[JViello]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

By the looks of what she's brought home to the 3rd district in all of these years, her voice isn't heard in Washington. You're giving her too much credit.

It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for.

As much as I agree with most of Reaganite22's posts in this thread, I have to stand up for HeadedWest. He's a very intelligent person, and lives by conservative values without going overboard. In other words, he's not a conservative statist. I don't think speaking to another individual in that manner is very productive, even more so when you are not familiar with their posts - much the same way I mis-read who you were when you started posting here.

Just trying to unite instead of divide.

BTW: I don't see Coburn as a "corporitist" whatever that's supposed to mean. If that's a term, doesn't that really best describe a lobbiest?

[Bridgeport Rising]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Sorry, I don't know who Tom Coburn is.

I don't understand your second sentence.

Tom Coburn is a Senator from Oklahoma. He claims he is a libertarian, but he mostly likes to pick on the poor and the weak. It is interesting to contrast him with someone like Ron Paul or even Peter Schiff (if you want to be more local). Those guys all share philosophy but I dont feel nearly as negative about Paul or Schiff.

Clearest way to think about how corporatism has infected US politics like a virus is to think of Americans always being referred to as consumers and not citizens.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

and then study case law.

Case law. A liberals favorite "go to". Modern invention. Case law was not looked too until the early 20th century and it has been a tool of the progressives to rewrite constants such as the constitution.

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

which causes some of the things you mention (such as turnover and bad morale that leads to shoddy work).

Then one has to wonder why the manufacturers with the best reliability and build quality ratings chooses to build new facilities in these "shoddy work" states.

I don't totally disagree with you but you also need to understand that the cost of living in said states allows families to actually live on $15-20 per hour pretty well. Now you or I may not be interested in their lifestyle and or "culture", but they are not living in mud huts and starving either.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JViello

Case law. A liberals favorite "go to". Modern invention. Case law was not looked too until the early 20th century and it has been a tool of the progressives to rewrite constants such as the constitution.

Absolutely not! Case law is the foundation of Common Law, which we inherited from English Law and was cemented with Marbury v Madison. "Modern invention?" Really, the modern invention is the idea that reading the Constitution as the absolute constraint on Government (as in "if the Constitution doesn't expressly say it, the Government can't do it") was the norm for American law. It wasn't. That "version" of History sprang from I believe Oral Roberts University in the 70's and is basically laughed out of the room in Appellate courts and historians alike.

Originally Posted by JViello

Then one has to wonder why the manufacturers with the best reliability and build quality ratings chooses to build new facilities in these "shoddy work" states.

They really haven't though. The problem is that those fixed costs (building etc) were decided a decade ago and have only barely paid off. Basically many industries have decided throwing good money after bad is the way to go. For now. As well, there's free money to be had so while it lasts they stay. Once its' gone they have been moving on readily.

Originally Posted by JViello

I don't totally disagree with you but you also need to understand that the cost of living in said states allows families to actually live on $15-20 per hour pretty well. Now you or I may not be interested in their lifestyle and or "culture", but they are not living in mud huts and starving either.

Oh, certainly cost of living puts less of a burden on the need for high wages. Maybe. But it doesn't seem like it really helped looking at the current state of the economy, honestly.

~Cheers

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Bridgeport Rising

Tom Coburn is a Senator from Oklahoma. He claims he is a libertarian, but he mostly likes to pick on the poor and the weak. It is interesting to contrast him with someone like Ron Paul or even Peter Schiff (if you want to be more local). Those guys all share philosophy but I dont feel nearly as negative about Paul or Schiff.

Clearest way to think about how corporatism has infected US politics like a virus is to think of Americans always being referred to as consumers and not citizens.

I'm not a big fan of his politics but I respect that unlike most on the far right (though I don't think he's really as libertarian as father and son Paul) he realizes "compromise" when he absolutely needs to (yes, he went all idealogue and left the "Gang of Six" but went back when this debt ceiling debacle needed him to and really stepped up to the plate with it as well). I'm actually far more negative about Paul and Schiff than I am about Coburn, he reminds me of people like Orrin Hatch who check their ideologuism at the door when working with the other side of the aisle is needed for the good of the country (a surprising example of a major "left wing idealogue" who did the same when push came to shove if you read "beyond the headlines" was Ted Kennedy........often in concert with Hatch).

[bomgd3]

I'm confused. Socialists aren't people? You know, I thought it was the Communists who disregard human rights of political dissidents.

J, feel free to move to Pakistan any time. I hear they have small government.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by bomgd3

J, feel free to move to Pakistan any time. I hear they have small government.

That's called a corrupt government even worse than ours. Pick up a book and see what the founders of this great nation thought about government.

[AnonChick]

Clue #1: the title of the article specifies the "Socialist Party of America." There has not been a Socialist Party organization with that specific name since 1971. The party split into one larger group and two smaller groups, and a fourth, Socialist Party USA, claims to be the renamed original. But even they acknowledge that they don't have the same name as the original, which -was- the Socialist Party of America.

Since the author can't even get the name of the group right, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

As for the substance of the title, so what? People are ALLOWED to be socialists in the USA. Though, the last Socialist on the presidential ballot was in the 1950's, and he lost with less than 3000 votes, split among six states.

I always said, if we had what it takes to bring real socialism into our country, we -might- have a shot at socialist medicine. And until then, it just won't work. Because we don't have what it takes, as a country, to embrace it.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

Clue #1: the title of the article specifies the "Socialist Party of America." There has not been a Socialist Party organization with that specific name since 1971. The party split into one larger group and two smaller groups, and a fourth, Socialist Party USA, claims to be the renamed original. But even they acknowledge that they don't have the same name as the original, which -was- the Socialist Party of America.

Since the author can't even get the name of the group right, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

Huh? The document says "Democratic Socialist Party Of America." Which is alive and well, as noted above.

Thanks for the comment though.

[AnonChick]

Erm, no. It seems like the article must be confusing groups then, which is just plain flat-out bad journalism.

There is:

The Democratic Socialists of America (which doesn't have the word "Party" in it)
The Socialist Party USA (which doesn't have the "Democratic" and changes "of America" to "USA" without the "of"
Socialist Democrats USA (which has Socialists coming first, doesn't have the word "party" in it, and ends in "USA" rather than "of America)
The American Socialist Party (lacking democratic, putting American first instead of last)
...various "Socialist Party of [insert state name here]" groups

But no, there is no Democratic Socialist Party of America.