Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[Lonestar]

Who? People have been (correctly) equating the far-right with the Taliban since 2001.

The Tea Party existed in 2001, smartass? And Pat is almost certainly(he hasn't denied my assertions, in any event) referencing the Blog post that was put up last week on Politico that refers to the "Tea Party Taliban".

I'm reasonably sure Mr. Lonestar did not serve within the borders of Afghanistan. He pulled non-corpsman Navy. FYI.

Correct. I was referencing when I was on the snoopy team during the Tsunami relief and the Indonesian military chased us off from a hamlet because they were covering up a mass grave where they whacked everyone in the village. Yes, I know the Indonesian military is not the Taliban. It is, however, a organization that uses physical violence against people who don't play ball in places like Aech.

No, fool. I merely used a bit of rhetorical flourish which was about as literal as Keith Olbermann's reference to human sacrifice. I've got news for you: your military service in Afganistan does NOT give you a free pass to start acting like a little asshole over a single word which anybody with more than two braincells to rub together KNOWS is not meant to be taken literally. That is YOUR construction entirely.

So, for a third time, go fuck yourself.

So if someone refers to government healthcare rationing committees as "Death Panels" is it rhetorical flourish too?

[Patrick Degan]

No, fool. I merely used a bit of rhetorical flourish which was about as literal as Keith Olbermann's reference to human sacrifice. I've got news for you: your military service in Afganistan does NOT give you a free pass to start acting like a little asshole over a single word which anybody with more than two braincells to rub together KNOWS is not meant to be taken literally. That is YOUR construction entirely.

So, for a third time, go fuck yourself.

So if someone refers to government healthcare rationing committees as "Death Panels" is it rhetorical flourish too?

No, it's bullshit, and everybody other than the tools of the Right know it so. Really, you actually imagined you were scoring a point for this whole non-argument of yours with THAT?

This is beginning to have the stink of manufactured outrage, which impresses me not.

[Patrick Degan]

And BTW, troll, I have not read the Politico blogpost you keep yammering your fool head off about. But it and the example Atheos linked to shows that the association has not exactly been an uncommon one nor a recent invention.

[bobalot]

Who? People have been (correctly) equating the far-right with the Taliban since 2001.

The Tea Party existed in 2001, smartass? And Pat is almost certainly(he hasn't denied my assertions, in any event) referencing the Blog post that was put up last week on Politico that refers to the "Tea Party Taliban".

He did actually refer to the "far-right" (If you bothered to read his post instead of rage posting). Regardless, the "Tea Party" doesn't have to exist for his reference to make sense . It can simply be the same demographic.

[Lonestar]

He did actually refer to the "far-right" (If you bothered to read his post instead of rage posting). Regardless, the "Tea Party" doesn't have to exist for his reference to make sense . It can simply be the same demographic.

If you'd bothered to read the intial post that started me on this he was referring to the "Tealiban". Pat was explicitly referring to the Tea Party with that, not "The far-right".

No, it's bullshit, and everybody other than the tools of the Right know it so. Really, you actually imagined you were scoring a point for this whole non-argument of yours with THAT?

This is beginning to have the stink of manufactured outrage, which impresses me not.

How is "Death Panels" less of bullshit than "Tealiban"? In a contrived way it's accurate because any healthcare committee that has to ration resources is going to be deciding who lives and who dies. But referring to the tea party as the "tealiban" is "rhetorical flourish" because, uh...well it just is! Of course, you could just man up and admit that it's political bullshit for the sake of bullshit to make the TP "the Other", but you're just going to jab your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN LIBERALS DO IT".

And BTW, troll, I have not read the Politico blogpost you keep yammering your fool head off about. But it and the example Atheos linked to shows that the association has not exactly been an uncommon one nor a recent invention.

Yes, which is why you refered to the "Far right Taliban" as opposed to the "Tealiban", a word that has been cropping up in the internets since the Politico blog post last week. If you didn't read the article than I find it just as likely you read a posting or comment somewhere else by someone who had read it and dropped the word, then decided to be clever in the giant groupthink echo chamber that is SDN N&P.

[Faqa]

Not being a urine fetishist, I'd like to avoid getting in the middle of this pissing match, but I think there's an interesting point here - what IS the difference, if at all, between "death panels" and "Tealiban"? They're both rhetorical flourishes, obviously.

