45 thoughts on “Americans are progressive on key issues IV

  1. Yes. I am not sure what you want from me Steve. You do realize that if you asked Americans whether they wanted free ice cream, they would probably say yes in large numbers. If you then asked if they wanted to pay for a fat laden sugary treat that can cause obesity, diabetes and heart problems, equally large numbers would say no. By all means continue to cherry pick the polls you want if it makes you feel better.

  2. Understand that it is good for the GOP for you to believe that. It ensures that you are unable to adapt to reality, learn from failure, and ultimately, put forward ideas that will result in election victories.

    1. Denis are you saying that it’s better to win elections than build a government that is working for all it’s citizens? Tell us, are you a Christian? Because you sure defend and espouse immoral positions daily here.

    2. Denis,

      Thank you so much for reminding us of Scott Walker’s victory. He’s got FOUR MORE years to deliver on his promise of 250,000 new jobs. How much longer will it take him?

      Thanks in advance.

    3. No Denis, I haven’t budged. Feel free to link to your prIor posts at any time. And I see your command of the English language remains unchanged since you bandied about the word “plagiarism” a few weeks ago.

    4. Denis,

      “GOP-Obama Compromise Would Mean a Scary Win for Big Business” is an “idea,” that “wins elections.”

      “…In fact, TPP has a lot of protectionism in it; only this time, the goal is to protect corporate profits, rather than workers or citizens. Supporters argue that TPP would merely “harmonize” regulations, to smooth commerce across countries. In this telling, it’s just too hard for corporations to adhere to so many different national standards, so just having one benchmark, preferably set extremely low, would spur some sort of trade revolution.

      In reality — at least as far as we know from leaked texts — TPP would limit government policies on everything from financial services to the environment to food safety. Initiatives like “buy American” laws, which mandate government purchases with domestic producers, would be tossed out under TPP, to name just one example.

      To enforce TPP, as economist Dean Baker points out, the deal sets up an alternate judicial system for large corporations, known as “investor-state dispute settlement councils.” Countries would have to adjudicate disagreements with corporations with these foreign tribunals instead of their own courts. Additionally, private corporations would have the right to sue countries through the settlement council process, by seeking monetary sanctions on any country that they claim breaks the agreement and constrains their “expected future profits,” a direct quote from one of the texts. …”


  3. No, and sort of, respectively, to your questions. And regarding your accusation, perhaps you could offer some examples of immoral positions that I daily espouse. Is it immoral to believe in the right to life, for example?

    1. Denis, you’ve been willing enough to post here almost daily. Feel free to highlight the post(s) that support your claim of morality.

    2. One way you might want to approach it Denis, would be to post the article where you commented and believe you took a moral position (as opposed to immoral, sycophantic) and indicate the time of your comment so we can find it. Here’s an example: http://bloggingblue.com/2014/11/would-florida-arrest-jesus-too/#comment-144162 At 9:49 John commented on a Federal job guarantee which would benefit the unemployed and turn jobless benefits into direct jobs. Incidentally you may also wish to take a look at Duane12’s comment at 10:38 where he questions the supposed morality of right to lifers.

      I would really like to see you argue your comments and views you’ve posted regularly on this blog in terms of morality – and I’d love to see you defend them in terms of practicality, funding, and benefit to society. If you can’t defend your views, why do you hold them?

  4. I see you have slithered away from the claim that I espouse immoral positions, now trying to put the onus on me to prove that I have not. No thanks. If you have a specific post wherein I advocated an immoral position, I will be happy to clarify my position. Do you think it is moral to accuse someone of immorality and then refuse to offer any example of the supposed immorality? That to me is slander.

    1. Denis, you wrote: “I see you have slithered away…”

      No, you, ig, and william are the kings of slithering and playing the victim card.

      Please apologize to EmmaR for such a blatantly sexist insult.

      from the claim that I espouse immoral positions, now trying to put the onus on me to prove that I have not. No thanks. If you have a specific post wherein I advocated an immoral position, I will be happy to clarify my position. Do you think it is moral to accuse someone of immorality and then refuse to offer any example of the supposed immorality? That to me is slander.

