Democracy's Defeat

[Dmitri]

Do you actually believe a CEO has your best interest at heart over an elected government official?

That's the wrong choice/question.
Only my family and I will ever have my best interest at heart. Nobody else.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

socialism is a part of all functioning democracies on the planet today.
there are aspects of socialism that are vital to a working democracy.

roads, libraries, etc and all those other public services that we pay taxes into so we can count on that service being there when we need it.

If we did not have socialism at play in our functioning democracies, you would see more infrastructure degradation, complete lack of services, and ultimately you would see a ravaged society with a population overall that was not well off on any level.

examples where there is no socialism in the society and it is reflected by the condition of the state is in all sorts of African nations where you have ridiculous gaps between rich and poor. India as well is a secular humanist democracy with too many people and not enough social services.

the very idea that socialism is bad is in and of itself not on the level. People will cherry pick where they want to though. It doesn't take long for a breakdown to occur in political discussions and we can watch as the civility gets thrown out the window in favor of hitting someone over the head with the hammer that is your view.

real problems come from politics and religion themselves .

less religion and less political rhetoric = a better society.

[yieldingxxx]

That's true Dmitri, but today's Multi-national CEO's are way more dangerous to the common man than any one elected official. That's just the reality. One Senator, or House member can't do much without a 'majority' rule, but ONE Global CEO, can reduce thousands of families to rubble with one fell swoop of the pen!!

Darth, you are so right on. Like many Canadians I think they look at things a little more realistically than so many of us here in the States.

[Steve James]

Marx and Lincoln would be a more appropriate comparison.
Omar, if you want to see what BO has accomplished, just listen to what the right wants to change (and get back to 2007).

[bailewen]

In theory that should be the case but since the right goes off the deep end with their rhetoric, it becomes meaningless. Just look at folks like Buddy calling Obama a socialist!?!

When a right wing corporate Democrat is labeled a socialist, what can I infer from what the right wants to turn back? It doesn't mean much. The changes Obama has made have been minute. I am not opposed to some of them. I do think that his health care reform was an improvement....a teeny tiny one. It's barely noticeable. He adjusted the tax plan somewhat more favorable but again, compared to what? By historical standards, his policies are right wing. He is getting excoriated by the Republican party for proposing Reaganesque policies.

When I listen to what the right wants to change, it only tells me that they are furious that he is not as far to the right as they are. He's still right wing by any historical standard.

So where does that leave a right wing liberal like myself? Both parties are to the right of center. In the past I would vote for "the lesser of two evils" figuring a moderate right winger like Obama is better than an extreme right winger like pretty much most of the Republican party. Where are is the left? There's nobody out there. I can count on one hand the number of actual progressive politicians out there. I'd be really hard pressed to come up with more than 4 or 5 actual left wing people out there counting both houses combined. The rhetoric has gotten so extreme that looking at what the Republicans are opposed to is meaningless because they scream bloody murder about even extremely moderate reforms.

[Steve James]

30million more Americans with health care is minute only if they don't matter or you're not getting any. Ask the parent whose child is refused because of a pre-existing condition. Hey, if you're dissatisfied with the fact that he hasn't changed the USA in 2 years-, fair enough; vote for someone who will. Or, give an example of someone who has. Imo, whining is whining. I'm just too privileged to complain. I do agree with dissent, ...specific dissent about specific issues, against gitmo, afghanistan, etc. I agree, but I also acknowledge that I don't have responsibility for 300. Million people.

[Buddy]

Omar, when you use phrases like "people like Buddy" you show yourself to be a white washer and as big a cultural bigot as you claim me to be. I never talk about you, I talk about your stupid ideas. You have no intellectual integrity. I remember (hesitantly) supporting you when you decided it was the best thing to fight a girl and post that horseshit online.
Now I see you for what you are. Darth and I disagree on most things, vehemently. I bet I could have a beer with him. You, I have nothing but scorn for.
Govt overtaking healthcare an improvement? Your naivety shows again. You don't have kids on whom that huge tax burden will fall. When the countries you list fall the way Greece did, talk to me.
As always, Mr. James is the lone voice of reason.

[Buddy]

See how actors and artists take to the streets in EuroSociast countries to protest the fact that their governments don't have the dough to keep them on the government tit? And how does that system work well? Game, set, match.

