Pia is hardcore. She would pick up a Ak47.

I wish I had her at my tea party. Our speakers were okay, but they definitely were not as enthusiastic as the rest of us due to them being government workers.

ObamaandFreinds....
The discussion underway on this website was one of policy, one of battling ideas and concepts, between ideologies that all hope to advance the country, despite whichever flaws they may bare respectively.
Your is only a a petulant, sad pockmark on the face of a discussion which formerly bore integrity. It has no valid political points, doesn't touch on any administrations policies, and is a vapid and pointless "what if" based on the raising of a dead former president.
Someone who cant think? the only person who has demonstrated their inability to think, is you, who has entered the discussion with childish, empty comments baring no standing in a grown up debate.

TJ doesn't think leftism is a religion because he knows the folly of letting an ideology rule your life (central planning) or giving your life over to a higher power (State/the People). Sadly, that's exactly what leftism is.

And leftism is faith based in that it is a theory. It is the pursuit of heaven. (on earth) ironically atheists don't believe in heaven but they pursue it on earth. then make others suffer in their pursuit of a place that doesn't exist. in their opinion, a worthy sacrifice for paradise. (a term used by Castro and Chavez)

By contrast, right wingers are individualists who reject central planning. The most ungodly thing one can do is put a cap on what a human can achieve or force him to live for the sole benefit of another. that is slavery. that is leftism.

What an awesome and inspirational speech. I was in tears watching it.

Nooooooobody is confusing classical liberalism with todays liberals.

Using the Radical Republicans as an example of noble bipartisanship is just fatuous. Were the radical republicans more dedicated to the advancements of blank civil rights during reconstruction? Undoubtedly. However, extreme views rarely make change in America. John Brown was also greatly committed to the abolition of slavery, and of corse, he got nothing done. Moderation is needed in the Democratic system, thats what the moderate Republican's of 1860's and 1870's displayed in order to weld the south back to the north, and it worked.

Middle Class, hope, and change are wrong in what way? Certainly if they pander or insight anguish in the people in order to mobilize them, similar techniques were used by the Bush administration with the disgracefully-labeled Patriot Act, war on terror, and raising the terror alert to red every first monday of the month. Bush, the head of the GOP for 8 years, had the lowest approval ratings since Nixon because of the putrid relationship he developed with the American people based on lies (false pertness for a war ECT), but its Obama's word that are the problem?

Leftism is not a religion. American liberalism is not the classical Leftism found in the French Revolution, don't conflate the two.

And conspiracy theories of Obama's past including ACORN and his preacher and nothing more than slanderous attempts to denigrate the president. They are not only unconfirmed at best, they are irrelevant. Chenney was under investigation for profiteering of the Iraq war, and Bush's business and oil connections were seriously called into questions, however like Obama's history as a lawyer, are irrelivant to their policy, if only because our knowldge and action on the subject is greatly limited.

No, politics is not a game, but Fox News and the GOP should realize the election of Obama and sweeping Democratic victories around the country are a referendum for change, and just becasue they did not win the election, that is not taxation without representation and certainly not tyranny.

To anyone who wonders why the abolition of slavery wasn't in the constitution, you can thank the illogical notion of bipartisanship. it's only logical if you care more about winning an election than doing what is right.

If the left is the vanguard of individual liberties, where did the fairness doctrine come from? or political correctness? or social advancement? right to work? who opposes the voucher program? cap on executive pay? racial quotas? subprime loan quotas?

Bonus: As a young lawyer, Barack Obama (with ACORN) sued Citigroup among other banks, accusing them of redlining (racism), he forced them to give x amount of subprime loans. That was the same ACORN that committed mass voter fraud to help get him elected and is now eligible for 'bail-out' funds.

First. The entity known as religion is of the utmost importance? Religion is the most pestilential, disgraceful institution that remains today. The fact that the gross majority of American's believe in religion, and even worse, biblical literalism, is nothing short of obscene.

Second. To call the current administration Statism is laughable. If you think what Obama is doing now, which in all honesty is nothing compared to the vast exploits of FDR and Andrew Jackson, is the advancement of the state, then thats another instance.
However, that is not the problem with the arguments laid out on the page, its the gross exaggeration of policies enforced by the democratic government. A political party that this country voted into power. The idiotic tea parties protesting with signs taxation without representation is indicative of the ludicrous arguments of Hannity, Levin, not-so-bad O'rielly, and the anti christ Rush. Representation does not mean that your party always wins or that your policies are enacted, it means that you have a vote and a congressperson to complain to if you so choose. Tea parties are a mockery of actual oppression, of an actual lack representation of, not uppity American's who whine about the fiscal policies of a regime which has barley got off the ground.
The left in THIS country is the protector of individual liberties. Perhaps the extremism of general liberalism elsewhere may be fascismand certainly the extremes of the right are anarchy (as o'riely never fails to mention), but those ideologies are irrelevant.
And the democratic prerogative is not to say let us do what we want because your racist. However, it is to say "allow us the bipartisanship and decency of performing the job that you, the citizens of this country, voted us in to do." The conservatives have shown a pathetic, querulous display of political stubbornness in the face of a regime elected by the majority. The last time a regime was so pig headed they were actually called the Democrats, and they met in South Carolina in 1860 to make a big decision, one which cost the lives 600,000 Americans and ended up with the shambles of a confederacy five years later.

I say 'true to leftist form' because that's what it means to be a leftist; forcing your beliefs on people because it's the best thing for everyone. (in the leftists opinion) You may have heard the term Islamo-fascist. It comes from that combination. I know what you're going to say and, yes, christians can do that too. However, it's still Leftism.

