Was obama The Reason The LEFT Turned Into Full Blown Socialists?

[regent]

The United States has always taken care of the poor, disabled, elderly and indigent since the Constitution. Governments have done this tlrough taxation, the same taxation that the govenment used to take care of all the governmental responsiblities including helping industry and business.

 

[Dot Com]

True, they don't own up to their shit. They just talk shit like the artilcedumbass above. But it will be CLEAR who steered us off the cliff as fast as he/they could... obama and the democraps, and I think most people will finally get that, or at least enough to vote the filthy communists out of power. If not, this country is headed for total collapse on a scale that will drag the rest of the world down with it.

Like you owning up to this?

Want to bet? You can have anyone but Obama. I'll take Obama. If Obama wins you never come back to this site. I do the same if anyone but Obama wins.

Deal.

Bye.

Book it. No getting out of it now.

​

 

[expatriate]

where did polerider go? a scummy, roach infested diner in Wisconsin is missing it's fry cook!

 

[jasonnfree]

I don't see where social programs make a country socialist. We've had taxpayer funded programs that have promoted growth in certain industries at least since the Erie Canal and certainly the railroads. Also the space program. I don't think people realize how much our government has been involved in influencing and growing our economy. By the way, I wonder how many tea bag politicians have refused their government provided health care?

 

[JakeStarkey]

ObamaPhoneLady reminds me of the characters like AmericanFirst, bigrebnc, and 007.

They are all the same kind of people.

 

[gwennie]

Nutters....

You clowns are why the GOP is drowning.

Stay in England where you belong......

 

[gwennie]

I wonder...where have the Democrats of old gone? Surely they didn't hitch their wagons to the idiocy of the youth from the left wing loon fringe that now run the party

They have given up..... There is no real dem party anymore, only the far left radical fringe group that now runs the dems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uhm . . . the Dems beat us down in this election, gwennie.

 

[HUGGY]

I wonder...where have the Democrats of old gone? Surely they didn't hitch their wagons to the idiocy of the youth from the left wing loon fringe that now run the party

They have given up..... There is no real dem party anymore, only the far left radical fringe group that now runs the dems.

Oily Taint has a daughter? Who knew?

 

[peach174]

One bored and disenchanted 22 year old swede on a message board. Now that is what I call some conclusive evidence of the failure of the scandinavian socio-economic system! Wow!!!! WHo needs academic study and critical research when you've got blockbuster stuff like that???? Oh... and one quick point: "fair" share does NOT equate to "EQUAL" share. See the difference, or is it too subtle for you?

And look, you found a simple cut and paste definition of communism - from wikipedia, was it? Good for you. It's certainly a step better than relying on the word of a couple of cigar rolling cuban immigrants. Now... try to use a little critical thinking. First... do some studying about the way that Marx stated that communism needed to be implemented. Learn what the dialectic process means. Realize that communism is not a system that can be implemented in gradual incremental steps.... just like you cannot cross a large deep chasm in two medium sized steps, you need one giant leap. That is the way they system was designed - by its very inventor - to be implemented... and that is how it HAS been implemented (albeit imperfectly) every time it has happened around the world. No nation has slowly, incrementally, gradually slipped into a communist model. None. Your post #47 in which you claimed that government ownership of just one industry would not be socialism but would be, in your words, "full blown communism" is absolute proof positive that a tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You know precious little about political theory, socio-economic theory, and rely, instead on the summary lines from wikipedia pages and anecdotal "evidence" gleaned from cuban americans and young swedish boys on internet sites. Step back a moment and realize how out of your league you are in this discussion. Really. For me to get into a battle of wits with you on this topic is tantamount to me shooting an unarmed man. Give it up... or better yet... spend the next six months or so doing some serious reading outside your comfort zone and then come back and try again.

