Progressive <> Socialist

Closed -> Spam/Trolling/Flaming

Fool for F-mod

In Amerika today, You_Fool, progressive = socialist. I have addressed the fact that progressive has an original and generic definition. I have addressed the fact that this is rarely, if ever, the definition used today in Amerikan politiks. There's a "Progressive Caucus" within the Democratic party; the word has been co-opted. Pretending that it's generic definition is significant, let alone preeminent, in Amerikan politiks is just silly.

Jon Stewart hasn't been funny since Half Baked, and he's not insightful. His "comedy" is based on ignorance. I literally tried to watch and enjoy his show just yesterday.

First was a random play on the bookstore "Borders" with "Completely Closed Borders"... in light of a political story which had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. It was a humorous play on words (the bookstore is "closed"; out of business), but it had absolutely no relation to the bit he Stewart was ranting about. Haha those people who disagree with us on a totally separate issue are so silly? This audience is so dense that a nonsensical out-of-place reference will be slightly humorous, which is par for this show?

He went on to parallel vitriol from the President and and Vice President of the United States to relatively unknown conservative pundits on cable news, as if there's the remotest comparison between their positions within their respective political parties. The notion that unknown pundits on cable news have the office to respect that the President does is just retarded. It's dumb. The notion that they have remotely comparable abilities to reach people with their message is similarly ignorantly stupid and nonsensical.

Basing a joke on the assumption that your audience is too stupid not to equate the President with some unknown pundit is only funny if you're an ignorant buffoon. I know the difference between the President of the United States and the office he holds and some pundit on cable news who is probably lucky if he/she makes 50 grand a year and who represents no organization whatsoever.

Pretending that vitriol from such unknown schmucks magically equals out with vitriol from the President and his office is just stupid, it's not funny. If clips of Romney and Ryan were shown, sure, that'd expose hypocrisy if they complained about vitriol and engaged in it too. But they weren't. The whole bit was just stupid.

He then went on to reference Republicans obviously wanting to repress minority voters, presumably referring to the voter ID laws they support. This, of course, despite the fact that minority voter participation has increased in every place which has enacted voter ID requirements.

Most of his "humor" and rants are based upon similar ignorance. He rightly assumes his audience doesn't know anything about what he's talking about and rants about how absurd people who are educated are.

Yeah, the Romney tax thing is just bizarre. It SHOULD be a non-issue.

Romney should get out front of it and say that he uses the legal tax-breaks available to him like everyone else. He should advocate closing our zounds of corrupt loopholes and lowering rates for all. If the rate he pays is so low, he should use it as evidence of his case that loopholes should be closed.

And, regarding his taxes payed on capital gains, he should punch a bunch of morons in the face and explain capitalism to them. Everyone benefits when someone makes money from investments which are taxed under capital gains rates: There are reasons why that rate is lower than regular income.

But he won't. Because he, like Obama, loves loopholes and corporate welfare!

I liked Stewart's Cain/Pokemon skit... but that's one of those cases where the story itself does the comedy work, and the comedian doesn't need to contribute that much. 

Zarf BeebleBrix,

He has people working for his show who are really funny. That British bloke did a really funny skit looking for an extremely stereotypical Democrat to be used by the campaign for their convention. He kept interviewing people until he found a gay, black, ex-military guy. His questions and everyone's reactions were great. Something similar for Republicans would have been funny, just the same.

I don't have anything against Stewart. It's not a news show (though, sadly, many ignorant turds seriously believe it is informative). Sometimes he's pretty funny. Sometimes his show certainly is too. But the vast majority of his "humor" and rants on political topics are just bizarre and completely based on ignorance: They're not funny if you have any knowledge of what he's talking about because most of what he implies is completely untrue.

He'd act like a Congressman supporting gun-ownership rights was a CRAZY VIOLENT MAD MAN if they'd used a gun to shoot somebody before.... even if it was stopping a lunatic on a shooting spree. It's his show; he can do whatever he wants. I don't have a problem with him. But it's usually not very funny. I can understand why the clueless would think so, though.

It's alright. He wasn't going to respond to anything I said anyway.

Kemp: There is nothing of value in your spam posts to respond too

These terms are used by people to simplify things and group people. Inevitably this type of generalization provides many mistakes.
These groups -if not imaginary- consists of many different individuals with possibly as many ideas.

You could ofc narrow it down and be more specific in a 3 dimensional graph to lower the distance to reality yet still have an easy to understand tool. We have seen many of these going around here often accompanied by a test. But even those are questionable and very inaccurate.

So mostly if people here say rightwing neocon,hardcore communist, religious, conservative etc its mainly used as a personal insult caused by a lack of argument.

lol

You_Fool, you're just spamming because you're too much of a little girl to argue with me. If you grow the balls to address anything I've said, I'll be here. You don't post any examples of your claims because you have none, but you keep sharing your ignorance anyway.

Mace, you're just spamming because you're too much of a little girl to argue with me. If you grow the balls to address anything I've said, I'll be here. You don't know what "usually" happens in Amerika, but here you are sharing your ignorance anyway.

Little Paul,

The word "progressive" has been hijacked by socialists/communists/democrats in the USA. There's a Progressive Caucus. I understand that the word has a generic meaning; you need to understand that, in Amerikan politics, that generic meaning is rarely used. In the context of "Conservatives" and "Progressives," it has a clearly defined meaning in Amerikan politics.

When someone proclaims they're a Progressive in Amerika today, they know what they're saying. And it's not that they support changes, it's that they support a specific set of changes involving expanded government power and control over all activity, especially the economy.

I'm not disagreeing that many people have no actual grasp of what it's being used to mean today, or how it's being used to mean much more/different from its original/generic meaning. We're talking "progressive" vs "Progressive," and many people are too ignorant to know the difference.

But I am stating very clearly that every politician proclaiming that he/she's a "Progressive" means it with a capital P and none of them are referring to the generic definition of progress, advancement, and "forward" changes.