But then you totally ignore my comments about the debate on various issues that has taken place every day and initiated by the Right and moderates on various Obama proposals.
You also ignore that the office of the president should avoid wallowing in lies and slander about the opposition, and should hold a higher standard.
Do you have an argument about the facts that Stevens lists? If so, refute them..

Sorry dropout, you’re a fraud.

a) You’re still smarting about my comments about Nate. That means I was effective.

b) You’re smarting about my hit on Free Press, the drivers of net neutrality, so much so that you want to change the subject.

Feel free to come back when you figure that out.

And you clearly missed my point I’ll state it more succinctly, academic and intellectual debate does not start across ideological lines of who is a capitalist, communist, socialist, or what not. Honest debate does not involve ad hominem.

The author of this post puts forth the notion that the left does not want an honest debate and then proceeds to not have an honest debate and instead returns to classic ad hominem arguments that permeate both sides of our political spectrum.

Behavior like that is indefensible for anyone who truly wants an honest debate. And for you to defend such attacks with the school yard ‘but they started it’ or ‘they do it too’ is also indefensible.

The post is quite clear in it’s target, Mr Silver, who is vexed that a self proclaimed communist has been identified as a self proclaimed communist. Damn, the injustice of it all, how unfair to point out the obvious, the obvious that Glen Beck could discover easily but the Obama administration couldn’t. Or wouldn’t.

But you see, that’s the real story, the nature of those who The O associates with, a problem going well back to Chicago and and well into his administration, if you can call this dazed mess, this chaos, this corruption, an administration.

You whine plaintively about “honest debate”. So be it, but just what do you think has been going on concerning the health care issue, cap and trade, the explosive deficits,[dwarfing those "terrible" Bush deficits], just what has been debated if not issues?

And, you sensitive thing you, what has been the response of the left, most of the media, and most disgraceful of all, this band of incompetents in the WH? Did I forget Congressional leaders with their remarks about Nazi’s, their mindless name calling of free Americans demonstrating.

You better pause and consider some of the things that have occurred emanating from the administration in clumsy and dangerous attempts to denigrate and threaten debate. Upon consideration you may then let fly an equally indignant and self righteous e mail to The O, who I’m sure will take it to heart.

Examples available if your mind goes blank on the above suggestion.

“As we have covered before in this space, the far left does anything possible to avoid having a straight-up, honest debate over ideas. Much like the old Communists and Fascists on the streets of Weimar-era Berlin, they’d rather use muscle than ideas to get a victory.”

Then you go onto defend the fascism of McCarthy, prosecution of anyone who did not share his political ideology, by going, ‘well, he was right.’

“Supposedly he’s seeing socialists, Marxists, and communists everywhere. Even though Senator McCarthy was right, and Communists had infiltrated our government all the way up to Alger Hiss, we’re supposed to think badly of Red hunting. But let’s look at the people themselves at Free Press, leading special interest promoter of the Fairness Doctrine, ownership diversity rules, and of course Net Neturality. Are they as socialist as Beck thinks?”

Tying a handful of commentators who intentionally say incendiary things to garner viewership and followings, which is true there are enough on both sides for this, to a stake is quite a different game than tying anyone who is associated with a political ideology who would dare disagree with yours to a stake.

Posts like this show the smoke screen of your interest in having an honest debate about ideas, unless you consider an honest debate with people who agree with everything you say before you’ve said it. In which case, carry on.

…and on and on and on.

And it’s hilarious that the video posits that “commies” or “socialists” (lefties in general) would eat donuts. Please. If the lefties had their way, the nanny state would outlaw them for the good of “society” under statist medicine. The video just emphasizes how the left sees anyone who disagrees with them as idiots — always a persuasive stance. (Though, I gotta give them the funny on the “Miley Cyrus doesn’t even Tweet anymore” joke, despite the insulting context).

And, to answer the question in the video: Yes. Glenn Beck knows what socialism is. And so do we. You are it.

But, overall, that video is the definition of lame.

I’ve heard the case that Obama is a socialist, but I have yet to hear the case that he isn’t. We own banks and car companies now, don’t we? Doesn’t he want to handle our health care system, energy industry and the Internet?