The difference is merely what the flourish is designed to ornament. In the first case, "death panels" is meant to ornament the opinion that socializing healthcare means that government-organized committees will kill people by putting budgetary concerns over human lives. "Tealiban" ornaments the opinion that the Tea Party is rapidly approaching a level of intolerance and fanaticism that could be compared to the Taliban.

I think "death panels" is about as "Tealiban". After all, the government will have to decide to not fund certain things, as a result of which some people will die - that's inevitable in any health-care system that involves someone paying for someone else. The argument is still stupid because these death panels exist in insurance companies as well, but the flourish is accurate.

"Tealiban", on the other hand, misses the point of the Tea Party, IMO, entirely. They are dangerous, misguided fools, to be sure, but the party is NOT religious as far as I can tell. It's demographic is, most likely, but the party itself doesn't seem to stand for that. Hell, I'm sure the libertarians there would argue against forcing their religion on anyone. "Encouraging Traditional Family Values", yes, but there's a line between forcing the behavior and encouraging it, which sort of makes the big difference between.... well, between the Taliban and the Tea Party. So you have an accurate flourish... on a very inaccurate opinion. And if you want to figure out how to control or work with the Tea Party, it's a very dangerous opinion.

[Patrick Degan]

No, it's bullshit, and everybody other than the tools of the Right know it so. Really, you actually imagined you were scoring a point for this whole non-argument of yours with THAT?

This is beginning to have the stink of manufactured outrage, which impresses me not.

How is "Death Panels" less of bullshit than "Tealiban"? In a contrived way it's accurate because any healthcare committee that has to ration resources is going to be deciding who lives and who dies. But referring to the tea party as the "tealiban" is "rhetorical flourish" because, uh...well it just is! Of course, you could just man up and admit that it's political bullshit for the sake of bullshit to make the TP "the Other", but you're just going to jab your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN LIBERALS DO IT".

Not even remotely close, troll. The manufactured "death panels" controversy was deliberately designed to demonise that part of the Heathcare Reform Act which covered the set up of doctor/patient consultations regarding the handling of end–of-life decisions, which is NOT determining who shall and shan't get care or just be cut off and "left to die" by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat —the Appeal to Emotion the Right hoped to use to scare everyone away from universal healthcare. Keith Olbermann slammed this piece of bullshit very effectively in the Special Commentary in which he told the story of his father's last days. There isn't even a comparison here and you just embarrass yourself trying to make one.

And BTW, troll, I have not read the Politico blogpost you keep yammering your fool head off about. But it and the example Atheos linked to shows that the association has not exactly been an uncommon one nor a recent invention.

Yes, which is why you refered to the "Far right Taliban" as opposed to the "Tealiban", a word that has been cropping up in the internets since the Politico blog post last week. If you didn't read the article than I find it just as likely you read a posting or comment somewhere else by someone who had read it and dropped the word, then decided to be clever in the giant groupthink echo chamber that is SDN N&P.

The only thing that's "proved" is that the idiom is one that any number of people can derive on their own and without necessarily having to read it elsewhere.

Manufacture that outrage, troll. Seems that's all you're good for anymore.

[TimothyC]

Not even remotely close, troll. The manufactured "death panels" controversy was deliberately designed to demonise that part of the Heathcare Reform Act which covered the set up of doctor/patient consultations regarding the handling of end–of-life decisions, which is NOT determining who shall and shan't get care or just be cut off and "left to die" by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat —the Appeal to Emotion the Right hoped to use to scare everyone away from universal healthcare.

[Anecdote]The individuals that I have found my self interacting with over the past couple of years who wish to discuss politics with me, and are what could loosely be termed as 'Tea Partiers' (IE they don't go to rallies as such, but do support Tea Party candidates and causes), established to me that it was the government organs that would establish minimum levels of acceptable insurance care were the 'death panels'. This does not make their position any less stupid or untenable, but it does show a lack of comprehension of their views on your part.[/Anecdote]

[Patrick Degan]

Not even remotely close, troll. The manufactured "death panels" controversy was deliberately designed to demonise that part of the Heathcare Reform Act which covered the set up of doctor/patient consultations regarding the handling of end–of-life decisions, which is NOT determining who shall and shan't get care or just be cut off and "left to die" by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat —the Appeal to Emotion the Right hoped to use to scare everyone away from universal healthcare.

