my connection with the tea party

[DeeBye]

The existence of the tea party enables the Democrats to hold a majority since the TP platform(fiscal conservative, stricter Constitutional interpretation, small government, and anti-war) attracts away more Republican voters, than Democrat voters.

Anti-war? Really? I just don't see that from your tea party-backed candidates.

[kandrathe]

The existence of the tea party enables the Democrats to hold a majority since the TP platform(fiscal conservative, stricter Constitutional interpretation, small government, and anti-war) attracts away more Republican voters, than Democrat voters.

Anti-war? Really? I just don't see that from your tea party-backed candidates.

Here is a pretty good synopsis by Pat Buchanan.

[eppie]

Here is a pretty good synopsis by Pat Buchanan.

''''''
Why should Americans, 65 years after World War II, be defending rich Europeans from a Soviet Union that has been dead for 20 years, so those same Europeans can cut their defense budgets to protect their social safety nets? ''''''

wow....what a complete moron.

Neocons and tea partiers, both want a small government....a government so small it will only help the richest 2 % of the population. The way it does that.....they have some small disagreements.

The US sends it's troops around the world for the US.....not for europe's social safety net.

O and see what my fellow commie has to say about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinio...&seid=auto

[kandrathe]

Here is a pretty good synopsis by Pat Buchanan.

''''''
Why should Americans, 65 years after World War II, be defending rich Europeans from a Soviet Union that has been dead for 20 years, so those same Europeans can cut their defense budgets to protect their social safety nets? ''''''

wow....what a complete moron.

We have around 55,000 troops in Germany. Germany has about 150,000 in their defense forces total.

"The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255 active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories. Most of these overseas personnel are deployed in combat zones in the Middle east, as part of the "War on Terror". Many of the remainder are located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to counter the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II." -- Wikipedia

You need to take a look at it from the US taxpayers point of view. Who handled the Balkans? Libya? Yeah, Iraq is our mess, and we had a more vested interest in Afghanistan, but in general we are spread around everywhere, and why?

Neocons and tea partiers, both want a small government....a government so small it will only help the richest 2 % of the population. The way it does that.....they have some small disagreements.

Neocons, don't necessarily want a small government when it comes to foreign policy, but rather believe in aggressive nation-building and the exportation of democracy.

"Unlike liberals, for example, neoconservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson; and unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the more limited welfare state instituted by Roosevelt." -- Wikipedia

The US sends it's troops around the world for the US.....not for europe's social safety net.

We pay the money so you don't have to do it for yourselves. Again... the Balkans, Africa, Libya... We don't have a vested interest in those areas other than to keep you and your oil supply safe.

O and see what my fellow commie has to say about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinio...&seid=auto

Here is a better link.Buffet's "tax me!" position is legendary. Nothing prevents anyone from giving more to the government.

The biggest area where the rich make up that % differential is in the cap on Social Security. After the first $106800 in income, he pays no more toward SSI. So the maximum that anyone contributes in any given year is $6621.60 (6.2%).

[Occhidiangela]

eurotrash and idiots like me

I believe the term is

Redundant.

[FireIceTalon]

So after watching the recent Republican/Tea-Bagger debates this past week....all I can say is, scary. VERY, VERY scary. When the issue of healthcare came up and one of the candidates (I forget which, I think it was either R. Paul or Newt Gingrich) asked should we let a 20 year old die if he/she has no proper coverage and most of the crowd said yes. Are you kidding me? Have we really sunk THAT low? These people should be tarred and feathered....We are on the verge of having a racist & fascist, immigration & Muslim hating, social security privatizing, anti-intellectual, militaristic, hyper-nationalism ideology supporting, Nation-building/oil seeking, health-care and education cutting, creationism loving/science denying moronic dillweed as our next Commander in Chief. Time to move to Canada or France. I seriously cannot watch these clowns without almost regurgitating my previous meal.

[kandrathe]

Mmmm. Bait. Ok, I'll bite. You knew I would.

"Hatred as the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent…hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims! " - Che Guevara, 1966 Message to the Tricontinental Conference

So after watching the recent Republican/Tea-Bagger debates this past week....

I'm sure you do know that tea-bagging is a sexual act. Your crudeness is noted.

