<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/762722</link>
		<description>Comments by Arvak</description>
<item>
<title>PoliGazette : Hope for Change</title>
<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2010/01/20/hope-for-change/#IDComment53209626</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;A country with this kind of political analysis cannot survive, and I am very glad I don&amp;#039;t live in it.&lt;/blockquote&gt;    I always love when anti-Americans come forth to lecture Americans on what&amp;#039;s good for them. :)  </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.poligazette.com/2010/01/20/hope-for-change/#IDComment53209626</guid>
</item><item>
<title>PoliGazette : Call for Moderate Democratic Party</title>
<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2010/01/21/call-for-moderate-democratic-party/#IDComment53167803</link>
<description>It is far from certain that every incremental change deemed by someone to be &amp;quot;socialist&amp;quot; actually is &amp;quot;socialist&amp;quot;, let alone a bad idea.  Thus, I myself don&amp;#039;t automatically reject an idea just because someone throws the &amp;quot;socialist&amp;quot; label at it.  But even if incremental changes proposed by more moderate Democrats do add up as a &amp;quot;path to socialism&amp;quot;, the advantage of an incremental approach still holds true for reasons of transparency -- the details of incremental changes are more likely to be debated explicitly rather than buried in a sweeping package that is thousands of pages long and rammed through by purists before anyone is even allowed to read it, let alone debate it.  </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.poligazette.com/2010/01/21/call-for-moderate-democratic-party/#IDComment53167803</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>