[Anecdote]The individuals that I have found my self interacting with over the past couple of years who wish to discuss politics with me, and are what could loosely be termed as 'Tea Partiers' (IE they don't go to rallies as such, but do support Tea Party candidates and causes), established to me that it was the government organs that would establish minimum levels of acceptable insurance care were the 'death panels'. This does not make their position any less stupid or untenable, but it does show a lack of comprehension of their views on your part.[/Anecdote]

Oh PLEASE! That the teabaggers are dumb enough to swallow that sort of conspiracy drivel is not the issue here. They're not the ones who originated the Death Panel mythology, that was down to Sarah Palin's operatives and it was very deliberate. That is why the Troll has no point on this, no matter how much he truly wants to believe he does.

[Bluewolf]

How is Lonestar being a troll? A troll is someone who posts specifically to get reaction out of people. Lonestar seems honestly dedicated to his point no matter how you view it. Maybe you are thinking of a different word.

But as an aside, the namecalling really isn't good on either side. It's just as bad when someone calls Bush a "Chimp" then when someone says "Obamination". In the end it's low insults on the same level as someone saying "Micro$oft" only, it's acceptable to throw insults at whatever alignment the board generally dislikes. It's actually kinda funny that even now if someone had said any insult regarding Obama's name, they'd be jumped on. Then again that's what happens when you have a highly political site that overly encourages mud flinging.

[Bluewolf]

Anyway moving onto more relevant topics. Is there any limit on how much the debt ceiling can be raised. Like is there any sort of breaking point where you just can't keep raising it? It'll be interesting to see what Obama does if there is sort of limit. Then again, knowing sods law, that's when he will choose to finally grow a spine.

[Patrick Degan]

There is no set theoretical limit as to how far the debt ceiling can be raised. Of course, practical limits attach because Congress won't want to run the risk of letting the borrowing get too far out of control, with the attendant consequences on that course of action.

As to Obama "growing a spine"... Some time ago, I observed that Obama still thinks and acts too much like a senator and still operates on a senator's imperatives for consensus-building and seeking compromise. Those work fine if you're in the senate, but is cripping if you're trying to be Chief Executive. Obama's problem is that he cannot seem to learn the difference and it is killing him on each and every fight he goes into with people who are dedicated to an absolutist position.

[erik_t]

It's difficult to evaluate in a vacuum - certainly at no point in my life has Congressional opposition been so transparently dedicated to destroying an administration. Obama's strategy might have been fine in the mid-90s.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

Nationally, our political spectrum has been shifting to the right for decades. We dont have a left wing anymore. We done even have a center, or a center right. We have, by the standards of all other western nations, an extreme right wing party, and we have a batshit psycho party (which used to be the fascist party, but they will soon hand that title over to the democrats).

The batshit party consistently is permitted to frame all political discussions at the national level. They have been permitted to hold the country hostage, twice. Each time one of these faustian bargains has to be made, with no punishment from voters, the democratic party slides farther to the right, and the batshit party is positively reinforced. It is like giving mentally unstable children candy every time they claw someone's eyes out, while the parents get paid to just let them run wild.

We have two possible futures if we do nothing:

1) Democrats remain in power, and because even in power they have no spines and are closely ideologically and financially aligned with republicans, will capitulate to them and we will end up with republican policies anyway, but with more egalitarian progressive rhetoric.

2) Republicans take control, and the democrats, seeing right-wingness as a wining strategem, shift farther to the right like they have done with every lost election since Reagan.

Both of these two options are functionally equivalent in their outcome. The first just might take longer. In fact, when you consider population growth, it might actually be better to give the republicans direct control, because then the country will be run into the ground faster, and fewer people across generations will suffer. It would be like putting down a dog with terminal cancer. The merciful thing to do. Of course, the reality is that these two options will oscillate back an forth for N number of cycles (like it has for the last thirty years) until the country collapses in on itself.

As long as we continue to vote for democrats out of fear, we are doomed. It does not matter who wins the fucking elections. The end result is the same. It is not a question of "we cannot let republicans rule, because it would be worse". They already rule by proxy. The democrats of today, are the republicans we were afraid would retain power in '04 and '06. In four years, what will the democrats be like? I dont even want to think about how far down the rabbit hole of lunacy the republicans will have gone. Maybe they will follow their current trajectory and openly advocate a corporatist theocracy in their party platform.

