What has Obama done well?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991

Again, taken from Wikapedia. Take it up with them. It seems interchangable to me. Maybe on paper socialist control less and each country is different, but it's still the left wing.

Do you also subscribe to the belief that Fascism is a right wing ideology? Are you still reading the Communist Manifesto? That is so old hat, like Nietzsche and Kate Chopin.

You're all over the place, do try to watch your drool and stick to what you know.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

[quote=Trample the Elderly;580567]Thankfully you are the only true beacon of conservatism in a stormy sea of liberals, communists, socialists and whatever you've labeled me as, which I assume is a socialist Republican.

As a friend of mine said in one of these threads, "Don't label me."

First shall we define Socialism:
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, Socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism[4], allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
Bush positives: - concept of No Child Left Behind (Government intervention into the affairs of others is socialist. Why is it my responsibility to pay for the education of children, especially if I have none of my own? Once upon a time education was left up to the States.)

Education is still left up to the states. You may want to check this out
Archived: 10 Fact About K-12 Education Funding

Federal funding in 2006 was $ 37.6B for K-12 education. Only about 8.3 % of overall funding. The vast majority of K-12 education is done with state/local funding. I would also argue that a better educated populace make the U.S. more competitive globally, increasing GDP, which you would benefit from.

I stated the CONCEPT of No Child Left Behind is a good one. What's wrong with increasing student/school performance and holding schools accountable? The execution and implementation hasn't been the best, but again the execution is left to each state. If a state doesn't want funds they don't have to participate. If you've got a problem with this "socialist" program on principle, take it up with the state legislature in VA and tell them to refuse the funds. Let's put $37B in perspective, about $412B is being spent on interest on the national debt alone.

- Tax cuts resulting in 52 consecutive months of job creation (This is actually conservative.)

Wow I actually got one right.

- minimized federal funding of abortion (Why the Federal government is funding abortions to begin with is beyond me..)

If you've read any of my posts on the subject, I thought I've been pretty clear that I don't support any government funding of abortion. I'm not naive enough to believe there isn't funding of abortion going on though.

- Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (There is nothing in the Constitution about reproductive rights. Everything that isn't in the Constituiton is left to the State or to the people themselves. If they want to make a Federal law about abortion than they need to reach down, grab some, and do it. Politicians play both sides of the issue.)

The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Without going too far down the whole abortion debate rathole, Partial Birth Abortion denies life. Since Roe v. Wade is currently "settled law" and the abortion genie isn't going back into the bottle at least scaling back on the most despicable of abortion practices is a good thing. But I do agree that abortion should be a matter left to the states in most cases. In this case the Bush Admin did "grab some" and pushed this law through.

- Global HIV/AIDS funding (Pure Progressive Socialism. Who gave that SOB the right to take my money for AIDS? Where do they get this right from? It would be one thing to do it in America but in Africa? I've got the cure for AIDS. Don't screw around and don't shoot dope.)

There is no right other than Congress has the right to approve the President's budget and appropriate funds. However without risking U.S. military lives in combat it's estimated that this program saved over 1 million lives at a cost to the U.S. taxpayer of about $5B per year. Sometimes pure political philosphy is outweighed by the real cost of human lives, be they U.S. or not. We can't save the world, but if we can make this type of impact with a relatively small investment it's a cost/benefit that I'm sure the folks who are alive now appreciate. I'm pretty sure this blip in the federal budget most folks don't have a problem with.

- instrumental in expanding NATO alliance (Why? TJ warned us about alliances. But Progressive Republicans and Democrats don't see it that way. Who gave them the right to wage war on the Serbs?)

Let's define the alliance that kept Western Europe free from the USSR for four decades and protects against threats today by a two month incident. Of course there's no U.S. interest to democracies in Europe.

- Roberts & Alito and other strict constructionalist judge appointments. (I'm not so sure about these judges records since they've been in. I do know that the court has voted that emminent domain can be used for tax purposes. IE Oakland & Texas.)

Neither was on the SC for Kelo-New London. I'm not sure about the other cases you refer to, but I would be surprised if either voted for eminent domain to be used to increase a tax base.

- consolidated and reformed intelligence sharing ( Why they weren't brought up for dereliction of duty I don't know. I would consider it a Conservative move to scrap a few of these agencies and have just three, Military, CIA, and FBI.)

keep in mind 9/11 happened in 2001, less than 1 year after Bush took office. Hard to undo years of institutional issues in less than a year. Although without 9/11 I doubt Bush would've tackled this. However, he did remove barriers between various intel agencies which is a good thing. To go farther to increase performance and efficiencies would be better but to use this to justify that Republicans are socialists is a real reach...even for you.

- parts of Homeland Security (agencies under HS should've consolidated more to reduce costs not as much new spending) (Creating more beauracracy to solve the problems of having too much beauracracy is a classic socialist attribute.)

Sometimes you don't read. If you know anything about Homeland Security there's a consolidation of about 13 agencies under the umbrella of DHS. What I said was these agencies should've been consolidated to reduce costs....but I guess you missed that part.

- Bush Admin thwarted additional terrorist attempts to attack US citizens/interests. (Even socialist don't like glowing in the dark. Kuddos to the SOB for keeping me safe after 9/11.)

No comment is necessary here, I'll just use a "Matty"

- Afghanistan (should've had better long term strategy) (Should have declared war and nuked the MFers of the face of the face of the EARTH. Decided to go the socialist route and nation build.)

