Well hell, Jesse. I'm with you on most of this. Certainly on the secular morality, gay marriage and support of entrepreneurs (though I'd hardly call it 'socialization'), but here's what may be at the heart of your quandry. I'm a Republican and certainly not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, a lot of your cohorts call me a 'conservative'.

So maybe you're looking at the wrong end of the political spectrum for your validation here.

Dave

as an Independent i heartily endorse all three planks of your proposed platform

good luck getting and Dem to stand up for it, not enough spine between the lot of them

as for the GOP being even remotely close to touching any of it...

most...ludicrous...notion...EVER!

could be a solid foundation for a truly viable third party, imo... far too many Americans hold exactly these kinds of Ideas, but have no political *home* for them

that huge percentage that don't vote at all might find something worth voting for...and quite a few from each of the elitist clubs that make up the current parties would happily jump ship for a viable alternative

i don't think it's a matter of if, just when

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

gonzo, the gop has candidates running for president who have at one time or another endorsed all of the positions he describes. some of them are even frontrunners.

dave

and how many touch any of them now that they are running for national office?

1- secularism: please cite your example, i can see Ron Paul going for this one, none of the rest of that crew tho...and do remember what was it 3 of the candidates won't even stand up for evolution...spare me, ok?

2 - staying our of our bedrooms and marriages: Giuliani and again Ron Paul...neither of whom will make it through the primaries because of it

3 - small business over big business: this one you have to prove, again..even those willing to stand up for the little guys would do NOTHING to curb and regulate the big boys...if you think you have it, show your proof

why anyone with even half an Intellect would support the GOP is difficult to fathom...unless their own nest gets feathered by them being in power

but while i am all for self interest, i do NOT think it has to come at the expense of other's oppression, our environment or our rule of Law

your mileage may vary...

sell it to someone else, Vox..cuz i ain't buying shit, no matter how the salesman tries to polish it up

Excelsior?

Jesse,

I am attempting to initiate a new political party. None of your requirements will be part of its program.

The logic of this party will definitely be toward secularism, defense of social relationships that are private affairs between consenting individuals and a support of small business at the expense of the prerogatives of large businesses and their institutions.

The major thrust, however, will be the defense of the needs of the working class.

Les

Les, check the link in #4...you may have a theme song for your new Party

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

Thanks for pointing to the link. The sentiment of the song is pretty good.

Leds

The major thrust, however, will be the defense of the needs of the working class.

a concept whose value varies greatly depending on how you define the working class.

dave

Someone here should really take a look at The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. In it, he recommends that the prince appear to be religious to his subjects. For this reason you will not see a professed agnostic or atheist run for office and admit to what they believe...

They all want to be Prince...

"Here Prince! Here boy! Come on over! Now roll over. Fetch!!!


Goood boy!!!

Everyone should read "The Prince". Instead of just claiming they read it. Here's a handy pointer to the Project Gutenberg download (you can even get a version for your Palm now):

Download The Prince

Good reading.

bliffle - ya gotta add Sun Tzu's "the Art of War" and Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings" to complete the trilogy for any that are really interested in understanding politics and political interaction on the grand scale

hope that helps...

Excelsior?

"why anyone with even half an Intellect would support the GOP is difficult to fathom"

I'm not claiming to have even a partial intellect, but socialism doesn't appeal to me. Getting the government out of the bedroom is good, the problem with the socialists is they want to put the government in everywhere else.

If you like having your money and finances, education and indoctrination, retirement and lack thereof, and healthcare and body controlled and micromanaged down to the point of telling you what lightbulbs to use, what to eat, what to drive, and how much of the proceeds from your own labor you can keep by some lame appointed failure of a bureacrat then by all means continue down the Dem path to servitude like the rest of the sheeple.

It's not that leftists don't believe in god, to a leftist THE GOVERNMENT IS GOD!

For eons in the USA religion has received a pass, In patricular, christianity. At somber public occasions when prayers are issued and entreaties made to god, everyone has been expected to bow their heads, whether theist, atheist, agnostic or non-theist alike (a non-theist is not for god, nor against the notion, nor pondering still, but simply finds it an uninteresting and unimportant question).

Newspapers and politicians have always allowed religion to intrude and have bowed to the religionists. But that has certainly changed in the News area as the internet has become more ubiquitous and free discussion has replaced the hegemony of the MSM, which always covered up the sins of the religious and gave somber respect to religion.

The general public has ceased to regard religionists as inherently having better morals and ethics as a parade of crooked businessmen and exposed politicians make their routine appeals to their gods for forgiveness, and then report back faithfully to us that god HAS forgiven them.

It'll only be a matter of time before politicians give regard to the significant minority that comprises the irreligious. The first step will probably be to not disclose any such inclinations, instead of flourishing the routine hypocrisy of Personal Belief when it is evident to everyone that they have no such belief. Religious and irreligious alike have always recognized these lies for what they are: bows to the political power of the churches.