How old are you?
I would guess 30 something.
This is not about wits or a game, we are over16 trillion in the hole because of social entitlement programs (mostly implemented by Dem's). Gov. spends way to much money and the Dem's refuse to get serious about cut backs.
We have a congress that is playing blame games, just so one or the other can remain in power.
Life experience is just as much as an education as book learning. You refuse to see the truth. These people lived in Socialism and you refuse to see it for what is really is.
You keep using Communism when I and many others are saying we moving more and more toward socialism.
We have moved toward Socialism not communism for the last 100 yrs.

your guess about my age is as uninformed as everything else you write. My age is more than double your guess. I am a retired military officer with tons of post graduate education and a great deal of academic concentration on the very topic we are discussing. You are in over your head, trust me. The discussion about entitlements and taxes is a political discussion that has been happening and evolving for as long as we have been a nation. You can claim that your "life experience" in talking with Cuban immigrants somehow is equivalent to my years of education and study and experience on the topic of socialism and communism, but your claims are ridiculous. YOU are the one who claimed that government ownership of one single industry or aspect of society was beyond socialism and was, again in your words, "pure communism". If you'd like to retract that absurd statement, that would be great, but until you do, it remains as proof positive that you don't have a ******* clue about the words you toss around. People from the right said that social security was " socialism". People on the right said that Medicare was "socialism". People on the right said that AFDC and WIC and MEDICAID and all the other social safety net programs that have been instituted over the past century were "socialism". But yet, you really don't understand what the terms "socialism" OR "communism" mean. "Socialism", by definition, is government control and ownership of EVERYTHING.... not parts of things. We have been moving toward a more caring and inclusive society where those who have been lucky enough to be blessed with intelligence and wealth - myself included - help pay for the lesser folks in our society who may not have the intelligence to achieve wealth and security but are perfectly capable of sending their sons off to die in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, or who work long hard hours washing the dishes that you eat off of an restaurants or picking up your trash that you leave at your curb, or making the beds and cleaning the rooms of the hotels you stay in or mowing your lawns or replacing your roofs or washing your cars... I know that people like that are necessary to make this society run... and I am perfectly willing to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure that they aren't destitute or financially ruined if their spouse gets cancer or their child has some illness. You... you talk to your cuban immigrants, think you know all sorts of stuff about things that you clearly know little to nothing about.... and you make me ill. I wonder how this great country of ours has devolved into a place where morons like you think they have all the answers and those answers do not contain ANY compassion for their fellow citizens. You make me sick. I need a drink.

We also said that those Entitlement programs would grow and become unsustainable in the future, which they have.
Conservatives have plenty of compassion for their fellow Americans.
You on the left think that Gov. control of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is the way it should be done.
You refuse to accept that those programs must be restructured.
If we structured our Social Security to something similar like Chile has, then each of our Future Seniors would have a better monthly retirement income rather than the average of most who has 700.00 to 1,000 a month. If they had an unexpected expense they could take it out of their own funds to cover an emergency. The way it's done now is when they get to the end of the month, that's it period. I think that this is much more uncompassionate and really cruel.
If the money was given to the States for Medicare and Medicaid those funds would be structured to fit each states needs and spent more efficiently.
You are mistaken to think the Conservatives want to totally end everything. Restructuring thees large unsustainable programs will keep them around.
Doing nothing like the Dem's want, they will go away when they go broke.
You are believing the Lefty's scare tactics. Something that Communists as masters at.
Just ask Fidel Castro.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Peach, let us also have national health insurance like Chile, since you like their retirement programs so much.

