45 replies to this topic

[Thrash]

So, with all the lies spread across the media about Tea Party members making racist comments towards politicians, how come not one single word about this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -liberals/

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The Washington Times is one of the most right-wing newspapers in the country. And they quoted a 13-year-old child as proof of their point? Give me a break. It's not hard to find examples of the Tea Party members looking bad too. (By the way, I realize that video is slanted, but so is the Times. It just happened to be the first one that popped up. And the fact that it is slanted doesn't change the things that the people in it said. The point is that there are plenty of examples of anything if you just go and look.)

But I don't contend that the Tea Party movement is inherently racist. They don't have some party "platform" that espouses racism. They're not a party, they're a movement, and as such are too loosely-organized for that kind of ideological accusation. But you cannot tell me that there aren't people who have come to the movement because of racist motives. The majority? No. But they're there.

Another popular refrain is that illegal aliens come here and "take our jobs." Really? Is your job picking lettuce at less than minimum wage? Because that's the kind of job they're taking. Because they are illegal. They can't work for legit employers who require documentation. Hell, they can't even work at Wal-Mart for crying out loud! The only people who employ them are scumbags trying to scam the system. RICH scumbags trying to scam the system.

Why do these people want to arrest every single illegal immigrant they can get their hands on, yet when the subject of arresting the (overwhelmingly white) Americans who EMPLOY illegal aliens, they go silent? If you take away illegals' incentive to come here (jobs), they won't come. It seems to me that's a pretty effective way to solve the problem.

And why do you never hear anything about the thousands and thousands of illegal Irish in the metro Boston area? (They are the largest illegal group around here.) Is it because they're not brown and don't speak Spanish? I don't know. Maybe not, but it's hard to escape that conclusion.

But like I said, as an organization they are not inherently racist, even if they have some racist members. That's not why they annoy me. They annoy me because they are ignorant. They spout off about the Constitution when it is abundantly clear that none of them has the slightest idea what the Constitution actually says. They use terms like "socialism" without knowing what it even means. Hell, they accuse Obama of being a socialist and a Nazi simultaneously, even though those two ideologies are exact opposites. You can be one or the other, but not both.

Where were these Tea Partiers a couple of years ago when President Bush was running up the largest budget deficits in history? When he destroyed the budget surplus that had been built up in the 1990s? I don't remember hearing a peep out of them then.

And, since they are so opposed to "socialism," I assume that none of the Tea Partiers who are over 65 partake of Medicare, right? And none of them who have lost a job accept unemployment, I presume? And, of course, not a single one of them has ever filed a long-term disability claim. Funny how it's not "destroying freedom" when you're the one getting the benefit.

The Tea Party movement is indicative of widespread dissatisfaction with what people perceive as their lot in life. And hell, that's fair. We ought to be paying attention for that reason alone. These kind of movements don't start when things are going well. And Obama is far from perfect. I'm no Obama fanboy; those people are, in their own way, every bit as annoying as the Tea Partiers. But seriously, he's been in power for sixteen months. That's not enough time to have the kind of effect they claim. Hell, one of the things they're most pissed about -- the Wall Street bailout -- is exactly what the Bush administration was planning to do. The Tea Partiers' conclusion that everything that's bad is the fault of Obama or "liberals" conveniently ignores the gross incompetence, indifference, and outright greed of the previous eight years. Why the Tea Partiers think returning to that is the solution is beyond me.

[Thrash]

It's not hard to find examples of the Tea Party members looking bad too. (By the way, I realize that video is slanted, but so is the Times. It just happened to be the first one that popped up. And the fact that it is slanted doesn't change the things that the people in it said. The point is that there are plenty of examples of anything if you just go and look.)

I saw very few outright racist things in that video. Also, how do you know these weren't planted people? You did hear about the popular anti-tea party movement, right? The media jumped all over it, basically urging left wingers to go to the rallies with racist signs, etc, and mingle. Some of the signs were the only things that I did actually consider racist in that video, so.

