Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[Jack Weber]

Nor should we, right. I've resorted to violence myself; and while I can't say a nice stint in an institution definitely wouldn't have helped me, I'm glad it never happened.

Wanna fight??

[bloodyminded]

Wanna fight??

Basically, no. I gave up that foolishness a long time ago.

Besides, I don't recall being an especially brilliant fighter at 22; now I'm 44.

So, thanks, but I'll pass. However, if I need an enforcer, I"ll let you know!

[pinko]

Basically, no. I gave up that foolishness a long time ago.

Besides, I don't recall being an especially brilliant fighter at 22; now I'm 44.

So, thanks, but I'll pass. However, if I need an enforcer, I"ll let you know!

That is a sign of maturity on your part.

[wyly]

Basically, no. I gave up that foolishness a long time ago.

Besides, I don't recall being an especially brilliant fighter at 22; now I'm 44.

So, thanks, but I'll pass. However, if I need an enforcer, I"ll let you know!

I trained to fight, and even had job(bouncer) that required hurting people...but then after a couple of incidents involving knives I thought what the hell am I doing here, I could get killed doing this...never had to fight again, intimidation/self confidence works just as well... Edited January 20, 2011 by wyly

[lukin]

I trained to fight, and even had job(bouncer) that required hurting people...but then after a couple of incidents involving knives I thought what the hell am I doing here, I could get killed doing this...never had to fight again, intimidation/self confidence works just as well...

I have to give you credit for one thing wyly;you have a very active imagination. You can make up BS better than anyone on this forum. You do\did this. Your brother did that. your nephew is this....blah, blah, blah............

Unfortunately for you, I can see through your constant barrage of insecure lies and bullshit. Have a great day.

[GostHacked]

I have to give you credit for one thing wyly;you have a very active imagination. You can make up BS better than anyone on this forum. You do\did this. Your brother did that. your nephew is this....blah, blah, blah............

Unfortunately for you, I can see through your constant barrage of insecure lies and bullshit. Have a great day.

My cousin does a lot of bouncing, and he says the same thing as Wyly. And some people have done a lot of things. Myself, I have flown planes, I have skydived, I have traveled, I did DJ work, ran my own gig, record pool, now I write music, do some videos, I wrote poetry, short stories.

Some people have just done a lot of things in their lives. Once you get away from either the computer or TV for some time, the world opens up and becomes an adventure.

Not that any of this is really relevant to the topic at hand.

[Oleg Bach]

Thanks for offering your opinion. As a point of clarification I am a Canadian. Would you please elaborate on "the eastern way".

You don't puff out your chest like John Wayne and march forward pushing all aside...it's a western attitude...the eastern attitude is more submissive....or in appearence to some degree...You fake fear ...you retreat...you allow the western ego to swell to the point of utter foolishness...then with a burst of energy you attack with explosive force...using your energy combined with the opponents.....OR to put it more simply ...when the Germans were advancing into Russia...you retreat...and fain weakness...beg for mercy...and by the time ....enough time has passed...winter has set in and the enemy simply stops moving due to temperature....you let nature assist you in the conquest.

[Oleg Bach]

Wanna fight??

oooooooh sounds tempting...appealing to the most base human insticts......so....what will it be? Hand to hand...or be armed with a couple of Northern Pike in hand...mine frozen and yours...well ....how shall we say? Freshly caught? The contest will take place in a confined space...just enough room to swing a cat....which brings me to another fanciful idea... Did you ever have a brother who use to toss the old family tom cat at you with claws fully extended....probably not....I did....I was the cat tosser.

[Pliny]

Wow! I've heard this before, and I'm still amazed that anyone actually believes Foxnews and right wing radio's reinvention of history. This didn't happen 20 or 50 years ago! This should still be part of the public record....but the right is already creating a myth of what has happened last year and the year before.

What does fundamentally transform America mean?

Do you really consider Lawrence Summers, Tim Geitner, or Rahm Emmanuel socialists?

As far as Liberal progressivism is socialism, yes.

If they qualify as socialists, I'm so far off to your left now that you probably wouldn't be able to see me! And c'mon Czars....as if Bush and previous presidents back to Nixon didn't have their own czars. If I recall correctly, Nixon started this special position when he created the Drug Czar when the War On Drugs first began. And any czars that Obama had who were caught in a whiff of controversy, were tossed overboard before they had a chance to select new office furniture.