...all I can say is, scary. VERY, VERY scary.

Whereas, warrant-less wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and the suspension of due process for anyone captured throughout the whole world, including our own citizens is entirely normal and not to be worried about.

When the issue of healthcare came up and one of the candidates (I forget which, I think it was either R. Paul or Newt Gingrich) asked should we let a 20 year old die if he/she has no proper coverage and most of the crowd said yes. Are you kidding me? Have we really sunk THAT low? These people should be tarred and feathered....

Let's re-frame the question. A 40 year old, single, "wealthy" man is driving his pickup truck around on bald tires. He knows he should spend the $1000 to get them replaced, but he wants to use the money to shower gifts on his girlfriend. Should the government give him new tires, and/or force him to buy new ones? Were he to crash, not only would he be injured, he might injure or kill others. Life is filled with decisions like this, and we'd be locked in rubber rooms (at our own expense) if we were to expect our government protect us from all of our own bad decisions.

When it comes down to the negotiation of care, ALL of my poor friends get the care they need, but maybe not the care they want. I'm reminded of a close friend who is a very poor artist. She needed a $30,000 (rock bottom price) surgery and didn't have insurance or that kind of money. She ended up negotiating a deal where she would make a sculpture in exchange. Barring that, her cadre of artist friends were willing to step in and help out too. By far, most of my personal experience and the stories of "denied" that I hear of are from people with insurance where the insurance company refuses to pay after the fact.

The question is not "Would you treat him?" The questions was, "Should someone be forced to treat him at their own expense?" And, people always get confused by this... insurance <> health care. Insurance is a financial product where you abate risk. I can afford to pay $13500 per year for health insurance to protect me from the rare chance I'll need millions of dollars of health care.

We are on the verge of having a racist & fascist, immigration & Muslim hating, social security privatizing, anti-intellectual, militaristic, hyper-nationalism ideology supporting, Nation-building/oil seeking, health-care and education cutting, creationism loving/science denying moronic dillweed as our next Commander in Chief.

Really, dill weed? With Beavis and Butt-head as the critic, how can it err. Specious venting deserves no better. And, I'm sure there are no extremist positions in the Democrat ranks either.

But, let's examine the "Tea Party" and their "extreme" positions... Quinnipac Poll on the make up and attitudes of the Tea Party.

Time to move to Canada or France. I seriously cannot watch these clowns without almost regurgitating my previous meal.

A phrase repeated by our electorate ever since George Washington stepped down, and they need to consider which unqualified loser should be our next President.

God save the Queen. Or, the French... I guess.

[FireIceTalon]

Mmmm. Bait. Ok, I'll bite. You knew I would.

"Hatred as the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent…hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims! " - Che Guevara, 1966 Message to the Tricontinental Conference

So after watching the recent Republican/Tea-Bagger debates this past week....

I'm sure you do know that tea-bagging is a sexual act. Your crudeness is noted.

...all I can say is, scary. VERY, VERY scary.

Whereas, warrant-less wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and the suspension of due process for anyone captured throughout the whole world, including our own citizens is entirely normal and not to be worried about.

When the issue of healthcare came up and one of the candidates (I forget which, I think it was either R. Paul or Newt Gingrich) asked should we let a 20 year old die if he/she has no proper coverage and most of the crowd said yes. Are you kidding me? Have we really sunk THAT low? These people should be tarred and feathered....

Let's re-frame the question. A 40 year old, single, "wealthy" man is driving his pickup truck around on bald tires. He knows he should spend the $1000 to get them replaced, but he wants to use the money to shower gifts on his girlfriend. Should the government give him new tires, and/or force him to buy new ones? Were he to crash, not only would he be injured, he might injure or kill others. Life is filled with decisions like this, and we'd be locked in rubber rooms (at our own expense) if we were to expect our government protect us from all of our own bad decisions.

When it comes down to the negotiation of care, ALL of my poor friends get the care they need, but maybe not the care they want. I'm reminded of a close friend who is a very poor artist. She needed a $30,000 (rock bottom price) surgery and didn't have insurance or that kind of money. She ended up negotiating a deal where she would make a sculpture in exchange. Barring that, her cadre of artist friends were willing to step in and help out too. By far, most of my personal experience and the stories of "denied" that I hear of are from people with insurance where the insurance company refuses to pay after the fact.

