How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Fixed, although even that isn't very true anymore because the Republican Party's elected officials that are still in office are almost all from its base, and that base is so far to the Reactionary/Authoritarian Right that it can barely be called conservative anymore. And their only game left is to shout down everything that's not their doing. Until they and their supporters have something reality based to contribute, they should be ignored and/or vote out of office until they stop being spoiled brats.

One of the more visible results of the health care debate is that you can actually see which elected Democrats are progressives (yellow dogs) and which ones are the true Eisenhower-style fiscal conservative crossovers (blue dogs). That's the short distance on the ideological scale that you're seeing.

"All the Republican Party's elected officials that are still in office are almost all from its base..."

"...that base is so far to the Authoritarian Right..."

Um...ignorance?

[Sirrus_Asura]

Hey Sirrus, How's guartz ass taste?

Not much better than Ollo / Finese / Beck's Dick I'd assume.

How's that hatred of money and profit working out for you?

[Rhinox]

If you haven't realized by now, Beckwin is sort of the equivalent of let's say Leif (since he's the most well-known conservative on these boards I believe). The thing that is funny though, is people fail to see that Leif is much less biased than Beckwin, since Beck is completely in accordance to the radical left. I can't say the same for Leif regarding the right. Since this board is sort of left-leaning they really can't see how radical Beckwin is, or maybe they can but it doesn't affect them as much as a right-winger would?

Look at his signature for instance, "Workers of the world unite!"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite!. Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if he gushes at the thought of a global communist revolution. (inb4 lol pulling the "commie!" card)

The point is, pointing out bias in a radical is like saying "the sky is blue". This should be expected.

Oh shit son. We gonna psychoanalyze peoples sigs/avatars now?


ok lets see then

Lee, You have Clint Eastwood as TMWNN as your avatar which means you have an unnatural love for guns and shootouts. Which means you're predisposed to shooting people. And based on your political affiliation would mean that you would love for those people to be niggers and spics. You're also worried that during the 1800's White people accounted for 36% of people of the world and now its only 6%.

Sirrus, You have some serious mommy issues since you are trying to demean powerful intelligent woman in Hillary clinton. You're also a closet homosexual since you like putting womans faces on mens bodies in order to justify your love for Cock especially Big Black cock.

Lief, You sir have a hardon for everything American. It's morph into a sexual fantasy which causes you to masturbate fervorously while blasting "I'm proud to be an american" in the background or anything tobey Keith.

Swampy, your sig highlights your hatred for liberals which brings a name to mind. Timothy McVeigh

[Rhinox]

Not much better than Ollo / Finese / Beck's Dick I'd assume.

How's that hatred of money and profit working out for you?

oh good come back bro. you could've saved yourself from typing some words with a simple "no u".

[Beckwin]

Well the way it ties in to the conversation beckwin and kuya were having, is that supporting political structure makes reasonable discussion impossible. It just propagates what kuya described as the "political tactics". I figured it be obvious, so just because you don't understand something Olo401, doesn't make it brainless.

Except I don't think it really does. You specifically seemed to call me out with it, so that would imply you think I'm avoiding rationality because I really really like the Democratic party. If that's not your intention then please clarify.

But I think saying that political philosophy can even be boiled down to a standard of objective reasoning/logic is bit of a falsehood; I feel you pretty much have to make some subjective choices and then go from there. Of course I expect you'll disagree, seeing as you're more of a universal moralist.

In respect to the current situation, I wouldn't call the existing structure a bias. It is what it is, and reality is one of those things. nothing to say it can't change or we can't consider things without respect to the existing structure, but accounting for it is hardly an irrational bias.

[Sirrus_Asura]

oh good come back bro. you could've saved yourself from typing some words with a simple "no u".

See

oh good come back bro. you could've saved yourself from typing some words with a simple "no u".

8-)

Inb4 you rephrase the exact same thing in some halfhearted attempt to 1up me. Bawwwww Capitalism.

[Beckwin]

and sirrus, take your obnoxious wigger internet-toughguy bullshit out of this thread. just let guartz (and pohibaba, or hell, even swampy considering you're you) do the talking.

[Sirrus_Asura]

and sirrus, take your obnoxious wigger internet-toughguy bullshit out of this thread. just let guartz (and pohibaba, or hell, even swampy considering you're you) do the talking.

Come back when you're done with discriminating against those who make more money than you.

Start a business and then complain about owning the means to labor fgt.