Each President has his advisers. Unfortunately, Bush appointed some neocons and even his primary speech writer was a neocon.

Obama approved and appointed his advisors. He quickly learned that "funadamentally transforming America" per his socialist, call it "progressive" if you like, agenda was not going to be as he dreamed even with a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate. Americans are in the majority not infavour of big government. I would say most think it has overstepped itself already.

To be honest, I don't see what these tea party activists are complaining about (except for the obvious one - he's black!).

A racially incendiary comment hardly worth a reply.

President Obama has been a colossal disappointment to real liberals and progressives in America, who were hoping that he would actually close Gunatanamo and end the wars (since he used his state senate opposition to the Iraq War as a wedge issue against Hillary); or that he was really serious about healthcare reform. The results have been a military and foreign policy that is virtually identical to Bush.

Obama has been a disappointment, to the far left especially. You are pretty far left but haven't quite turned into the neocons that make up the far left, pretending to still be Liberals.

We have learned from Wikileaks that America under Obama, is still undermining non-compliant democratic governments (Honduras) with military coups. Obama has had I.C.E. agents forcibly deport more illegals to Mexico than Bush; he has expanded policies that violate international law (like declaring it legal to assassinate U.S. citizens living in foreign countries); and his administration shutting down whistleblowers at all levels of government, especially defense......so what has the right wing got to complain about?....besides that he's black? America's two party democracy is for the most part, a dog and pony show that churns over unimportant issues as the most important government policies remain the same from one administration to the next.....whether it's Democrat or Republican!

It's what big government would do. Something you seem to miss. You want government to deliver social justice and have the power to tax and spend as much as necessary to deliver it. This creates a centralization of power and a large bureaucracy. You don't seem to think for a minute that the more power government is granted the more corrupt it becomes and the more it becomes a cesspool of mean-spirited people willing to stoop to any means to gain position. The nice guys are edged out because of their naivety and unwillingness to believe people can sink to the depths they do in the political realm.

I'm being bi-partisan here. And the only thing incorrect in your above paragraph is that government policies remain the same from one adminsitration to the next. They don't remain the same at all. They progressivley add more power to the State over time.

A government takeover of corporations and Wall Street....what a laugh! GM is back under private ownership, and they have successfully busted their workers down to a level where employees with less than 10 years seniority are working for half of the wages as guaranteed in earlier contracts......thank you President Obama! If you take a look at the electoral map of the recent Congressional Elections, you'll notice that Democrats got hammered in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana....districts that have GM factories. And I haven't seen any mention on the MSM of the fact that these blue collar districts weren't in a mood to reward President Obama for putting them back on the line for $14.00 an hour. There's a lesson there that is lost on the MSM talking heads who kept repeating the mantra that "Obama needs to move to the middle," as if he hadn't betrayed his voting base quite enough! No point watching them anyway, they are either clueless or malicious....and I don't care which.

The government did seel off it's major portion of stock in GM back in November and December but it still owns a third of the shares today. Check out how much of AIG stock it owns!

And Wall Street....give me a break! Wall Street owns the Whitehouse, no matter which party wins the election! Get it straight who owns who.

Who makes the regulations and oversees Wall Street? Wall street may lobby government for less regulation or more regulation depending upon how it benefits it, and it is true politicians and Wall St scratch each others back, all a part of the corruption I mentioned exists with large governments, but there really is no question of who has the ultimate say. Politician's, had they not been heavily invested in Wall street themselves personally would not have given a wit about Wall Street or GM. But then, had economic sense, and not regulatory BS, prevailed the boom would not have been created and the bust would not have had to follow.

[Pliny]

My cousin does a lot of bouncing, and he says the same thing as Wyly. And some people have done a lot of things. Myself, I have flown planes, I have skydived, I have traveled, I did DJ work, ran my own gig, record pool, now I write music, do some videos, I wrote poetry, short stories.

Some people have just done a lot of things in their lives. Once you get away from either the computer or TV for some time, the world opens up and becomes an adventure.

Not that any of this is really relevant to the topic at hand.

wyly must have been listening to your cousin.

The difference between you and wyly, GH is that you're a doer. wyly is a spectator.

[guyser]

....I was the cat tosser.