The question is not "Would you treat him?" The questions was, "Should someone be forced to treat him at their own expense?" And, people always get confused by this... insurance <> health care. Insurance is a financial product where you abate risk. I can afford to pay $13500 per year for health insurance to protect me from the rare chance I'll need millions of dollars of health care.

We are on the verge of having a racist & fascist, immigration & Muslim hating, social security privatizing, anti-intellectual, militaristic, hyper-nationalism ideology supporting, Nation-building/oil seeking, health-care and education cutting, creationism loving/science denying moronic dillweed as our next Commander in Chief.

Really, dill weed? With Beavis and Butt-head as the critic, how can it err. Specious venting deserves no better. And, I'm sure there are no extremist positions in the Democrat ranks either.

But, let's examine the "Tea Party" and their "extreme" positions... Quinnipac Poll on the make up and attitudes of the Tea Party.

Time to move to Canada or France. I seriously cannot watch these clowns without almost regurgitating my previous meal.

A phrase repeated by our electorate ever since George Washington stepped down, and they need to consider which unqualified loser should be our next President.

God save the Queen. Or, the French... I guess.

The term "tea bagger" has more than one meaning. In this case, it is used by those as a disparaging term to describe the group of idiots that call themselves The Tea Party. There is absolutely no sexual connotation in the term when it is used in reference to the political party.

As far as unwarranted wire tapping, suspension of due-process, secret prisons, and yada yada yada, no disagreement from me there. In fact, it just helps my point further that its time to get the hell out of here

Im not saying government needs to do everything for us. It doesn't, and it shouldn't. But when it comes to healthcare, I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue. We are the ONLY advanced democracy (well, if you can even call it that, I think that went down the toilet with the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United but that's another matter) that doesn't have universal healthcare. Sorry, but in this department, we are NOT the center of the universe my friend. We need to catch up to the rest of the world, not the other way around, in the healthcare department. Even friggin Cuba, a 3rd world country, has universal healthcare. Not that I would choose to live in Cuba over living here, but surely if they can supply this basic and most intrinsic need to its citizens, we can too. We just choose not to, because profits are more important than the well-being and general health of our nations citizens, yes? There is a reason why citizens of the other advanced democracies live longer, healthier, and overall happier lives than we do, and much of that is attributed to socialized medicine, among other reasons. That means me paying more taxes to take care of someone who I don't even know or will never meet or have no knowledge that they even exist. But as a good citizen, it is my duty to help out my fellow citizens (including the evil tea baggers, the very same people suffering from false consciousness that wish to have completely privatized healthcare at their own peril), for the sake of having a progressive civil society, therefore I'd be willing to do it. Gasp! Helping someone else out. People get hurt, people get sick. I guess in our country, that's a crime.

Congrats to your friend. But not everyone is that fortunate and/or lucky (especially in the current economy). For everyone who has such luck, there are many who do not. Your experience is purely anecdotal evidence, and not necessarily a reflection of the general of how things really are in the big picture. Ever seen SICKO? Good documentary, give it a watch if you haven't already Good for you that you can afford to pay 13,500 dead presidents every year toward the profit making commodity that is health insurance. Clearly, you are quite well off. Here's a cookie. Now...The median household income was just over $46,000 in 2010....I imagine that most if not all of these people can afford such a luxury, as $13,500 wouldn't be a serious chunk of change for them. Right. Tell me, where can I buy a pair of your rose-colored glasses at? And do they cost under $13,500?

Beavis and Butthead? Mhmmm, your ad hominems (or weak attempt at) won't get you very far with me. Save em'. I have my issues with the democrats as well, but more so for their weak character and hastiness to appease and/or sell out to the neo-cons and less so for their actual political ideology or stances. Truth be told both parties seem one and the same right now. Obama is a conservative democrat at best, but certainly not the progressive he campaigned as. At the end of the day, I don't think either party has ordinary citizens interest in mind (Obama even admitted this during his American Jobs Act statement last week!), but the Republicans, and especially the Tea Party, are extremely out of touch with reality.

Link doesn't work btw, but I know what the tea party stands for in general, and its all a load of crap and misinformation spewed forth by Faux News. Good day.

