You might be progressive if ...

[Wry Catcher]

10. You hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. If you support expanding Medicare to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all citizens, cradle to grave.

8. If you believe in public funding of campaigns best protects your freedom.

7. If you believe Citizens United was a bloodless coup.

6. If you believe the Fairness Doctrine was repealed to protect the purveyors of propaganda.

5. If you believe a thrice divorced, drug abuser who has fathered no children is evil.

4. If you hope background checks and will stem the tide of gun violence in America.

3. If you believe bigotry and prejudice are fathered by ignorance.

2. If you believe the right to vote is sacrosanct and any effort to suppress that right is morally reprehensible and felonious.

And the number one reason to believe you might be a progressive is you have empathy.

 

[Truthmatters]

count me in

 

[Ringel05]

10. You hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. If you support expanding Medicare to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all citizens, cradle to grave.

8. If you believe in public funding of campaigns best protects your freedom.

7. If you believe Citizens United was a bloodless coup.

6. If you believe the Fairness Doctrine was repealed to protect the purveyors of propaganda.

5. If you believe a thrice divorced, drug abuser who has fathered no children is evil.

4. If you hope background checks and will stem the tide of gun violence in America.

3. If you believe bigotry and prejudice are fathered by ignorance.

2. If you believe the right to vote is sacrosanct and any effort to suppress that right is morally reprehensible and felonious.

And the number one reason to believe you might be a progressive is you have empathy.

I see some good, bad and WTF generalizations with explicit overtones of demagoguery.
The problem is that the devil is in the details.......... not to mention the variance of interpretations.......
I'm waiting for the neocons to come back with their "version"..... Aught to be just as entertaining.......

 

[Wry Catcher]

10. You hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. If you support expanding Medicare to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all citizens, cradle to grave.

8. If you believe in public funding of campaigns best protects your freedom.

7. If you believe Citizens United was a bloodless coup.

6. If you believe the Fairness Doctrine was repealed to protect the purveyors of propaganda.

5. If you believe a thrice divorced, drug abuser who has fathered no children is evil.

4. If you hope background checks and will stem the tide of gun violence in America.

3. If you believe bigotry and prejudice are fathered by ignorance.

2. If you believe the right to vote is sacrosanct and any effort to suppress that right is morally reprehensible and felonious.

And the number one reason to believe you might be a progressive is you have empathy.

I see some good, bad and WTF generalizations with explicit overtones of demagoguery.
The problem is that the devil is in the details.......... not to mention the variance of interpretations.......
I'm waiting for the neocons to come back with their "version"..... Aught to be just as entertaining.......

I'd be happy to discuss the details, which one do you feel is most deserving for us to begin?

 

[Ringel05]

10. You hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. If you support expanding Medicare to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all citizens, cradle to grave.

8. If you believe in public funding of campaigns best protects your freedom.

7. If you believe Citizens United was a bloodless coup.

6. If you believe the Fairness Doctrine was repealed to protect the purveyors of propaganda.

5. If you believe a thrice divorced, drug abuser who has fathered no children is evil.

4. If you hope background checks and will stem the tide of gun violence in America.

3. If you believe bigotry and prejudice are fathered by ignorance.

2. If you believe the right to vote is sacrosanct and any effort to suppress that right is morally reprehensible and felonious.

And the number one reason to believe you might be a progressive is you have empathy.

I see some good, bad and WTF generalizations with explicit overtones of demagoguery.
The problem is that the devil is in the details.......... not to mention the variance of interpretations.......
I'm waiting for the neocons to come back with their "version"..... Aught to be just as entertaining.......

I'd be happy to discuss the details, which one do you feel is most deserving for us to begin?

To a certain degree all of them but the Fairness Doctrine???!!!! Any rational person can see it's nothing more than an attempt to infringe on the First Amendment. If you don't like the opposition's "propaganda", counter it with you own. Welcome to America.

How do you propose to institute your ideological concepts into functional laws that will not infringe on the constitution and, or bankrupt the nation? (Use rational, not emotive arguments.....)

Oh and I have never had a problem with background checks for firearm purchases though to be fair why not do background checks and have waiting periods for the exercise of free speech? (It's one way to look at the issue, whether we consider it valid or not. Some do, some don't........)

 

[tjvh]

You might be progressive if ... Your ideology trumps both the Constitution, and rational thinking.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I see some good, bad and WTF generalizations with explicit overtones of demagoguery.
The problem is that the devil is in the details.......... not to mention the variance of interpretations.......
I'm waiting for the neocons to come back with their "version"..... Aught to be just as entertaining.......

I'd be happy to discuss the details, which one do you feel is most deserving for us to begin?

