tvashtarkatena

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?

Yes, corporate control over America has WITHERED before Ralph's searing wind! Or...did his actions greatly accelerate that process? Hmmmmm....... deregulation, privatization, outsourcing and take over of the state by corporations have been as rapid under Democrats as they have under Republicans. Yes, if Gore had been elected, things would have turned out exactly the same...we know the 'argument'. With progressives, there's always a great big IF in there, somewhere. But Nader is last decade's news. How do you feel about Ron Paul, the proggressive's new political leader (now with the Nader seal of approval, as granted on FOX NEWS, no less!)

That's not what Tvash says when he talks about Nader. Yes, corporate control over America has WITHERED before Ralph's searing wind! Or...did his actions greatly accelerate that process? Hmmmmm.......

You do it for all the gay men and women who serve their country, that's why. I kind of thought that answer would be obvious, but I guess not. Keep your eyes on the prize, baby. as if his vote on DADT counterbalanced all the reactionary policies he pushed. It's not even close. what a lame argument. We let God sort that shit out. We don't have time for it.

You do it for all the gay men and women who serve their country, that's why. I kind of thought that answer would be obvious, but I guess not. Keep your eyes on the prize, baby. as if his vote on DADT counterbalanced all the reactionary policies he pushed. It's not even close. what a lame argument. So...you've been working on an issue for over 15 years (like DADT), and because a lawmaker voted for the war or whatever, you're going to say to the tens of thousands of gays in the military "Hey, sorry, we can't accept this vote. It's not pure enough". Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the resounding SUCCESS of the progressive agenda! But don't worry, there are groups who are not so ideologically pure that are achieving that agenda for those who refuse to soil their delicate hands in the dirty work of democracy - where people sometimes disagree (OH MY!)

Hey - I had a '69 that I rebuilt the engine to turn 1776 cc - up Snoqualmie Pass in 4th! balanced cam, lw flywheel, oversized pistons. So there. Never met anyone with a Microbus who didn't have to do this. Don't get me wrong...I love life in the slow lane when you've got the time for it. And Microbuses sure as hell beat tenting it.

You do it for all the gay men and women who serve their country, that's why. They don't much give a fuck who votes their way, as long as it happens. I kind of thought that answer would be obvious, but I guess not. Keep your eyes on the prize, baby.

A Reagan appointed, conservative judge handed the ACLU one of its most sweeping victories in recent years over the PA intelligent design case. This kind of thing happens all the time. Successful political advocacy depends on partnering with people and groups that don't on specific issues, despite disagreement on others. Fuckin' angry hairless monkeys!

I know all about good ole Joe. Nearly all successful bills at the state level need bipartisan sponsorship to have a any prayer of success. This requires working with folks who may disagree on other issues. I don't have a problem with that. People who wait for across the board agreement from their compatriots usually wind up...waiting.

Nope. Another trick: bait and switch. You two have a shitty repertoire of rhetoric gimmicks. I only posited that your original blog post was crap, and, as is pretty obvious to anyone (else) by now, it was.

Are you going to start singing Joe Lieberman's praises again? My neighbor may be a jerk, but if she pulls me out of a burning building, she gets a thank you for it. So you liked DADT, huh? OK.

I think Joe Biden might have scratched his ass when discussing domestic terrorism with his dog. HE JUST DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT!!!!!

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?????!!!!!!

I stand corrected. It was yours, Prole! L to the fuckin O to the fuckin L!!!

Nope. Not a hit count analysis...that was j-bs. There was a 'no coverage' claim...I simply took 5 seconds to debunk it. Progressives. Perpetually underpowered. Oh well, that's what happens when you go to war in a Microbus....

Are there any other topics on which you two need your asses handed to you over, or will that be all for the day?

Even a chronological public forum doesn't keep them from immediately 'fuzzing out'.

You might want to address that comment to j-b, the 'google hit' analysis was his. Basic facts! Such short half lives!

It would seem to me that the story, considering how devoid of information it is at this point, has been thoroughly well reported so far. I'm reasonably confident that, should something turn up, that will also be covered in a similarly robust fashion.

Yup, that 'might happen'. LOL