And when politicians cease making those routine bows the power of the churches will crumble.

Doug, i think your premise is faulty on a few levels

never have i said the Dems were the be all and end all Answer, i'm and Independent and think both parties are seriously flawed...

but warrantless wiretaps and casually tossing habeus corpus out the window are FAR more dangerous to our Nation, imo

and let us not forget the Fact that government has grown to record proportions during the last six years of a GoP controlled government, as did spending

take a breath and look at the factual track record, and not just the hype and propaganda

checks and balances remain our greatest Hope, not any kind of "-ology"

Excelsior!

why anyone with even half an Intellect would support the GOP is difficult to fathom

this question will make sense when there's an alternative to the gop which is politically viable and doesn't support policies which are entirely repugnant.

i've said it before and i'll say it again. the gop may be corrupt and incompetent, but at least they espouse a philosophy of government which is positive and generally in the best interests of the people. the opposition starts from a point of supporting fundamentally destructive and unconstitutional policies. from that starting point, even if they aren't corrupt and incompetent (which they certainly are in reality) they cannot possibly be any better than the gop, which at least starts with good intentions.

dave

I sense that the author does not follow the candidates and their speeches. All of these topics have been dealt with and expressed.

Now as for the atheist thing, maybe they aren't atheists.

unless and until the GoP even comes close to beginning to standup for some of those "intentions" and tosses aside some others, they remain not only hypocrites, but dangerous ones...

as shown in my previous examples in comment #14, as well as a pre-emptive war that at best, was a demonstration of complete incompetence, and at worse a deliberate deception

warrantless wiretaps, ignoring habeus corpus, cherry picking Intelligence for political purposes, outing a covert operative for political purposes and covering it all up...all of these historical facts are FAR worse and more damaging to our Republic than any imagined threat some wishfully believe the Dems appear to pose, imo

your mileage may vary...

Excelsior

and let us not forget the Fact that government has grown to record proportions during the last six years of a GoP controlled government, as did spending

a common complaint, and i agree that growth has been excessive, but other presidents have presided over far more budgetary and pure numerical growth of the government by huge margins when compared to bush. bush has increased overall spending by 55% and non-military spending by 44%, in comparison, in a similar period the kennedy/johnson administration increased overall spending by 65% and non-military spending by 72%. that's substantially more.

dave

that doesn't make it right, and you know that..but still insist on dredging up bullshit to try and justify your take on things...your choice, but still bullshit, imo

and you have to count ALL spending, not just parts..it's like saying "economic indicators are good, after discounting food and fuel figures"...pure bullshit

just because some one else has fucked up in the past does NOT excuse fucking up now..also funny to note you have to go back 45 years to find your example

you are welcome to your Opinion, but bullshit will never cause me to change mine

Excelsior?

gonzo, i gave the figures for ALL spending, and what you're calling 'bullshit' here is just the correct facts to counter your untrue assertions.

i went back to the period i chose because it was the fairest comparison, as it was also during a war and during a two term administration. it was clearly NOT chosen to make bush look good. there are more recent examples of presidents who massively outspent kennedy/johnson. You want a more recent comparison? Here you go:

kennedy/johnson averaged 9% budget increase/year
nixon/ford averaged 13.55% budget increase/year
carter averaged 12% budget increase/year
reagan averaged 6.6% budget increase/year
clinton averaged 4.4% budget increase/year
bush averaged 6.4% budget increase/year so far

so your claims that bush has provided over record government growth are just pure partisan deception. it would be nice to see you admit it for once. i'll give due credit to clinton for holding down spending more than anyone since ike.

what you're calling 'bullshit' here is just the correct facts to counter your untrue assertions.

as for changing your opinion, when it is based on a basic lack of knowledge of the facts you might want to consider changing it rather than obstinately carrying on and calling the truth bullshit.

thanks for the figures, and i have no argument with them...due note i said "record spending", meaning total dollars spent...my Apologies if i was unclear

as fo rthe rest...i'm more than willing to listen, do please show/cite your examples of exactly what it is in the Dem platform you consider such a threat?

i know in the past you have stated that you believe that the Dems have some kind of socialist segment that you find alarming...what makes me wonder is that even if so (and i know there are indeed some neosocialists among the Dems), the percentage of such appears to pale in comparison to even the neocon/theocon percentage amongst the GoP...both factions which you have stated to have problems with...but the combination of just those two factions represent a majority of the federally elected GoP representatives...and a far larger percentage than any avowed neosocialists in the Dem gang, as far as i know

so spare me the false accusations of being any kind of partisan...even in this thread i readily state that there's a lot of fucked up shit among the Dems, but that in comparison to the factual instances of REAL danger to our Republic brought about in the last 6 years by the GoP (and i cite some of those examples)..the possible and theoretical threat you espouse form the Dems pales in comparison, imo

oh yes, i repeat some of the serious dangers to keep them from being distracted away form attention, since they remain the gist of the problem and grist for the *mill*

