1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

GWBush and GOP: The Socialists

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Bunz, Dec 31, 2008.

  1. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    I found this one amusing, the RNP is looking at a passing a resolution against the GOP's favorite socialists, GWB and the GOP Congressional leadership.
    I wonder why they didnt go all the way and include small state socialist Sarah Palin? Hopes for more socialism in 2016?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/
     
  2. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....Much like their insistance (every 15-to-20 years) that our economy Needs a good War.....ALSO forgotten quickly!

    :mad:
     
  3. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Let me get a few things straight...

    You have no problem admitting Socialism on the part of Republicans...

    You do have a problem admitting Socialism on the part of Democrats...

    You still don't consider the US to be a Socailist nation...

    You still don't believe that we are a Welfare State...

    You still don't recognize the difference between the words Provide and Promote...

    I like you Bunz, you're a good sport and an intelligent guy, but you should address these inconsistancies in your statements.
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Bunz is not the one saying that Republicans are becoming Socialistic. It is Republicans in Congress (some of them, at least) who are saying so:

    From the OP:



    Indeed, they can't.

    "Socialism" might not be the correct term, but big government statism has become the guiding principle of both of the major parties. Perhaps the voices of dissent within the Republican Party can bring it back to what it claims to be: The party of limited government and fiscal responsibility.

    Or, maybe not.
     
  5. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    I would like to hear Bunz defend the Republicans as being something other than Socialists, defend the bailouts as being something other than socialist, defend the nationalization of major US industries as being something other than socialist....

    I don't think he would defend any of them because he knows he would be correct in calling all these things socialist.

    Yet... When I called Obama and the Democrats Socialists, he defended them as being something other than socialists. When I called the US a Welfare state, he disagreed... using the reasoning that we weren't as much of a welfare state as other nations.

    According to the definition of Socialism accepted around here, only full blown Communism is recognized as being socialism.... Has to be 100% ownership... 80% ownership isn't seen as 80% socialism, its considered 100% captialism all the way up to the point where it flips and becomes 100% socialism.

    True, Socialism may not be the best term, it is Big Government Statism... but that doesn't roll off the tounge as well and besides that... can you really defend Socialism as being something other than Big Government Statism?
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Socialism is state ownership of the means of production.

    Statism is the philosophy that a big, powerful government can solve the problems of a nation.

    Sure, socialism is the ultimate big government statism.

    What has been going on in Washington for many years now is statism. The government just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Should they bail out the auto industry, that is beginning to border on the government owning that industry. If, along with the bailout money, comes government also trying to run the industry, then the auto industry will be socialized. If that happens, then we can still get our cars from Honda or Toyota, but we might as well just bury GM, Chrysler, and Ford right now, along with a couple trillion in tax money.
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Economies are not improved by war. Whoever said that was wrong.
     
  8. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    As I said I found it amusing them calling themselves that.
    As PLC pointed out, I think socialist(ism) is the incorrect term for it.
    In the overall scheme of things, no we arent. We are still very much a capitalist state. Much moreso than we are a socialist state.
    Much like my earlier statements, yes we have some people who are on "welfare" but most of us arent. It is worthy to point out though, that even in America, our welfare system is based on capitalism. For instance food stamp programs, where that money generally goes into a private business.
    ;) Dont get so wound up here buddy, the whole thread was thought to be slightly humourous. Happy New Year BTW.
    Thanks for your sentiments, I do appreciate and I would ditto those comments towards you, but maybe you should look at the GOP and thier inconsistancies, they wield far more power than me.
     
  9. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I don't really want to argue with you, but the ugly fact is that war if big business and enormously profitable for a few well-placed people. War profiteering has probably made more fortunes that organized crime.
     
  10. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I grew up during the Vietnam era when any highschool student with a part time job could afford to buy a decent car.

    Of course you are correct that wars are not good for the economy. The seeming prosperity was a result of LBJ's guns and butter policies. The piper eventually had to be paid. That happened through the stagflation of the Carter years and the disappearance of much of our industrial base.
     
  11. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yes, I grew up in the same era.

    Carter was unjustly blamed for GOP blunders in Vietnam and the toll that war took on our economy; just as Obama will be blamed for Bushco's same blunder with Iraq. Vietnam was about preserving corporate US and french tea and rubber plantations. Iraq is about preserving BigOil's monopoly and wishes to control the last of its dwindling resource. Both wars are at the expense of the US Treasury which did not serve the general population, but instead served an elite group of superwealthy..

    Not to mention the collosal loss of life and limb...and sanity...

    Those poor Vietnam vets are still there in their minds...the ones who haven't committed suicide or died of Agent Orange poisoning.. A similar syndrome is affecting Iraq veterans. But hey, it's OK. Gotta keep those estates' marble floors polished and gleaming for "special company"...
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Name 2 at least.

    Really... name the fields. Surely we can look them up.