There is one way to break this. Send a clear message to the democrats that their continued move to the right is NOT a winning tactic. The only way to do that is to vote thirty party in national elections, sparing ONLY those who are members of the progressive caucus. Politicians know how to read the poll results. A massive third party defection by the party base might clue the democrats in. In effect, you do one of two things,

1) You basically create a left wing version of the tea party, and put the fear of god into the democrats which is necessary to keep them from further rightward shifts. Rigidly enforced ideological conformity. Use the tactics of the republicans against them by being willing to shun those who work against our interests.

2) You split the democratic party, and create a viable third party out of the progressive caucus to compete with the democrats in subsequent elections, and force coalition governments.

Either of these is preferable to what we have now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fuck, we do not need a Left wing Tea Party. Is this really the best we can come up with? "We hate the Republicans so let's be just like them." Really?

[Stark]

Come on, this is a guy so stupid he thinks he can arrest cultural shift by TERRIFYING HIS SUPPORTERS. That'll teach them to disagree with me!

[Starglider]

We have, by the standards of all other western nations, an extreme right wing party, and we have a batshit psycho party (which used to be the fascist party, but they will soon hand that title over to the democrats).

The actual right wing extreme parties are the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and some smaller third parties. The Republicans are fairly right wing, but the party consensus still supports the existence of a whole raft of social policies and a fairly large a large government (just no quite so large as the Democrats). If the Tea Party faction actually managed to take over then you could reasonably consider them extreme, although I dislike the implication that any attempt to shrink government in any way is automatically an extreme position.

Incidentally this seems to be a typical Tea Partier view of the debt deal;

Is the debt ceiling deal supposed to be some sort of a cruel joke? Is this what the American people have been waiting months and months for? The "debt ceiling deal from hell" is a complete and total fraud. Barack Obama will not need to worry about the debt ceiling again until after the 2012 election, and no "real" spending cuts will happen until after the 2012 election. The way the political game in Washington D.C. is played today, if you don't get something right now, you probably will never end up getting it. The Republicans have traded a massive debt ceiling increase right now for the possibility of very skimpy budget cuts in the future. Meanwhile, this deal establishes a new "Super Congress" that threatens to fundamentally alter our political system (and not in a good way). The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle. That is a complete and total lie.

So what about the $917 billion in "immediate" spending cuts that the Republicans are getting as part of this deal?

Well, they aren't really spending cuts at all. Rather, they are spending caps. Basically what is happening is that future spending increases are being cancelled and our politicians are selling that to us as "spending cuts".

What is even sadder is that the $917 billion is spread over ten years and the vast majority of the "cuts" are in the latter years.

For example, even if you consider these to be "spending cuts" (which they are not), the deal calls for only about $25 billion in "cuts" in 2012 and only about $47 billion in "cuts" in 2013.

25 billion dollars is far less than one percent of the federal budget, so needless to say these "cuts" are not very impressive at all.

Okay, so how about the second stage of the deal which will produce "spending cuts" of between 1.2 and 1.5 trillion dollars?

Well, yes, these would actually be spending cuts and they would be spread over 10 years.

Near the end of the year, the new "Super Congress" (more on that in a minute) will submit a proposal to Congress which could cut spending over the next 10 years by a total of up to 1.5 trillion dollars.

If the recommendations of the "Super Congress" are not implemented, then "automatic" spending cuts of $1.2 trillion will go into effect over the next 10 years.

However, there are some very important things to remember about these "spending cuts".

First of all, none of these "automatic" spending cuts would even go into effect until 2013. The face of American politics will be dramatically different by then, and there is absolutely nothing that makes these cuts binding on Congress.

As Gregg Easterbrook recently noted, Congress can cancel spending cuts at any time and for any reason....

By projecting the only tangible savings — which aren’t even specified, but are merely caps — into the future, the plan allows Congress to cancel them. In 2012 or any future year, Congress will say, “We can’t have caps this year because of the [INSERT ANY WORD CHOSEN AT RANDOM] crisis. We are postponing action till next year.” Rinse and repeat.