Excelsior?

thanks for the figures, and i have no argument with them...due note i said "record spending", meaning total dollars spent...my Apologies if i was unclear

then i suppose it could be said that every president engaged in record spending because every president spends more than the one before. that kind of comparison is meaningless.

as fo rthe rest...i'm more than willing to listen, do please show/cite your examples of exactly what it is in the Dem platform you consider such a threat?

i refer you to democratic socialists of america who express the perspective on government which is rapidly coming to dominate the democratic party.

i know in the past you have stated that you believe that the Dems have some kind of socialist segment that you find alarming

i think it is now safe to call it a socialist majority, or at least close enough to one that it dominates the party and especially the leadership.

...what makes me wonder is that even if so (and i know there are indeed some neosocialists among the Dems), the percentage of such appears to pale in comparison to even the neocon/theocon percentage amongst the GoP...both factions which you have stated to have problems with...but the combination of just those two factions represent a majority of the federally elected GoP representatives...and a far larger percentage than any avowed neosocialists in the Dem gang, as far as i know

based on the compositio of congress there are about 20% of the republicans who i would call theocons and almost none who are neocons. by comparison democrats who have avowed allegiance to socialism make up more than a third of their membership in congress.

and i think it's also significant that outside of their particular pet issues both neocons and theocons are either neutral or go along with gop party positions on other issues which are fairly reasonable.

dave

you still appear to make baseless accusations and false comparisons in the matter

i asked for exactly which portion of the Dem platform you find objectionable..i have yet to see a citation

instead you point to the avowed socialists i mention as well, then proceed to make unfounded claims about them somehow "taking over" the Dem party...show your proof

even your link doesn't give us any names of Dems that sign up for this agenda...whereas it has been shown how 3 of the GoP Presidential candidates openly state they do not belive in evolution (theocons) or the voting records of current GoP officeholders that go along with the neocon agenda

"sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Excelsior?

Wait, wait, Dave - back up...

You're a Republican? With a capital R? I thought you were a Libertarian (with a capital L).

I stress the capitalizations because otherwise these things are just labels, and not worth a gnat's fart.

my keyboard won't currently capitalize, so pardon the imprecision, dr.d. i was a longtime member of the libertarian party, but recently gave up on its inability to do anything sensible at all. i've been a republican for several years, but i still hold to a basically libertarian philosophy with some reasonable accomodations with common sense. and i'm not alone. there are a lot of libertarian leaning republicans - more all the time.

dave

Thanks for clarifying, Dave. I realized immediately after posting the comment that it was a bit sadistic considering your current keyboardic catastrophe!

gonzo, i've posted the list of socialist democrats before, including prominent leaders like pelosi and conyers. it's pretty well documented. look through my old articles.

and when have you ever seen me support the three anti-evolution morons who are running for president? and please note how well they're doing. even republicans don't support these guys. combined they have like 2% support if that. pretty strong proof that religious fanaticism is not nearly as mainstream in the gop as socialist fanaticism is in the democratic party.

dave

"It's not that leftists don't believe in god, to a leftist THE GOVERNMENT IS GOD!"

ha! oh my. hyperbole and its greatest.

as for dave's "1/3rd of dems are socialists" statement... does belief in some sort of social net (like welfare) make you a socialist? do you see anyone trying to nationalize private companies? are there massive democratic landgrabs going on? i don't get it. what makes these people socialists?

i mention the 3 because by the sampling of GoP presidential candidates, they represent about a third of the Party, yes?

as for your previous bits concerning "socialists"

you can post any list you like, but i have yet to see evidence showing some of those folks are "socialists"...McCarthyism just doesn't cut it

( i tried to link to the Dem platform from '04, but it gives me a "banned word" error)

Excelsior?

i mention the 3 because by the sampling of GoP presidential candidates, they represent about a third of the Party, yes?

the process for selecting presidential primary candidates isn't exactly accurately representative. based on the percentage of their support in polls they represent almost no one in the party, and that's more accurate than just counting how many there are.

as for your previous bits concerning "socialists"

you can post any list you like, but i have yet to see evidence showing some of those folks are "socialists"...McCarthyism just doesn't cut it

i don't want to go through all of this again in detail, but there is a group in congress called the progressive caucus. its members include most of the current leadership. up until about 5 years ago it was directly associated with the socialist international, but they redesigned their website and have played down that association since about 2002. to address zedd's issue, these are not just democrats who support social welfare programs. they're full-on socialists in the democratic party.

dave

you STILL dodge the question, and try to distract...

you STILL continue to make accusations without showing any shred of evidence, besides your say so

even your assertions are what, 5 years out of date and of dubious threat at best...