 

[Mac1958]

How old are you?
I would guess 30 something.
This is not about wits or a game, we are over16 trillion in the hole because of social entitlement programs (mostly implemented by Dem's). Gov. spends way to much money and the Dem's refuse to get serious about cut backs.
We have a congress that is playing blame games, just so one or the other can remain in power.
Life experience is just as much as an education as book learning. You refuse to see the truth. These people lived in Socialism and you refuse to see it for what is really is.
You keep using Communism when I and many others are saying we moving more and more toward socialism.
We have moved toward Socialism not communism for the last 100 yrs.

your guess about my age is as uninformed as everything else you write. My age is more than double your guess. I am a retired military officer with tons of post graduate education and a great deal of academic concentration on the very topic we are discussing. You are in over your head, trust me. The discussion about entitlements and taxes is a political discussion that has been happening and evolving for as long as we have been a nation. You can claim that your "life experience" in talking with Cuban immigrants somehow is equivalent to my years of education and study and experience on the topic of socialism and communism, but your claims are ridiculous. YOU are the one who claimed that government ownership of one single industry or aspect of society was beyond socialism and was, again in your words, "pure communism". If you'd like to retract that absurd statement, that would be great, but until you do, it remains as proof positive that you don't have a ******* clue about the words you toss around. People from the right said that social security was " socialism". People on the right said that Medicare was "socialism". People on the right said that AFDC and WIC and MEDICAID and all the other social safety net programs that have been instituted over the past century were "socialism". But yet, you really don't understand what the terms "socialism" OR "communism" mean. "Socialism", by definition, is government control and ownership of EVERYTHING.... not parts of things. We have been moving toward a more caring and inclusive society where those who have been lucky enough to be blessed with intelligence and wealth - myself included - help pay for the lesser folks in our society who may not have the intelligence to achieve wealth and security but are perfectly capable of sending their sons off to die in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, or who work long hard hours washing the dishes that you eat off of an restaurants or picking up your trash that you leave at your curb, or making the beds and cleaning the rooms of the hotels you stay in or mowing your lawns or replacing your roofs or washing your cars... I know that people like that are necessary to make this society run... and I am perfectly willing to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure that they aren't destitute or financially ruined if their spouse gets cancer or their child has some illness. You... you talk to your cuban immigrants, think you know all sorts of stuff about things that you clearly know little to nothing about.... and you make me ill. I wonder how this great country of ours has devolved into a place where morons like you think they have all the answers and those answers do not contain ANY compassion for their fellow citizens. You make me sick. I need a drink.

We also said that those Entitlement programs would grow and become unsustainable in the future, which they have.
Conservatives have plenty of compassion for their fellow Americans.
You on the left think that Gov. control of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is the way it should be done.
You refuse to accept that those programs must be restructured.
If we structured our Social Security to something similar like Chile has, then each of our Future Seniors would have a better monthly retirement income rather than the average of most who has 700.00 to 1,000 a month. If they had an unexpected expense they could take it out of their own funds to cover an emergency. The way it's done now is when they get to the end of the month, that's it period. I think that this is much more uncompassionate and really cruel.
If the money was given to the States for Medicare and Medicaid those funds would be structured to fit each states needs and spent more efficiently.
You are mistaken to think the Conservatives want to totally end everything. Restructuring thees large unsustainable programs will keep them around.
Doing nothing like the Dem's want, they will go away when they go broke.
You are believing the Lefty's scare tactics. Something that Communists as masters at.
Just ask Fidel Castro.

I don't usually have the patience to read longer posts, but I think this kind of conversation is one that should be had on a national basis.

Y'know, the debate over the role, size and cost of government doesn't have to be like a game of tug o' war at summer camp, where one team "wins" and other team ends up in the mud.

Isn't the real issue one of finding a proper equilibrium, a place on the spectrum where (1) able-bodied Americans are not made to be overly dependent of government, and (2) government finds an appropriate place in creating and promoting an environment that maintains a reasonable balance between the richest and the poorest?

On one hand, is it really asking too much for people to take some responsibility for their lives, to not pass down dependence on the government and expectations of entitlements from generation to generation, creating an ever-growing cost, size and influence of government?

On the other hand, is it really asking too much for those who were born with the drive and intelligence to create and sustain wealth to recognize that others simply were not born with those qualities, and to acknowledge the notion that government and the public can indeed find ways to work together to raise all boats?

Such a conversation can only start at the top.