[Rhinox]

Come back when you're done with discriminating against those who make more money than you.

Start a business and then complain about owning the means to labor fgt.

Is this an insult? if thats the worst you can think of to come back at him then LOL.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Inb4 you rephrase the exact same thing in some halfhearted attempt to 1up me. Bawwwww Capitalism.

Quit being so predictable bub.

[Rhinox]

Quit being so predictable bub.

It's like you're not even trying anymore.

See; Sig

[Kuya]

Well this thread went back to that again. Oh well.

edit: beckwin weren't you supposed to finish addressing my points? I've been waiting.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Well this thread went back to that again. Oh well.

edit: beckwin weren't you supposed to finish addressing my points? I've been waiting.

Oye, I took the bait. My bad. /ignore on.

[Olo401]

I understand perfectly well, with or without your pathetic trolling guartz. Why don't you stick to what you're good at, because making up shit about me isn't one of your strong suits.

[Beckwin]

Well this thread went back to that again. Oh well.

edit: beckwin weren't you supposed to finish addressing my points? I've been waiting.

which points are left, specifically? I sort of get the feeling I've answered most of them but there may some miscommunication.

I'm pretty sure I responded to #1153:

Anyhow, I mentioned all that stuff about our political structure and capitalism because it is directly related to the article: pursuing exact interests versus electoral unity. if you want to at least just stop the bleeding/prevent more lacerations, our system forces unity in elections just to stop the other guys from getting in power again. It's different from a parliamentary system where the Executive can be heavily undermined and even thrown out by the legislature. And if you want any of your agenda to have a chance of receiving attention/progress, you need the guy marginally closer to you to be in office. Again, let's be realistic: John McCain would not even be entertaining the thought of a public option, or cap and trade, or appointing Sotomayor (all of which are very mild, watered-down progressive/liberal ideas).

You say that outlook implies complacency, but I disagree. It implies utilitarian considerations. You see, the things that progressives want- universal healthcare, drastic changes in environmental policy, a huge withdrawal of forces abroad (not just in respect to I&A, but a huge military reduction in general), full LGBT rights, much expanded regulations on markets/industry even up to no longer considering corporations as persons, etc.... would require a revolution in order to see it all in say, an 8 year period of time. So taking a utilitarian look at the situation allows you to see what you can get and how to get it beyond the current futility of political revolution. It doesn't mean giving up; it means biding your time and fighting for every scrap of progress without risking massive setbacks.

And again, I must stress that the views of a progressive/leftist are not necessarily the views of the average Democrat voter. So again, there's an impetus for political unity because schism just means a net loss and losing ground when the GOP gets in power. Work from within to positively effect change and try to broaden awareness and support for your causes among the very generally "liberal" constituency.

more or less. history shows that when the dems lose, massive ground has to be retaken. I believe there is some value in at least making sure to preserve progress already made and pushing for whatever gains can be feasibly obtained rather than going for broke and risking having to retread the same ground after the GOP fucks things up. See Nixon, see Reagan, see Bush Jr. In respect to the latter, we're now having to worry about reforming things like Iraq, a regressed torture/prisoner rights policy, NCLB, a conservative leaning SCOTUS (recall that Bush made appointments... youthful ones), regressed tax scale, etc that wouldn't have even been on the table if not for losing in '00.

Can you at least recognize the utilitarian (or practical result based) view of American mainstream politics? I know it's kind of been your thing to say that the Dems aren't different from the GOP (Zinn has also written arguing this), but in certain practical elements there is a measurable difference that genuinely impacts American life. I think that attacking certain groups (say, MoveOn) for being cautious out of political utilitarianism and saying they're representing some moneyed special interest isn't quite fair or even productive, and you also have to question what you're implying/who you're sounding like by demonizing the liberal moneyed elite in such a fasion (OMG SOROS EVIL SOCIALIST POWERGRABBING PLOT NWO). In the case of MoveOn, aren't they relatively new? They've quickly become prominent, but still.

Again, I feel it's more productive to positively yet strongly approach changing the movement from within and forcing the Democratic party to react accordingly. Notice that those groups accused of capitulating for whatever reason certainly aren't attacking groups like PCCC for pushing a public option, and so on. I don't think there's some conspiracy at work here among certain progressive organizations; I think at best you can argue against their priorities, but I feel history and the practical reality of our political system only allows you to go so far.

