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.
Saying the act of expanding the government is socialist is not the same as saying the government has "become Socialist". "Socalist" is far different than saying "socialist" with a small 's'. It's just a word we use because "socialistic" is a bit unmanageable. An action could be regarded as socialist or not depending on which direction it drives the our Federal Government in the governmental spectrum regardless if the resulting system meets some arbitrary criteria to be called Socialist
You make a point to say that the expansionism of government over the past administrations "it is not even remotely close to Socialism." There isn't some sort of defined region in the political spectrum that socialism occupies. Like using infinity as a concept, not an actual quantity, socialism and anarchy are really used as qualifiers with the understanding that real government is complex and composed of many elements that might be antithetical to each other in our conceptual spectrum. To use them as definitive thresholds would be utterly futile.
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.
No one is trying to talk down to anyone except perhaps you. The use of the words "Trust me
, I have dealt with Socialist regimes ..." is just an attempt to paint yourself as an authority on the subject with knowledge beyond the comprehension of us peons and then appeal to that authority.
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.
It doesn't appear to do that at all. I'm sure there are people who think such an equivalence is accurate, but that's immaterial.
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.
"[Sounding] stereotypical of" and actually being something are two different things. You presented your opinion of my stance which happened to be "if you don't like red and you don't like blue you must not like any colors." I'm sorry if your thoughts are colored by a stereotype, but that's neither my doing nor does it prevent that assessment from being a false dilemma. I made a one sentence statement about disliking both administrations. Furthermore, that statement was directly in response and in context to one who would decry "socialist" aspects of expansionism under one administration and champion them under another. A pretty far cry from hating all government.
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.
It's not really the administrations doing although it is partly. It is, in great part, at the feet of Congress with whom I would rest the blame. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Latin or Mandarin. The things it says are specific and basic in premise. I submit that if it were meant to be generic, mutable and interpretable, why would it have specific langauge to begin with and why would it allow for Amendment through Ratification?
The Nine and Tenth Amendments give the People of The United States all the provision they need to enact policy often decried as "socialism" and I'm fine with that. It should be that way.
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.
And? I'm sure people who used to burn heretics at the stake in the 16th century thought they were saving souls from going to Hell, too. I'm not saying everything they do is Unconstitutional or any mistakes they made make them evil - but intent and action are oftentimes two things.
From a military perspective, both of these men have a passion and a love for this country.
So? That's not somehow inclusive of the ability to Execute the Office of The President.
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.
And I happen to hold that a great majority of both of those views are errorneous and harmful to the country. So now, disagreeing with the sitting President is "harmful to the political process"? What should I do to be part of the "solution"? Agree with whatever the current administration, Congress and Supreme Court say and never question it?