To a certain degree all of them but the Fairness Doctrine???!!!! Any rational person can see it's nothing more than an attempt to infringe on the First Amendment. If you don't like the opposition's "propaganda", counter it with you own. Welcome to America.

How do you propose to institute your ideological concepts into functional laws that will not infringe on the constitution and, or bankrupt the nation? (Use rational, not emotive arguments.....)

Oh and I have never had a problem with background checks for firearm purchases though to be fair why not do background checks and have waiting periods for the exercise of free speech? (It's one way to look at the issue, whether we consider it valid or not. Some do, some don't........)

Let's start with the fairness doctrine. How does it curtail free speech? The manner in which it worked, was not to suppress, for example, Rush Limbaugh's freedom to speak, but to offer a counterpoint for his listeners to consider. Such counterpoints were delivered in 60-second uninterrupted responses.

We've all listened to Rush and many of us wonder how he got away defaming Sandra Fluke. Wouldn't it be fair to allow her or her surrogate 60-seconds of air time?

 

[Ringel05]

I'd be happy to discuss the details, which one do you feel is most deserving for us to begin?

To a certain degree all of them but the Fairness Doctrine???!!!! Any rational person can see it's nothing more than an attempt to infringe on the First Amendment. If you don't like the opposition's "propaganda", counter it with you own. Welcome to America.

How do you propose to institute your ideological concepts into functional laws that will not infringe on the constitution and, or bankrupt the nation? (Use rational, not emotive arguments.....)

Oh and I have never had a problem with background checks for firearm purchases though to be fair why not do background checks and have waiting periods for the exercise of free speech? (It's one way to look at the issue, whether we consider it valid or not. Some do, some don't........)

Let's start with the fairness doctrine. How does it curtail free speech? The manner in which it worked, was not to suppress, for example, Rush Limbaugh's freedom to speak, but to offer a counterpoint for his listeners to consider. Such counterpoints were delivered in 60-second uninterrupted responses.

We've all listened to Rush and many of us wonder how he got away defaming Sandra Fluke. Wouldn't it be fair to allow her or her surrogate 60-seconds of air time?

It's still mandating something that can be addressed by others, elsewhere so it's not a curtailment, per se, it's an unnecessary, forced artificial contrivance, interfering with the right of the press. If Lush limpjaw wants to spout his BS on his show then Kweef Overbite is just as free to rebut him on his show, whichever show he may have now. Sandra Fluke is free to bring a defamation suit if she so wishes so it's already covered by existing law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You might be progressive if ... Your ideology trumps both the Constitution, and rational thinking.

Go away, this thread is for adults, it is closed to you. Go join crusaderfrank in the sandbox.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To a certain degree all of them but the Fairness Doctrine???!!!! Any rational person can see it's nothing more than an attempt to infringe on the First Amendment. If you don't like the opposition's "propaganda", counter it with you own. Welcome to America.

How do you propose to institute your ideological concepts into functional laws that will not infringe on the constitution and, or bankrupt the nation? (Use rational, not emotive arguments.....)

Oh and I have never had a problem with background checks for firearm purchases though to be fair why not do background checks and have waiting periods for the exercise of free speech? (It's one way to look at the issue, whether we consider it valid or not. Some do, some don't........)

Let's start with the fairness doctrine. How does it curtail free speech? The manner in which it worked, was not to suppress, for example, Rush Limbaugh's freedom to speak, but to offer a counterpoint for his listeners to consider. Such counterpoints were delivered in 60-second uninterrupted responses.

We've all listened to Rush and many of us wonder how he got away defaming Sandra Fluke. Wouldn't it be fair to allow her or her surrogate 60-seconds of air time?

It's still mandating something that can be addressed by others, elsewhere so it's not a curtailment, per se, it's an unnecessary, forced artificial contrivance, interfering with the right of the press. If Lush limpjaw wants to spout his BS on his show then Kweef Overbite is just as free to rebut him on his show, whichever show he may have now. Sandra Fluke is free to bring a defamation suit if she so wishes so it's already covered by existing law.

That's you opinion, but the Constitutional issue is still open for debate. Since Limbaugh is using the airways licensed by the US Government, if he says "fuck" on the air he can be fined or lose his license to broadcast. We can infer then that defamation countered by a short 60-second statement is less of a burden than if Limbaugh spoke one of the seven dirty words. Suggesting that at some other time, on some other forum a counterpoint can be offered is no remedy.

In fact saying "fuck" on the air hurts no one, his remarks in many cases about others are harmful.

 

[Ringel05]

Let's start with the fairness doctrine. How does it curtail free speech? The manner in which it worked, was not to suppress, for example, Rush Limbaugh's freedom to speak, but to offer a counterpoint for his listeners to consider. Such counterpoints were delivered in 60-second uninterrupted responses.