It's my humble opinion that this country is in desperate need of our "leaders" (cough) in Washington DC to put aside their selfish and narcissistic concerns about re-election and fundraising, and have a serious, honest and respectable conversation about these issues, outside the venue of individual bills and law-making. A conversation specifically and only about the role, cost and size of the American government, for all of us to see and consider. And in my little fantasy world, none of those discussions would culminate in the politicians running out to the television cameras to spew their predictable partisan horseshit.

I see no indication that such a conversation is imminent.

.

 

[expatriate]

How old are you?
I would guess 30 something.
This is not about wits or a game, we are over16 trillion in the hole because of social entitlement programs (mostly implemented by Dem's). Gov. spends way to much money and the Dem's refuse to get serious about cut backs.
We have a congress that is playing blame games, just so one or the other can remain in power.
Life experience is just as much as an education as book learning. You refuse to see the truth. These people lived in Socialism and you refuse to see it for what is really is.
You keep using Communism when I and many others are saying we moving more and more toward socialism.
We have moved toward Socialism not communism for the last 100 yrs.

your guess about my age is as uninformed as everything else you write. My age is more than double your guess. I am a retired military officer with tons of post graduate education and a great deal of academic concentration on the very topic we are discussing. You are in over your head, trust me. The discussion about entitlements and taxes is a political discussion that has been happening and evolving for as long as we have been a nation. You can claim that your "life experience" in talking with Cuban immigrants somehow is equivalent to my years of education and study and experience on the topic of socialism and communism, but your claims are ridiculous. YOU are the one who claimed that government ownership of one single industry or aspect of society was beyond socialism and was, again in your words, "pure communism". If you'd like to retract that absurd statement, that would be great, but until you do, it remains as proof positive that you don't have a ******* clue about the words you toss around. People from the right said that social security was " socialism". People on the right said that Medicare was "socialism". People on the right said that AFDC and WIC and MEDICAID and all the other social safety net programs that have been instituted over the past century were "socialism". But yet, you really don't understand what the terms "socialism" OR "communism" mean. "Socialism", by definition, is government control and ownership of EVERYTHING.... not parts of things. We have been moving toward a more caring and inclusive society where those who have been lucky enough to be blessed with intelligence and wealth - myself included - help pay for the lesser folks in our society who may not have the intelligence to achieve wealth and security but are perfectly capable of sending their sons off to die in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, or who work long hard hours washing the dishes that you eat off of an restaurants or picking up your trash that you leave at your curb, or making the beds and cleaning the rooms of the hotels you stay in or mowing your lawns or replacing your roofs or washing your cars... I know that people like that are necessary to make this society run... and I am perfectly willing to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure that they aren't destitute or financially ruined if their spouse gets cancer or their child has some illness. You... you talk to your cuban immigrants, think you know all sorts of stuff about things that you clearly know little to nothing about.... and you make me ill. I wonder how this great country of ours has devolved into a place where morons like you think they have all the answers and those answers do not contain ANY compassion for their fellow citizens. You make me sick. I need a drink.

We also said that those Entitlement programs would grow and become unsustainable in the future, which they have.
Conservatives have plenty of compassion for their fellow Americans.
You on the left think that Gov. control of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is the way it should be done.
You refuse to accept that those programs must be restructured.
If we structured our Social Security to something similar like Chile has, then each of our Future Seniors would have a better monthly retirement income rather than the average of most who has 700.00 to 1,000 a month. If they had an unexpected expense they could take it out of their own funds to cover an emergency. The way it's done now is when they get to the end of the month, that's it period. I think that this is much more uncompassionate and really cruel.
If the money was given to the States for Medicare and Medicaid those funds would be structured to fit each states needs and spent more efficiently.
You are mistaken to think the Conservatives want to totally end everything. Restructuring thees large unsustainable programs will keep them around.
Doing nothing like the Dem's want, they will go away when they go broke.
You are believing the Lefty's scare tactics. Something that Communists as masters at.
Just ask Fidel Castro.

nice rant.... avoided all my points, but nice rant.