[pinko]

You don't puff out your chest like John Wayne and march forward pushing all aside...it's a western attitude...the eastern attitude is more submissive....or in appearence to some degree...You fake fear ...you retreat...you allow the western ego to swell to the point of utter foolishness...then with a burst of energy you attack with explosive force...using your energy combined with the opponents.....OR to put it more simply ...when the Germans were advancing into Russia...you retreat...and fain weakness...beg for mercy...and by the time ....enough time has passed...winter has set in and the enemy simply stops moving due to temperature....you let nature assist you in the conquest.

Thank-you for that lesson in culture. I will have to remember that if I ever to decide to fight in the cold. Such a prospect is highly unlikely.

What are your thoughts of Joseph Stalin? Did he display the qualities described in your post?

[Shady]

I trained to fight, and even had job(bouncer) that required hurting people

If you went into that job with the mindset of being required to hurt people, you definitely were in the wrong line of work. I have friends who are/were bouncers. And that's not how good bouncers are trained and work.

[Shady]

The difference between you and wyly, GH is that you're a doer.

GH is also a truther.

[wyly]

My cousin does a lot of bouncing, and he says the same thing as Wyly. And some people have done a lot of things. Myself, I have flown planes, I have skydived, I have traveled, I did DJ work, ran my own gig, record pool, now I write music, do some videos, I wrote poetry, short stories.

Some people have just done a lot of things in their lives. Once you get away from either the computer or TV for some time, the world opens up and becomes an adventure.

Not that any of this is really relevant to the topic at hand.

yup, I did it for a friend who owned the place, it was 2nd job for extra party money and paying bills...but the risks required weren't worth the extra cash, waitresses with tips made more than I did...it was a great way to meet a lot of ladies ...

compared to some of my past friends I've had an adventurous life, a couple of them married the only woman they ever dated, their idea of an adventure was a cruise line vacation or all inclusive resort, for me vacation at that time was "let's go and see where we end up" ...

on the other extreme I had a friend who bought a used crap motorcycle for two hundred $ with which he was going to south america, he was oblivious to bandits of central america , the war in Nicaragua, despite the fact the road stopped in Panama and the drug lords and bandits of columbia, he returned unscathed 6 months later with a wife from Surinam , he said he put his faith in god to get him through ...

[WIP]

As far as Liberal progressivism is socialism, yes.

Well, it's not! Liberals are tolerated because few challenge or question the corporate power structure that runs international banking and corporate ownership that is powerful enough to ignore the laws of most nation-states.

And when it comes to "liberal" media, they are almost unanimous in their desire to work within the system; they just want to make a few tweaks and adjustments to allow more money to trickle down to the middle class and the poor. Real socialists from back in the day when they were taken seriously and feared by the business class, were calling for outright government takeover of banks and major industries, or demanding some version of Tom Hayden's plan for economic democracy, and reducing the power of shareholders over how large corporations are run. Whether you agree or disagree is beside the point; what the right defines as socialism today is any talk of sharing the wealth or restricting the rights of corporations to use their money as free speech and determine public policy.

Obama approved and appointed his advisors. He quickly learned that "funadamentally transforming America" per his socialist, call it "progressive" if you like, agenda was not going to be as he dreamed even with a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate. Americans are in the majority not infavour of big government. I would say most think it has overstepped itself already.

No! There has been a false narrative promulgated all over the mainstream media that Obama 'needs to move the center' following mid-term election losses. The real story is that the economic power of large corporations, which includes the business of defense, will not allow much deviation from their goals. The media, which is owned by companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, told their lackies on the Sunday news shows and elsewhere to bring on all of these stupid pundits who keep repeating that centrist malarky.

For example, if you want to see that money has more power than the interests of the majority of Americans, you need look no further than the healthcare debate. From the way they tell it today, Obama has brought in government control of the health insurance industry. Well, these modest curbs have to be understood in light that the government has increased the size of their client list, while not demanding that they offer insurance without pre-existing conditions. This is obviously a system that if anything, is Plan B of the insurance industry, since it leaves them enriched and still in control of the system.

Obamacare is almost identical to what Mitt Romney brought in for residents of Massachussets, and what Bob Dole and Hillary Clinton had proposed back in the 90's. During the runup to the final vote, the Obama Administration kept dropping hints of a "public option" or allowing private citizens to buy in to Medicare, rather than a private insurer. In poll after poll, this was the most popular option to the majority of voters...but what did they get from their elected representatives? They got what the insurance companies wanted, not what the majority of voters wanted; because the insurance companies money was more important than the desires of the majority of the people. Now, if this is what you, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin etc. call socialism, then a new word has to be created for real socialism that would strip the wealthiest one percent of their control of the system.