But I don't contend that the Tea Party movement is inherently racist. They don't have some party "platform" that espouses racism. They're not a party, they're a movement, and as such are too loosely-organized for that kind of ideological accusation. But you cannot tell me that there aren't people who have come to the movement because of racist motives. The majority? No. But they're there.

If there was anyone there acting like that, calling people the N word, etc, I'm sure they'd be booted out by the people they are there to support.

Another popular refrain is that illegal aliens come here and "take our jobs." Really? Is your job picking lettuce at less than minimum wage? Because that's the kind of job they're taking. Because they are illegal. They can't work for legit employers who require documentation. Hell, they can't even work at Wal-Mart for crying out loud! The only people who employ them are scumbags trying to scam the system. RICH scumbags trying to scam the system.

Less then minimum wage, agreed. So, let's say $5/hr for landscaping or something of the sort:

#1- Zero Federal Tax
#2- Zero State Tax
#3- Zero Payroll Taxes
#4- Zero Local Taxes
#5- Free Medical Care
#6- No School Tax (yet flooding the school system with tons of non-English speaking children, who now need special attention.
#7- Sending the money back to Mexico, where it goes a lot further, hence not investing in the US Economy.

Yea, so that $5/hour is probably closer to $15/hour based on the above. Working under the table is ALWAYS better.

Why do these people want to arrest every single illegal immigrant they can get their hands on, yet when the subject of arresting the (overwhelmingly white) Americans who EMPLOY illegal aliens, they go silent? If you take away illegals' incentive to come here (jobs), they won't come. It seems to me that's a pretty effective way to solve the problem.

The law is not made to, nor trying to arrest every single immigrant, it's merely preventive measures. And, yes I agree with you about the people who hire them, and that would probably solve 25% of the problem, but not the whole. I think a law should be made that anyone picking up day laborers is arrested, along with the day laborers ID being checked. This is nothing new. This is basically like asking you to see your Driver's License. That happens to us HOW OFTEN? We have to prove who were are almost daily, from buying alcohol, traffic stops, loan applications, employment, doctor's offices. I don't see how this law is any different then that.

And why do you never hear anything about the thousands and thousands of illegal Irish in the metro Boston area? (They are the largest illegal group around here.) Is it because they're not brown and don't speak Spanish? I don't know. Maybe not, but it's hard to escape that conclusion.

They should have to leave too, but you have the tackle the biggest problem first, and the illegal Mexicans outweigh all our other illegal citizens by 50 to 1, I would imagine.

Where were these Tea Partiers a couple of years ago when President Bush was running up the largest budget deficits in history? When he destroyed the budget surplus that had been built up in the 1990s? I don't remember hearing a peep out of them then.

Where was the left-wing media when the anti-war protests were going on? Pictures of GWB as a monkey, threats, etc.

And, since they are so opposed to "socialism," I assume that none of the Tea Partiers who are over 65 partake of Medicare, right? And none of them who have lost a job accept unemployment, I presume? And, of course, not a single one of them has ever filed a long-term disability claim. Funny how it's not "destroying freedom" when you're the one getting the benefit.

I don't consider unemployment, in itself, socialism. However, Medicare, I do. So, not much for me to say on this, but we are definitely treading further into 100% socialism.

The Tea Party movement is indicative of widespread dissatisfaction with what people perceive as their lot in life. And hell, that's fair. We ought to be paying attention for that reason alone. These kind of movements don't start when things are going well. And Obama is far from perfect. I'm no Obama fanboy; those people are, in their own way, every bit as annoying as the Tea Partiers. But seriously, he's been in power for sixteen months. That's not enough time to have the kind of effect they claim. Hell, one of the things they're most pissed about -- the Wall Street bailout -- is exactly what the Bush administration was planning to do. The Tea Partiers' conclusion that everything that's bad is the fault of Obama or "liberals" conveniently ignores the gross incompetence, indifference, and outright greed of the previous eight years. Why the Tea Partiers think returning to that is the solution is beyond me.