[kandrathe]

The term "tea bagger" has more than one meaning. In this case, it is used by those as a disparaging term to describe the group of idiots that call themselves The Tea Party. There is absolutely no sexual connotation in the term when it is used in reference to the political party.

Sure. Show me where the other meaning is defined.

As far as unwarranted wire tapping, suspension of due-process, secret prisons, and yada yada yada, no disagreement from me there. In fact, it just helps my point further that its time to get the hell out of here

The grass is always greener on the other side of the border.

I'm not saying government needs to do everything for us. It doesn't, and it shouldn't. But when it comes to healthcare, I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue.

Right, but we aren't talking about health care. We are talking about insurance and how health care providers get paid. Why do you think doctors, and nurses resist becoming employees of the government? Why aren't all hospitals owned by the State apparatchik?

We are the ONLY advanced democracy (well, if you can even call it that, I think that went down the toilet with the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United but that's another matter) that doesn't have universal healthcare. Sorry, but in this department, we are NOT the center of the universe my friend. We need to catch up to the rest of the world, not the other way around, in the healthcare department. Even friggin Cuba, a 3rd world country, has universal healthcare. Not that I would choose to live in Cuba over living here, but surely if they can supply this basic and most intrinsic need to its citizens, we can too. We just choose not to, because profits are more important than the well-being and general health of our nations citizens, yes? There is a reason why citizens of the other advanced democracies live longer, healthier, and overall happier lives than we do, and much of that is attributed to socialized medicine, among other reasons.

There are many factors you are ignoring. First of which is how the statistics are tallied.

That means me paying more taxes to take care of someone who I don't even know or will never meet or have no knowledge that they even exist. But as a good citizen, it is my duty to help out my fellow citizens (including the evil tea baggers, the very same people suffering from false consciousness that wish to have completely privatized healthcare at their own peril), for the sake of having a progressive civil society, therefore I'd be willing to do it. Gasp! Helping someone else out. People get hurt, people get sick. I guess in our country, that's a crime.

So, why don't you fight to get the same tax structure as say Denmark? Low income people pay 30%, and highest income people pay up to 52% which is far less progressive than in the US, where half of income earners pay no income tax whatsoever.

Congrats to your friend. But not everyone is that fortunate and/or lucky (especially in the current economy). For everyone who has such luck, there are many who do not. Your experience is purely anecdotal evidence, and not necessarily a reflection of the general of how things really are in the big picture.

Not necessarily, but it shows how an economy reverts to barter when we find ourselves without money.

Ever seen SICKO? Good documentary, give it a watch if you haven't already

I refuse to watch Moore's deceptive propaganda films.

Good for you that you can afford to pay 13,500 dead presidents every year toward the profit making commodity that is health insurance. Clearly, you are quite well off. Here's a cookie. Now...The median household income was just over $46,000 in 2010....I imagine that most if not all of these people can afford such a luxury, as $13,500 wouldn't be a serious chunk of change for them. Right. Tell me, where can I buy a pair of your rose-colored glasses at? And do they cost under $13,500?

I was quoting the average family cost for health insurance. Often the employer pays about 60% of that cost.

Beavis and Butthead? Mhmmm, your ad hominems (or weak attempt at) won't get you very far with me. Save em'.

It wasn't ad-hominem. It was a commentary on your use of the term "dill weed" made popular by Beavis and Butthead.

I have my issues with the democrats as well, but more so for their weak character and hastiness to appease and/or sell out to the neo-cons and less so for their actual political ideology or stances. Truth be told both parties seem one and the same right now.

They are one and the same because they serve the same masters.

Obama is a conservative democrat at best, but certainly not the progressive he campaigned as. At the end of the day, I don't think either party has ordinary citizens interest in mind (Obama even admitted this during his American Jobs Act statement last week!), but the Republicans, and especially the Tea Party, are extremely out of touch with reality.

They are all out of touch with "The People", and many with reality. Obama is President because his political operation catered to the right money machines, and he made good by handing out $Trillions$ to his political cronies.