[Chris Fleming]

Interesting video:

[Chanchu]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -of-party/

"ts respected legislative scorecard rated the Illinois Democrat, based on his 2007 voting record, as the most liberal member of the Senate, even more liberal than Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a self-described "democratic socialist." Mr. Obama ranked No. 16 and No. 10 in the previous two years."

Obama actions have shown him to be far to left wing for the majority of the American people, that is the reason the demo's are distancing themselves form him in the upcoming elections. That in my opinion is the reason his party will lose.

Obama ran as a moderate but showed himself by his actions to be far left of center..

[Steve James]

Obama ran as a Democrat, and Dems and Indies voted for him because he wasn't a Republican. What he "is" is too far "left" for the right, and too far "right" for the left. Obviously, he can't be a corporate shill "and" a socialist. Maybe he's a bit of both, but that's the rub. Actually, it's more interesting that often --at least here-- the same people criticize him for being both Afa the "majority of the American people," how often the same people will point out that the US is not a democracy (i.e.: "mob rule" or "majority rule). In fact, it's a Republic --designed (if not perfectly instituted as such) by the founders to "prevent" mob or majority rule. It is the purpose of "checks and balances."

Moderate or not, all I can say is that this government was never imagined or designed to be ruled by a "party." Read the Federalists if you doubt me. The president, although he leads a Party, does not represent a "party." The whole idea that one party will take over the government is contrary to the intent of the founders (who were of different parties, themselves).

Fwiw, I just got of surgery; so I'm a bit groggy. But, forgive me (or not) my belief that any Party that sees itself as taking over the government --in order to impose its will, to the exclusion of others-- is totalitarian, not Republican. Then again, I think that .... naw, too much oxycodone. Let me just say that there's a threat to this Republic, and it has rarely come from Democrats or Liberals. From the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders, to the assassinations of Kennedy, X, King, Kennedy (and a much longer list of relatively unknowns), the Iran-Contra, Arms for Drugs, the Taliban (Mujahadeens) in Afghanistan, to the invasions in the 90s and 2000s of Iraq, to the 9/11 conspiracies... yeah, it's Obama. Of course, if anyone mentions these things, they are described as living in the past. And, the whole "all politicians are bad" nonsense is just as true as "all RSFers are bad."

[Steve James]

Haven't watched in years, but grew up believing in this.

[Steve James]

I prefer to say that I vote for the greater of two goods/rights, rather than the lesser of two evils. I don't believe that either "side" is evil; I do believe that often people on both sides are wrong. To me, though, that doesn't mean that they aren't right on some issues. For example, when it comes to "low taxes" versus "equal human rights", I spit on low taxes and would gladly pay more to increase the latter. In no way does that mean I wouldn't be happy to pay no taxes. Besides, "taxes" are not a right, they are a responsibility; so, I can agree that those with more income have more responsibility, and should pay more. I also believe that this can be done fairly, and it seems that some of the richest people in the country (Gates, Buffet, etc) --agree with them or not-- are willingly giving away much of their fortunes because they feel the obligation. Yeah, otoh, there are others (Murdoch, Koch, Bloomberg, etc) who use their fortunes to maintain their fortunes. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're evil.

Ok, given X number of choices, it is rational to calculate which of them offers "me" the best outcome. If any X argues that its goal is to disenfranchise me, there is no reason for me to calculate further. What happens if I don't know whether any X is actually "for" me, because they all claim to be? Well, one way is to judge by past actions, which are always the best indicator of future actions. (Voting, imo, is a responsibility, even more than a right (to participate in and create the gubmint, ironically). And, what about this latest tactic of candidate X refusing to comment on issues, basically because of things that they've said in the past. It's like the Arkansas (elected) school board official who said that he'd wear purple on the day that 'all the fags committed suicide.' That'd be enough for me, 'cause I believe that if he'd say that about anyone who committed suicide (one of the top three causes of death for people under 24), then he'd say it about anyone for any other reason he chose.

[Chris Fleming]

This is how it is:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

Carroll Quigley

[RobP2]

See how actors and artists take to the streets in EuroSociast countries to protest the fact that their governments don't have the dough to keep them on the government tit? And how does that system work well? Game, set, match.

Buddy have you ever been to Europe?

Thing is I remember marching for jobs, not dole money