I don't think they are leaning in any particular direction, right or left. They just want something DIFFERENT from what we've had and will probably continue to have. I am a bit disgusted about some of the prominent Tea Party speakers (i.e. Palin). I love her, but to me, she's stands for different things that what the Tea Party is about and doesn't belong there, especially as a speaker.

In conclusion, curse you for making me have to make a long post.

[nicraM]

I'm sorry I could have sworn you are defending this new measure by Arizona...

I am baffled.

Look this bill gives the police and sheriffs here impunity to do whatever the fuck they want. It is now legal, to pull someone over for looking mexican or something to that effect.

That is not kosher, by any means. I am white, but being a former "resident alien" I think this is a farce upon our constitution. Janet B. needs to fucking go.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Heh.

Let me address the easiest and quickest one first:

I don't think they are leaning in any particular direction, right or left.

80% of Tea Partiers identify themselves as "Republican" or "conservative." Just take a look at the candidates they support -- not a Democrat or a liberal among them.

Yea, so that $5/hour is probably closer to $15/hour based on the above. Working under the table is ALWAYS better.

So basically your argument here is that they are taking illegal jobs that Americans should be doing illegally? That's pretty weak sauce. And anyway, I don't know too many Americans over the age of 13 willing to work for $5 an hour. No benefits, no sick days, no workplace safety regulations, no worker protections whatsoever -- yeah, that sounds like a great deal!

#1- Zero Federal Tax
#2- Zero State Tax
#3- Zero Payroll Taxes
#4- Zero Local Taxes
#5- Free Medical Care
#6- No School Tax (yet flooding the school system with tons of non-English speaking children, who now need special attention.
#7- Sending the money back to Mexico, where it goes a lot further, hence not investing in the US Economy.

Massachusetts has just about the highest taxes in the nation. If you make $15 an hour here, you end up taking home about 75% of it after taxes. That's $11.25 -- quite a bit more than $5.

$15 an hour translates to $31,200 per year, assuming a 40-hour work week. At that level you would pay $2,311 in federal taxes, assuming you were filing individually and had no dependent children or any other deductions. That equals a tax rate of 7.4%. If you had, say, two dependents your federal taxes would be a mere $132, or 0.42%.

There is no such thing as a "school tax." Schools are paid for mostly through property taxes (what you call "local taxes"). If illegal immigrants own property in the United States, they pay property taxes. If they rent, their landlords pay property taxes, and those taxes are figured into the rent.

And as far as sending money back to Mexico, you might consider that Mexico is the USA's third-biggest trading partner (after Canada and China), accounting for $151 billion in exports last year. So a hell of a lot of that money sent back to Mexico makes its way into the US economy. In fact, considering how many imported products Americans buy, it is quite possible that more money comes into the US economy through illegal immigrants than it would if that same money went to American citizens.

And what "free medical care" are you talking about? The fact of the matter is that illegal immigrants typically bend over backwards to avoid interactions with officialdom in any form. As a result, they tend to stay away from doctors and hospitals except in the direst of emergencies for fear that their status will be uncovered (not to mention that people from poor countries are usually a lot more nonchalant about medical conditions that would alarm us soft Americans -- heh). I have a student in my school who's family is, we suspect, illegal (they are from Brazil). He has gotten hurt at school a couple of times, and it is like pulling teeth to get his parents to take this kid to the ER.

Also, and not for nothing, hospitals have to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. That includes Americans too. In fact, a lot more of that "free" medical care goes to American citizens than to illegals. And, by the way, medical care is not a finite resource. One person getting it doesn't mean that there's less for the next guy.

(I am digressing here. The fundamental problem with medical care is that in this country we treat it as a business, which is obscene. But that's a separate conversation.)

Look, I'm not defending illegal immigration. And I am no fan of the Spanish-izing of America (I don't think the Spanish language and culture is inherently inferior or anything, it just doesn't happen to appeal to me personally). But if we want to stop it then we need to crack down on the people employing illegals. In my opinion that would not just solve 25% of the problem -- more like 95%. The vast majority of people who come here illegally do so for economic reasons. We should also implement a guest worker program, like every other developed country in the Western world, so that people can come here to work legally without necessarily staying indefinitely. But a lot of businesses don't want that, because if they had to operate on the up-and-up it would cost them a lot more money.

