Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze
There is not some sort of absolute definition which defines when the scope of government has breached into the realm of "socialism". These are just words. I described it as becoming "more socialist" because the State (not the states, which is a completely different concept) wants to assume functions that society would have already provided itself. For you to claim you have dealt with a "Socialist" regime, in some sort of definitive sense of the word, and disclaim the United States has elements that could be described as in the context I used it, is sheer semantic nonsense.
No need to cop an attitude with me; I assumed this was a civil conversation. It does seem from reading your posts that you tend to personalize it if someone does not agree with you. I was simply taking your post at face value and you did clearly state that, "the radical expansionism of the Federal Government under the administrations of the past decades are equally socialist." If you meant that you felt that the government was heading towards Socialism, that is a fair call. You did not say that and words do mean things. This statement clearly labeled government expansionism AS Socialist which it is not.
Instead of using so many words like you do to attempt to talk down to people, you might use fewer words, but choose them more carefully. At any rate, thanks for the clarification; I can see past the language and interpret your true meaning.
My claim remains valid when you try to label the United States government in a manner that appears to equate it to a regime like North Korea, which claims to be Socialist / Communist, which it is clearly not if you truly understand what Socialism and Communism actually is. My point remains valid is far from "semantic nonsense" based on the tone you were using when throwing around the Socialism label in such a generalized manner. Perhaps you were not intending to come off like a tin foil hat wearing tea partier who uses the term "Socialist" as a synonym for "Communist" or "Fascists". If not then, my error. You must be sensitive to the fact that most people do not use these terms correctly and should make sure your language is clearer and more precise.
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze
What you're presenting is a false dilemma. This isn't a multiple choice test. There isn't only the choice of support Bush W., support Obama (or for that matter, any other administration who has been elected or candidate who vied for to the office of the President) or you're a fence sitter. I will support a candidate who defends The Constitution. Neither of those candidates did so. So me not choosing to support them actually is boldly standing up for my principles.
I am presenting nothing; there you go again with that chip on your shoulder. The statement you made sounded stereotypical of someone who will say something like, "I hate both parties" or "I don`t like either candidate" because they either are afraid of taking a stand and being a target to the opposition or, they are unwilling to give credit where credit is due if it happens to be to the guy they don`t like. If this is not the case for you, then I accept that.
The only thing that I would say is that you may dislike their policies, but I would submit that both Bush and Obama (as well as any President) do in fact "defend the Constitution". To suggest otherwise is really just political rhetoric more befitting a shock jock on talk radio than a rational citizen. Like religion, every person puts a lot of their own interpretation into what is or is not Constitutional. Where you actually have an issue is not whether someone supports the Constitution or not, rather whether their interpretation of Constitutionality agrees with your interpretation. I can pretty much assure you that President Bush felt strongly that he was operating within the framework of the Constitution and I am confident that President Obama does as well. From a military perspective, both of these men have a passion and a love for this country. They both have a vastly different view of how to best achieve that though and I think tossing out accusations such as you have only serves to harm the political process not help it. Be part of the solution rather than the problem.
Anyway, been a bit of stimulating conversation, I now have a bird to catch. A lot of thirsty F-15`s need gas...