Link doesn't work btw, but I know what the tea party stands for in general, and its all a load of crap and misinformation spewed forth by Faux News. Good day.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436

It was -- "March 24, 2010 - Tea Party Could Hurt GOP In Congressional Races, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Dems Trail 2-Way Races, But Win If Tea Party Runs"

[FireIceTalon]

Google the term. I thought it was common knowledge by now that the term tea-bagger was used to refer commonly to the Tea Party in political conversations. But either way, it's a rather trivial issue.

The nurses and healthcare providers/hospitals are scared of government because they are all private companies making a profit off the misery of others, along with all the drug companies. If healthcare became socialized, their pay would be much lower than the obscene profits they receive now. Nor would they be able to use methods they do now like adding things such as pre-existing conditions as a right to deny or remove coverage to any citizen, or receive bonus checks at the end of the year as a reward for denying citizens proper coverage or preventing a treatment that would cost the company thousands or more dollars. Because after all, profits are more important than saving lives or helping citizens have a better life instead of facing either serious illness/death or financial ruin (sarcasm, in case you didnt detect it).

The tax structure in a place like Denmark is indeed less progressive than here. But that is compensated by the fact far more citizens have equal access to many services, including this most important sector of healthcare. That is after all, the whole point of having a social democracy. Those who earn more can afford more luxuries, but at least almost all citizens get a roughly equal right to basic things such as healthcare, education and so forth. Here, those who can pay get treated. Those who cannot, either go without or do so but face or at least run the risk of financial ruin and/or hardship. Not so in Denmark. And thats because, once again, profits are out of the picture, as they should be in the healthcare sector. A waitress gets the same access and quality healthcare that a lawyer does, and why shouldn't she? Notice their poverty level is a lot lower than ours too (they have the 5th lowest poverty rate in the world, we rank a dismal 17th in comparison, according to the HPI report, last conducted in 2008). Furthermore, over 17% of our population earns below the median income here, only 5% of theirs does there.

Man, you are only assisting me in proving my points right, come on! I know you can do better than this

I haven't watched all of Moore's documentaries so I wont sit here and spit the gospel that he is the know all be all of every critical issue we face today. But Sicko is pretty spot on, and EASILY shuts down any argument that you or anyone else on this site could attempt to provide which supports a "for-profits" healthcare system. No contest there, mark my words.

Agreed on the last two points regarding the two political parties and Obama.

[kandrathe]

The tax structure in a place like Denmark is indeed less progressive than here. But that is compensated by the fact far more citizens have equal access to many services, including this most important sector of healthcare. That is after all, the whole point of having a social democracy. Here, those who can pay get treated. Those who cannot, either go without or do so but face or at least run the risk of financial ruin and/or hardship. Not so in Denmark. And thats because, once again, profits are out of the picture, as they should be in the healthcare sector

At the risk of distilling down your post to the grist. We cannot afford more services, like universal health care unless we restructure our tax code where the middle and lower classes would pay much more. The rich would end up paying about the same. For example, if you taxed the top 1% of wage earners at 100% of income over $1 million, you'd only raise an additional $78 billion. Barely enough to pay for a few months of the current military expenses in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, let alone add the trillions needed to expand social services.

[FireIceTalon]

The tax structure in a place like Denmark is indeed less progressive than here. But that is compensated by the fact far more citizens have equal access to many services, including this most important sector of healthcare. That is after all, the whole point of having a social democracy. Here, those who can pay get treated. Those who cannot, either go without or do so but face or at least run the risk of financial ruin and/or hardship. Not so in Denmark. And thats because, once again, profits are out of the picture, as they should be in the healthcare sector

At the risk of distilling down your post to the grist. We cannot afford more services, like universal health care unless we restructure our tax code where the middle and lower classes would pay much more. The rich would end up paying about the same. For example, if you taxed the top 1% of wage earners at 100% of income over $1 million, you'd only raise an additional $78 billion. Barely enough to pay for a few months of the current military expenses in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, let alone add the trillions needed to expand social services.

