So tell us, oh enlightened one. What is the One True Path To Greatness?

Voting for Mickey Mouse won't do it; we know those votes go to /dev/null.

Getting a third party president in won't do it (even if it wasn't impossible) as it would just drive the democrats and republicans to work together to circumvent him.

Not voting won't do it either, as there is no minimum number of votes required to elect anyone in this country.

I expect within the next 20-30 years our country will dissolve into two or more new countries. Perhaps one or more of those new countries will try some of those ideas. Right now I'm just hoping that it comes and passes without bloodshed.

As per your usual M.O. you skipped my argument entirely.

I'll restate it for you this one time.

How would the King family come to terms with their desire to help working people - particularly in their support of working people being able to organize for negotiations and rights - with the fact that the republican party is very plainly opposed to such things?

I'll even concede that the democratic party has done a craptacular job of protecting workers' rights, as shown by the stagnation of wages, the drop in union membership, the loss of job security, the decrease in job benefits, etc. This of course does far more to support my earlier arguments of our country being on a constant march towards the right than anything.

The fact of the matter is though that the King family was very concerned about the plight of the working class, and the republican party is not at all. If you want to make a claim that they would have been independent voters (perhaps of a Bernie Sanders alignment) you can go for that but they most certainly would not be voting republican.

Wow, you read the page number at the bottom of the reader. Impressed? No, I am not.

It's debatable whether your reading style is worth being summarized as skimming. From your replies it seems you read at most 10% of the words. The fact that you go through "skimming" it and come out with the same conclusions on it that you had before you took it upon yourself to start "skimming" it supports the notion that you are not making anything resembling a vague attempt at comprehension. In fact I expect you would have been just as well off finding a Mandarin translation from the original German, and then attempt to read it in a mirror while gargling hydrogen peroxide and juggling flaming chainsaws.

Wow, impressive job of yet again completely abandoning your argument. You still haven't actually given a single instance of Reagan being more conservative than Obama. Not. One. Single. Instance.

The simple fact is that Reagan would have jumped for joy at the opportunity to sign the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, as it made us all obligate consumers and gave more power to powerful corporations. That was exactly the kind of thing that he happily endorsed throughout his presidency, and the kind of thing that every politician who has lifted his name on high has been trying to be the first to have associated with their own name. Considering every politician who has proposed an "alternative" to the law has basically proposed replacing it with itself, it appears you are one of the only people who doesn't understand this yet.

We've never had a president who was more conservative in actions than President Lawnchair. If you really want people to think that electing such a person would be a good idea then you need to explain why it has never happened before in history and why that is not a sign of it being a bad idea.

Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr was a republican, but that was when the republicans supported - rather than thwarted - the right of workers to organize. His family with their values wouldn't be republicans now, regardless of the color of their skin.

... my LG Android device doesn't perform well or get good battery life. It's a slug that is constantly running out of internal storage (which makes apps run like crap and prevents them from being updated) and gets about 6-8 hours of battery life on standby most days. I don't do any apps more complicated than google plus on it, and I don't view any videos of any kind on it.

Wow, 2/3rds magically became 90% under your special Tea Party math. Just because you happily learned an alternate math system doesn't mean you actually understand math, science, economics, or reality.

And frankly, it does not appear that you have read 90% of and comment I have written in the past year or so. If your reading of the Communist Manifesto is 90% of the "reading" you apply to my comments then you probably haven't read more than 30% of the words on the pages.

Give me a break. The minimal government expansion of the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is dwarfed by how much the federal government grew under Saint Ronnie. At the same time many other government employees have been given pink slips under President Lawnchair.

What if I am looking to download a ROM from an 8bit NES game? What if I want to watch a movie that isn't available to stream anywhere and hasn't been on DVD for years (yet still has a valid copyright which the owner is exercising and yet not selling copies of said movie)? What if I want to see episodes of TV shows that have never ben on DVD? What will google highlight for options then?

You carried your prejudices into your reading and never made an honest attempt to take in the text. You inserted your assumptions about Marx's religious beliefs even though the text was not about that. Approaching it from that angle you would have learned as much about communism by reading My Pet Goat.

So then clearly, Obama is not a president for "Progress", as the state has not expanded.

You could make an argument by stopping there. I would ask you again to consider why that would be true. Unfortunately you proceeded to shoot yourself in the foot by continuing to say

Because Obama is factually more conservative in action than Reagan ever was. Consider:

• The tax rate for top earners, compared to the rest of the country, is lower under Obama than it was under Reagan
• Corporations have more freedom to ditch their employees than they had under Reagan (due in part to the lowest union membership rates this country has seen since the 1800s)
• Federal spending on all things excluding DoD-related expenditures is lower in comparison to GDP and total federal budget under Obama than it was under Reagan

How is it that rejecting European-style decisions at nearly every critical juncture - particularly with regards to health care and public welfare - could possibly lead to "European-style collapse"? Your thesis of "one party rule" is close to valid but you went off in a completely non-factual direction. Every political action of any consequence that has been taken in this country in the past several decades has been of a conservative - not progressive - slant.

Just as President Lawnchair is demonstrably the most conservative president our country has ever had, he is also demonstrably more conservative than any leader that has ever been elected in Europe. To claim that he is somehow making "European-style" decisions is laughably detached from reality.

Not even remotely close to true. For example, I easily comprehend that you do not wish to understand communism or to read the Communist Manifesto. I do not agree with you discarding it so readily and parading yourself about as being knowledgeable on it when you intentionally opt to not read it, but I comprehend that you have made that choice.

How did you reach that conclusion? I laid my argument in front of you, and your own comments support it. You have not read the Communist Manifesto and yet you are saying otherwise. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else in regards to its content, but when you intentionally are not reading it you are lying when you claim otherwise. I was previously being so kind as to merely say that you were being disingenuous but if you want to dig in your heels like this on the matter I might as well spare the courtesy and just get to the fact of the matter that you have not read the document and never made a serious attempt to do so.

You could read it and disagree with it and be genuine about it. However you are instead lying about reading it and lying about being knowledgeable on its content. Similarly you can read my comments and disagree with them but when you ignore their text and insert your own assumptions about me you are being - at very best - disingenuous about reading them. Agreement is not required for comprehension and your assertion otherwise only supports the notion that your comprehension of what I have written is perilously close to zero.

I should have been more verbose. I meant that nothing made for computers today will be of any significance in 100 years. Indeed there are other things being manufactured today that will still have meaning in 100 years (although as usual we will likely come up with more efficient ways to kill each other by then).