    Name the amount of oil we control in Iraq. Name the oil fields we now own, or the amount of free oil we've imported. Also, explain why we are buying oil from Iraq if the purpose of the war was to get control of it. Also, and just for kicks, how much are the Iraqis selling us the oil that we supposedly went to war for. (hint: market price)

    Yeah, the Vietnamese that were slaughtered after we failed to protect south Vietnam. Remember the boat people?
     
  13. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    1. Going there.

    2. Staying for 10 years.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First of all, everyone profiteers. Everyone. Every single human being on this planet, unless they are in some tribal 3rd world mud hut village, they all profiteer.

    Why do people pay money to go to school? They do so because they believe the money they will earn from getting that education, will exceed the money they spent to get it. Profiteering.

    Why do people cut lawns and mow grass, and do yard work? Because they believe the money they will receive from doing that work, will exceed the cost of the mowers, the gas to get to the location and run the equipment, and the time spent doing it. Profiteering.

    Why do people open shops and stores, and service companies? Because they believe what they'll earn from doing those things, will be greater than the cost to do those things.

    Why do cars exist? Because someone realized they could make money off of making a car.

    Why do construction companies exist? Because someone realized they could make money off of construction.

    YOU are a PROFITEER. You are. If the cost of a car, gas, repairs, insurance, food, housing, was greater than how much you could earn at your job, in other words, if you couldn't profit from it, you wouldn't do the job. Right? Yes or no.

    So everyone is a profiteer. Even in Soviet Russia, the people were profiteers. It's only that their system rewarded non-productivity. For example, in Russia, a farming plantation paid people to till the ground by the acer. So the guys running the trackers realized they could cover more ground by raising the blades, and running the tractors faster. They were profiteering, even though the process caused their crop yields to be crap. But of course when government pays your wage, and your paid the same regardless of crop yield, who cares.


    Back to the topic.
    It's true that construction companies can get some government funded work, after a military conflict. I have no problem with this.

    But from an economic perspective, this is short term, and doesn't help economically from a long term perspective. Why? Because businesses take time to recover, and people don't buy much when bullets are flying around and shops are being bombed. There isn't much profiteering going on in Iraq, that's for certain.

    As for here, Iraqis are not buying many American products, nor can we investing yet in Iraq, because it's still too uncertain as to how things will shape up. So there is not much profiteering going on here either.

    I am still hoping though. The Arabian people have been at war for so long, so often, and been under such horrible dictators. I am still wanting for them to have at least one stable decent republic in the middle east, all of their own. Even if it doesn't last, it will have lasted for some amount of time. Yeah, it might be a pipe dream, but darn it, they've been through so much before we showed up, and freedom hasn't been easy to gain.
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I thought JFK was the first to actually put military personnel there, and LBJ was the first to actually send an all American force. That's what I was taught, and that's what I'm seeing on Wiki. Eisenhower only supported South Nam, but didn't send troops of any kinds (as best I can tell).

    As for staying 10 years, we should have destroyed Ho Chi Minh, and wiped out the VietCon. So in a sense, I agree.


    I wouldn't call going there a blunder. In fact, if the situation were to repeat, I'd support going there again. Maybe you don't realize what horrors were unleashed on the people of Vietnam? Or what oppression they lived with for decades afterwords? Do you not realize how brutal Ho Chi Minh was to his people?

    There was only one real blunder, and it's a blunder repeated hundreds of times in history. It's this. LBJ micromanaged, and politicized the war. You can not win a war by saying you can bomb in February, but not March. You can attack in this area, but not over here. You can shoot when you see a cow, pig, and chicken in the same day, but not if it's cloudy with a change of showers.

    Under LBJs incompetent leadership, we had rules like, you can't cross the boarder to attack an enemy that is firing mortars into your camp. There were times when are troops knew exactly where the enemy was, and what they were planning to do, and they couldn't do anything because of LBJs "rules of engagement".

    We could have stomped Ho Chi Minh flat, and wiped out the entire Vietcong army easy, even up to the very day we signed a truce and pulled out. And then, if we had simply supported our allies in south nam, we could have saved millions of lives.

    Let me explain to you what happened to the people of south Vietnamese after we allowed the Vietcong to over run our ally. All people who wore glasses, were killed. All communities had a mandated 5% population reduction. Meaning 5 people in every hundred were selected at random, and murdered, and buried in mass graves. All people who either didn't support Vietcong troops, or gave any help to anti-vietcong forces, were systematically executed. All people had their land rights removed, and we forced into government communal labor camps. All young boys were striped from their parents and raise in government militia camps. To refuse resulted in not only your boys taken away, but you and your family would be shot for going against the Vietcong.

    Of course this resulted in the infamous boat people of Vietnam.

    [​IMG]

    And for those that didn't get away...

    [​IMG]

    What a blunder it was... because this could have been prevented. That was the blunder. We didn't destroy the enemy, thanks to executive blunders. We didn't help are allies and prevent the communists from taking over, thanks to a congressional blunders.

    I was lucky enough to talk to a women from Laos, who told me about running through the forests to escape the communists, and being shot at by them. No, going there wasn't a mistake. Not finishing the job, was the mistake.
     
Loading...

Share This Page