[Kuya]

I'm going to quote the parts i did not understand in your post, and repeat the points i wanted you to address and why:

Anyhow, I mentioned all that stuff about our political structure and capitalism because it is directly related to the article: pursuing exact interests versus electoral unity. if you want to at least just stop the bleeding/prevent more lacerations, our system forces unity in elections just to stop the other guys from getting in power again. It's different from a parliamentary system where the Executive can be heavily undermined and even thrown out by the legislature. And if you want any of your agenda to have a chance of receiving attention/progress, you need the guy marginally closer to you to be in office. Again, let's be realistic: John McCain would not even be entertaining the thought of a public option, or cap and trade, or appointing Sotomayor (all of which are very mild, watered-down progressive/liberal ideas).

I did not understand what this paragraph was trying to say. Could you elaborate more, and as well add a sentence where you summarize the point of the elaboration?

You say that outlook implies complacency, but I disagree. It implies utilitarian considerations. You see, the things that progressives want- universal healthcare, drastic changes in environmental policy, a huge withdrawal of forces abroad (not just in respect to I&A, but a huge military reduction in general), full LGBT rights, much expanded regulations on markets/industry even up to no longer considering corporations as persons, etc.... would require a revolution in order to see it all in say, an 8 year period of time. So taking a utilitarian look at the situation allows you to see what you can get and how to get it beyond the current futility of political revolution. It doesn't mean giving up; it means biding your time and fighting for every scrap of progress without risking massive setbacks.

And here is where you did not address my point, possibly because you did not understand it. Let me repeat it in a more concise manner:

1.There are two reasons and ways in which compromise happens, one is in the manner you are implying. That is, because inmediate change cannot be enacted because of interests, compromises are made in order to take small steps towards that main goal, however these compromises are planned out to lead into said goals. This is where knowledgeable politicians play real politik in order to achieve their goals via realistic means.

2.Yet, there is also the second form of compromise, which is compromise not made with an eye towards the future, that is with achieving a main goal in the sense of a long term goal. In this scenario, preassures employed by the entreched interests win out and mold policy in order to protect their interests as is; here the change is superficial and does not allow for the mechanisms towards the main goal.

In the first, the able politician beats the entrenched interests, and in the second, the entrenched interests win. My issue is thus:

3. How do you know that what we have is scenario 1 and not 2? You have not laid out a convincing and very detailed argument in favour of #1. I will lay out a preemptive argument for #2: Many of my professors have commented on how horrible the tactics in the health care debate are. They have said, that if it were intended that the politicians would play real politik they should have used the most socialist option possible, a full government take over of the health industry first, because: A- The republicans were going to call any solution socialist from the start. B- You could have compromised said extreme solution into a middle of the ground solution that would eventually lead to the real goal. And yet, the White House started with the weakest solution possible that was already in on itself a compromise; they started with a compromise. Not only that, they have consistently capitulated every step of the way to the Republicans even though they have little power (assuming that the capitulation is not in on itself an act).

Now the utter failure to play real politik implies two probable explanations: One, the Dems and Obama are not knowledgeable politicians and in fact rather mediocre, because they did not know how to secure the main goal (whether it be health care for everyone or single payer, which are not necessarily the same thing). The second is, that the entrenched interests were stronger than the politicians and they had no choice but to capitulate and essentially maintaining the status quo with no real mechanisms for achieving the ultimate goal. Another explanation would be that the White House is manipulating PHARMA and health care industries to keep the Republicans out of power, but that is less probable, although an option.

4. This issue of whether the compromises are being made with a long term goal in mind or whether they represent a victory on the part of entrenched interests (because even in compromises there are winners) is a debate that relates to issues that are not of dire importance for the polity; issues that if not inmediately solved would not lead into trouble. You are correct that one should compromise for goals such as gay rights, health care, and cap and trade because they do not lead to inmediate consequences if not solved inmediately, perhaps gradual consequences, but not inmediate and devastating. And one can do either two things: Compromise a little in order to establish the means to reach the ultimate goal (say for example, establishing civil unions for gays as mandatory and then working one's way up to marriage, this in order to sensibilize people to the idea) or compromise an entire issue so one can fix a vital problem (say letting republicans ban gay marriage in return for the republicans allowing a prosecution of important figures in the Bush administration; improbable, also, this assumes that the republicans are the problem).