 

[expatriate]

your guess about my age is as uninformed as everything else you write. My age is more than double your guess. I am a retired military officer with tons of post graduate education and a great deal of academic concentration on the very topic we are discussing. You are in over your head, trust me. The discussion about entitlements and taxes is a political discussion that has been happening and evolving for as long as we have been a nation. You can claim that your "life experience" in talking with Cuban immigrants somehow is equivalent to my years of education and study and experience on the topic of socialism and communism, but your claims are ridiculous. YOU are the one who claimed that government ownership of one single industry or aspect of society was beyond socialism and was, again in your words, "pure communism". If you'd like to retract that absurd statement, that would be great, but until you do, it remains as proof positive that you don't have a ******* clue about the words you toss around. People from the right said that social security was " socialism". People on the right said that Medicare was "socialism". People on the right said that AFDC and WIC and MEDICAID and all the other social safety net programs that have been instituted over the past century were "socialism". But yet, you really don't understand what the terms "socialism" OR "communism" mean. "Socialism", by definition, is government control and ownership of EVERYTHING.... not parts of things. We have been moving toward a more caring and inclusive society where those who have been lucky enough to be blessed with intelligence and wealth - myself included - help pay for the lesser folks in our society who may not have the intelligence to achieve wealth and security but are perfectly capable of sending their sons off to die in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, or who work long hard hours washing the dishes that you eat off of an restaurants or picking up your trash that you leave at your curb, or making the beds and cleaning the rooms of the hotels you stay in or mowing your lawns or replacing your roofs or washing your cars... I know that people like that are necessary to make this society run... and I am perfectly willing to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure that they aren't destitute or financially ruined if their spouse gets cancer or their child has some illness. You... you talk to your cuban immigrants, think you know all sorts of stuff about things that you clearly know little to nothing about.... and you make me ill. I wonder how this great country of ours has devolved into a place where morons like you think they have all the answers and those answers do not contain ANY compassion for their fellow citizens. You make me sick. I need a drink.

We also said that those Entitlement programs would grow and become unsustainable in the future, which they have.
Conservatives have plenty of compassion for their fellow Americans.
You on the left think that Gov. control of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is the way it should be done.
You refuse to accept that those programs must be restructured.
If we structured our Social Security to something similar like Chile has, then each of our Future Seniors would have a better monthly retirement income rather than the average of most who has 700.00 to 1,000 a month. If they had an unexpected expense they could take it out of their own funds to cover an emergency. The way it's done now is when they get to the end of the month, that's it period. I think that this is much more uncompassionate and really cruel.
If the money was given to the States for Medicare and Medicaid those funds would be structured to fit each states needs and spent more efficiently.
You are mistaken to think the Conservatives want to totally end everything. Restructuring thees large unsustainable programs will keep them around.
Doing nothing like the Dem's want, they will go away when they go broke.
You are believing the Lefty's scare tactics. Something that Communists as masters at.
Just ask Fidel Castro.

I don't usually have the patience to read longer posts, but I think this kind of conversation is one that should be had on a national basis.

Y'know, the debate over the role, size and cost of government doesn't have to be like a game of tug o' war at summer camp, where one team "wins" and other team ends up in the mud.

Isn't the real issue one of finding a proper equilibrium, a place on the spectrum where (1) able-bodied Americans are not made to be overly dependent of government, and (2) government finds an appropriate place in creating and promoting an environment that maintains a reasonable balance between the richest and the poorest?

On one hand, is it really asking too much for people to take some responsibility for their lives, to not pass down dependence on the government and expectations of entitlements from generation to generation, creating an ever-growing cost, size and influence of government?

On the other hand, is it really asking too much for those who were born with the drive and intelligence to create and sustain wealth to recognize that others simply were not born with those qualities, and to acknowledge the notion that government and the public can indeed find ways to work together to raise all boats?

Such a conversation can only start at the top.

