(Definitions taken from dictionary.com)
Communism:
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
Socialism:
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Fascism:
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
The GOP is just throwing around these scary-sounding words and not paying any attention to the meaning of these words they nonchalantly throw out at the masses. And since the average American is an idiot (sorry, but we collectively have the IQ of a rock. Either get over that fact or get an education), they hear them and think "I think I remember learning about that in grade school. Isn't that bad? Does this mean I should be against this bill?" without figuring out what the words themselves actually mean. Sorry, but semantics matter. It's not that surprising to me that people don't care about it anymore since we live in an era where we have shortened our speech patterns to outside the arena of texting. To me, saying healthcare reform is any of these words is the semantic version of "Let's eat Grandma" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma." There's a big difference there. And it's only by the placement of a comma do we go from cannibilism to stating that it's time to have a meal with your grandmother.
A little side note: If you're really against this so-called socialism, I will gladly take your Social Security checks and Medicare benefits off your hands when you retire. We've had "socialized" retirement and healthcare for decades now. Didn't think about that one, did you? If you're already retired, I'll take your Social Security checks any day to supplement my income. I need to pay off student loans. :)
Here's a blog post that I felt sums up my feelings towards the GOP at the moment, as well:http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/round-up-or-down-house-members-react-to-dems-knew-plan-to-pass-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa
The Democrats really aren't any better as far as party politics is concerned. They are pretty much taking the stance that since they are in a majority, they are just going to simply do what they want since they have Obama to rubberstamp what they pass and not consult with the GOP. This is not the way to govern our country, people! There needs to be public discourse between parties so that the bill really is for the people since the vast majority of people in this country identify with either party. To me, if it's truly a bipartisan bill, both parties are OK with it as a whole and still have problems with the details. That's OK. That's what legislation is for. You can fix parts of it if it becomes apparent it's not working. And that's what I find so funny about the healthcare bill. There are amendments and provisions in there that the GOP put in, and yet they unanimously voted against it just because they feel it will better them politically to stand against it. It remains to be seen if this will bite them in the ass when it comes to elections, and that depends on whether the bill is seen as a success or failure in the months leading up to the mid-term elections.
And as for Congress itself, they need a major overhaul. They haven't been able to do their job in over a decade because of this aura of hyper-partisanship surrounding Capitol Hill. When the GOP had power in the 90's, they killed healthcare the first time around under Clinton. The Dems killed Social Security privatization in return a few years ago under Bush. It seems like neither party wants to be an adult about all this and work across the aisle because they are still licking their wounds. This is why I think a 3rd political party is needed. They can come in and actually legislate while they spend all their time fighting. I'd imagine the Democrats and Republicans would eventually go the way of the Federalists, Whigs and all the other political parties and just evolve into another party.
I can see why George Washington didn't have a political party. I think his fears have become a reality. He feared they would lead to nothing but conflict and stagnation. And what do we have today? Fighting between the parties and threats of filibuster. The founding fathers as a whole I think would be rolling in their graves if they saw the way our government runs now. Hell, they are probably yelling at the top of their lungs up in heaven, hoping Congress will get with the picture.
Here's another good article I've found over the course of the week: http://www.newsweek.com/id/235560/page/1
Ugh. That's just little old me and my opinion.
