‘Top Line’ — Can Democrats Avert a Party Civil War?

LOL…LOL…LOL…A Civil War, Rick? Thta is democracy in action by progressives who do not and will not tolerate a “paid political lap dog” for big corporations. THat is all that is going on there. They are just “calling out” someone that needs to be. More power to them.

bobtherepublican…let me ask you something. Last night it was reported that in Texas alone there were 66 known “hate groups”. In Florida there were 51. Also the number of known “militias” have risen to near 500. Now what do yoy want to bet that most of these “upstanding citizens” have a propensity to vote “right vs left”? I would say the “Republicans,pure conservatives right wing extremists, Liberterians, Tea Partiers or whatever else you are calling yourselves have far more problems than you can imagine. You know why. Because open minded, educated moderates will not vote with that type of narrow minded ilk.

***You know why. Because open minded, educated moderates will not vote with that type of narrow minded ilk.
Posted by: CND FOX | Mar 3, 2010 2:36:00 PM***
Or any narrow minded ilk, regardless of what side of the ideological spectrum their are on, be they far left liberals, anarchic libertarians, far right conservatives or uncompromising progressives.
One type of extremist cannot be condemned but then give allowances for others. Any individual who promotes an extremist-absolutist view should immediatly be distrusted adn investigated by “open minded, educated” peoples to find out what their motives are, which are never as benign as they may appear.

***bobtherepublican…good answers to some tough questions I threw at you (although I would disagree with the”split” anaysis). But you said something important that resonates greatly with me. the definition of Liberterian/conservative “which from my study of history of the US is very close to the mindset of the founders…” I am sorry but that holds no credibility with me because there is NO WAY the founders could imagine a nation of 300 million and the problems that presents in a “free market, unregulated as much as is possible economy”. There is too much “collateral damage” for you to take that type of “simplistic view”. The middle class of our country statistically did the best in the 50′s and 60′s for a reason. There were sound rules, regulations and the politicians actually worked together for the “total good” of the nation, not just richest 5%.
Posted by: CND FOX | Mar 3, 2010 3:27:40 PM***
I will give you that they most likely could not understand the how our society, technology, finances, business or military arms of the country will develop, and so could not write in the portions of the constitution dealing with say cloning, money market accounts or insurance, etc. However there are basic principles that will always be timeless.
The issue that we have seen in the last number of decades is not a question of forethought from the founders, but rather a loss of a sense of personal responsiblity.
We have become a society of people who have learned that it’s not their fault, and they don’t need to worry about consequences because they have someone else that can take the blame for them or deal with the consequences for them.
Bank managers and CEOs most recently who cooked books or made poor investments. A number of other examples spanning the socio-economic plane can be pointed out with a bit of investigation, to prove my point.

***bobtherepublican…I hear you on the “responsibility” thing but that in my opinion is exactly why you need a “sound” government with “good sound rules and regulations” to benefit EVERYONE, not just the rich few. And that is what we have right now which leads to the “common man” being disenchanted. And bob…the main part of this nation is the “common, middle class, every day man”, who is unemployed, who has no insurance OR who can barely afford his insurance premiums. I am telling you…that doesn’t happen in countries like Canada that do not let their rich get “out of control”. And I am under no illusion that we can be exactly like them. The size of our nation would preclude that. BUT we should be more like them – a modified version, so to speak.
Posted by: CND FOX | Mar 3, 2010 4:17:51 PM***
The problem with the system, in my opinion, isn’t that there isn’t a certain level of equality, but quite the opposite – that the rules can be bent in an overbalance on both the lower ends of society and the upper end with the middle class having the full weight of the consequences of the choices of society as a whole.
The lower classes are given allowances because they are perceived to be disadvantaged and are preyed upon by others in society.
The Upper class uses its greater wealth and influence to consolidate their positions and limit their exposure to risk, by estatblishing political and socioeconomic safety-nets to prevent their collapse if they make a poor choice.
The middle class bears the full weight of the laws, regulation and taxes, because they aren’t under privildged enough to gain sympathetic support, nor do they have enough influence to reduce their risk.
The thought process that we have to supress a portion of society because they have more money is flawed in that it discourages people from increased production and innovation, because why try harder if you aren’t going to get more benefit from the effort, and reduces the amount of private investment in the economy, which translates directly to jobs creation.
I would think that the best way to equalize everyone is to change the tax code from a progressive one to a flat one. Everyone pays the same percent of income in taxes, but there are no longer deductions for anything. Then add in a value added tax on everything but grocery items, as a consumption tax.
If you make everyone pay same percent in taxes you are not overburdening the economy too heavly on the high wages earners, who statistically create the most jobs, and you include the lower wage earners into paying for the services they use so that they have a stake in the society as a whole, as well as not forceing the middle class to bear an unequal burden for not being either poor enough or rich enough to gain the benefits that come with either economic state.

hardly a “civil war”. Yes both parties on a national level have some issues (because a top-down, centralized authority is never liked in America and “all politics are local”). These national stories ignore the idea that people are being elected 1) by the people and 2) to represent the people, or in the case of the Senate, the state.
ps: the reason “hate groups” reporting rise is likely in direct relationship to SPLC’s revenue and/or media coverage. Remember who determines a “hate groups” and why. It is not a government body, limited oversight, and fairly high salaries with almost no-taxation.

No they can’t. There is no consensus in the Dems, at all, on health care. Because of that, Obama doesn’t have enough support for the bill, in his own party, for it to pass.