The extreme Right Wing is anarchy, from the greek meaning 'no rulers.' And you missed one element in the financial crisis. The government under Clinton forcing banks to give subprime loans in the benevolent name of increasing homeownership. How can you be against that? The gov guaranteed the loans thru fannie and freddie. Now we're getting the bill. In a nutshell.

It is the perfect example of fascist economics. the combination of corporate and state power. This is why the Statists perpetuate the stereotype the Right Wing stands for racism and homophobia. Basically they are saying 'let us do what we want or you're a racist.'

Incorrect. I, of corse, would not like to take away free practices of any kind. I merely meant with the word 'unfortunately' that specifying religion as an entity in and of itself gives the religious right in this country cause for speculating that america is a religious or Christian nation, which it is ABSOLUTELY not.

Other than that...come on, true to the leftest position. The conservatives in this country are generally the ignorant, homophobic, racists. They are the religious protestors who hold up "faggots go to hell", who vote to ban gay marriage, and who support the war in Iraq because George Bush's foreign policy consist of advice given to him by god.

The left in this country are the protectors of civil liberties... hence the ACLU is dominated by Democrats and leftists.

Pluribus, we do agree that the country should not be in debt. However the government did not PUT us into debt. The avaricious citizen who takes a morgage with no money down, with no practical intentions of being able to pay it back, and the corporations that offer the ridiculously low rates, and then packeges the debt and sells them, thats who is putting the country in debt. A 3% hike in the income tax is not putting people in debt. And certainly cutting taxes and allowing people an extra sliver of their paychecks will not stimulate the economy. Not only will be people by less inclined to spend the money with almost no consumer confidence, but it would be only marginal in the scheme of our trillion dollar economy, even on a mass scale.

And yes, unfortunately religion is given free reign in the free exercise clause.

Amitabh Bachchan, please tell me where in the Founding documents there's "that church and state thing." Last I read them, there's only a freedom from religion, i.e., an established state religion like the Church of England.

Debt isn't the government's problem? That's their strategy.

What we learn from Shay's Rebellion is that the role of government is to protect our individual rights and like you said that includes property rights.

de Tocqueville knew that in order to sustain a democracy, individuals must be financially independent from the state and the state MUST be financially independent of other nations. That is the only true stability. Not crossing your fingers and begging the chinese to keep buying our debt.

Shay's Rebellion? the one started because of high debt and high taxes? That one? You're seeing a similar rebellion minus the violence.

I've said before, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Europe, UK in particular, have hit rock bottom because no one is buying their debt. Should we follow their model? eventually the chinese will want the debt to be paid. (see shays rebellion) The great depression was also initiated by debts being called. NO MORE DEBT!!!

The idea behind the New Deal was NOT to increase spending. FDR thought the problem with the economy was competition. He believed industry should be 'bundled' together to avoid the evils of competition such as low prices and low wages. Note: Fascio (fascism) means bundle in italian.

Inflation would bring the price of goods up and in theory, wages. That's why there was massive government spending. Whereas in Zimbabwe and Venezeula, inflation is a mystery to them. To FDR it was an economic tool.

We were left in a depression for another 7 years because of those policies. Regulations weren't to prevent capitalists from scamming the people, they were to keep corporations in line. Mussolini called fascism, corporatism for this reason. FDR agreed with Mussolini for this reason. WW2 stopped those plans because FDR couldn't continue to hinder the economy.

And I like the salute at the end, too.

Love the salute at the end.

To the Democrats opposing individualism and private property debate, i would like to add racial quotas, right to work, executive pay limits, the tax code, trade unionism, the public school system, 1st amendment (freedom of religion), 2nd amendment, fairness doctrine, the death tax and potato day.

And since Andrew Jackson is the founder of the modern Democratic Party I should mention the Trail of Tears. Fun Fact: That's where you get the Jackass logo. Stubborn Jackson's nickname, defying the supreme court and forcing the Cherokee out of their land. Rejecting both individualism and property rights.

I just uploaded a trailer for the upcoming documentary on 'The Garden' in south central los angeles. It will show you what Democrats (Dennis Kucinich) think of property rights.

> Amitabh_Bachchan

A follower of Thomas Jefferson, though a fervent atheist and secularist, can admit that the early inhabitants of the country were religious fundamentalists... i.e. the Puritans, Separatists, and Quakers. Nonetheless, these groups may be mutually exclusive with the political foundation of modern day America, founded on the secular declaration of independence and constitution.

> Kato_Institute

How have property rights or individualism been even touched by the Democratic party. Is a 3% increase in the income tax socialism? If so, the Republican's of the past are in trouble. As for the Alien and Sedition acts....you claim that we should not have let the French influence our laws? The Sedition acts stated citizens could be subjects to fines and prison time if they slandered the government, and the Alien acts stipulated that the president could deport foreigners deemed "dangerous". So, in any event, the Alien and Sedition acts didn't even come close to the realm of anything that resembles voting.
Pretending it HAD involved voting, if a foreigner is a citizen, in a war with their native country or not, they have every right to influence the laws of this country. One man, One vote.

Note: The Tea Act was an act of Protectionism.
Also Note: Pia Varma Rocks.

I don't understand how an alleged follower of Thomas Jefferson can think America was founded by religious fundamentalists. He wrote that church and state thing. He was also down with the brown.

I don't understand your point Thomas Jefferson.

So, because totalitarians have misused certain words, we (conservatives, libertarians, and independents alike) have to censors ourselves? Perhaps you should give Pia a list of all the words she can't use in public, I'd like to read that list.

Great speech!