A racially incendiary comment hardly worth a reply.

Oh yeah! You think that the dog whistle appeals to rightwing racism aren't noticed by others? McCain and Palin tried to drop as many hints as possible during the campaign without coming right out and saying it....he's not one of us etc. When McCain and Palin were talking about the "real" America, as they toured white rural and suburban neighbourhoods, some of us figured out the message! The fact that an overtly racist right wing exists on the fringes of the mainstream movement also cannot be ignored.

Obama has been a disappointment, to the far left especially. You are pretty far left but haven't quite turned into the neocons that make up the far left, pretending to still be Liberals.

Neocons never were left! They were Democrat defense hawks back in the 60's who turned Republican because the Democratic Party turned against the Vietnam War, and became more pacifist.

It's what big government would do. Something you seem to miss. You want government to deliver social justice and have the power to tax and spend as much as necessary to deliver it. This creates a centralization of power and a large bureaucracy. You don't seem to think for a minute that the more power government is granted the more corrupt it becomes and the more it becomes a cesspool of mean-spirited people willing to stoop to any means to gain position. The nice guys are edged out because of their naivety and unwillingness to believe people can sink to the depths they do in the political realm.

I know that the larger and more centralized a system is, the more inclined it will be to be corrupt and inefficient. My turn to the left is not because I'm enthused about socialism, it's because capitalism has been a disaster, and offers no clear path to live sustainably at a time when we are running out of resources and facing an ecological disaster.

I'm being bi-partisan here. And the only thing incorrect in your above paragraph is that government policies remain the same from one adminsitration to the next. They don't remain the same at all. They progressivley add more power to the State over time.

The power of money is keeping major policy the same, whether an administration is Democratic or Republican. Over the last 100 years in the United States, successive court decisions have expanded the rights of artificial corporate citizens at the expense of real people.

Who makes the regulations and oversees Wall Street? Wall street may lobby government for less regulation or more regulation depending upon how it benefits it, and it is true politicians and Wall St scratch each others back, all a part of the corruption I mentioned exists with large governments, but there really is no question of who has the ultimate say. Politician's, had they not been heavily invested in Wall street themselves personally would not have given a wit about Wall Street or GM. But then, had economic sense, and not regulatory BS, prevailed the boom would not have been created and the bust would not have had to follow.

Over the last 30 odd years, manufacturing in the U.S. went from one third of GDP to about 15%, while banking and insurance went in the other direction, becoming over a third of the U.S. economy before the banking disaster. The bailout did not extract any painful concessions from institutions that were crying for help, and the reforms since then have left them back in charge and still chasing short-term risk. Another crash is only a matter of time. Once again, the people with the money and the lobbyists in Washington have shown that they really run the system regardless of what government the people get to vote for.

[Bitsy]

Well, it's not! Liberals are tolerated because few challenge or question the corporate power structure that runs international banking and corporate ownership that is powerful enough to ignore the laws of most nation-states.

And when it comes to "liberal" media, they are almost unanimous in their desire to work within the system; they just want to make a few tweaks and adjustments to allow more money to trickle down to the middle class and the poor. Real socialists from back in the day when they were taken seriously and feared by the business class, were calling for outright government takeover of banks and major industries, or demanding some version of Tom Hayden's plan for economic democracy, and reducing the power of shareholders over how large corporations are run. Whether you agree or disagree is beside the point; what the right defines as socialism today is any talk of sharing the wealth or restricting the rights of corporations to use their money as free speech and determine public policy.

No! There has been a false narrative promulgated all over the mainstream media that Obama 'needs to move the center' following mid-term election losses. The real story is that the economic power of large corporations, which includes the business of defense, will not allow much deviation from their goals. The media, which is owned by companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, told their lackies on the Sunday news shows and elsewhere to bring on all of these stupid pundits who keep repeating that centrist malarky.

For example, if you want to see that money has more power than the interests of the majority of Americans, you need look no further than the healthcare debate. From the way they tell it today, Obama has brought in government control of the health insurance industry. Well, these modest curbs have to be understood in light that the government has increased the size of their client list, while not demanding that they offer insurance without pre-existing conditions. This is obviously a system that if anything, is Plan B of the insurance industry, since it leaves them enriched and still in control of the system.