It's my humble opinion that this country is in desperate need of our "leaders" (cough) in Washington DC to put aside their selfish and narcissistic concerns about re-election and fundraising, and have a serious, honest and respectable conversation about these issues, outside the venue of individual bills and law-making. A conversation specifically and only about the role, cost and size of the American government, for all of us to see and consider. And in my little fantasy world, none of those discussions would culminate in the politicians running out to the television cameras to spew their predictable partisan horseshit.

I see no indication that such a conversation is imminent.

.

well thought out post. shows great intelligence. thank you. I would agree that your thoughts are the very essence of what our national political dialog needs to look like. What I had been trying to do here, without much success, was at least to get people agreeing on a common lexicon. As long as we don't understand or agree on what words mean, we can never communicate with one another and we end up shouting past one another, not for the purpose of communicating or debating with those who think differently than us, but only to score points and motivate and bring to a state of righteous indignation those people who think exactly like we do.

And I know that this recent dialog that I have engaged in needn't have been so caustic. I just really get SICK of folks on the right with educational and intellectual experiences that could fit in a coffee cup and there'd still be room for a cup of coffee, throwing around the words "socialist", "communist", and "marxist" as hateful epithets that are devoid of any real meaning that a commonly agreed upon lexicon would provide.

 

[Stephanie]

We also said that those Entitlement programs would grow and become unsustainable in the future, which they have.
Conservatives have plenty of compassion for their fellow Americans.
You on the left think that Gov. control of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is the way it should be done.
You refuse to accept that those programs must be restructured.
If we structured our Social Security to something similar like Chile has, then each of our Future Seniors would have a better monthly retirement income rather than the average of most who has 700.00 to 1,000 a month. If they had an unexpected expense they could take it out of their own funds to cover an emergency. The way it's done now is when they get to the end of the month, that's it period. I think that this is much more uncompassionate and really cruel.
If the money was given to the States for Medicare and Medicaid those funds would be structured to fit each states needs and spent more efficiently.
You are mistaken to think the Conservatives want to totally end everything. Restructuring thees large unsustainable programs will keep them around.
Doing nothing like the Dem's want, they will go away when they go broke.
You are believing the Lefty's scare tactics. Something that Communists as masters at.
Just ask Fidel Castro.

I don't usually have the patience to read longer posts, but I think this kind of conversation is one that should be had on a national basis.

Y'know, the debate over the role, size and cost of government doesn't have to be like a game of tug o' war at summer camp, where one team "wins" and other team ends up in the mud.

Isn't the real issue one of finding a proper equilibrium, a place on the spectrum where (1) able-bodied Americans are not made to be overly dependent of government, and (2) government finds an appropriate place in creating and promoting an environment that maintains a reasonable balance between the richest and the poorest?

On one hand, is it really asking too much for people to take some responsibility for their lives, to not pass down dependence on the government and expectations of entitlements from generation to generation, creating an ever-growing cost, size and influence of government?

On the other hand, is it really asking too much for those who were born with the drive and intelligence to create and sustain wealth to recognize that others simply were not born with those qualities, and to acknowledge the notion that government and the public can indeed find ways to work together to raise all boats?

Such a conversation can only start at the top.

It's my humble opinion that this country is in desperate need of our "leaders" (cough) in Washington DC to put aside their selfish and narcissistic concerns about re-election and fundraising, and have a serious, honest and respectable conversation about these issues, outside the venue of individual bills and law-making. A conversation specifically and only about the role, cost and size of the American government, for all of us to see and consider. And in my little fantasy world, none of those discussions would culminate in the politicians running out to the television cameras to spew their predictable partisan horseshit.

I see no indication that such a conversation is imminent.

.

well thought out post. shows great intelligence. thank you. I would agree that your thoughts are the very essence of what our national political dialog needs to look like. What I had been trying to do here, without much success, was at least to get people agreeing on a common lexicon. As long as we don't understand or agree on what words mean, we can never communicate with one another and we end up shouting past one another, not for the purpose of communicating or debating with those who think differently than us, but only to score points and motivate and bring to a state of righteous indignation those people who think exactly like we do.

