And how about that Haliburton getting all those tax payer funded no bid contracts then moving their headquarters off-shore to save $70 million a year in taxes? Wow! Dick Cheney's Haliburton stock should be worth so much more than the $50 plus million it was worth when he left that company to become the Vice Commander in Chief and Energy Czar of the United States of America. Heil to the Vice Chief, bubby! All heil to 50 permanent American military bases in Iraq. Down with earned income credits for poor children. Just who do they think they are? So, how many people got tax returns? How many ended up paying in at the end of the year? According to Mark Twain their are lies, damned lies, and statistics. He also said get the facts first. Then distort them all you want. Er, sumpin' like that.

Anonymous said...

I like Ike! Who cannot revere Abe Lincoln? If we had men like that today, I would want to belong to their party. Oh wait, there is Barak Obama! Would Lincoln change party affiliation if he were to come back today? Political parties change. Everybody knows that.

Anonymous said...

The Palin thing is bringing a ton of conversation about dishonesty, rampant and blatant, that accompanies the McCain/Palin ticket. McCains advisers are corporate lobbyists. That ain't no kind of change.

Rose said...

...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer...

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

,,,In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.

In The Political Brain, Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military. The Democrats, in the process, have become the party of the profane—of secular life and material interests. Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don't understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping....


That's what I am talking about - not the smear machine in full gear, not the Palinioia.

Honest to God - If we had only known that Republican women have to (get to) stay home with their kids while Democratic women have to (get to) work - I wonder how the Party registration would be... changed...

Rose said...

More food for thought - John Ray claims to have authored the largest number of published scientific papers on subjects related to the psychology of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism.’ His take might differ a teensie bit from Dr. Haidt’s, e.g. Dr. Ray’s ‘Summary of the summary’: “Leftists hate the world around them and want to change it. Conservatives just want to be left alone.”

Anonymous said...

Yep, you can find a scientific paper to support just about anything. It is not what I would call the beauty of the internet. I once read a "scientific paper" that said that conservatives were so rigid in their thinking that they often become entrenched and embittered and hating people to the point that they just want to be left alone. You have to wonder who funds this kind of so called science. Probably 'The American Heritage Foundation and publishing Company'. That must be it. They would need the auspices of a fake scientific study to justify the propaganda they foist upon the unsuspecting public. This country has been going down hill for close to sixty years - about as long as that combination Republican think tank and drain field has been overflowing into the lower elevation of human jabber.

Anonymous said...

Off topic, but your opinions always peak my curiosity Rose-

Where do you stand on Prop 8 Rose?

Anonymous said...

Rose will probably claim that she doesn't have a problems with gays, but she believes that "activist" judges have no right to change the California constitution. Therefore she will vote no.

Rose said...

My flippant answer would be that we lived together for 7 years because we didn't believe in that 'little piece of paper' like many of my generation - therefore I am baffled that it is suddenly so sacred and important that everyone wants it and fights over it.

But it is much more complicated that that, and a flippant answer isn't fair to either side.

Suffice it to say living together - 'significant others' had all the same issues, it was frowned upon, didn't have survivor's rights or hospital visitation rights...

Shall I cop out and say it is above my paygrade?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you tell us how do you plan on voting?

Rose said...

Why don't you tell us who you are?

Anonymous said...

JJ from Eureka. And you are Rose from McKinleyville right?

I'm voting no.

Anonymous said...

What's your take Rose?

Anonymous said...

Republicans don't embrace gays. That should give you an idea on Rose's stance.

Rose said...

Republicans are people. They have friends and family members who are gay. Some Republicans are gay.

Your blind caricature is not accurate. But it does go to enforce the point that "liberals' cannot even begin to fathom, much less understand 'conservatives.'

Checking a BOX on a voter registration form does not remove your ability to think for yourself, unless you are a "democrat' apparently.

Anonymous said...

I sure don't understand how deficit spending is a good thing. Is there a difference between conservative and neo-conservative? Is that like right and far right?

Anonymous said...

Rose is voting yes. She just won't admit it here.

Rose said...

Interesting - My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a
Republican and father of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.

DR. ALVEDA C. KING founded King for America, Inc. "to assist people in enriching their lives
spiritually, personally, mentally and economically." She is the daughter of the late slain civil rights
activist Rev. A. D. King and his wife Naomi Barber King. Alveda is the grateful mother of six children
and she is a doting grandmother.