Obamacare is almost identical to what Mitt Romney brought in for residents of Massachussets, and what Bob Dole and Hillary Clinton had proposed back in the 90's. During the runup to the final vote, the Obama Administration kept dropping hints of a "public option" or allowing private citizens to buy in to Medicare, rather than a private insurer. In poll after poll, this was the most popular option to the majority of voters...but what did they get from their elected representatives? They got what the insurance companies wanted, not what the majority of voters wanted; because the insurance companies money was more important than the desires of the majority of the people. Now, if this is what you, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin etc. call socialism, then a new word has to be created for real socialism that would strip the wealthiest one percent of their control of the system.

Oh yeah! You think that the dog whistle appeals to rightwing racism aren't noticed by others? McCain and Palin tried to drop as many hints as possible during the campaign without coming right out and saying it....he's not one of us etc. When McCain and Palin were talking about the "real" America, as they toured white rural and suburban neighbourhoods, some of us figured out the message! The fact that an overtly racist right wing exists on the fringes of the mainstream movement also cannot be ignored.

Neocons never were left! They were Democrat defense hawks back in the 60's who turned Republican because the Democratic Party turned against the Vietnam War, and became more pacifist.

I know that the larger and more centralized a system is, the more inclined it will be to be corrupt and inefficient. My turn to the left is not because I'm enthused about socialism, it's because capitalism has been a disaster, and offers no clear path to live sustainably at a time when we are running out of resources and facing an ecological disaster.

The power of money is keeping major policy the same, whether an administration is Democratic or Republican. Over the last 100 years in the United States, successive court decisions have expanded the rights of artificial corporate citizens at the expense of real people.

Over the last 30 odd years, manufacturing in the U.S. went from one third of GDP to about 15%, while banking and insurance went in the other direction, becoming over a third of the U.S. economy before the banking disaster. The bailout did not extract any painful concessions from institutions that were crying for help, and the reforms since then have left them back in charge and still chasing short-term risk. Another crash is only a matter of time. Once again, the people with the money and the lobbyists in Washington have shown that they really run the system regardless of what government the people get to vote for.

Nice synopsis of the US political landscape, WIP.

[Shady]

Nice synopsis of the US political landscape, WIP.

You're being sarcastic right?

[Bitsy]

Only people unfamiliar with US politics, past and present, would think that I was being sarcastic.

[Shady]

Only people unfamiliar with US politics, past and present, would think that I was being sarcastic.

That premise is false, because I'm very familiar with US politics past and present.

[Pliny]

The common thread of your concern then does not seem to be political but economic. In other words you have already determined the political model you prefer in handling economic equity - basically, the Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". This would require, on a voluntary basis, a very high moral standard in a society, on a govenrmental policy basis it would require enforcement. Enforcement being necessary due to the fact that all things are not available to all people and such things as shortages and famines, attack the moral fibre of individuals bringing conflict to their natural instinct to survive. The constantly changing and drifting of supply and demand creates plenty and shortages in time. It is never constant. I think that's what is primarily wrong with the enforcement of a redistribution of wealth. It assumes there is always wealth to redistribute and by it's nature does not encourage the production of wealth, only the sharing of such, thus being a self-defeating policy.

It also doesn't define wealth except in terms of the material or possession. Happiness, friends and the general enjoyment of life cannot be taxed but it is determined to be entirely in the goods or "production" taken from those accordin g totheir ability and given to those according to their need.

Those that hold the Marxist concept of forcibly redistributing wealth condemn it's accumulation and they themselves are then focused entirely on wealth, the very thing they accuse capitalists of, for the purpose of it's, in their view, proper and equitable redistribution. The means by which wealth is produced and the real value of life, such as happiness, are lost to them. It may be true of capitalists as well that they lose perspective and live for profit. I believe the current economic structure designed by the current macroeconomic theory of economic manipulation by central banks and governments, and the use of "money" as a system of punishments and rewards by governments, does more to facilitate that perspective and in a self-fulfilling prophesy creates the greedy capitalist itself in order to have a villain in the piece.

In illustrating the inability of the current tax structure to fulfill it's purpose of providing for those in need it is only necessary to point to how inflation and taxes marginalize those on fixed incomes and the lower middle class swelling the ranks of the poor over time. A person loses 10-20% of their purchainsg power over a period of ten years through inflation, couple that with increased taxes and the people just making it are thrown into poverty. The necessity then becomes a call for increased taxation to help the poor and a villification of those who complain about the confiscation of their production. Soon everyone is focused on money itself. Those that have some wish to keep it and those that don't look to the government to provide it for them. It is a definite substandard of life in a materially high standard of living.