none of it compares to the examples of what the GoP has ACTUALLY done in the examples i;ve given, over the last 6 years of one Party rule with them in control

and you STILL have not given a single quote on the Dem platform as to what you find so threatening, "evil" or even objectionable

Excelsior?

as for the democratic party platform as passed at the convention, it's generally much more moderate than what the party really believes and certainly more moderate than what they're really shooting for. it's designed for public consumption and doesn't really represent what they believe or are trying to accomplish. i mean, read the damned thing. it's utterly balless. we all know that it doesn't represent their beliefs. if i were a democrat and took the platform seriously i'd leave the party.

interestingly i went by the congressional progressive caucus web page and discovered that certain formerly prominent members who have moved into leadership positions like nancy pelosi have left the caucus. oh, and the membership has increased by about 10 people since the last time i checked it about 2 years ago.

dave

"to address zedd's issue, these are not just democrats who support social welfare programs. they're full-on socialists in the democratic party."

for fuck's sake. I AM NOT ZEDD! and that's not all i asked either. what's a full-on socialist? are they nationalizing industry? grabbing all the land? what? where?

@ #32 - so what you are saying is that the platforms do not matter, but what the elected representatives actually do once elected is the Thing..do i understand that correctly?

:::points to #31::: you STILL have not answered the direct Questions..if you have no intention of ever doing so, and instead want to keep on with unsubstantiated claims..please just say so

Excelsior?

i'll copy my comment from the "what was pres bush thinking..." thread over here. originally posted at 13:52:

"what the party members actually do is what the platform really is. other than that, it's just words that get you to vote.

that's like saying 'judge me for what i say, not what i do!'"

so that's a full minute before dave posted the same thing about the democratic party... after he stated that he followed the gop because of their platform, not because of what the membership actually does...

what the fuck is going on, dave?

and bring up an example. just one! anything will do at this point. then, when you think of another, assuming you can get that far, you go ahead and post that one! okay?

I am appalled by how you guys just make stuff up. Lying is clearly the rhetorical stance of choice on this site.

And your free hand with bogus statistics is just WILD--including the utterly laughable "one third of democrats are socialists"!!!!!!

Since when has any major party candidate attached the S-word to herself or himself in the US?

Every one of the democrats and republicans running for president is a savage capitalist by definition. (They would not have received money for their campaigns if they weren't!)

The contention by somebody talking out his ten gallon crapper that socialists CONTROL the democratic party would sure as hell be news to anyone who IS asocialist!

Have you no shame?

zing (not zedd) see my comment on the other thread. i never said word one about the gop platform. stop confusing the platform with what people actually believe.

dave

i'm not confusing the platform with what people actually believe...

in fact, that's the distinction I (notice the capitalization) made.

you're the one who said "the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform," as if you were separating the platform from "what people actually believe" (or "actions," as i call it).

so which is it?

Just mention the word "McCarthyism" and someone jumps up to illustrate it:

Gonzo:

"...McCarthyism just doesn't cut it"

Tailgunner Joes ghost pops up in a Texas beanpatch:

"i don't want to go through all of this again in detail, but there is a group in congress called the progressive caucus. its members include most of the current leadership. up until about 5 years ago it was directly associated with the socialist international, but they redesigned their website and have played down that association since about 2002. to address zedd's issue, these are not just democrats who support social welfare programs. they're full-on socialists in the democratic party.

dave"

Sorry. I was gone for a minute. Fainted from the mere idea of the threats implicit in these associations.

Socialists! Mein gott! The commies have been transformed into dem party socialists, just like those Iraqi WMDs are all in Syria now - a transformation! How insidious! How sneeky! It's just like those IslamoCommies to do something like that.

Go get 'em Tailgunner!

When are you enlisting?

comment #99 in this thread sez, and i Quote...

"the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive.

the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?"

which is the point this debate began

you insult me about "memory loss" , but can't seem to even remember what you have typed recently

nuff said?

Excelsior?

#37 sez - "i never said word one about the gop platform. stop confusing the platform with what people actually believe."

and yet zing and i both point out this is factually incorrect and in comments #38 & 40, cite and quote our proof

who is trying to confuse things here?

i'd sincerely like to here the explanation for this from the source, when convenient...

Excelsior?

moonraven #36:

As I've remarked before on BC (and hailing from Europe as I do, it's probably plainer for me than for a homegrown Yank to see this), the mainstream political spectrum in the US is slewed way to the right to begin with. The upshot of this is that opinions and policies which aren't socialist by European or Latin American standards are often perceived as such by US observers, especially conservatives.

Are you trying to excuse the mistaken labelling?

Knowing Nalle--as we all should--he equates socialism with being a communist.

I see no reason for him to be allowed to make the kinds of propagandistic defamations that he routinely makes in these threads.

He is FOX News without its hair.

