tvashtarkatena

thank you for responding. if you reduce your argument to only center on "terror" as the commonality between events, you then remove other possible relevant information, such as location of attack. Wait a minute. Downtown Spokane isn't as newsworthy as Times Square? WTF?

NRA stifles gun control research

Some stoned hot-tubbing bond-trading Papa Bear, apparently. Thanks a lot for not very much. Pics!

Ad Hominus Diem!

Actually, his question was spot on and effectively highlights the fundamental ridiculousness of your premise. I wouldn't have answered it either! you already lost this argument but you keep coming back for more: it is undisputed that the corporate media will go hog wild for weeks on end on any half-ass report of Arab terror but will mostly ignore domestic terror. Seems like somebody might have slipped a wee bit o coverage in there about the Gifford and McVeigh thangs. And the Michigan militias, and that Idaho shootout, and....

So, so far, we've confirmed that a) The original blog excerpt is non-journalistic crap that included actual falsehoods, pretty much on par with Faux Nooz b) Progressives here don't know who their political leaders actually are, although it hardly matters, I suppose c) Progressives are willing to forgive former progressives for a changed opinion (without any real action) but not non-progressives for tangible, positive, historic moves towards social justice. d) Tvash is a hedonistic fuckwit. SakU!

It's a hedonistic bullshit lifestyle thing while the crooks've been robbing us all blind kinda thing. Hedonism? GUILTY!

ok, so play a little yankee doodle dandy at a political rally, and voile! instant tea party? UM...yeah, pretty much. Gotta start somewhere.

it's the tvash anti-progressive drivel hour. Does this fuckwit drivel out of its ass or its mouth?

I find it interesting that you are trying to dilute my point into a morass of irrelevant semantics. why is this so? Actually, his question was spot on and effectively highlights the fundamental ridiculousness of your premise. I wouldn't have answered it either!

To dangerous to allow on US soil!!!!!!

You can start a movement, but you can't necessarily control where it goes....

Playing makes you happier! Again...not a progressive thing.

YouTube. So useful! [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvGS12EoZUE

Forgot to mention judicial smack down of CA prop 8. Sorry.

source, please. Get off yer lazy ass and google it, ya fuckin baby.

My gay friends certainly agree! WA domestic partnership, repeal of DADT. Real results: not a progressive thing, I realize.

Kinda like good ole Joe Lieberman...checkmate. In the world of positive change, ya takes what you can get when you can get it. AND proposed major climate initiative.... one has to be fucking delusional to think that Lieberman's repeated betrayal of democratic constituencies was made all worthwhile because of his vote on DADT. Who gets to be judge and jury in this perfectly COUNTERBALANCED progressive universe, I wonder? Is there no absolution available? The Catholic in me reels!

Oops! Fact check! [video:youtube]

You are either clueless or are trying to spread disinformation. Senator sanders, rep. kucinich and a few others represent progressives in AMerica today. Kucinich couldn't be a real progressive; his wife is too hawt.

BTW, that would be the very same Ron Paul that started the Tea Party movement in 2007.

Kinda like good ole Joe Lieberman...checkmate. In the world of positive change, ya takes what you can get when you can get it.

Who represents (as in lawmakers) the progressives in America these days? That would be Ron Paul. Let's face it, the progressive ideas of Utopia, intolerance for human fallibility (COUNTERBALANCE!), need for instant (albeit unfulfilled) gratification, disdain for nearly every institution/organization in America, and eschewing the need for money (personally or as organizations) as a prerequisite for making change hasn't exactly been a winning formula for the movement. Not to worry: America expects little to nothing from its progressives, and America has not been disappointed in this regard.

Why is Ralph GUSHING over him, then, if he's not pure enough? Has Ralph gone wingnut, too?

Is Ron Paul pure enough?