If not, why not?

There used to be a word for an economic system where there was technically private property, but the State had tight control of how everything was done. It got scrubbed from the lexicon. Too many parallels.

Is there private property in California. Do people own houses, businesses, stock and bonds?

You are very fast, loose and inaccurate in your use of words, TB. It’s not possible to talk with you rationally because you make up definitions of the words you use and apply them to situations which already can be defined accurately using words with an agreed upon meaning.

“…now they actually have a way to fix the problem CA has without the rightwing blocking them.”

Not a bug, a feature. We’re riding this out here in California. Complete control may have to wait a year, but the Democrats are telling us they can be trusted with this power. I wouldn’t trust Republicans with it, or any bunch of people you could name.

And if the Democratic Party took complete control of the Federal government? I don’t have to imagine it, I saw it in 2008. James Carville crowed about it in his book 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. The word “rule” is his, not mine. Carville is a respected Democratic pundit, not some looney in a basement.

Look at what’s going on in Washington. What the commentary here has been showing. The Democrats aren’t working on fixing some serious problems. The specifics of what they’re pushing make this obvious. They’re working on crushing the remains of their opposition, and their followers are cheering them on.

Terminology, or its destruction, is used to defuse opposition. As in 1984, once you’ve obliterated the words used to describe something, you can’t talk about it any more.

As I told Bowser, make up another name for the specific concept of an all-powerful political authority controlling the economy and almost everything else, ruled by one political entity. I’ll use it.

Communism, as it was actually carried out in the real world, has been uniformly consistent in its ideas, methods, and results for almost a century, but if that’s not enough to make the word useful as a reference, think of another one.

I spent considerable time perusing their Constitution Study Group, because if anything could salvage the tea party movement in my eyes, it’s that image they promulgate of hundreds of study groups around the country earnestly studying the Constitution and bringing about a revived intellectual appreciation of American values.

Alas, it’s not be, at least not under the auspices of TPN. They seem to be engaged in the time-honored game of cherry-picking and reinterpreting to make the Constitution say what they think it should say. There were times when they seemed to be confusing Constitution 1.0 (Articles of Confederation) with 2.0, the version passed in 1789. I was particularly amused/horrified by a thesis (http://www.teapartynation.com/group/constitutionstudygroup/forum/topics/the-obama-eligibility-issue …note how the URL gives away the agenda) “proving” that “natural born citizen” is an inherited title–no immigrants allowed. No matter that the doctrine would limit citizenship to descendants of people present in 1789…by gawd, that’s what it says, right there, somewhere. They’re big on such “proofs”.

Sad, because I’m one those freaks who’s actually read the Federalist Papers multiple times, slogged through “Wealth of Nations”, and carries two copies of the Constitution around with me at all times, loaded into my tablet ebook reader. I’m ready to argue the Constitution at the drop of a clause. Sometimes I wish the HabitableZone could engage in that kind of intellectual journey, and the presence of two sides here would at least theoretically mitigate the tendency to drift off into wishful thinking. But maybe that’s just my own wishful thinking.

He’s a real stickler for definitions. He’s making them all the time.

Communism in the Land of the Pharaohs…

I’m easy.

It’s the situation that has existed in every nation on the planet that has called itself “Marxist” or “communist.” A reasonable person might be excused for assuming the obvious, like assuming after decades of observation that sharks are carnivorous.

(I must say, I do love your lectures on reason, reality, and believing things without regard for the truth.)

Nothing demonstrates that someone is simply a carrier of megacorporation propaganda and has never thought for themselves or learned one whit about economics and politics as calling “communism” a political system.

And it just demonstrates that you believe what you want to believe without regard for the truth or reality. Demonstrates it very, very well.

It’s not as if you haven’t had the opportunity to learn, it’s that you refuse to learn.

Your opinion about the veto-proof, restriction-proof two-thirds Democratic Party control in California.

“Communism” is just a word people call something. An all-powerful centralized government controlled by a single party is what the thing is.