And I know that this recent dialog that I have engaged in needn't have been so caustic. I just really get SICK of folks on the right with educational and intellectual experiences that could fit in a coffee cup and there'd still be room for a cup of coffee, throwing around the words "socialist", "communist", and "marxist" as hateful epithets that are devoid of any real meaning that a commonly agreed upon lexicon would provide.

ah, and this post was so loving...you need a tissue?
How many in the Democrat party are Socialist? can you tell us.
and why is it the Communist Party of the United States feels they have more of a allegiance with Democrat party?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't usually have the patience to read longer posts, but I think this kind of conversation is one that should be had on a national basis.

Y'know, the debate over the role, size and cost of government doesn't have to be like a game of tug o' war at summer camp, where one team "wins" and other team ends up in the mud.

Isn't the real issue one of finding a proper equilibrium, a place on the spectrum where (1) able-bodied Americans are not made to be overly dependent of government, and (2) government finds an appropriate place in creating and promoting an environment that maintains a reasonable balance between the richest and the poorest?

On one hand, is it really asking too much for people to take some responsibility for their lives, to not pass down dependence on the government and expectations of entitlements from generation to generation, creating an ever-growing cost, size and influence of government?

On the other hand, is it really asking too much for those who were born with the drive and intelligence to create and sustain wealth to recognize that others simply were not born with those qualities, and to acknowledge the notion that government and the public can indeed find ways to work together to raise all boats?

Such a conversation can only start at the top.

It's my humble opinion that this country is in desperate need of our "leaders" (cough) in Washington DC to put aside their selfish and narcissistic concerns about re-election and fundraising, and have a serious, honest and respectable conversation about these issues, outside the venue of individual bills and law-making. A conversation specifically and only about the role, cost and size of the American government, for all of us to see and consider. And in my little fantasy world, none of those discussions would culminate in the politicians running out to the television cameras to spew their predictable partisan horseshit.

I see no indication that such a conversation is imminent.

.

well thought out post. shows great intelligence. thank you. I would agree that your thoughts are the very essence of what our national political dialog needs to look like. What I had been trying to do here, without much success, was at least to get people agreeing on a common lexicon. As long as we don't understand or agree on what words mean, we can never communicate with one another and we end up shouting past one another, not for the purpose of communicating or debating with those who think differently than us, but only to score points and motivate and bring to a state of righteous indignation those people who think exactly like we do.

And I know that this recent dialog that I have engaged in needn't have been so caustic. I just really get SICK of folks on the right with educational and intellectual experiences that could fit in a coffee cup and there'd still be room for a cup of coffee, throwing around the words "socialist", "communist", and "marxist" as hateful epithets that are devoid of any real meaning that a commonly agreed upon lexicon would provide.

Well, the standard partisan back-and-forth between pundits and between the public probably isn't going to change much any time soon. Not at least until our "leaders" (cough) finally stop worrying about themselves and their cushy government jobs and start some honest dialogue.

So this conversation needs to start in DC -- on a national, very public level -- and then slowly filter its way down through our culture. Personally, I would have preferred the opposite, but I can see that's just ain't gonna happen. Until then, both ends of the spectrum are going to continue tossing out the simplistic labels, platitudes and hyperbole.

Seems to me one goal would be to marginalize those who don't contribute to constructive conversation, rather than to celebrate them.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Peach, let us also have national health insurance like Chile, since you like their retirement programs so much.

Moderate Republicans favor national health insurance, that's why they lose ever national election

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stephanie, there are some socialsits in the Democratic Party, as we have some fascists in the GOP. The fascists have more in common with us than the Democrats.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stephanie, there are some socialsits in the Democratic Party, as we have some fascists in the GOP. The fascists have more in common with us than the Democrats.

Agrees with Jake, the Fascists have a lot in common with Obama supporters

 

[JakeStarkey]

Misread by Frank: " The fascists have more in common with us than the Democrats."