Town Square

Post a New Topic

If you STILL think this is not a progressive agenda

Original post made by jimf01, another community, on Oct 29, 2010

President Obama, on the Jon Stewart program, in a very straightforward way stated that it is.
The President started on a series of answers, defending his healthcare reform package in part 2 of this interview
And approximately 8:00 minutes into it
Web Link

"The same is true on every piece of progressive legislation...we have created a structure, we have a framework in place"

I started this thread a while back, and presented the evidence here Web Link

They told you what they were going to do, they did it, and now the President has told you what they have done

With the election next Tuesday, Americans will give Nancy Pelosi the answer to her question:
Web Link
Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a debate with Republicans over "what is the balanced role that government should have."..."We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have,"

America, time to make your choice

Comments (31)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 29, 2010 at 6:48 pm

Tell me again what's wrong about being "progressive".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 29, 2010 at 6:50 pm

*(preferably without reverting to that same "socialist" tripe, that is...)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mepartypatriot
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 29, 2010 at 7:00 pm

mepartypatriot is a registered user.

To answer Maria's question, progressive is someone who believes that women should get the right to vote. Progressive believes in people voting without having to pay a voting tax. Progressive believes that all citizens should have the right to vote regardless of their color, orientation, etc.

A progressive could be Richard M. Nixon who held the belief that all citizens should have medical care and who also formed the EPA (Source: Julie Nixon Eisenhower). A progressive should be someone creating a national park system (Teddy R.) A progressive can be anyone that wants to move on.

So, what's wrong with a progressive agenda? Nothing, except to people who fear change.

jim, you are living in the wrong century.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dublinmike
a resident of Dublin
on Oct 29, 2010 at 9:34 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

I checked online. Dang, President Nixon did support health care for all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 29, 2010 at 9:44 pm

You libtards just don't get it. We don't need progress, we need to REgress! Regress to a better time in America, a time where we didn't have to worry about being PC, where we didn't have to worry about Muslim terrorists, where we didn't have such high taxes!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Why do I suddenly have images of a caveman dragging a club behind him flash in my head?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 29, 2010 at 10:01 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"OK, now you've gone back too far." Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 29, 2010 at 10:07 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Web Link

Congratulations on moving to the ridicule stage

meparty, it is not a fear of change, that is vague and inaccurate even in this context, it is the type of change that progressives seek. If you want a serious answer, we can discuss that


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 29, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jimf01,

I guess you lost then when you chose to call others libtards.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 29, 2010 at 10:22 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Web Link

Definition of REGRESS
1 a : an act or the privilege of going or coming back b : reentry 1
2 : movement backward to a previous and especially worse or more primitive state or condition
3 : the act of reasoning backward


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 29, 2010 at 10:27 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

I didn't call anyone libtard, you haven't had a faker impersonating you on this board


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Open your eyes
a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 30, 2010 at 8:21 am

Stacey, et al; the "libtard" and "regress" comments came from someone trying to impersonate jimf01...no doubt a "progressive". Your intolerance of conservative opinions and your willingness to believe that is a valid comment from a conservative, allowed you to be duped by that idiotic post. That says quite a bit about some of you. Stacey, your posts are usually quite intelligent and I value your opinion but as we approach 11/2 your letting your emotions get the best of you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Able
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2010 at 8:53 am

Stacey,

It is pretty clear that jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com and that the "libtard" remark was posted by someone who is not a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Open your eyes
a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 30, 2010 at 2:41 pm

And now the thread goes silent...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on Oct 30, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Frankly, as some one who has been on the receiving end of spin and name-calling from "jimf01", I have to say that I thought the unregistered jim-clone sounded a lot like the sometimes-registered "jimf01".

"mepartypatriot", thanks for the great description of "progressive"!

I have to say this election has certainly been an eye-opener on how those on the right, who profess to love America, freedom, and the Constitution, really want to change our country -- and they are right - there's nothing "progressive" aboout it. From attempts of vote suppression and voter intimidation to declarations of using "2nd Amendment remedies" to "correct" the vote after November. From stripping Amendments out of the Constitution to promoting secession from the USA. From branding anyone who doesn't share their politics or opinions as un-American and un-patriotic to calling all those of a different faith terrorists because it's their "nature".

Me, I thank goodness that I live in a country where I still have the freedom and the right to express my opinion and my politics not only on this forum, but more importantly, with my vote -- just as every other American does. So, it really doesn't matter whether or not you agree with me, or call me names. I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!!