Not excusing, mr, just observing.

If that is indeed Dave's view, then he's no different than a lot of his country[wo]men.

And although he does wield a pretty broad brush sometimes (one often clogged with paint and with many of its bristles missing), he is expressing an opinion, not defaming.

I always thought Alan Colmes was Fox News without its hair... LOL.

I would hate to think there are others of Nalles out there--exploding with ignorance and arrogance.

On the other hand, there are good reasons that I left the US almost 15 years ago and would not consider returning. One of those reasons, clearly, is the existence of folks like Nalle.

so...I guess when you guys look around the West (US included) you don't see one big happy socialist utopia - ?

you want to see pre-socialist production relations take a look at the international working class - you know...the people who are actually producing products - and its corporate masters who split the US for warmer more friendly climes

(just like moonraven)

a country doesn't have to be crude and go nationalizing everything right away to be socialist...the Fed's control economy and welfare (individual and business) are enough to earn the moniker

troll has it right about there already being plenty of socialism here. so why should we put up with even more? isn't it bad enough?

Back to the original question... I think you're overlooking the practical role that churches play in campaigns, especially in southern/black areas. The church provides a free pulpit. It recalls the early years of the civil rights movement. They're in every town. They're great places to find volunteers.

Once you open a national chain of Big Atheist Halls, there may be candidates who'll speak at them.

a country doesn't have to be crude and go nationalizing everything right away to be socialist...the Fed's control economy and welfare (individual and business) are enough to earn the moniker

Proved my point, troll. In the rest of the world that's social democracy, not socialism. Different animals.

Absolutely!

And for anyone who is so misguided as to believe that anything even remotely resembing sociaism exists in the US--HOW ABOUT THAT GREAT HEALTH PLAN YOU IDIOTS HAVE?

Just saw this thread, and I have to ask--do any of you guys even fucking know what socialism is?--or do you merely like throwing the word out there like a molatov cocktail?

*...social democracy, not socialism. Different animals.*

as you see it - other than government's nationalizing means of production what are the differences between these animals - ?

do you see the shift from one to the other as an all or nothing qualitative leap or can governments be more and less socialist - ?

i think that nationalizing the means of production is a pretty big differentiating factor troll

as is socialized medicine and education

to my understanding you need at least those three to be a full out socialist nation

Excelsior?

in the US:

there is medicare/medicaid

there is public education

there is social security

there is a tax structure that serves the same function as nationalization

there is a fed reserve 'steering' the economy

socialist - ?

Sheer nonsense.

Medicare and Medicaid are a far cry from socialized medicine. They only cover specific populations and are administered by private non-profits.

Public education is available in all countries that I am aware of--and they are not socialist. Ditto social security.

All countries I am aware of have a central bank. Which is what the fed is.

A tax structure is nationalization--that's REALLLLLLLY STRETTTTTTTCHINg it.

Check out information on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's plans and you will see a country MOVING TOWARD socialism.

The US is so far to the right it even puts Mexico to shame....

Since when is being on the right shameful?

when put into context?

whoa...neither being "Right" nor "Left" is shameful by any means

it's the methods and tactics some use to push their ideologies that hit the shameful mark

it's when Party is placed above Nation that some hit treasonous

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

moonraven - clearly I'm really stretching all the notions above...just trying to get an idea about what differentiates socialism from what's going on now in the States

so...it's not tax funded education or tax funded pensions or tax funded medicine - (but Scandinavian countries are called socialist for nothing more than this despite a coexisting system of private property)

it's not clear to me what 'left' and 'right' actually mean in a discussion of socialism

The USA now has a Sovietized economy, centrally administered by bureaucrats in the employ of giant monopolistic corporations who are called "congressmen".

It makes little difference whether these bureaucrats call themselves 'communists' or 'capitalists' their purpose is to delegate risk to the hapless general citizen/taxpayer and to privatize profit to the masters who have bought their allegiance.

It wasn't communists who sovietized our economy, as we feared years ago, but our former friends, corporate leaders, who have forsaken their roles as independent businessmen, to hide behind the facade afforded by corporate paper in order to exploit everyone, just like the commissars of yore.

Troll,

Let's put it this way: If the US is a socialist country, I will eat it--state by state.

There is no discussion of socialism occurring on this thread. A bald-headed bozo named Nalle tried to convince us that a) one third of the democratic party is card-carrying socialist and b) the world is flat.

I don't callthat a discussion.

so...the difference is that socialist countries are edible

I'll have to ponder that

perhaps Dave will tell us what he's talking about - how would those card carriers change the US - ?