Indeed this is true. But even still, at the end of the day it just reinforces my original point that social democracy nation-states are a better system to live under than capitalistic warfare-states. This all boils down to perspective: if you are a lawyer, a banker or an engineer, corporate CEO or lobbyist, the latter is probably preferable. For most everyone else though, I think it's a safe bet the former is more desirable. Had we not had a numbskull president in office from 2000-2008, its likely we could have spent all that wasted money on developing a universal healthcare and/or improving our education system and fixing infrastructure problems instead of reckless military empire and conquest (when we had a huge surplus in the economy), though of course Hillary failed in getting that passed in the previous administration (and she even sold out later on by staying silent on the issue and then receiving checks from various pharmaceutical companies) due to the stupidity and false consciousness of a huge portion of the American populace, of which half can't even point to Great Britain on a map let alone realize that a universal healthcare system would be in their best interest. But I digress. We will have to agree to disagree it seems, but interesting debate nonetheless. Peace^^

[kandrathe]

Indeed this is true. But even still, at the end of the day it just reinforces my original point that social democracy nation-states are a better system to live under than capitalistic warfare-states.

Show me any nation in the world devoid of Capitalism, let alone the European social democracy nation-states. Currently, many are imploding under the weight of their social burdens, and the others are implementing various austerity measures to trim government spending. And, we're not far behind full implosion ourselves as our Congress and President has approached the current crisis as an opportunity to extend the size of government and reward corporate friends with crony capitalism funneling them billions of dollars of borrowed money.

You might like --> Why Socialism Failed - by professor Mark J. Perry.

But, we can agree there is a problem, and we may even agree on the evils of corrupt crony capitalism, and the wastefulness of our perpetual wars. Where we differ is in the solution, and the role government force should play in crafting our lives. They don't create any wealth, but only take and re-purpose the wealth created by others. Governments are productivity vacuums in our economy. The bigger it gets, the smaller the rest of the economy gets.

I don't have much faith in any governments ability to gather billions or trillions in taxes and not use that power in a corrupt manner. Maybe you do.

I would rather have the freedom to craft my own life, even if that meant I'd have more responsibilities and decisions to make. Many people are willing to surrender freedom for the illusion of safety, and comforts offered by the nanny state.

Perhaps there is another way besides capitalism, but in our imperfect world with its imperfect people, only this one has had any traction in improving peoples lives. I endeavor to reduce the negatives in it, rather than pine for an unrealizable fantasy utopia.

[FireIceTalon]

Ah, I see. Indeed, the solution I think is where we fundamentally disagree. The good ol' big government vs. big business issue. I think the reason I favor big government is because there are no profits in the equation. Not that government doesn't have a multitude of other ways to screw us over, because they most certainly do. But I'm of the view (as any true Marxist scholar is) that profits drive exploitation and cause capitalism to overproduce itself since labor turns into capital and wages stagnate while profits increase, creating a huge surplus with little or no demand, leading to the classic arguments against capitalism of "alienation" and imperialism. Probably why there is no pure capitalist system in the world today, and it is this concept among others that Marx I think hits the nail on the head, and therein sits the foundation of my preference of government over big business in at least some sectors... But it must be said, my trust for government is more based on that seen in the social democracies and not our own, where they seem to at least be somewhat concerned for their citizens well-being. But in terms of OUR government, I pretty much agree with you, they are bad; very very bad. They only have the interests of the top 2% in mind, so in a sense its like handing the system over to the big businesses anyway which I personally fear so much for the reasons I stated above. But I merely view government as a lesser of two evils. I think either way we are up shits creek....be it from big government or transnational corporations. Regarding our disagreement of big governments role in economics, I think it is based on our view of human nature as well. I think you lean more towards Locke, I toward Hobbes. Neither side is right or wrong per se, just that we view human nature differently: You have more confidence in human interaction and cooperation with minimal government, I think (correct me if im wrong). I have Hobbes' view of human nature: very cynical, with everyone pursuing their self interests only. And thus you feel capitalism, while flawed, corresponds to satisfying our natural want for competition and greed. Am I right? For me, I see it as only fanning the flames (like pouring gasoline on a fire) of this cynical aspect of our nature and thus, I think we need to contain it, but we cannot do so on our own without an arbitrary and sovereign power, in my humble opinion. Hell, maybe we are both wrong, and Rousseau had it right, heh. That said, while I consider myself a true commie at heart, I don't endorse a system of pure communism nor pure capitalism in terms of rational practicality, as either one is impossible. I truly think Western Europe, while not perfect, has it down the best.....a mixture of the free market system and socialism, but leaning more toward the latter. Our system is kind of the same but leans more toward capitalism's side. Anyway, good to see where our disagreement lies, and our agreements as well. Solutions to the problems we face seem almost impossible, because both big government and big business are not a good look, regardless of which you favor. Its almost like having to choose between two very unpleasant deaths. Anyway, cool to have a discussion with someone that has a different school of thought than my own but understands this stuff, peace^^

[Jester]

"Hatred as the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent…hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims! " - Che Guevara, 1966 Message to the Tricontinental Conference

I'm having difficulty tracking this down. El Che certainly had some strong words in his *1967* message to the Tricontinental Congress (the full text of which is available here).

