(no subject)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Comments

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Are saying that ABC, NBC, NPR are right wing? Or that left wing isn't actually left wing, but just democrat party wing? In that case I might agree with you, thought then I don't know what you mean when you say "progressive". I thought the are synonyms, at least that's the way dems present.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Are saying that ABC, NBC, NPR are right wing?

Absolutely, and demonstrably so. Hardly a week goes by I don't hear at least one example from media I regard as more reliable.

Or that left wing isn't actually left wing, but just democrat party wing?

You've got that backwards. The democratic party is not the Democratic Party™; the official Party is quite to the right of what has traditionally been regarded as "left", leaving what used to be democrats pining away for the good ol' days (before 1978). The Party was forced to abandon traditional values to garner campaign money from ever-more powerful donors (and, more importantly, to appease the needs of those donors, needs which could hardly be described as "left" in any way).

. . . I don't know what you mean when you say "progressive". I thought the are synonyms, at least that's the way dems present.

The Democratic Party™ would love you to believe that, and have spent quite a hefty sum in propaganda to promote that notion. Generally, though, those that call themselves "progressive" find themselves at odds with those that coordinate the actions of official party activities.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Now you totally confused me. I need time to digest this. Hillary calls herself progressive, isn't she?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Hillary calls herself progressive, isn't she?

That is two questions. Hillary calls herself progressive; yes, she does. Is she? Another question, that.

I will say she is far more progressive than her political opponents, at least those on the right of the active political power structure. The problem is one of contrast; just because she is more progressive than, say, John Boehner, one can hardly call her more progressive than, say, Dennis Kucinich. "Progressives" tend toward Kucinich more than Hillary.

The question is not whether someone is this or that, but one of scale. How much of this is someone, and how much of that? Do other people deserve the label this more than others, and why? It's all about nuance.

And with the corporate politicos, there are certain topics near and dear to the progressive's agenda that are simply not discussed. Ever. Don't feel badly if you haven't heard them, though. These topics are discussed even less in the right-wing noise machine.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I don't feel bad, I don't pretend that I know everything, or even a little. Then Ron Paul could be a progressive very much, right?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Ron Paul is quite progressive on some of his opinions. Then again, these are opinions the corporate media has decided to ignore, if not fail to consider entirely. His farewell speech falls into this category. It's not progressive, per se, but he touches on issues that progressive value in ways that are lost on most.

I don't judge based on what people say they are, but rather what their opinions on topics happen to be. It's a lot safer to read the ingredients rather than just buy a named product.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Of course, who cares about stupid label people put on themselves. Now, as soon as you said Kucinich, I thought about Paul. But I don't see any similarities whatsoever between Paul and Hillary. How you explain that? Is there anything common?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Somewhere, perhaps.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"Now you totally confused me'

You are not alone, he is in a league of his own, and quite possibly the only "true" progressive I've ever met! :D

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Dude is a trip.