The deal is, troll, that all those card-carrying socialists in the democratic party all fit very nicely under Nalle's bed....

troll, i think that all the things you mention are indeed socialistic in character, even if they are not part of a system which is doctrinaire 'socialist' in toto.

as for what congressional 'progressives' want, it starts with expanding the welfare state and establishing a single-party system by marginalizing any opposition. then the targets would be destroying international corporatism and reducing the power of state governments and the federal government as a whole throigh treaties which give up a lot of national sovereignty. once we've established the supremacy of international treaty law over the constitution, it will be very clear which way things are going, but by then it will be too late.

a lot of conspiracists believe that many of these things are already happening or far along the way towards being achieved. i think they're overreacting, but i have to admit that the intent to turn america into a neutered giant is certainly in the playbooks of some of our leaders.

dave

Speaking of toto, it's clear that Nalle is not in Kansas--nor even on this planet.

Pure fantasy.

Too many hours playing those games--your brain is friend, Dave.

FRIED. Sorry. Nothing friendly about ole Dave.

After quietly following this thread for quite a while, I'm gonna pop a couple things in here...

1) Part of the reason "socialism" came up is because in a fit of under-thought writing, I said "socialization" when I meant "increased oversight and accountability for corporations, proportional to their size and market bulk." I tend to associate those two ideas, but I'm smart enough to know that real socialism involves far more hegemonic centralization than I'm comfortable with. Unfortunately, in this essay, I ignored the distinction and tossed the former out there in place of the latter. Oops. Still, makes for some interesting reading.

2) Dave, you can at least argue that the left is "expanding the welfare state," although I tend to see this as an inflammatory word for a fairly reasonable policy. However, the suggestion that anybody on the left is trying to "create a one-party system" is absolutely comical. The left is the only part of the political spectrum that's actually represented by multiple viable parties (democrats and green party, at this point... maybe democratic socialists too, eventually). The right is a big freakin' institutional mass of homogeneous policy.

And that aside, the parties compete in a forum that's fairly open (despite being a little handicapped at the moment), and the left does no more to "marginalize opposition" than the right does, or than any agent does within a competitive environment.

For eight years, the left has just been trying to find its footing and demand accountability from the governing branches. I think we've been aggressive about it because we've been behind on the official scoreboard for a while, but its nothing out of the scope of an open, oppositional dialogue between opposing viewpoints. The idea that there's some kind of hegemonic conspiracy of... I don't know... censorship by the left is a joke.

To put it simply, the government is not simply an international armed guard and police force. In fact, lately it seems like the rest of the world is going to hell whether we like it or not. This country needs more attention to domestic matters... more dialogue on civil rights, and more attention to the vast disparity in wealth. This doesn't necessarily mean socialism, but it does mean more a more nuanced domestic policy.

2) Dave, you can at least argue that the left is "expanding the welfare state," although I tend to see this as an inflammatory word for a fairly reasonable policy.

how reasonable it is depends on how far it goes. IMO it's already gone way too far, so wanting to expand it at all seems insane.

However, the suggestion that anybody on the left is trying to "create a one-party system" is absolutely comical.

the silencing of dissent with things like the fairness doctrine seems like it could have no other intent.

The left is the only part of the political spectrum that's actually represented by multiple viable parties (democrats and green party, at this point... maybe democratic socialists too, eventually). The right is a big freakin' institutional mass of homogeneous policy.

now THAT is humorous. people on the right see the left as homogeneous, though i went to some pains to make it clear that the people i was talking about were identified as a special faction within the left as a whole. and no diversity on the right? can the democrats offer as distinct a set of presidential candidates? do they have the range represented by McCain vs. Paul? the GOP itself has more diversity than you realize, plus there are also the Constitutional and LIbertarian parties, which are certainly as viable as the Greens right now.

dave

Just a point of information... according to my limited reading, the Fairness Doctrine is designed to benefit the marginalized party in any particular media confrontation. Within the context of the "corporate media," which is a concept the left has leaned upon, the left would benefit significantly from a Fairness Doctrine. But in the context of the "liberal media," which has been a lingering stereotype of the right for quite a while now, the Fairness Doctrine would benefit the right.

So if we treat the partisan argument as a zero-sum game, what is this an argument over? Rights. Enforcing and/or restricting civil rights in the form of free speech? Yeah, I guess so. Free speech of the enormous corporate entities that now dominate the airwaves? THERE you go.

I'm not really sure I support the fairness doctrine in its full form, anyway... Forcing broadcast companies to contact and send transcripts to people? I'm not really down with that. But a law calling for an open airwaves policy and a balanced broadcast space when a public person is involved? That's broadening discourse, not restricting it.

That aside, you're right, I forgot about the libertarians, although it doesn't occur to me to fully classify them under the "right." They're too socially permissive for me to give them full credit for conservativism. And from my limited reading, the Constitutional party seems a right-wing analogue to the Green Party (need to do more research on this).

