Democracy is not a good thing and you don't want it. The reason so many of us "right wing nut-jobs" argue what we do is to look out for YOU and our children and recent immigrants and the poor and the hungry and the diseased and the downtrodden and minorities, and...

No. The cry of the right is that the left is trying to "watch out for us"-not only in the wrong way, but that we should not be looked out for at all, because we're all big boys and girls.

The way things need to work, whether they do or not, is for the minority to be protected from the majority. It doesn't matter what side of any given argument you might be on.

Interesting. I'd always heard it went both ways: protect the minority from the majority AND the majority from the minority (a minority such as, say, King George III).
Otheriwse, why the bicameral representation?

The problem is that collectivist thinking is bad. It's always bad. It's always been bad. It's never, ever, ever worked-out well when it is codified and enforced. What we used to call being "Civic Minded" is turning into "central planning."

Heavy-handedness and government enforcement is totalitarianism, not collective thinking.

Take a plumber or an electrician or a CPA or a lawyer or the cleaners. If you make their work too hard on them and pay little enough, they will go away.

What a great idea. Which countries respect professors and pay them decently? I'll get my passport in order.

Guy -- sorry, you misunderstood me (no surprise there) -- I'm suggesting that (when you are honest instead of sarcastic) you would rather see the sort of thing I outlined and THAT would be TeaPublicarationing.

I see that Dave figured that out.

Given that you have (in your Guy mode) made your position rather clear, when you post in your Guyopposite mode, it is rather clear as well.

Some might suggest the two posting modes reflect an internal conflict -- I don't see you as conflicted at all, you just see that Guyopposite mode as your mode of Teapublican humor.

Since folks who haven't seen your Guy honest mode might pop in over here, it is something that needs pointing out periodically when you post in sarcastic opposite mode.

I can guyhonestly say I have never seen this.
;-)

The power and the money is so strong that they will violate their word to get it.

So, someone has lots of money.
Said someone is willing to spend a significant portion to get politicians to do things his or her way.
Now, if someone has lots of money, that puts them in some small percentage of the population?
Top 5%?
Dare I say it? The 1%ers?
And you think the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street aren't ticked about some of the same things and will never come together?
Right ... .

Half the problem is the government being in the pocket of big business. Unfortunately this is both sides of the [a]isle...

Hmmm, ExDave agreeing with Dena. But I'm sure she'll find a way to say they're not in any kind of agreement.

That being said the soviet system was not socialism.

You can't be saying this with a straight face, can you?

You can't be asking him this with a straight face, can you?

That was nothing more than a series of brutal dictators.

You haven't read The Communist Manifesto from Carl Marx, have you?

I have read Karl.
Bloody Revolution was supposed to come from the proles. It did not.
It came from people already doing reasonably well who wished to replace the dictators and be dictators themselves, thus what Marx envisioned as temporary totalinairism (sp?) after the revolution became instead decades of it.