, wow. just wow. I'll address a couple of your counter points and try to drop this. I can see it's not going to go anywhere good.
"I find the same to be true of the Democrats. Why is my contention less valid than yours?"
In order to answer that question, I would have to bring up a list of the bills the Democrats attempted to bring to the floor and a list of the ones the Republicans brought to the floor combined with the list of cloture votes. Now, if you believe that government should do something to help "the least of us" in times of need, you would agree with "my contention" that Republicans just don't have any interest in "the rest of us". You'd also see that even as they rant and rave about the debt, all their proposals make it worse while taking from those who need the most help. You'll have to actually look at the data for that. I can't afford to waste my time pulling it together for you.
However, I will supply one tidbit that exemplifies my point:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454789/senate-republicans-protect-big-oil-subsidies-as-their-gasoline-profits-soar/+Jason Jones
put it well concerning your justification for McConnell's behavior. If you believe in the constitution and the right of citizens to choose their leaders, then you will not subvert the system. He and the other Republican leaders were all about "if you speak out against the President, you're treasonous" when Bush was president.
"Extra credit goes to you if you go back to the prior administration and look at the similar filibustering and blocking tactics used by the Democrats in Congress. Or is it only a problem when Republicans are using the tactics? I see a gross double standard in your analysis....a very serious blindness to the hypocrisy."
Sure, no problem:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php
This one doesn't have a chart, you'll have to read it. The Filibuster history starts around paragaph 4, if you're willing to read it.
For good measure, here's a very recent documentation of the filibuster hypocrisy:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204230012l
You might "see" gross double standard, but that is only because you refuse to actually look. You appear to be like the fellow in 1984 who eventually "saw" six fingers on his torturer's hand.
For good measure, here's "Fascism"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
The "World English Dictionary" one is pretty clear.
"Once you decide that the government's job is to play Robin Hood with taxpayer money..how is that not Marxist? Maybe you and I have a different definition of Marxism. Instead of throwing around ad hominem attacks, please draw distinctions between the philosophies of Marx and the stated goals and platforms of the leading Democrats."
You start with a "straw man" and "Poisoning the Well", and assert that this is what Obama stands for - very typical Fox tactics. Look up "ad hominem", I think you will find I didn't "attack an opponent's character rather than answering his argument." If that is what you think this is, you have larger issues.
We have a long history as a nation of helping the less fortunate. Even the bible says "what you do to the least of these, you do to me". Comparing the use of society's resources to help those in need to Marxism is wrong headed. If at the same time you agree with the Republican stance of protecting Oil/Gas company subsidies, that is hypocrisy - I hope you aren't doing that, like the Republicans in congress are.
"I would suggest you read the book "Liberal Fascism" for a really good refresher course about what the Left in this country thought about Italy's Fascism before WWII. It would be eye opening for you to do, but it would require putting away the cliches and the insults and doing some learning."
What a group of people believed 90 years ago, at a time Communism was a new experiment and had little track record, is irrelevant to today. I wouldn't claim the current Republicans are environmentalists and abolitionists because Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln had those philosophies. I would claim just the opposite due to their consistent ACTIONS of the last 40 years. Let's discuss what people are saying and doing NOW. Please refrain from the logical fallacy of "Biased Sample". However, I just might go get that book. Thanks for the suggestion.