Yes, we need to solve this problem. But blame the system. I don't like this vilifying of illegal immigrants themselves. It's too... hateful, I guess. Let's face it, if the situation was reversed, can you seriously tell me that you wouldn't do whatever it took to make a better life for your family? To feed your children? Come on, man. Any of us would. I'm not saying it's the US's responsibility to better the lives of foreign nationals. But I am saying that their reasons are perfectly understandable. Hell, in a weird kind of way these are exactly the kind of people we would want coming here (albeit legally) -- people willing to sacrifice to make a better life, etc. That's called the American Dream.

[Evil Rudekker]

The article also says that we're a bunch of angry, hateful, and violent extremists. I know a bunch of people who showed up to the march in Milwaukee, and I don't think I could call any of those things. More of them were Catholics (my parish has a sister parish in Chiapas) than any other group. I have no idea where the Washington Times gets their information.

I did change my name on Facebook to Nicolás Arturo Puertas. That's pretty extreme. Woo.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Well, the Washington Times is sort of the print equivalent of Fox "News." It's barely a step above the New York Daily News. I would be afraid to line a bird cage with it for fear that the bird might learn to read. So you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.

[Timtacious]

Heh, I read some of the comments to that editorial. I'll repost some of the most laughable ones.

If there's a democrat attached to any so-called demonstration, it does not represent patriotic Americans, but rather the socialists, Marxists and communists of this country and/or the world. Enough said.

Hehe

No country in the world has a wide-open border as we do, with Mexico ! We've let in people who are to destroy us, drug smugglers, pedophiles, prostitutes, you name it ! I applaud Arizona for the law it past to protect their state. Too bad we don't have a president who is interested in protecting the United States and its citizenry ! He and the Democrapic party seek the votes they hope to get from the majority crossing our border - who are illiterate with many barely able to speak their own language ! HOW STUPID AND DISGUSTING !

The *majority* (majority of what?) can't speak their own language? I'd like evidence, please. Also, this would be the racist part.

Brilliant Editorial. Less educated, lower income, racially motivated mobs - the Tequila Party and gangsters like them - represent the core and pride of the liberal base. Dead-on. And I guess Obama and his merry band of buddies urge and pray that this mob will be sufficiently motivated to turn out to vote for them in November.

Yes, the racially motivated mob which elected Obama, right? Also, I was also under the impression that Democrats were (at the same time as being less educated) power-hungry elitists. Who go to these higher schools and have no idea how the real world works. Funny how it's both ways. I've also heard that "Obama has done nothing as president" and "Obama is destroying our country".

check all the identification of these protestors. Bet 80% are here illegally. send them back to mexico.

Hrm, I'm not Mexican, OR here illegally!

It is well said that any person who will LIE, will also STEAL since lying is to rob the truth from another; and anyone who will STEAL, will also MURDER since murder is born of the same contempt for another as that of the thief. And I think that pretty well characterizes the motivations at work behind the ILLEGAL alien.

Jorost went over this.

Image loading? I wish it wouldn't! We obviously have a non-declared war with Mexico going on with Mexicans given the go-ahead to invade our United States by their leaders! Maps and how to get here safely. They have already taken most of California by using their uterus and other organs and having Jackpot babies by the millions once in the state. And California offers them a check every month to have more babies. How nice! The many Mexican anchor babies that have gotten into positions of power are now using their authority to wage war on us Citizens. Why aren't these frauds arrested or at least made to register as agents for a foreign government? Americans have had enough! WE ARE FIGHTING BACK!

Well okay then.

I'm done with this for now, I'm getting a headache.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

That dancing guy makes me laugh every time I see him. Heh.

The thing with the Tea Party is that they are tapping into something. I know politicians say this all the time, but we really are in a time of great change. The Cold War is well and truly over, but since the early 1990s we have basically been trying to impose the Cold War template on the post Cold War world. The trouble is that it doesn't really fit.

