The Elephant Revolution

There is nothing wrong with Socialisme. It does not equal to giving lazy bums free money. It's about being solidary and social with the weaker groups in society. There is nothing wrong with giving everyone access to affordable health care. There is nothing wrong with giving unemployed people that have worked their whole life a little bit of money so they can survive. There is nothing wrong to take care of the elderly or sick people.

You are correct there is nothing wrong with any of the above mentioned scenarios. What is wrong is taking someone elses income without their consent to provide for the people in those scenarios. Obama isnt a socialist and its republican rhetoric. The midterms mean to me the same thing they did in 92, its an opportunity for the 2 main parties in power to work together to provide viable solutions to make america a better place, a stronger financial entity and allow us the economic viability to provide services to people who may need them and allow the population to choose if they want it funded.

Sadly that isnt going to happen, the republicans arent much different then the democrats in applied policy. It makes for good sound bites and sells commercials for the media but in real change of laws the difference isnt substantial at all.

What it means to me: the 2008 Obama coalition was a very fragile coalition that we will probably not see again. The Democratic Base still can't its butt off the couch for Mid-Term elections. And people are REALLY pissed off at the economy. This is a "$%&@ you" election.

I think Republicans were effective in putting out their message and distancing themselves from Bush, though I think their current message is one that many Americans will not be sympathetic to if the economy continues its downward slide into 2012. Shutting down government, or not raising the debt ceiling, which may be possible depending on what Republican leadership wants and whether Boehner can whip the Republicans into order, would be absolute disasters.

If you really believe that Bansky, I'm sorry. You've made me a sad panda

You're sad that I think your argument is hypocritical? The solution would be to have a logical stance next time :>

You are correct there is nothing wrong with any of the above mentioned scenarios. What is wrong is taking someone elses income without their consent to provide for the people in those scenarios.

Do you have a problem with all taxes? Or just taxes that help out the less fortunate?

Do you have a problem with all taxes? Or just taxes that help out the less fortunate?

I have a problem with government taking excess taxes without consent via a mandate, particularly when its based on a subjective concept like "Less fortunate". Taxes have a very real purpose and that is to provide for the greater good of a nation. In 2010 if the electorate is unable to discern, clearly, what its money should be spent on then the issue is vastly greater then can be solved in a small blog on the web. I have no problem helping people who need help and I firmly believe if the united states froze all cash outflows abroad due to foreign obligations the "less fortunate" at home would have ample resources available to provide for them.

I have a problem with government taking excess taxes without consent via a mandate, particularly when its based on a subjective concept like "Less fortunate". Taxes have a very real purpose and that is to provide for the greater good of a nation. In 2010 if the electorate is unable to discern, clearly, what its money should be spent on then the issue is vastly greater then can be solved in a small blog on the web. I have no problem helping people who need help and I firmly believe if the united states froze all cash outflows abroad due to foreign obligations the "less fortunate" at home would have ample resources available to provide for them.

Fair enough; I misinterpereted your statement to mean (to paraphrase) "my money shouldn't go to help other people, period." Using "without consent" when referring to taxes tends to make me think for the worst. What you've explained here is much more reasonable.

As a Canadian who understands that Obama would be a natural fit in either our Conservative or Liberal Parties, I fail to really see the alarm here. While I tend to identify "right of centre", I would certainly take him over the Sarah Palin Fan Club any day.

First, the policies of Republicans after 2001 were for the most part, similar to Democratic ones. Republicans raised taxes, increased spending and enlarged the size of government to levels higher than under Bill Clinton in the 90's. Right now, no arguments will come from credible conservatives that George Bush didn't harm the economy. He did, because he was an establishment, country club republican with as much a penchant for spending as any democrat practically. There might have been a few exceptions, but that's generally the case.

As for "radical", yes it is radical for this country. While socialism may not be radical to you, it remains a fact that the President of the United States of America is indeed surrounded by avowed marxists, socialists and other radical organization. The "right wing spin" machine as you put it, rarely makes these claims themselves, but rather they show these people in their own words, admitting to their political ideologies. I don't understand how the democratic party can be so co-opted by these radicals, when the biggest losers in the midterms this year, were moderate democrats. So not only has the democratic party been hi jacked, but it's more center left officials have been removed from power. It's even more left than it was two years ago at this point.

The crazy is strong in this one.