Have a great weekend, one and all!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Able
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Rae, wow, all those claims!

My initial reaction is that somebody said something kind of like what you're stating and has been morphed, or that a majority of the folks on the right don't buy into what you proclaim the right is about.

If you could source some of those that would be great. Thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2010 at 5:22 pm

I just don't understand this kneejerk reaction that certain folks have to the term "progressive". (Well, okay, I've seen the Glenn Beck explanation, but I honestly hope that you guys are smarter than that...)

You claim, jimf01 (the real one, that is), that it's not a fear of change, but the type of change. Ok, present me with your ideal version of change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 30, 2010 at 10:02 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

jimf01,

I apologize if I have you confused with an imposter. Actually, it isn't true that I've never had someone fake my identity here (Web Link) and the PW implemented the "registered user" tag shortly thereafter. Speaking from personal experience, may I suggest that you don't feel so ridiculed by my response to an imposter?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2010 at 10:49 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Thank you for your comments Stacey, and apologies for not getting back here sooner, I have been walking Tracy with lots of conservatives this weekend to GOTV.
I have been working on ignoring comments from those who mock and jest, argument for arguments sake is not going to result in anything except sinking to their level and giving them a bit of glee.

I don't know that I can spell out an ideal version of change in this space. I do know that it is in opposition to most of what I see the Democrats in Congress pushing for


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2010 at 8:23 pm

Really? I thought the Democrats just haven't done jack sh** ;)
As a party, they are much less cohesive than the Republicans in terms of message. I'm so disillusioned with both parties that I switched my party affiliation to "none" this current election cycle.

However, I think we can both agree that some sort of reform is needed...?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rat Turd
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 31, 2010 at 8:32 pm

I think we have seen the effects of the liberals in California up front and personal. They have done a fine job of managing this state........not. We are a laughingstock of the nation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Nov 1, 2010 at 9:53 am

Rae-'From attempts of vote suppression and voter intimidation to declarations of using "2nd Amendment remedies" to "correct" the vote after November." Are you talking about ACORN or the new Black Panthers?
Try repeating your hysterical post-maybe someone will believe you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by radical
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2010 at 10:06 am

wow - who is stripping Amendments out of the Constitution?

some GOP candidates are proposing changes, proposals that would include the constitutionally mandated process for making such changes

democrats don't bother with that--they end run the constitution the congress and the courts with regulation and executive orders to accomplish goals


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on Nov 1, 2010 at 11:11 am

Able said: "If you could source some of those that would be great."

These are just a few of the many sources that are available to research and read.

Vote suppression & voter intimidation: "Latinos for Reform" vote suppression ad and other efforts: Web Link Web Link

Tea Party/Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle on 2nd Amendment remedies when she talked to conservative radio host Lars Larson in January 2010: "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around and I'll tell ya the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."" Web Link

Repealing/changing Constitutional Amendments, namely the 1st, 14th, 16th and 17th: Web Link

Secession advocates: Web Link

Un-American and unpatriotic: Do I really need to provide web links to the many postings, just on this forum, where self-named "true American patriots" want to "take their country back" from the "evil" "socialist/nazi/Marxist" liberals who "hate America and the Constitution"?

Muslims are "terrorists": For this one look no further for an example than Pleasanton City Council candidate Fred Watson aka "fcwatson". In two of his many pre-candidate blog entries on conservative websites he stated that he considers Muslims to be terrorists because "It is the law of the Muslim to take over the world" (chicksontheright.com) and "The Muslim religion by its very nature is Terrorism" (weaselzippers.com).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Nov 1, 2010 at 11:18 am

Janna is a registered user.

Second Amendment Remedies = murdering those who disagree with you. Nice thing to promote. Too bad nuts like her and Beck will likely never have to answer for their calls to violence. They'll just sit back and enjoy the bloodshed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Nov 1, 2010 at 11:21 am

Janna is a registered user.

ACORN has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Congress. You'll have to find a new strawman. I know it's hard to accept that the people are speaking through their votes. In republican fantasy land, no one votes Dem, hence their delusions about cheating.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Nov 1, 2010 at 11:30 am

Janna is a registered user.

We all know why the repubs accuse the dems of voter fraud and suppression, because they are good at projection. If they're accusing you of it, they're probably doing it themselves.