Times are changing. America's role in the world is changing. Gone are the days when we bestride the world like a colossus, imposing our will as we see fit. China is ascendant, everyone knows that. But they are not alone. We are entering a phase in which there are not one or two superpowers, but four or five slightly-less-super powers. The US, Europe, China, Russia, India, maybe the Middle East in some form or another. We are entering a world that looks a lot more in some ways like the 18th century -- with a handful of more or less equally balanced powers playing against each other -- than the 20th.

And internally we are changing too. I mentioned before the "Spanish-izing" of America. Now, as I said then, I'm not necessarily thrilled by it. I just don't happen to care for Spanish music and food! Heh. But like it or not, it's coming. It's the current wave of immigration that will shape the country. And we'll adapt. Like we always have. In the early 20th century it was all the Italian immigrants that had "established" Americans alarmed. Some of you may be surprised that up until about the 1920s Italians weren't even considered white! Before that it was the Irish. But guess what? They came anyway. And they assimilated. They intermarried with the groups that were already here. And by the time that the grandchildren of those immigrants came of age, they couldn't even speak the language of their forebears. And here we are, at the dawn on the 21st century, and a man with the very un-WASP surname of Tancredo can claim with a straight face to represent "real" Americans, when his grandparents would have been considered an unwanted minority.

We are moving into a brave new world in many other aspects, as well. The old industries that defined American prosperity, such as automobiles and light manufacturing -- are going away. They are not coming back. The West is becoming a post-industrial world, and the economies of the future will be science- and information-based. Biochemistry and green energy will take the place of manufacturing and coal mining.

But change is frightening. And these kinds of changes don't happen without a lot of pain. Fear and pain -- THAT is what feeds movements like the Tea Party. They are just the Know-Nothings or the Luddites (look them up) of our times. And, as much as they can rile me sometimes, from the Big Picture point of view, that's OK. It's part of the process.

This too shall pass.

[Evil Rudekker]

I'd like to point out that when the German part of my ancestry came over 115-150 years ago, none of them spoke English, and not one of them had a visa or papers. They just showed up. Plus they took the best Wisconsin and Ohio farmland from the God-fearing Yankees that were already here.

And Milwaukee was heavily German and Polish. The Germans and Poles founded newspapers in their old languages and set up fraternal organizations that were nationality-based (like the Turnverein). Go in nearly any old building in Milwaukee, and you'll see evidence of the Poles and Germans. Hell, our most recognizable landmarks here (except for the Art Museum, which isn't representative) were built by the immigrants in their own national styles. The immigrants pretty much replaced the Yankees that had been there since they, erm, killed all the Fox, Sac, and Menominee.

And they elected Socialists. I know I say this over and over again, but when Milwaukee had its Socialist mayors, it had the cleanest and best-run municipal government in the country. Please look this up; it's important, and I don't want you to think I'm just spouting Marxist rhetoric.

And I don't think I've ever met any Mexican pedophiles, prostitutes, or murderers. I'm sure they're there, but the worst thing I can say about them is their music isn't always the best, and they should play it quieter. All of them that I've had any contact with are just folks, you know?

What I'm trying to say is that I don't see much difference between the Mexicans that are coming now and my own ancestors that came from Germany. The same laws that applied to my family should be applied to the Mexicans now.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Cambridge, Massachusetts, is also effectively governed by socialists. And it is universally considered the best-run city in Massachusetts. At the civic level, democratically elected socialists (as opposed to dictatorships that are socialist largely in name only) seem to do quite well.

[m3g4tr0n]

The Tequila Party! That is hilarious. Does this mean I should refrain from calling Tea Partiers Tea Baggers?

[Learz]

I tend to be somewhat libertarian, but I think I should mention this:
Socialism works when the people support socialism.
Democracy works when people support democracy.
Capitalism works when people support capitalism.
Etc.

It's really a question of "let the people do what they want" (with the obvious caveats). If the people support a specific system (I mean really, really, support it), then that system will succeed. Because the people will find a freaken' way!

