Blow. Also, waiting for the Sons of Anarchy series finale to load. Better be worth it after all this shit this season.

As Obama's approval rating continues to dip, Hillary will incrementally distance herself from him and his policies. Whether it'll be enough remains to be seen. She's a very status-quo politician, and I think the electorate will be looking for someone who can sell themselves as a Washington outsider with a fresh perspective. Obviously none of them will actually fit the bill, but that'll the sales pitch. I don't think the slit between her legs will be enough to get her into office, the novelty of "the first _______ President" is slowly wearing off.

As for the GOP electing a woman, I doubt it. Sarah Palin might run since she's rapidly becoming irrelevant, but she wouldn't win. Bachmann is unelectable, and who else is there?

Evolution threads on GS are often a dull affair, but this one is just fantastically entertaining. Just the kind of adrenaline shot this dying forum needed. I don't know whether Zelda187 or ultimate k are trolls or not, but either way they're a wonderful and funny addition to OT. Shine on, you lovable morons!

Anyone who thinks that the term "classical liberal" is only used on Gamespot is not remotely worth arguing with. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of political and philosophical history would know how absurd that is. It really is sad that people can be that stupid with the resources we have at our fingertips in this day and age.

Actually, Lenin maintained and even increased the capitalist modes of production that existed in Russia at the time. That's what the New Economic Policy was, essentially. It was Stalin who began massive nationalization and government seizing of property and modes of production, which is in accordance to the Stalinist interpretation of Marx's proletariat dictatorship.

Also, Maoism was supposedly a correction of Stalinist policies. In turn, Pol Pot's regime was supposed to be a correction of Maoism. You can argue all the communist dictators perverted Marx's vision, but in their minds they were applying it the way they thought it could be applied at the time. As much as communists try, you can't wholly divorce the authoritarian regimes from Marxist political philosophy.

People say "Communism has never been tried" for two main reasons:

1. Marx's theory of history was wrong, and his predictions of what capitalism and socialism would turn into were way off the mark. As such, communism was first tried in post-feudal societies, not capitalist nations like he thought.

2. The state seizing all property didn't end up creating the "new socialist man" who would work for the community without economic incentives to do so. Another Marxist prediction that didn't pan out.

In sense you can say that the kind of communism Marx and Engels envisioned has never been tried, but that's only because Marx was wrong about so much. This line of argumentation doesn't vindicate Marxism in the way modern day communists seem to think it does.

While he is being a buzzkill, so are you for continuing to interact with him. If you didn't, it just would've been one dull post instead of a multi-post exchange. Way to suck the life out of a thread, you two. Gah, now I'm doing it!

A better way to manage voting would be to give a small quiz on what's being voted on. Nothing partisan, just enough to demonstrate that you have some grasp of what the issues are. It's a well known fact that the vast majority of voters are horribly ignorant, but democrats (little d) claim that in the end it doesn't matter without explaining how.

Every post of yours is just moronic status-quo apologism. Have you ever held an opinion that's outside the box, even a little bit?

What exactly has been "cut to the bone"? Every administration since World War 2 has increased spending and left the federal government bigger than they found it, including Reagan. The warfare state, the security state and the corporate state have all increased massively in the last 50 years. I know you're the type of authoritarian bootlicker who doesn't care about that stuff, but arguing the State is too small is just absurd.

I really want to understand this ridiculous narrative that fools like you put forth that the US somehow has a small government. By what metric? How are you coming to this counterfactual conclusion?

Relative comparisons of government size rank America's state as one of the biggest in the West, and that's only talking about economics. If you haven't heard any suggestions as to how to cut back, that's only because you don't pay attention, and you think your personal ignorance reflects your opponents arguments. It doesn't, you're just dumb.

I watched the whole thing. It's stupid and not anything you haven't heard before. Not watching it doesn't make you ignorant. I did, but I regret it. I could've done something more productive with seven minutes, like staring at a wall.