Now, for the real point of this 4th "paragraph", there are issues which one CANNOT compromise because they are issues that if not fixed as quickly as possible will lead to serious consequences for the republic. Perhaps the issues will not lead to an inmediate disaster, but they may swell up for a little while, and then explode into serious consequences. I use two examples: the financial crisis was not addressed at all, you can refer to Paul Kraugman for more on this; the exact practices that lead to the financial disaster have not been fixed, and, quite the opposite, they have been enhanced, specifically via giving tax payer money to these institutions with little strings attached, which only increases their risky behaviour because they do not inccur a loss. Second example is the issue of rejecting habeas corpus, allowing illegal wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and letting lawyers that an administration picks off the hook when they are specifically chosen by said administration to justify their actions. All these things lead to an inmediate devaluing of the rule of law, and if they are not punished (it is not enough to make laws or say that we don't do it again, because a new administration does not have to say when it disregards the laws to do this or even tell us they are) then a future administration feels no consequences for doing the same thing again and going even further. This risks giving the executive far too much power, and lets these policie slowly slide from things only done for foreigners, to things that could eventually tricke down to Americans themselves (if it hasn't already).

To conclude: there are two issues, one is subjects where little to no compromise must be done because we MUST fix these problems (punishment for previous officials from the administration and overhaul of the financial sector) or very damaging consequences will follow, and then there are issues where we CAN compromise, but it must be compromise that leads to a desired goal, where the politician with the, in this case, liberal goal, "wins". I want you to address how it is that this administration is actually "winning" these compromises, how exactly they will lead to these great goals (single payer, inmense decrease in carbon emissions, gay marriage and no legal discrimination). And how can you justify the compromises (they're not compromises in terms of protecting the government from lawsuits because of illegal wiretapping) that will lead to inmense consequences?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Oh shit son. We gonna psychoanalyze peoples sigs/avatars now?


ok lets see then

Lee, You have Clint Eastwood as TMWNN as your avatar which means you have an unnatural love for guns and shootouts. Which means you're predisposed to shooting people. And based on your political affiliation would mean that you would love for those people to be niggers and spics. You're also worried that during the 1800's White people accounted for 36% of people of the world and now its only 6%.

Sirrus, You have some serious mommy issues since you are trying to demean powerful intelligent woman in Hillary clinton. You're also a closet homosexual since you like putting womans faces on mens bodies in order to justify your love for Cock especially Big Black cock.

Lief, You sir have a hardon for everything American. It's morph into a sexual fantasy which causes you to masturbate fervorously while blasting "I'm proud to be an american" in the background or anything tobey Keith.

Swampy, your sig highlights your hatred for liberals which brings a name to mind. Timothy McVeigh

BUSTED! Y'all niggas been zapped.

[Beckwin]

I'm going to quote the parts i did not understand in your post, and repeat the points i wanted you to address and why:

I did not understand what this paragraph was trying to say. Could you elaborate more, and as well add a sentence where you summarize the point of the elaboration?

ok, let me try to explain it once again. First: all liberals/democratic voters are not leftists/progressives. They may not feel to the same degree you or I do about issues like healthcare, etc. What does this mean? pushing too far too fast toward our end risks alienating the more moderate part of "our" voting base. Second: Electoral unity is required, because unlike Parliamentary systems where you are more able to "stick to your guns" ideologically and still have a representative voice in government, a leftist/progressive has no voice, not even a distorted auto-tune one, except with a Democrat.

We don't have a "People's Progressive Party" seated in congress that can introduce bills and vote against both the "entrenched interests" of the Democrats and the Republicans platform.

I'm not sure I can explain this much more plainly, but if there's anything specific you're still questioning, let me know.

And here is where you did not address my point, possibly because you did not understand it. Let me repeat it in a more concise manner:

1.There are two reasons and ways in which compromise happens, one is in the manner you are implying. That is, because inmediate change cannot be enacted because of interests, compromises are made in order to take small steps towards that main goal, however these compromises are planned out to lead into said goals. This is where knowledgeable politicians play real politik in order to achieve their goals via realistic means.

2.Yet, there is also the second form of compromise, which is compromise not made with an eye towards the future, that is with achieving a main goal in the sense of a long term goal. In this scenario, preassures employed by the entreched interests win out and mold policy in order to protect their interests as is; here the change is superficial and does not allow for the mechanisms towards the main goal.

I feel the need to question who the entrenched interests are. Are you referring to the Blue Dogs? Or the progressive/leftist organizations mentioned in the article you posted? It seems like you're implying #2 has no goal but the status quo, which could be true but I need to know what interests you're talking about, but which again I think in some/many cases is just you not looking favorably on political utilitarianism/not realizing that the GOP can still be re-elected.