As I have written about so many times before, the U.S. national debt is completely and totally out of control. This was supposed to be the moment when at least some members of Congress were finally going to get serious about our exploding debt. Unfortunately, our politicians have sold us down the river once again.

Even if the best case scenario happens (which it never does) and Congress sticks to this deal for the full ten years (which is about as likely as hell freezing over), the "savings" that this deal would produce are quite pathetic as Peter Schiff recently explained....

The Congressional Budget Office currently projects that $9.5 trillion in new debt will have to be issued over the next 10 years. Even if all of the reductions proposed in the deal were to come to pass, which is highly unlikely, that would still leave $7.1 trillion in new debt accumulation by 2021. Our problems have not been solved by a long shot.

Keep in mind that Congress can change this deal whenever it wants.

So nobody should get excited about these "spending cuts". After all, when was the last time that "future spending cuts" actually materialized in Washington?

The reality is that neither political party seems to want to do much to cut government spending.

So the band will play on and the can will get kicked even farther down the road.

When Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

Today, it is $14,342,358,440,969.10.

No crowing triumphalism there, quite the opposite.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Fuck, we do not need a Left wing Tea Party. Is this really the best we can come up with? "We hate the Republicans so let's be just like them." Really?

No. You dont have to be Insane (the tea party is insane), but god damn, if a tactic works, use it.

You want to stop the democratic party from shifting to the right? Terrify the politicians with primary challenges, recalls, and threats to their election funds.

And most importantly:

Be Willing To Take Your Vote Elsewhere.

The republicans did a very good job of co-opting elderly christ-pseudolibertarians into their party. They harnessed racism, bigotry, fear of change, greed, and wishful thinking into a political sword. I fail to see why positive virtues cannot be forged into a similar sword, using similar methods.

If the Tea Party faction actually managed to take over then you could reasonably consider them extreme

What? You mean the faction that has the speaker of the house answering to them? The one who's preferred policies have held the nation hostage? Get that through your head. Holding. The. Nation. Hostage. How is that not, in effect, taking over? They are well on their way to doing it, if we are not to consider them having done so. Additionally: here is a comparison. German CDU vs GOP

http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm

http://www.cdu.de/themen/14.htm (page is translatable via google)

Take a look. Remember, the CDU is Germany's center right party and I think fairly representative of what an average center right party looks like, as opposed to our "center right" party.

Also: generally, when one posts links to things, there is supposed to be a god damn source link. But, in general response, I am certainly glad that actual responsibility has tempered raving batshit lunacy into simple batshit lunacy.

Come on, this is a guy so stupid he thinks he can arrest cultural shift by TERRIFYING HIS SUPPORTERS. That'll teach them to disagree with me!

What supporters do I have in government exactly? In terms of my non-minority-focused political priorities, I dont really have any, not who have any real power in any case.

Environment: Neither party by and large (there are exceptions, but again, not as a whole party) is willing to push to clean up the department of the interior, deal with climate change, protect endangered species, protect imperiled watersheds etc

Human Rights: Both parties are willing to condone and shield torture, indefinite detention and massive privacy intrusions. Very few stood up to Obama declaring the authority to unconstitutionally assassinate US citizens.

Education: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Distributive Justice: Bush Tax cuts, current debt deal.

Science: Guess what is on the chopping block in these cuts?

The only supporters I have are members of the progressive caucus, who the party leadership has marginalized.

Oh and how DARE I propose actually voting against politicians who do not perform as I expect them to. How DARE I propose that the left wing of the US do what they should have done ages ago: grow a fucking spine, and vote in accordance with their conscience in a manner sufficiently organized as to force politicians to stop taking them for granted.

The reason why we are in the straits we are in, is because the Dems do not fear their base. The GOP does. That is why they win.

[Zinegata]

America is desperately in need of a centrist party that is ruled by common fucking sense instead of ideological drivel. Not another far right or far left fuckwit party.

[Alyrium Denryle]

America is desperately in need of a centrist party that is ruled by common fucking sense instead of ideological drivel. Not another far right or far left fuckwit party.

When exactly have we had a far left? You do realize that an actual centrist party would be pretty damn far to the left of the US political spectrum right?

[The Romulan Republic]

No. You dont have to be Insane (the tea party is insane), but god damn, if a tactic works, use it.

You want to stop the democratic party from shifting to the right? Terrify the politicians with primary challenges, recalls, and threats to their election funds.