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Except, Learz, that sometimes people don't know what's best for them. And while a person may be smart, people are often selfish, shortsighted and stupid.

All systems are imperfect. Winston Churchill famously said of democracy that it is "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Personally, I think that the biggest problem with it is that if you choose your leaders in a popularity contest, no one will ever do anything unpopular. But sometimes the unpopular decision is the right decision. Yet what is the alternative? Totalitarianism? History has amply demonstrated how easily those kind of systems can be corrupted.

What I would like to see is a system in which the right to vote is dependent upon some demonstration of the ability to understand and weigh the issues at hand. Call it "Only Smart People Get to Vote." Heh. It drives me crazy when people have visceral, strongly-held opinions on subjects about which they know absolutely nothing. The idea that everyone has something worthwhile to say on every issue is nonsense. For example, don't shout slogans about the Constitution at me if you don't know what it actually says. And don't call someone a socialist if you don't know what that word actually means.

Of course, implementing a system like that would be fraught with hazards -- who gets to write the test, for example? And I am realistic enough to know that it would never happen.

[Thrash]

Seeing as I'm surrounded and about to be roasted on a stake, I'm going to bow out of this thread now. Not because I don't have anything to add, but because I'll be fighting a one man battle.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Don't look at it like that, Thrash. I can't speak for anyone else, but it was certainly not my intention to put you on the spot. I just happen to enjoy this kind of discussion. I have spent many a late night having them! I appreciate the fact that we CAN have these kinds of discussions -- it shows how much respect we have for each other. We may question other people's opinions, but not their motives. We don't insult and vilify one another just because we disagree.

And that, when you come down to it, is really my fundamental problem with the Tea Party. In my opinion, they do question the motives of the people who disagree with them. They paint Obama specifically -- and progressives in general -- as seeking to consciously and deliberately harm the nation. They paint their political opponents as EVIL, and that is just wrong.

I didn't vote for John McCain, but I recognize that he has served his country and that he acts in what he believes to be the best interests of the nation. I just happen to disagree with his interpretation of how to achieve those interests. I can respect him. I do not get that same sense of respect from the Tea Party people.

[Thrash]

I'll just add one more thing

Top 5 Worst Economies

#1 Portugal (Socialist)
#2 Zimbabwe (Don't care what they are, they will always fail, doesn't even belong on the list)
#3 Greece (Socialist)
#4 Ireland (About 99% Socialist)
#5 Lithuania (Pretty sure they're Socialist)

Ok, saw you replied while I was typing this, so..

I'm all for a battle if I have some support. It will be impossible for me as one to keep up with everyone else. But, anyhow, I'll try.

They paint Obama specifically -- and progressives in general -- as seeking to consciously and deliberately harm the nation. They paint their political opponents as EVIL, and that is just wrong.

Yea, that goes both ways, mister. Remember the crazy anti-war movements and how they treated Bush, not to mention that the media glorified them for basically doing the same thing these people are doing and which they are ENTITLED to do as a CITIZEN of the USA (speak out against their Government, have a say in how the country should progress (i.e. voting). The idea of allowing illegal aliens free run in our country makes that Citizenship worth squat. For that matter, I should renounce my citizenship, drive down to Mexico, leave the car at the border and cross, then cross right back and start making demands of the country. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty damn pissed off that's there's a lot of jobs in this country that won't hire you unless your bilingual (and the 2nd language HAS to be Spanish)

Reminds me of a job I applied for once and when I went into the interview, they had asked again if I was bilingual, to which I responded yes, then they said something to me in Spanish, and I was like I don't speak Spanish. Seems they won't accept Latin as a 2nd language (not that I remember much of it anyway, but still..). So how fair is that, in my OWN country, speaking THIS country's language, I am discriminated against. I won't even get into the other discrimination, because that's a whole 'nother story.

I didn't want to vote for McCain either, but I was left with no choice. In fact, I was still pretty much against voting for him up until Palin hopped on board. That just made the vote not sting as bad.