Well, it's not! (Socialism is not progressive liberalism.)

If you are thinking of Socialism as the ideal, a state that is a classless society with economic equality for all, then you are right. However, socialism, in it's ideological sense is attained, or is at least striven for, on a progressive basis. The progress is in the growth and aggrandizement of the State, the minimization of the individual and the serving of the collective good, increasingly defined and determined by politicians, and the crushing of opposition to this progression.

Creeping socialism is not an unfamiliar term. It is today embodied in the universal social democracies of western society. It is a means to the end. You personally endorse this progression and although you may today disagree with the extremes of the far-left you support the means to their end and ultimately the destruction of the democratic state through an intolerance of the ownership of private property, All property must be available to the State for siezure and redistribution.

Liberals are tolerated because few challenge or question the corporate power structure that runs international banking and corporate ownership that is powerful enough to ignore the laws of most nation-states.

The great conspiracy. I abandoned the idea of conspiracy quite a few years ago. One cannot deny there are plans and planners who are managing global issues, this is true, but the direction of policy and goals is obvious. That some will take advantage of position, status and privlege is a given but are more about stupidity than conspiracy. Essentially, most are trying to do what they feel necessary for the welfare of the planet and collective good. That they fail due to cross-purposes or ignore the plight of the individual for the common good or have agendas the ydon't know how to achieve other than through force, overt or covert, is a given.

And when it comes to "liberal" media, they are almost unanimous in their desire to work within the system; they just want to make a few tweaks and adjustments to allow more money to trickle down to the middle class and the poor. Real socialists from back in the day when they were taken seriously and feared by the business class, were calling for outright government takeover of banks and major industries, or demanding some version of Tom Hayden's plan for economic democracy, and reducing the power of shareholders over how large corporations are run. Whether you agree or disagree is beside the point; what the right defines as socialism today is any talk of sharing the wealth or restricting the rights of corporations to use their money as free speech and determine public policy.

Your concern is once again the redistribution of wealth. Those people, the real socialists, exist today under the cloak of the environmental movement, among other movements. I am not sure whether or not you have ever seen sites like the "World Socialist Website". They say pretty much what you do only your ideal somehow excludes the fact of the use of force in the redistribution of wealth. You think that taxes are something that people can vote on and see the necessity for taxation and voluntarily give a share of their property to the government.

You attempt to separate yourself from the "real socialists", who, like yourself, simply demand a redistributon of wealth with the added policy of control over the means of production and establishment of a classless (No rich, no poor. No race. No religion.) society.

No! There has been a false narrative promulgated all over the mainstream media that Obama 'needs to move the center' following mid-term election losses. The real story is that the economic power of large corporations, which includes the business of defense, will not allow much deviation from their goals. The media, which is owned by companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, told their lackies on the Sunday news shows and elsewhere to bring on all of these stupid pundits who keep repeating that centrist malarky.

Economics again. Economic power must be curtailed and replaced with political power. Economics seems to be the obsession of the left but they care not to learn anything about it and even left wing Keynesian economists are more concerned about what the government can do to manipulate the economy for the benefit of improving government revenues as opposed to the wealth of the nations.

For example, if you want to see that money has more power than the interests of the majority of Americans, you need look no further than the healthcare debate. From the way they tell it today, Obama has brought in government control of the health insurance industry. Well, these modest curbs have to be understood in light that the government has increased the size of their client list, while not demanding that they offer insurance without pre-existing conditions. This is obviously a system that if anything, is Plan B of the insurance industry, since it leaves them enriched and still in control of the system.

Were the "modest curbs" brought in by Obama or did the healthcare insurance industry demand them?

This increase in their client list, from those not paying means those paying are paying more? The insurance industry has to service the extra clients so they are not benefitting but have to boost premiums to cover them and the people paying more are not benefitting with increased premiums.

Obamacare is almost identical to what Mitt Romney brought in for residents of Massachussets, and what Bob Dole and Hillary Clinton had proposed back in the 90's. During the runup to the final vote, the Obama Administration kept dropping hints of a "public option" or allowing private citizens to buy in to Medicare, rather than a private insurer. In poll after poll, this was the most popular option to the majority of voters...but what did they get from their elected representatives? They got what the insurance companies wanted, not what the majority of voters wanted; because the insurance companies money was more important than the desires of the majority of the people. Now, if this is what you, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin etc. call socialism, then a new word has to be created for real socialism that would strip the wealthiest one percent of their control of the system.