And most importantly:

Be Willing To Take Your Vote Elsewhere.

The republicans did a very good job of co-opting elderly christ-pseudolibertarians into their party. They harnessed racism, bigotry, fear of change, greed, and wishful thinking into a political sword. I fail to see why positive virtues cannot be forged into a similar sword, using similar methods.

An organization that did not use fear and hate to rally people and keep them in line would not be like the Tea Party, so perhaps you should use a different example. I have no objection to having a powerful political group of genuine liberals with spines (though I would oppose trying to purge anyone who's seen as ideologically impure)- my concern is having a group of corrupt, ruthless fanatics on the Left battling a group of corrupt, ruthless fanatics on the Right.

In any case, it is unlikely in the near future that I will stop voting Democrat, but if given a choice in a primary between a genuine liberal and a Blue Dog, I'd probably pick the liberal. In fact, as I recall the main reason I joined the Democratic Party is because my state requires me to in order to vote in Primaries.

[Alyrium Denryle]

An organization that did not use fear and hate to rally people and keep them in line would not be like the Tea Party, so perhaps you should use a different example.

I was referring to a group like the tea party in their methods of securing and wielding power, not in what motivates its members. I apologize for the confusion. Sometimes though, fear is the only tool you have. In this case, fear possessed by a politician afraid of losing an election. It is not as if one would be threatening them with enforced flagellation or anything.

I have no objection to having a powerful political group of genuine liberals with spines (though I would oppose trying to purge anyone who's seen as ideologically impure)- my concern is having a group of corrupt, ruthless fanatics on the Left battling a group of corrupt, ruthless fanatics on the Right.

Sometimes, you have no choice. It would be AWESOME to not have to resort to... well... at least the ruthless fanatics part. Definitely the ruthless. Those who are not ruthless rarely hold power for long. The fanatics... they have their uses in providing a solid voter base.

[Zinegata]

America is desperately in need of a centrist party that is ruled by common fucking sense instead of ideological drivel. Not another far right or far left fuckwit party.

When exactly have we had a far left? You do realize that an actual centrist party would be pretty damn far to the left of the US political spectrum right?

You do realize that what you said was an entire load of bullshit, right?

The United States has always been a very liberal ("left") country. Far more liberal than Europe. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and all that are sacred even to your most extreme right-wing parties. In many European countries, the extreme right are actual fucking Nazis who don't believe the Jews were gassed at Auchswitz - like that fuckwit party in Norway whose member shot up dozens of kids in Utoya.

So this idea that America has no "far left" is a fantasy created by disgruntled fools on Internet forums who go "WAAAAH!" because there happen to be people in America who happen to disagree with them.

What America has never had is a socialist party. Which makes sense, given that poverty was never really a problem for America, and that worker's rights have been vigorously enforced. Even "poor" people in America make more than the middle class of some Third World countries. Americans are an incredibly prosperous lot compared to the rest of the world.

Moreover, socialism will not solve any of America's current problems. Because a socialist party will just be yet another fuckwit party driven by ideology rather than common fucking sense.

What America needs right now is to raise taxes AND to cut non-essential government spending. But with both existing parties holding the other as anathaema, you're never gonna get anything done. Adding socialists into the mix (who are currently running under the Democratic ticket anyway) will just result in more bullshit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alyrium, when you build a movement based on fanaticism, you end up with the fanatics in control. They will dominate the Left like they have dominated the Right.

In any case, the ends don't justify the means. I'd rather we take a few losses than crawl down into the gutter. This is just like after 911, when we were told we had to torture and detain people without legal rights in order to defend our freedoms. That kind of thinking is wrong, and it leads to very bad things.

I very much fear your way of thinking is becoming more dominant in the Left, and that it may be the final nail in the coffin of American Democracy.

So for the good of us all, kindly shut the fuck up.

[Bakustra]

You do realize that what you said was an entire load of bullshit, right?

The United States has always been a very liberal ("left") country. Far more liberal than Europe. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and all that are sacred even to your most extreme right-wing parties. In many European countries, the extreme right are actual fucking Nazis who don't believe the Jews were gassed at Auchswitz - like that fuckwit party in Norway whose member shot up dozens of kids in Utoya.

So this idea that America has no "far left" is a fantasy created by disgruntled fools on Internet forums who go "WAAAAH!" because there happen to be people in America who happen to disagree with them.