[Learz]

Except, Learz, that sometimes people don't know what's best for them. And while a person may be smart, people are often selfish, shortsighted and stupid.

All systems are imperfect. Winston Churchill famously said of democracy that it is "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Personally, I think that the biggest problem with it is that if you choose your leaders in a popularity contest, no one will ever do anything unpopular. But sometimes the unpopular decision is the right decision. Yet what is the alternative? Totalitarianism? History has amply demonstrated how easily those kind of systems can be corrupted.

What I would like to see is a system in which the right to vote is dependent upon some demonstration of the ability to understand and weigh the issues at hand. Call it "Only Smart People Get to Vote." Heh. It drives me crazy when people have visceral, strongly-held opinions on subjects about which they know absolutely nothing. The idea that everyone has something worthwhile to say on every issue is nonsense. For example, don't shout slogans about the Constitution at me if you don't know what it actually says. And don't call someone a socialist if you don't know what that word actually means.

Of course, implementing a system like that would be fraught with hazards -- who gets to write the test, for example? And I am realistic enough to know that it would never happen.

Lol, indeed. You hit the nail on the head.
My personal ideal political system would be similar to Switzerland: small, decentralized states, formed in a confederacy. Within each mini-state the people could do whatever they wanted (socialist, anarchy, democracy, authoritarian, whatever). That way people can choose which ever system they want to live under.

But I'm wandering a bit: generally speaking, there are only 3 types of government: majority rule; majority rule but a tyrant can trump; tyrant rule. Obviously, everyone is going to choose "tyrant rule", as long as they can be the tyrant. And of course, no one else would agree to that. Same for the second choice. So, as it turns out, the only way to have a functioning modern government would be majority rule of some sort.

And sadly, this means the (inevitable) demise of direct authoritarian governments. Although indirect ones (such as monarchies, corporatocracies, etc) are a very interesting topic!

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Thrash, I never defended those crazy anti-war protesters. Neither did Obama, or many of the other people that the Tea Party vilifies.

And just because you are ENTITLED to do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. No one is arguing that the Tea Party are entitled to say whatever they want. That still doesn't make it right.

#1 Portugal (Socialist)
#2 Zimbabwe (Don't care what they are, they will always fail, doesn't even belong on the list)
#3 Greece (Socialist)
#4 Ireland (About 99% Socialist)
#5 Lithuania (Pretty sure they're Socialist)

I'm not sure where you got this list, or how you are defining a "bad" economy. But Ireland, while it has indeed been hit hard by the current recession, has had a booming economy in the last decade. It's been called the "Celtic Tiger." All indicators are that it will return to that pattern when the global economy improves. Zimbabwe actually used to be a regional economic powerhouse in Africa, but it has been run into the ground by a RIGHT-wing dictator. And all of those nations, barring Zimbabwe, are democracies. I assume you are calling them socialist because they tend to have more comprehensive social safety nets and welfare protections than Americans are accustomed to. But they are not socialist in the sense of China or Cuba (although I would argue that those nations are socialist in name only; but that's a separate conversation). Yes: Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Lithuania have elected socialist governments -- but they have also elected right-wing governments. In fact after the fall of the USSR Lithuania was right-wing for many years.

The best indicator of the success of a nation is called the Human Development Index, or HDI. It takes into account economic strength, living standards, education, and many other factors. It is pretty universally accepted as an excellent gauge of how "well" a nation is doing. The top five nations on the HDI for 2009 are:

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland

Note that all of those nations are "socialist" by the standard you applied above. And one of them, Ireland, was even on your list.

The bottom five nations on the HDI, incidentally, are:

178. Mali
179. Central African Republic
180. Sierra Leone
181. Afghanistan
182. Niger

It is worthy of note that all of those countries have right-wing governments that provide no social safety net whatsoever for their citizenry. In fact, in many ways they represent the exact kind of "hands-off" approach to government that the far right espouses. Do we really want to be Niger?

[Thrash]

Do we really want to be Niger?

I just have to do a major lol at this now and come back to the rest later.