However, talking about #1 here, I believe that a public option would be a compromise goal that could lead to perhaps a universal (or just expanded) system down the road, and Sotomayor is an action that hopefully sets up for a more liberal court in the future and at least protects certain decisions as is.

In the first, the able politician beats the entrenched interests, and in the second, the entrenched interests win. My issue is thus:

3. How do you know that what we have is scenario 1 and not 2? You have not laid out a convincing and very detailed argument in favour of #1. I will lay out a preemptive argument for #2: Many of my professors have commented on how horrible the tactics in the health care debate are. They have said, that if it were intended that the politicians would play real politik they should have used the most socialist option possible, a full government take over of the health industry first, because: A- The republicans were going to call any solution socialist from the start. B- You could have compromised said extreme solution into a middle of the ground solution that would eventually lead to the real goal. And yet, the White House started with the weakest solution possible that was already in on itself a compromise; they started with a compromise. Not only that, they have consistently capitulated every step of the way to the Republicans even though they have little power (assuming that the capitulation is not in on itself an act).

Now the utter failure to play real politik implies two probable explanations: One, the Dems and Obama are not knowledgeable politicians and in fact rather mediocre, because they did not know how to secure the main goal (whether it be health care for everyone or single payer, which are not necessarily the same thing). The second is, that the entrenched interests were stronger than the politicians and they had no choice but to capitulate and essentially maintaining the status quo with no real mechanisms for achieving the ultimate goal. Another explanation would be that the White House is manipulating PHARMA and health care industries to keep the Republicans out of power, but that is less probable, although an option.

I think it's more an issue of political strategy failure- the Obama admin has erred too far on the side of caution and political utility, and it has backfired to a degree. Obama's "post-partisan" strategy worked wonders in the election, but that's likely because he was wooing genuine moderates and large swaths of the average Dem voter. However it's becoming painfully obvious that GOP officials and conservative backers are not moderate in the slightest.

Another problem is the lack of playing up grassroots PR- this is something the Obama camp was able to inject into the public discourse during the election, but are failing to do now. Instead it's the astroturf movements from the conservative side dominating the headlines and giving the public misleading impressions about what their fellow voters think. In reality, there are actually large, active movements in favor of health reform right now, for example, but they get no coverage. Similar to how the pro-immigration rallies of the Bush years got limited coverage compared to say, Minutemen and more currently, Tea Parties.

So yes, I think currently it is a matter of the administration playing their hand a bit poorly. But actions from groups like PCCC are showing some promise at getting the dems to snap the fuck out of it (without demonizing fellow liberal/progressive groups). I'll remain hopeful.

4. This issue of whether the compromises are being made with a long term goal in mind or whether they represent a victory on the part of entrenched interests (because even in compromises there are winners) is a debate that relates to issues that are not of dire importance for the polity; issues that if not inmediately solved would not lead into trouble. You are correct that one should compromise for goals such as gay rights, health care, and cap and trade because they do not lead to inmediate consequences if not solved inmediately, perhaps gradual consequences, but not inmediate and devastating. And one can do either two things: Compromise a little in order to establish the means to reach the ultimate goal (say for example, establishing civil unions for gays as mandatory and then working one's way up to marriage, this in order to sensibilize people to the idea) or compromise an entire issue so one can fix a vital problem (say letting republicans ban gay marriage in return for the republicans allowing a prosecution of important figures in the Bush administration; improbable, also, this assumes that the republicans are the problem).

Now, for the real point of this 4th "paragraph", there are issues which one CANNOT compromise because they are issues that if not fixed as quickly as possible will lead to serious consequences for the republic. Perhaps the issues will not lead to an inmediate disaster, but they may swell up for a little while, and then explode into serious consequences. I use two examples: the financial crisis was not addressed at all, you can refer to Paul Kraugman for more on this; the exact practices that lead to the financial disaster have not been fixed, and, quite the opposite, they have been enhanced, specifically via giving tax payer money to these institutions with little strings attached, which only increases their risky behaviour because they do not inccur a loss. Second example is the issue of rejecting habeas corpus, allowing illegal wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and letting lawyers that an administration picks off the hook when they are specifically chosen by said administration to justify their actions. All these things lead to an inmediate devaluing of the rule of law, and if they are not punished (it is not enough to make laws or say that we don't do it again, because a new administration does not have to say when it disregards the laws to do this or even tell us they are) then a future administration feels no consequences for doing the same thing again and going even further. This risks giving the executive far too much power, and lets these policie slowly slide from things only done for foreigners, to things that could eventually tricke down to Americans themselves (if it hasn't already).