We've all listened to Rush and many of us wonder how he got away defaming Sandra Fluke. Wouldn't it be fair to allow her or her surrogate 60-seconds of air time?

It's still mandating something that can be addressed by others, elsewhere so it's not a curtailment, per se, it's an unnecessary, forced artificial contrivance, interfering with the right of the press. If Lush limpjaw wants to spout his BS on his show then Kweef Overbite is just as free to rebut him on his show, whichever show he may have now. Sandra Fluke is free to bring a defamation suit if she so wishes so it's already covered by existing law.

That's you opinion, but the Constitutional issue is still open for debate. Since Limbaugh is using the airways licensed by the US Government, if he says "fuck" on the air he can be fined or lose his license to broadcast. We can infer then that defamation countered by a short 60-second statement is less of a burden than if Limbaugh spoke one of the seven dirty words. Suggesting that at some other time, on some other forum a counterpoint can be offered is no remedy.

In fact saying "fuck" on the air hurts no one, his remarks in many cases about others are harmful.

And that's you opinion........ Ain't America great......
Your allegory really is far fetched, apples and oranges, otherwise known as grasping at straws with an inference. If a "show" host says something, a "show" host on another program has the right to counter, if no one watches it's not the fault of the first host. So, a host's remarks were hurtful.... Again, there are laws that already address that.
BTW you will never convince me the, so called, Fairness Doctrine is anything but an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment for political reasons.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's still mandating something that can be addressed by others, elsewhere so it's not a curtailment, per se, it's an unnecessary, forced artificial contrivance, interfering with the right of the press. If Lush limpjaw wants to spout his BS on his show then Kweef Overbite is just as free to rebut him on his show, whichever show he may have now. Sandra Fluke is free to bring a defamation suit if she so wishes so it's already covered by existing law.

That's you opinion, but the Constitutional issue is still open for debate. Since Limbaugh is using the airways licensed by the US Government, if he says "fuck" on the air he can be fined or lose his license to broadcast. We can infer then that defamation countered by a short 60-second statement is less of a burden than if Limbaugh spoke one of the seven dirty words. Suggesting that at some other time, on some other forum a counterpoint can be offered is no remedy.

In fact saying "fuck" on the air hurts no one, his remarks in many cases about others are harmful.

And that's you opinion........ Ain't America great......
Your allegory really is far fetched, apples and oranges, otherwise known as grasping at straws with an inference. If a "show" host says something, a "show" host on another program has the right to counter, if no one watches it's not the fault of the first host. So, a host's remarks were hurtful.... Again, there are laws that already address that.
BTW you will never convince me the, so called, Fairness Doctrine is anything but an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment for political reasons.

IF Limbaugh or Obermann (if he can get a job and keep it) broadcast on the air they are doing so under regulations set by the FCC. So, you may opine the FD is an effort to suppress their opinion, but you haven't yet demonstrated how.

You may not like the idea but I believe the better informed we are as a people, the better choices we can make on election day.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well now, we only vetted on of the top ten. Anyone want to discuss others?

 

[Ringel05]

That's you opinion, but the Constitutional issue is still open for debate. Since Limbaugh is using the airways licensed by the US Government, if he says "fuck" on the air he can be fined or lose his license to broadcast. We can infer then that defamation countered by a short 60-second statement is less of a burden than if Limbaugh spoke one of the seven dirty words. Suggesting that at some other time, on some other forum a counterpoint can be offered is no remedy.

In fact saying "fuck" on the air hurts no one, his remarks in many cases about others are harmful.

And that's you opinion........ Ain't America great......
Your allegory really is far fetched, apples and oranges, otherwise known as grasping at straws with an inference. If a "show" host says something, a "show" host on another program has the right to counter, if no one watches it's not the fault of the first host. So, a host's remarks were hurtful.... Again, there are laws that already address that.
BTW you will never convince me the, so called, Fairness Doctrine is anything but an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment for political reasons.

IF Limbaugh or Obermann (if he can get a job and keep it) broadcast on the air they are doing so under regulations set by the FCC. So, you may opine the FD is an effort to suppress their opinion, but you haven't yet demonstrated how.

You may not like the idea but I believe the better informed we are as a people, the better choices we can make on election day.

Regulations yes, but I see no where that enforced "equal time" is a valid regulation that does not infringe the freedom of the press.
As for your cheap shot concerning better informed, we all have the right to be as informed as we choose to be and I agree a better informed voter can make better choices. I would love that because both you guys on the far left and your opposites on the far right would continuously lose elections and the moderates (Blue dogs and RINOs) would finally prevail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Empathy...LOL

Yeah, that's it.

I see a lot of Empathy when Progs post here