What America has never had is a socialist party. Which makes sense, given that poverty was never really a problem for America, and that worker's rights have been vigorously enforced. Even "poor" people in America make more than the middle class of some Third World countries. Americans are an incredibly prosperous lot compared to the rest of the world.

Moreover, socialism will not solve any of America's current problems. Because a socialist party will just be yet another fuckwit party driven by ideology rather than common fucking sense.

What America needs right now is to raise taxes AND to cut non-essential government spending. But with both existing parties holding the other as anathaema, you're never gonna get anything done. Adding socialists into the mix (who are currently running under the Democratic ticket anyway) will just result in more bullshit.

Hahahahahahahaha. Haha. Hah. Hah.

1. Liberal and left are not the same thing- in American politics yes, but in world politics where there are more positions, liberalism refers to a specific economic ideology, namely noninterventionist capitalism. That is not a left-wing position, but rather a centrist to right-wing one, with neoliberals to the right and classical liberals dead. Even American liberals aren't all that left-wing, when considered in the context of the world.

2. The far left refers to socialist and anarchist groups within political thought outside of provincial Americans, who are generally damaged by the constricted nature of our political spectrum. There are actually people outside the Internet who discuss this, as you would know if you weren't such an Ugly American in the very depths of your rotting soul.

3. You are incredibly wrong here. The idea that America has always had good labor relations, which relies on three massive lies, namely that America has universally protected labor in the past, that America has good protections for labor now, and that the state of labor relations within the USA has been a constant. This is so wrong that even the strictest of social constructivists, even the most narcissistic solipsists, would look at that paragraph and say, "Damn, you're wrong." I would suggest going to Wikipedia and typing in the words "Haymarket Riot" into the search bar, for you are indeed so ignorant that Wikipedia would be considered a step up. I fain would weep for thee, if 'twere so, that thou were not a fucker of the third degree.

4. I don't think you understand what ideology is, or what common sense is, or much of anything really. Indeed you are so dense that I fear that even one-on-one, personalized education would make no impact. Dr. Bakustra's remedy: wear a book as a hat for the next few days. While you are such a black hole of ignorance that knowledge might transfer that way, even better is that the shame and humiliation will hopefully kill your ego, leaving you open to learning and new knowledge.

5. The fact that you can look at the American political situation and insist that Democrats are categorically against cutting spending is a large part of what's wrong with the USA today. But then again, you take your political inclinations from South Park, so perhaps I should not expect any glimmers of intelligence from you.

6. There are no socialists within the Democratic party on the national level. The only socialist on the national level- Bernie Sanders- is an independent with no party who caucauses with the Democrats, who he disagrees with on a number of issues. I doubt there are too many socialists within the Democratic party on the state or local levels, as in areas where socialists could run for office in theory there are usually actual socialist parties they would prefer to run under.

Alyrium, when you build a movement based on fanaticism, you end up with the fanatics in control. They will dominate the Left like they have dominated the Right.

In any case, the ends don't justify the means. I'd rather we take a few losses than crawl down into the gutter. This is just like after 911, when we were told we had to torture and detain people without legal rights in order to defend our freedoms. That kind of thinking is wrong, and it leads to very bad things.

I very much fear your way of thinking is becoming more dominant in the Left, and that it may be the final nail in the coffin of American Democracy.

So for the good of us all, kindly shut the fuck up.

His idea is stupid, but the overall idea is the only way you have to reestablish American liberalism/social democracy, though you'd have to work at least twice as hard as the Tea Party to get where they are. The Republican leadership showed their true colors, and they are not believers. The Democratic leadership is the same. In order to get things done, you need people who believe in them to enter the corridors of power, and seize the reins. Without actual progressives and social democrats in power, there will be years before gay marriage is legal nationally, if not decades, as the corrupt (and you are mistaken in characterizing the Tea Party as any more corrupt than the current Republican leadership) political order in this country mouths about it until it becomes as overwhelmingly opposed as DADT, after which you will need to wait until it finally gets thrown as a crumb to you, in between Wall Street suckling at the bites it leaves on your neck when it feeds. Forget about any economic reform in that time either. You may have to say goodbye to the middle class as the central contradiction of capitalism rises from its own R'leyh, too. Good luck!