      1. Actually slander relates to a person’s reputation not their handle. Kinda like plagiarism relates to copying someone else’s words, not one’s own. In Denis-land definitions are … flexible. And thanks – you are kind and dare one say moral – the definition of which I suspect Denis confuses with righteous.

    2. I recall your comments about opposition to a living wage and to labor being paid more equitably. As I cannot search the site by name or alias, iirc, your position was there should be no minimum wage requirements at all. I’d consider that immoral in our present time of economic inequality and desperate human needs unfulfilled by our economic practices or our society, governments supposedly to be minimizing or preventing, instead of enabling conditions of human suffering. No doubt you don’t see it the same.

      (Important PSA, but off topic of today’s post)

      Do you think it is moral to accuse someone of immorality and then refuse to offer any example of the supposed immorality? That to me is slander.

      It is more than curious to see that you now define recent past comments, issued by yourself, as slander.


      You sure like accusing me of criminal behavior non, evidence be damned. Unlike you, I am not hiding my identity. Arrests and criminal behavior I believe are matters of public record. Feel free to cut and paste the results here. And no doubt a person of your integrity and compassion will apologize when your results come up empty, as they surely will. My guess is that there are good reasons that you hide behind a fake name. Project much?

      My response to your comment that I previously ignored:

      Defining objectionable behavior based on your statements is what it is. A list of priors is not a prerequisite for, nor is the lack of that list a defense of anyone’s current objectionable behavior. Your comment is clear evidence that you don’t have a clue about what is frequently objectionable about your “participation,” here. And insultingly suggesting the use of an alias hides something untoward doesn’t excuse YOUR behavior nor negate YOUR stated intent to hound and harass (not leave people here alone, until they agree with your beliefs).

      Intent to harass in the guise of internet trolling rarely reaches the level of prosecuted criminality. Obviously, to those who actually understand DV concepts, there is a wide range in the degree of harm inflicted with intentional harassment, just as there are more common social situations (i.e. this is not a domestic partner or an elder or a child abuse case, here) where it also does actually occur. Teens harassed online have killed themselves.

      Point being, join the dialog here at some future date when dialog is what your actual intent is.

      1. Bump! thought this should be more widely read as it was ignored by the “person,” initially being responded to.

  5. Regarding morality and minimum or living wages, I will frame my argument in moral terms. I start with the view that freedom is better than slavery or any way of life closer to slavery than freedom. As such, I believe it is better that individuals, employers and employees alike, ought to be free to negotiate the terms of employment without government intervention. I suspect all of us have worked without pay or have even paid money to work. Education is an example. Many work hard to get a good education and pay dearly for the opportunity. This is a choice freely made to work for nothing. A free person may have very good reasons to work for no monetary compensation or even to pay for the privilege. People choose no pay internships in some cases because they believe the experience will help them down the line. I can imagine people lining up to pay Warren Buffet to work alongside him, thinking that picking his brain would be adequate compensation. The government simply has no ability to adequately address all the possible reasons why a person might want to work for something less than the current minimum wage, and it is therefore immoral of the government to intrude to this degree in people’s lives. I will end with a question. Why is volunteerism legal?

    1. So then you of course don’t support Act 10 since the government interfered with the freedom of employees to bargain collectively, right Denis?

    2. Denis,

      When a 1st grader flunks a test, can the teacher “re-negotiate” their wages UP with the parents?

        1. Oh no Denis.

          You wrote this: “As such, I believe it is better that individuals, employers and employees alike, ought to be free to negotiate the terms of employment without government intervention.”

          According to you, if the parents do not meet the teacher’s wage demands, the teacher is under no obligation to teach their child.


          1. Let em strike, then fire those that do and hire new teachers. Like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers.

            1. And Denis contradicts himself again!

              You wrote:

              “Unions should be free to bargain with anyone willing to bargain with them…”

              Now at 12:53 you specifically want GOVERNMENT taking away ALL the seller’s BARGAINING FREEDOM. You’ve destroyed FREE MARKETS.

              If a physician isn’t “free” to strike/withhold services from a patient, what BARGAINING FREEDOM do they have?

              You wrote inaccurately, “but ought not be able to compel bargaining.”

              Again, you’re destroying the FREE MARKET.

              You’re taking away the FREEDOM of the seller.

