RVM

Well jdang is at least a republican who knows what's up.

I spent many years studying and researching the rise and fall of communism. I generally use Socialism in a more "pure" sense, in that it is a direct descendant of Marxism. Stalinism, Leninism, Democratic Socialism, National Socialism etc. are all derivatives, and not all are good things.

I would have said "Why do Republicans not know what Marxism is" but then I don't think as many people would have known at all what I was talking about.

Personally, I'm a Marxist at heart but a Social Democrat a bit after the style of the German SDP.

__________________
There is no substitution for human competition.

jdang307

People are shocked that I am a republican. It's only when you talk fiscal matters that the GOP inside of me comes out. Shit I voted against Bush in 2004. I don't consider him a conservative.

Social issues I'm apathetic or actually a bit liberal. Smoke your pot, drop your E, I don't care. I worry about my family, not what you do in your household.

I also understand that both sides are 100% the same, just on opposite viewpoints. Both are hypocrites.

What I can't stand is the media though. 100% biased and liberal, except for the conservative outlets of course, which are biased the other way. But it is what it is. The internet has equalized that.


And that's totally cool with me. 99% of my friends are the same. I have maybe 3 friends who share the same view as me. But we're still friends

I think that there is no perfect world, that the best govt. (ours) is balanced between my views and yours. I think our worst years are when we have an unbalanced govt. And that's what our Founding Fathers wanted. Checks and balances. Slow moving govt.

Have you read any of Tocqueville's stuff?

Outlander

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.


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...

C.B.

Finger pointing at "the other party" is the fundamental problem with american politics. Just because somebody doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't make them an idiot.

As far as i am concerned democrat and republican is the same fuckin thing.

That being said i believe our government should be structured with socialist states under a libertarian federal government.

CheeseForSteeze

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.

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.

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.


"[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.

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.

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.

So? That's not somehow inclusive of the ability to Execute the Office of The President.

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?

CheeseForSteeze

That is what our Constitution suggest and I strain my brain wondering why we haven't tried it.

Outlander

You are really trying very hard to look for reasons to be offended, Not interested in conducting mental masturbation with you, have a great day....

CheeseForSteeze

Ironically, I found exactly that in your posts from the beginning. A hint: someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack of your character nor "copping an attitude".

I also find someone who wants to dismiss the opportunity to discuss ideas and tells others to "boldy stand up for their principles" to be deliciously amusing.

snowjeeper

I have this overwhelming urge to bait snowolf now. :-D

Tarzanman

If you talk with most run-of-the-mill people in general, then you will probably be VERY disappointed with their independent, objective understanding/competency on a great many topics regarding civics/anthropology/social science.

Its easy to blame such people and call them 'stupid', but the simple fact is that most of these people spend 40+ hours a week doing something else (like working or taking care of their families) and that there are large corporate interests with a lot of money who actively attempt to brainwash them with propoganda created by psychologists.

Yeah, that *sounds* crazy until you think about what a talking point is, how often the same commercials come on the air, and that the entire advertising agencies exist is to change the natural habits of consumers (which most normal folks are).

I've had arguments with people about whether the Constitution applies to non-citizens (yes, of course it does. read how its written) and political 'discussions' (term used loosely) with friends of mine who cannot name a single supreme court justice, congressman or define the term 'judicial review'. Yet everyone I have had these arguments/discussions with believes in their heart of hearts that their opinions on political matters are just as valid as those of someone informed on the issues. As such, it doesn't surprise me that people do not understand what socialism is when the term has been coopted as a pejorative term for decades by our political leaders and the media.

socialism (little 's'), or at least socialist programs (like public highways and collecting taxes) are an integral part of our way of life here in the USA. I doubt that most people understand that.... and even if they did, it would conflict with their media-driven world view so hard that they would rationalize it somehow "Well, thats not really socialist because <insert reason that makes no sense>".


P.S. If you're interested in this stuff, then a very easy, very funny place to start is George Orwell's book "Animal Farm".