To conclude: there are two issues, one is subjects where little to no compromise must be done because we MUST fix these problems (punishment for previous officials from the administration and overhaul of the financial sector) or very damaging consequences will follow, and then there are issues where we CAN compromise, but it must be compromise that leads to a desired goal, where the politician with the, in this case, liberal goal, "wins". I want you to address how it is that this administration is actually "winning" these compromises, how exactly they will lead to these great goals (single payer, inmense decrease in carbon emissions, gay marriage and no legal discrimination). And how can you justify the compromises (they're not compromises in terms of protecting the government from lawsuits because of illegal wiretapping) that will lead to inmense consequences?

I think I agree with most of what you say under #4, but I think your "real point" section is a bit off. Krugman may be right about the stimulus not having enough funding or teeth to fix it, but we are starting to see evidence of the bleeding slowing, which is at least gives hope for seeing the economy return to normal sooner rather than later. And the bailouts/stimulus did prevent some major employers from shutting down and maintained liquidity financially, which is a prevention of tangible consequences. But yes, the idea that there was not enough teeth to prevent some of the things that went wrong from even happening in the first place, not to mention the shittiness of massive payouts to some of those who caused it all, is something I agree with. Doesn't constitute a full failure though given the losses that were prevented, but yes, perhaps an instance where the admin erred too far towards cautious utilitarianism (I think there was significant public support for not letting those fuckers get so much).

Concerning the habeus corpus/etc... sadly while you are ideologically/philosophically right, that very unfortunately doesn't carry over practically, because of how insulated the average American feels from foreign affairs. There's a high degree of electoral complacency regarding the issue, and only progressives seem to give a shit. I don't see a benefit, politically, by immediate fixing those things, which leaves possible blowback by giving the right more ammo to play with. Now don't confuse that with my personal stance on it, but I feel it does explain Obama and the dem's very half-hearted approach thus far (more about gestures and token actions rather than actually cleaning up the situation).

So I believe the proper conclusion would be that the current administration and democratic legislature is making some worthwhile compromises (public option, cap and trade, working toward a more progressive tax scale, at least still talking about repealing DADT/DOMA) but are simultaneous playing politics a bit poorly in several areas. And I think that I may have identified a key reason for Obama's lackluster performance on the habeus corpus stuff, in that the electorate doesn't give enough of a shit to make progress on the issue worthwhile, especially in the face of trying to mount a monumental healthcare reform. It's unfortunate as fuck, but this is where we continue to encourage the progessive groups to get that public awareness up and put some polite pressure on our elected officials.

[Maimed]

Insurance companies are allowed to run a corrupt monopoly without proper regulation. Medical practitioners attempt to work around the system. The patient gets penalized because it's a cat and mouse game. Period.

[Lee]

I'm completely in accordance with the radical left even though I support working within the current structure to change it rather than a typical marxist revolutionary doctrine?

Ok Lee, you're basically the equivalent of Leif on this forum in that you don't know what the fuck.

But yes, I do agree with a lot of communist/socialist theory. And if you weren't an ill-informed American, you wouldn't be so allergic to those terms. Leif pretty much mimics Hannity while there's no cable pundit who really matches my views.

While there is a difference between a fast(violence, overthrow, war) and a slow revolution(working within the structure to achieve your version of 'utopia' over many years), they both are trying to achieve the same goal and in the end, it's the same damn thing. Just because you're not living like a guerilla revolutionary with a grenade and knife in hand doesn't mean you aren't trying to help one out.

Also, you assume way too much judging by your post. Where did I imply that I was allergic to communism/socialism? Just because I disagree with the way those political systems work that means I'm uniformed and an (you imply stupid when you say this) American? There goes your bias. Ironically, I even find some socialist policies to be agreeable and healthy for a country.

In any case, I wasn't really attacking you outright for your views. I was just clarifying to guartz who seemed surprised that you were biased, something that should be clear to everyone after reading a few lines in your posts.

@Rhinox: Celebrating Eastwood's character in 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' told you all that? And yes, if those 'niggers' and 'spics' you're talking about are criminals, I would gladly shoot them anyday.