Town hall meetings across th enationdo not support the view that people wnated a public option. It was in the original bill and had to be removed, even democrats wouldn't touch it. Earlier efforts to have a federal healthcare system, such as Hillarycare, failed because people didn't want it. Even the Democrats voted against them. Mitt Romney's experiment in state sponsored health-care is facing economic tribulations that have bankrupted the State.

Oh yeah! You think that the dog whistle appeals to rightwing racism aren't noticed by others? McCain and Palin tried to drop as many hints as possible during the campaign without coming right out and saying it....he's not one of us etc. When McCain and Palin were talking about the "real" America, as they toured white rural and suburban neighbourhoods, some of us figured out the message! The fact that an overtly racist right wing exists on the fringes of the mainstream movement also cannot be ignored.

I'll just keep ignoring that charge. Herman Cain serves as an example of that blatant inflammatory lie.

Neocons never were left! They were Democrat defense hawks back in the 60's who turned Republican because the Democratic Party turned against the Vietnam War, and became more pacifist.

Just google neocon on wikipedia.

I know that the larger and more centralized a system is, the more inclined it will be to be corrupt and inefficient. My turn to the left is not because I'm enthused about socialism, it's because capitalism has been a disaster, and offers no clear path to live sustainably at a time when we are running out of resources and facing an ecological disaster.

Once again, the politics is firm, and the economics is the fault.

Pure, unfettered capitalism, as it exists today. Yep, that's the culprit, even though governments have owned 80% of the oil resources in the world for almost a century and have managed, mines and minerals, the public forests, ocean fishery and the rivers.

The power of money is keeping major policy the same, whether an administration is Democratic or Republican. Over the last 100 years in the United States, successive court decisions have expanded the rights of artificial corporate citizens at the expense of real people.

Your sayoinmg the same thing over and over. There can be no evil economic power only good political power.

Over the last 30 odd years, manufacturing in the U.S. went from one third of GDP to about 15%, while banking and insurance went in the other direction, becoming over a third of the U.S. economy before the banking disaster. The bailout did not extract any painful concessions from institutions that were crying for help, and the reforms since then have left them back in charge and still chasing short-term risk. Another crash is only a matter of time. Once again, the people with the money and the lobbyists in Washington have shown that they really run the system regardless of what government the people get to vote for.

Economies are not, perhaps against the wishes of government, stagnant. They ebb and flow. The ideal is to not be the effect that fluctuation but who can predict the future. Who could have thought a century and a half ago that the skies would be filled with passenger planes. Or horses would be displaced by the automobile. Or there would be indoor plumbing and electricity in just about every home. Many suffered from a lack of vision and an unbending "conservatism" that would have society stagnant and unchanging. But politically, a system of government that allowed a liberal society to flourish would have to remain more or less stagnant and coservative, lest it kill the golden goose.

[Pliny]

Nice synopsis of the US political landscape, WIP.

Nice synopsis of the political left's obsession with economic manipulation and concern about people's wealth, both the possession or lack of it.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Pliny

[Bitsy]

That premise is false, because I'm very familiar with US politics past and present.

No, not false; you see things differently but it does not mean that you see the truth or even the partial truth.

I am not sure where you have lived in the states or even if you have lived here, but my 70 plus years have been in the south and I do understand about racism. Anyone very familar with our politics would surely know that neo-cons are not or were never liberals. Our founding fathers tried to escape from a system of government that rewarded the wealthy, sadly we now have a system of economics where the rich get richer aided by the government....plutocracy, and it really matters little which party is in control of government. The rich seems to have gotten richer quicker when conservatives were in control but their trajectory has not been slowed much by liberals.

[Bitsy]

Nice synopsis of the political left's obsession with economic manipulation and concern about people's wealth, both the possession or lack of it.

Nice misunderstanding about what liberals want.....we want equal opportunity for all people...education, health and basic needs...equalizing opportunity does not mean equalizing wealth.

[Guest American Woman]

Nice misunderstanding about what liberals want.....we want equal opportunity for all people...education, health and basic needs...equalizing opportunity does not mean equalizing wealth.

And ultimately that would benefit all, the wealthy included.

Edited January 21, 2011 by American Woman