The nearest passage appears to be:

The great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas taking root in the dispossessed masses. The galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.

We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move. Then his moral fiber shall begin to decline. He will even become more beastly, but we shall notice how the signs of decadence begin to appear.

The other quote, I can only find on the usual sources: Conservapaedia, and so on. My best guess is that the version you posted is ... let's say, poetic licence, derived from the original, but cranked up to 11 so as to sound not as hard-edged revolutionary calling for violent resistance and uprising, but a complete frothing lunatic calling for nuclear apocalypse. As per usual on such sites, no respect to the historical record is either asked for, or given.

-Jester

[Jester]

Furthermore, over 17% of our population earns below the median income here, only 5% of theirs does there.

Is this Denmark, or Lake Wobegon, where all the kids are above average? 50% of the population earns at or below the median income, everywhere, always. 50% earns at or above the median, too. That's the *definition* of median.

What you presumably mean to say, assuming you're reading wikipedia, is that 17% of the US population earns less than *half* the median income, whereas that is only 5% in Denmark.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

My best guess is that the version you posted is ... let's say, poetic license, derived from the original, but cranked up to 11 so as to sound not as hard-edged revolutionary calling for violent resistance and uprising, but a complete frothing lunatic calling for nuclear apocalypse. As per usual on such sites, no respect to the historical record is either asked for, or given.

One man's revolutionary hero, is another's frothing lunatic calling for nuclear apocalypse.

[Jester]

One man's revolutionary hero, is another's frothing lunatic calling for nuclear apocalypse.

So, perspectives differ, therefore it's okay to make up quotes?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Furthermore, over 17% of our population earns below the median income here, only 5% of theirs does there.

And, to address why the US may be at 17% of the population below Median income... It's not a small homogenized country like Denmark. Let's compare Denmark to a State (e.g. New Hampshire) within the US. Even within the US, a state like Maryland hardly compares to Mississippi. Or, let's compare the US to the EU.

Second, comparing to median income as a measure of poverty is misleading. This is why the US poverty rate is calculated as a measure of those who cannot afford the necessities of life, rather than a measure against average income.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications.../2046.html

According to the CIA world fact book, US has 12% (2004) living in poverty, Denmark has 12.1%(2007).

Perhaps, the median income of those in the US is such that 50% of the median income is not all that bad, in comparison to living in poverty in an undeveloped nation. In other words, being poor in the US (again states differ too) does not compare to being poor in say India. Location is everything. Living in New York City is very different than living in New York State away from the city.

Finally, you'd need to look at where the poor originate. We have a pretty huge immigration rate, and many of our new citizens begin at the bottom of the ladder. Some have fallen from upper rungs due to their own bad choices, or are victims of circumstances (including those implemented by government).

[kandrathe]

One man's revolutionary hero, is another's frothing lunatic calling for nuclear apocalypse.

So, perspectives differ, therefore it's okay to make up quotes?

I am guilty of not reference checking the quote. I agree the quote took liberal license with the translation, and that they took his words out of context. It is actually snippets of many statements made by Che, over time, then sewn together much like a Micheal Moore film.

For example, "If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.” (Che Guevara, November 1962.) Anderson, Jon Lee (1997). Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-1600-0. Page 545.

My purpose for putting it there was to highlight the extremes of the socialist revolutionary ideology espoused. It is incongruous to me that one could be lambast the Tea party, cherry picking one topic out of context without recognizing the same inflammatory extremism expressed within their own ideology. Also, it is an example of how how "hatred" is used as a weapon... by political movements, including the tea party, to motivate their adherents into action, and often violent destructive action.

A rhetorical mirror, but alas a flawed one.