Comments on: How Progressives Can Win

By: Mike Blaxill

Mike Blaxill — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:52:36 +0000

I’ll take what they have in many “democratic” industrialized countries - universal health care, more regulation of business to protect the environment, mandated vacation days of at least 3 weeks, higher minimum wage, more protections against joblessness, homelessness (sounds a lot like socialism right?).. than the crypto-religio-fascist, oligopoly that we have in this country now any day. If corporations had free reign (or “more” free reign) to do whatever they wanted we’d all be A LOT worse off .. how about Florida under water and PCBs in your soup!

By: Peter Fleming

Peter Fleming — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:28:41 +0000

Ah, “progressives”, a new misnomer to replace “liberal” an old misnomber that
has finally been over exposed to mean bigger government. The 30’s intellectuals of Roosevelt’s administration stole “liberal” away from its 200 year old
usage: simply less government, more pro free choice individualism.
“Conservative”, as with the above two, has
the same unfortunate history. Both groups
mean: Go To Government to Solve All Problems
They are both Pro Centralization of government. Bigger government equals WAR!
I am pro DE Centralization of government
and truly do not want a war policy.
This article is archaic, fuzzy offering
only one remdy: “Orwelian group think”,
in place of individual choice and accomplishment of free markets.
Good luck disguising socialism; it’s an old
con. It can NEVER work.

By: Roxanne

Roxanne — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:57:31 +0000

I agreed with #4 Ian and #3’s statements. To keep the Republicans run again in ‘08, they will need to find a new way to win, on the opposite side, we must find a way to prevent this. That’s our new responsible if we truly cares for America and break the “merry go round” in the Bush’s world.
We have our freedoms, why let them to win?

By: Linda Hassler

Linda Hassler — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:08:32 +0000

I would imagine the author has used the positive word “progressives” while avoiding the term “liberals” because the latter term has come to represent causes that frighten those who fear change - the ultra right-wing.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:51:31 +0000

Sadly, Brigit’s seemingly flip attitude is closer to the truth than some would like to admit. With the Florida debacle of 2000 leading the Supreme Court to “appoint” Bush president [N.B. Inexcusably without the recusal of Scalia despite the fact that his son was on the Bush legal team], and the irregularities coming to light in Ohio re the 2004 election - and, as Brigit notes, with the increasing implementation of touch-screen voting on machines, 70% of which are owned and controlled by companies owned by Bush’s friends - the very concept of a “legitimate” election in this country is becoming questionable.

This does not mean that “progressives” (a word I also reject as inappropriate, and potentially off-putting) should not make every attempt to reach the voters. But just as important, if not moreso - yes, in the only hyperpower First World country in the world - is having progressives monitor the elections in as many places as possible. Without such monitoring, “we” could reach enough voters to win, but the machines and process could easily undermine that.

Peace.

By: Brigit Clarke-Smith

Brigit Clarke-Smith — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:10:06 +0000

Unless Deibold and dictator tactics are stopped in the ‘ghettos’, when voting time rolls around; “felon sheets”, etc. ‘Wrong’ voting places, standing in a line 7 hours to vote, and often in inclement weather…..
not a chance against the “ALL PUPPET REPUBLICANS”. Not a pregnant idea in any of them. Not a difference of opinion. Only the Republican Way. Whoopee for Kool Aid!

By: Mike Blaxill

Mike Blaxill — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:43:05 +0000

progressive taxation unconstitutional? where in the constitution does it say that?..

there is so much need in this country - walk outside and you see it everywhere..talk to (non rich) friends and you find they are struggling or have relatives who are struggling..paying for health care, housing, an aging parent.

That some people can’t find it in their hearts to pay more taxes .. say “get by” on $500,000 instead of $550,000 .. to me is obscene

By: David Hunt

David Hunt — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:38:24 +0000

The word (progressive) buz word doesn’t exactly sit right with me because it reminds me of a concept of Marx’s Communist Manifesto (loaded concepts)

(ie.)Progressive taxation means that a person who earns more pays not only additional taxes but also at a highre rate of taxes. This was my heavy metallic concept and is point 2 of the 10 point manifesto of Marx. The concept of progressive taxation is in the US unconstitutional, would not stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and certainly did not work out in the Soviet Union or any other country that tried it.