The right can't stand the thought of minorities voting because most of them will vote dem and that's bad for them. Can't you smell their desperation?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Nov 1, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Janna is a registered user.

Run for your lives!

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Able
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2010 at 11:34 pm

Able had said: "If you could source some of those that would be great."


*Rae wrote:
These are just a few of the many sources that are available to research and read.

Vote suppression & voter intimidation: "Latinos for Reform" vote suppression ad and other efforts: Web Link Web Link

** Able's reply:
I think this ad put out by a Latino group to other Latinos is a bad idea (just like a lot of other 527 ads on both sides), but it's not voter suppression or intimidation.

It's very straight forward. Not much different than the folks who wanted an option to vote no against a candidate or those who wanted to vote none of the above in other elections. We have the right to vote in this country. Unlike some countries, we also have the right NOT to vote.

The ad is straightforward in stating what it's about and stating that if you agree with the idea that the democrats haven't delivered on their promises to Latinos then you can simply not vote for them.

Based on the numerous polls of likely voters, it appears many Americans in general are already planning NOT to vote for the Democrats they put into power just a few years ago. They are exercising they're right not to vote, whether it's because they don't think they got what they wanted, apathy, or any other reason.


*Rae wrote:
Tea Party/Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle on 2nd Amendment remedies when she talked to conservative radio host Lars Larson in January 2010: "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around and I'll tell ya the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."" Web Link

**Able's reply:
You left out the part where Sharon Angle responded to that political rhetoric with this: ""Well, I was speaking broadly, as you saw, about the Constitution, and that was the context of that rhetoric," Angle responded. "I admit that was a little strong to say 'take him out,' but you know what I meant. I meant take him out of office, and taking him out of office is a little different. I changed my rhetoric, to 'defeat Harry Reid.'"

You or I can chose to believe her or not believe her but it looks like from her actions she's backing that second statement up by actual trying to defeat him at the polls and not the other.


*Rae wrote:
Repealing/changing Constitutional Amendments, namely the 1st, 14th, 16th and 17th: Web Link

**Able's reply:
Your source here is a liberal UC Berkeley graduate blogger named Brian Beutler.

This is mostly his biased (with all due respect) opinion, such as with the 1st Amendment. He doesn't state that anyone actually seriously wants to change the 1st Amendment, but he fills in the blanks as he sees it based on some seeking some sort of government intervention in the case of the Cordoba Mosque next to Ground Zero where the self proclaimed Islamic Terrorist killed thousands of innocent Americans and attempted to kill tens of thousands.

As to birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment, Americans in general are pretty evenly split on whether that should stay the same or be changed so that's a mainstream American repeal/change/keep issue.

As to the 16th Amendment, the proposal is to change the method of taxation (income tax vs. sales tax), not to end taxation. Methods of taxation are frequently being discussed in Congress.

As to the 17th Amendment, about changing how Senators are elected, even the liberal blogger whose article this is says: "There's NO indication that a Congress controlled by Republicans would pursue an amendment like this, but if they do, conservative Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) already has one drafted."


*Rae wrote:
Secession advocates: Web Link

**Able's reply:
The web link you provided is broken but it looks like you're looking to quote political rhetoric from a Congressman from Tennessee Rep. Zack Wamp (R) but it looks like you're leaving out the part where he says: "Of course we will not secede from the union. But we will also not have a governor who will cave in to Barack Obama."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2010 at 7:54 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Wonderful, random phony attacks on GOP candidates, but the fact is that GOP and Tea Party supported candidates are by-and-large mainstream and reflective of the racial makeup of the USA.

I will stop by later and see if anyone has a meaningful contribution. Meantime I am going to continue watching election returns, CA polls close in 5 minutes.

The Obama agenda will still define the next two years.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2010 at 10:28 pm

"The Obama agenda will still define the next two years."

Yes, it will. And I am reminded that the best years Clinton gave us as the leader of the free world were when he faced a Republican led House. He repositioned himself closer to the center, and kept this country moving in a positive direction. Obama can do the same, and I will support him in that effort.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

November Ballot Prop 2 Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 3 comments | 1,176 views

Good news for downtown Livermore and the performing arts
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,155 views

Who wants to move to San Ramon?
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 1,114 views

Any questions for Pleasanton mayoral, council candidates?
By Gina Channell-Allen | 5 comments | 288 views