              In the health care market place, the physician’s a key constituent of the SUPPLY HALF of the market.

              It’s just like the government telling you, you have to SELL them your house to them at THEIR price.

              Are you ok with that?

              Based on what you wrote above about ACT 10, yes, you are.

              1. MORE CAPS PLEASE!!! John, do something to calm down. No contradiction. Teachers presumably have a contract. Under your scenario of attempted renegotiation, a teacher wants to renegotiate, parents freely decide not to renegotiate. Both parties should be free to negotiate, or not. If teacher then decides to go on strike, thereby failing to meet his/her contractual obligation, they will have effectively quit and should be replaced. Everyone is free.

            2. Denis, since you brought up Reagan using the government to take away “FREEDOM” and set wages for air traffic controllers, why can’t government take away FREEDOM and set prices?

  6. Unions should be free to bargain with anyone willing to bargain with them, but ought not be able to compel bargaining. What act 10 did was free government entities from being forced into negotiations. Additionally, it stopped the practice of forcing government employees to pay into a union. Negotiations should be voluntarily entered into by both parties. Act 10 righted that wrong and is therefore moral in my view.

    1. Denis,

      Can’t wait for you to get the chance to “negotiate” with a 911 operator, when you need a police officer or a paramedic, for emergency services.

      OT, please show us REAL LIFE EXAMPLES of people who WANT to work for LESS than the minimum wage.

      Why would Warren Buffett want to work with someone who gave away their labor for free? What’s in that exchange for Mr. Buffett?

      1. Buffet would get free labor in exchange for his willingness to pass along his knowledge. Volunteers work for less than the minimum wage.

  7. Denis,

    What about “child labor?”

    When is the child old enough to “negotiate” their own wage?

      1. No, wherever did you get that idea? Though I think in many cases home schooling is a good idea.

  8. Denis, why are you ignoring my 11:00 am about your FREEDOM to “negotiate” with the 911 operator when you need police, fire, or paramedics?

    What about private ownership of street sections? Then the owners would all have the FREEDOM to charge a toll for vehicles using their section.

    1. I ignored that one partly because I am busy. I don’t work for free ya know. But mostly it is because the question is ridiculous.

    2. John, you and NQ have done a nice job sticking with Denis and exposing his unseriousness. I’ve taken a look tonight at Uppity Wisconsin, Salon and even GZ’s Twitter feed. I’m struck by the sameness of the winger comments. It got me thinking that at heart they’re tribal – it’s their guy right or wrong. No need to think, discuss, nor listen.

      1. Emma- That’s because they’re paid to say those things. Most people don’t believe this right-wing garbage, but the big-money interest that run the GOP have to keep up the facade that their ideas are supported.

        Hence, the paid posters, the dominance of AM radio air time, and the “We are Koch” propaganda ads. If our media was remotely interested in fairness over money, they’d have a discussion that’s reflect the progressive opinions of a majority of Americans.

        1. Which gets me to wondering how any blog author/owner would condone the continued participation,(not even minimally moderated) of such an individual?

      2. Well, as Mr. Uppity, let me chime in here. We’ve noticed a severe change in comments over at Uppitywis since the election, where we are suddenly getting a LOT more right-wing comments and a LOT more argumentation than I am used to.

        The problem is that there’s no easy way to draw a line. I have almost NEVER banned people from the site, but have felt the need to do so in the past week. I’ve always banned people who are clearly threatening, but that’s only happened a couple times in 8 years. But lately there’s a real sense of
        “I’m just going to keep trolling people and saying the same thing over and over again and arguing till someone has to give in. And it ain’t gonna be me”.

        These are the difficult ones. I have almost always just let these things run their course and hope that people will lose interest (it helps a LOT if people don’t feed trolls with reactions).

        SO – I struggle with this. I dont’ really want to encumber free speech – but just saying “I’m right” over and over isn’t really speech, it’s just noise – whether you’re a lefty or a righty.

        The policy changes over time. If you ask me what it is today I can’t exactly answer since I’ve not looked at the moderation queue yet.

  9. The conversation in these comments has been hijacked. Nice work, Denis. I’ll bet you DON’T do this for free.

Comments are closed.