Still, I don't think you've anywhere near proven (or even demonstrated, really) that there's a unified effort by the left to unilaterally control the political environment in this country.

unlike Rove's statement of trying to build "a permanent Republican majority"

it's one thing for the political gangs to seek an advantage...that's what gangs are for, but either side trying to create some kind of permanent single party rule is ridiculous and anathema in the extreme

just my opinion...

Excelsior?

gonzo, you don't think the rove equivalents of the left aren't just as eager to build their thousand year reich (robert)?

dave

Isn't anyone going to mention that the Federal Reserve is not part of the federal government?

@ #71 i'll quote myself from right above, since it was apparently missed - "but either side trying to create some kind of permanent single party rule is ridiculous and anathema in the extreme"

do show me an example where anyone else has had the balls to say it where it could be recorded and i'll denounce the pigfucker just as soundly as i do Rove

in either case...i'l say it clearly again...ANY bastard that tries to permanently implement a single party rule in this country is a fucking traitor..i don't care what gang that kind of slime belongs to

now, can YOU say the same?

Excelsior?

SonnyD - that's why I threw the Fed into the mix...to point out that the US economy is steered by a non-democratic institution

Again, nonsense.

The 7 members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are appointed by the President (in this case, The Decider) and the Senate confirm them for 14-year terms.

If it isn't part of the US government, I will be eating IT, too--district by district, in this case.

"but either side trying to create some kind of permanent single party rule is ridiculous and anathema in the extreme"

Why? Do a majority of a people have a right to continually vote for one party if it meets their needs?

I think people have right to form parties but I would be against giving one of these parties a chance just because someone thinks another party has been in too long.

the key word there Les is permanent

folks can vote as they choose, but as seen with the Dems holding Congress for 40 years...when the People want to change, they can...and thus another political gang gets the majority

it's the "permanent" part that smacks of Stalin, and that i consider traitorous

if it was me, i'd side with some of the Founders and get rid of political parties...but it ain't up to me, and i will readily defend a Citizen's right to assemble as they see fit

but what i'd like to see are MORE political gangs, bust the two main parties into their core constituents and have REAL choices rather than what serves the needs of the DLC and GOP fundraisers/kingmakers

hope that helps explain...

Excelsior?

"If it isn't part of the US government, I will be eating IT, too--district by district, in this case."

Even though the banking system in this country is centalized it is not part of the 3 branches of the government. It is part of the government by virtue of the fact that it does govern. No elected or appointed sector of the 3 official sector of government have any direct contol of it.

Excuse me, but appointing the board by the executive and confirming it by the legislative means that two of the 3 branches of government DO indeed have direct control over it!

I am not getting one whit closer to taking a bite.

do show me an example where anyone else has had the balls to say it where it could be recorded and i'll denounce the pigfucker just as soundly as i do Rove

the fact that others aren't as arrogantly overconfident as Rove doesn't mean that they don't have the same beliefs. The goal of either party in the system we currently have is permanent political dominance with the other party reduced to a permanent secondary role.

in either case...i'l say it clearly again...ANY bastard that tries to permanently implement a single party rule in this country is a fucking traitor..i don't care what gang that kind of slime belongs to

even Rove isn't talking about single-party rule by law. he's talking about outpoliticking the other party so successfully that they are rendered irrelevant. that's what his career has been all about.

now, can YOU say the same?

with ease. i'm on record multiple times as believing that the 2 party system should be broken down by any means possible. the republicans and democrats both need to be split into multiple political parties - at least 2 each.

dave

ok..so you can't show or cite proof of your allegation, just your assertion (which i am inclined to agree with)

and how many parties there should be is not the Question asked..but whether you will also state that you think any trying for permanent single Party rule demonstrate traitorous intent

Excelsior?

How do you folding chair quarterbacks propose to do any of this?

You are just playing around, killing time.

Meaningless and gratuitous fantasies.

Facts, said Nalle's hero Ronald Reagan, are stupid things.

Of course he had Alzheimer's. But who cares, anyway.

It's all a game to you guys.

we have the tools available to any Citizen, moonraven

our Vote..and our Voice

and before you go an say that neither matter, let me remind you what the Founders and their pamphlets accomplished...as only one example

but hey, i guess it's not as much as sniping from a foreign country, do you even come back to vote?

Excelsior?

The founding fathers founded by creating a revolution--not by voting!!!!!!!!!!!

I have indicated more than once on this site my history of voting in the US:

1. 1972--McGovern (we had bumperstickers that said Don't Blame Me--I'm from Massachusetts).

2. 1980--whoever the Libertarian candidate was.

3. 1984--wrote in Jesse Jackson (at least I was voting for somebody that I knew!)

You can see how impressed I have been with the menu....

How much has your voting privilege accomplished?

I can answer that for you: NOTHING.

moonraven...did you miss the and part?

you know, about using our Voices, as well as the analogy i made to how much that kind of influence could and has accomplished?

but hey..i guess attempting to Reason with those who desire to remain unreasonable is merely my normal quixotic impulse made manifest

Excelsior?

Okay, smart guy, just SHOW ME what your vote and your voice is accomplishing RIGHT NOW.

And stop shitting around. Let me know when you actually DO SOMETHING.

moonraven - you labor under the mistaken impression that your opinion matters, or that i can be bullied into compliance by strident whining

i'm quite content that when it's time for my *soul* to be weighed by JuJu, may his tusks always glow with the Light of Reason, i will be happy to bear full Responsibilty for all my actions, good and bad

for example, i don't flee from a Fight, i consider it cowardly at best

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

"for example, i don't flee from a Fight..."

Maybe not quite a fight, but I haven't seen you around the fridg lately.

Whining I DO NOT indulge in.

Obviously my opinion does not matter to you--which is why you keep trying to convince me that you are right to sit on your haunches and fantasize about a perfect world.

Maybe on another planet your fantasy will come true....

you are perfectly correct moonraven - the Board of Governors of the Fed is an independent federal agency whose members serve at the pleasure of the president with the advice and consent of congress...but there is more to the Fed than the Board of Governors

on the odd mixture of public and private in the Fed and the history of its declining autonomy in the face of political influences see this old Cato article which supports moonraven's view that the Fed is essentially politicized

There is simply no way it could NOT be politicized.

But then, there are a number of folks on this site who have not the slightest inkling as to what that word even means....

for moonraven - on Justice in Mexico, and one wonders, for all the activist caws emanating from an expatriate beak, how it feels with the shoe on the other talon?

you harp on what US citizens are doing, and how much better it is elsewhere, one might say it's the same the world over...and one does what one can

@ Les - told ya i was leaving your thought experiment to duane, who has the math to cover your exercise in greater detail and more accuracy than i ever could...what you speak of is not any kind of "fight", but in the realm of scientific debate...which i claim not enough expertise in to be qualified to delve into properly

Excelsior?

Actually, gonzo, although I thank you for the link, it is a perfect example of the perils of NOT KNOWING THE LANGUAGE when talking about another country.

And I refer to both you and the Washington Post.

Although I have said all along that Echeverria would never do jail time (he's been under house arrest for several months as the law allows folks over either 70 or 75 years old that privilege and he's in his 80s), the concept of "AMPARO"--the juridical term used here--is not really the clearing of someone so much as it is a get out of jail free card.

The Committee of 68 is in the process of taking the case against Echeverria to the Interamerican Committee on Human Rights.

He will probably die before the case is finally resolved.

And I was not in Mexico in 1968--but in Chicago for the riots at the demo's convention....

Sorry, gonzo, but even I can't raise hell in two places at once.

Here's today's story on it.

moonraven - i shared the link merely to demonstrate that nowhere is free from high level corruption, at any time in history

one does what one can, and while i am certain i have far from comprehensive knowledge of what others do to stand up for that they hold dear and struggle to correct...

the converse is also true

just some carrion for Thought to feed a night corvid

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

"...told ya i was leaving your thought experiment to duane, who has the math to cover your exercise in greater detail and more accuracy than i ever could...what you speak of is not any kind of "fight", but in the realm of scientific debate...which i claim not enough expertise in to be qualified to delve into properly"

I didn't say it was a fight. that term was just my segway into my comment. I am somewhat frustrated that nobody, apparently including duane, has since commented since you left.

My concern really is that nobody seems prepared to deal with any subject scientifically. I consider the realm of politics to be where looking at the subject scientifically is especially import.

It so easy here to just accuse someone of being a lefty, a righty, or whatever, and the debates just fly over heads.

My #114 in 'Chistianity and Atheism' was an attmpt at humor to break the ice (no pun intended). Still no comments.

The question of the fridg is actually a lot simpler than the politics we discuss here. There is NO complex math involved, nothing beyond +,-,x and /, not even powers or roots.

Les

gonzo,

"moonraven - i shared the link merely to demonstrate that nowhere is free from high level corruption, at any time in history"

In re corruption, the USA is a shining bastion of purity compared to our neighbors to the south. At ALL levels, not just the "high level[s]."

And I am NOT saying that the USA is absolutely a "shining bastion," just relatively.

You want SCIENTIFIC cat fights?!

Wow, not too easy to please are you?

PS: Paote, in his post, introduced a technically much more complicated term, 'positive feedback', a loop no less, than anything that I have so far brought up with the fridge.

It seems to me that this might be representative of a tendency to talk in terms we can safely assume nobody is going to understand, so we all are sufficiently impressed not to challenge but to see it as a sign of authority.

I'm confused, Les... was that a dig at me? Funny... I never thought I needed to talk down to you guys. You're all smart, and when that fails (as it often does for me) you know how to use Wikipedia.

Maybe it wasn't. For instance, I don't understand the nickname "Paote." If I'm wrong, go ahead and correct me.