This is something my kid would say. I guess it makes sense to murder 32M people, a vast majority who had absolutely nothing to do with terrorists or 9/11. I'm sure there would've been no additional attacks then :frusty:

- Iraq (actual war well executed, long term strategy not-so-much.) Troop surge worked though. (Classic progressive nation building.)

What part of "long-term strategy not-so-much" did you not get. I'm a fan of the Lemay Doctrine.

- Response to early 2000s (Clinton) recession. (Why Presidents get all the credit or flak for the economy is beyond me? Congress controls the purse strings, and Kenysian economics (socialist) goes up and down no matter who's in Congress or the White House.)

We all know the President only has so much control over the economy, but the steps he did take were the correct ones IMO.

- Economic Stimulus Act (mostly tax rebates) (Bailout out the big boys at the expense of the little guy, classic Socialism. When Corporations are allowed to do business as long as they behave and do what their told, then it is socialism. When the government becomes a business and the Corporations become part of the government, that is the epitomy of Fascism.)

Again you have your wires crossed. The Bush Economic Stimulus Act was "mostly tax rebates".
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the corporations do what their told by the government it's called Gov't oversight or regulation. When government becomes part or takes over the corporation it's socialism

- Do Not Call Act (From a conservative point of view, this should be left up to you, the phone company, and the jerks calling you at dinner.)

It was left up to the American people and they overwhelmingly let their representatives know they approved of this legislation or there would've been more debate over it. I don't really care what point of view it's from, I'm just glad I don't get those damn calls anymore and it's a minimal cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The only difference between a Communist and a Fascist is that a Fascist loves his country. They're both left wing a**hole autocrates. Conservatives mind their own business. If they say they do but really do not, they're probably just Republicans.

Since we're labeling, isolationists and anarchists mind their own business too.

[That Guy]

"No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."

the USSR was not a true communist state. true communism is public and equal ownership of everything. fascism is generally based on a single authoritarian leader and strong hierarchical structure, with strong government control of everything.

"Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"[25] although writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex.[26] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[27] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[28][29][30]"

since we're quoting wikipedia, oh look:
Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, thanks for playing

[joethiesmanfan]

Trample can you define classic liberalism for me?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by That Guy

"No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."

the USSR was not a true communist state. true communism is public and equal ownership of everything. fascism is generally based on a single authoritarian leader and strong hierarchical structure, with strong government control of everything.

"Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"[25] although writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex.[26] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[27] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[28][29][30]"

since we're quoting wikipedia, oh look:
Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, thanks for playing

You have only said that Fascism is "described" by writers as being far right but you've not said why it is so? What about National Socialism or Fascism is to the right?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Trample can you define classic liberalism for me?

Natural Law.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're all over the place, do try to watch your drool and stick to what you know.

Again, dismissiveness isn't an effective retort.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by As a friend of mine said in one of these threads, "Don't label me."

[B

It was asked of me what about the Republican party is liberal or socialistic. Since you're thread was readily available I used it. I've no intention of labeling anyone but what you're advocating isn't conservative for the most part IMO only. My only interest was to show the difference between conservatism and the Republican party.[/B]

Education is still left up to the states. Federal funding in 2006 was $ 37.6B for K-12 education. Only about 8.3 % of overall funding. I stated the CONCEPT of No Child Left Behind is a good one. What's wrong with increasing student/school performance and holding schools accountable?
The execution and implementation hasn't been the best, but again the execution is left to each state. If a state doesn't want funds they don't have to participate. If you've got a problem with this "socialist" program on principle, take it up with the state legislature in VA and tell them to refuse the funds.

I know $37.6B isn't a lot for some people but it is to me. I've read the test that were given to high schoolers before the Federal government usurped the State's power. Most of the people (including myself) would have a hard time with them. What is socialist or progressive about the Department of education is its consolidation of power from the people. It has only grown and will only grow more so. You know as well as I do that if a state chooses to withdraw or not comply with a federal program then the Fed withholds funding. Just look at the alcohol age limit laws.

The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Without going too far down the whole abortion debate rathole, Partial Birth Abortion denies life. Since Roe v. Wade is currently "settled law" and the abortion genie isn't going back into the bottle at least scaling back on the most despicable of abortion practices is a good thing. But I do agree that abortion should be a matter left to the states in most cases. In this case the Bush Admin did "grab some" and pushed this law through.

Another stretch of the Constituition. Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers were thinking about abortions? Executives should be enforcing law, not making it. That's Congress' job.

There is no right other than Congress has the right to approve the President's budget and appropriate funds. However without risking U.S. military lives in combat it's estimated that this program saved over 1 million lives at a cost to the U.S. taxpayer of about $5B per year. Sometimes pure political philosphy is outweighed by the real cost of human lives, be they U.S. or not. We can't save the world, but if we can make this type of impact with a relatively small investment it's a cost/benefit that I'm sure the folks who are alive now appreciate. I'm pretty sure this blip in the federal budget most folks don't have a problem with.

What does this have to do with me paying for Africans with AIDs? You're putting your morals on me. What you're saying is this: it's alright to take money from me without my permission, send it to people in Africa with AIDS, and then tell me it's alright, because it is a small investment that will save money in the long run.

Let's define the alliance that kept Western Europe free from the USSR for four decades and protects against threats today by a two month incident. Of course there's no U.S. interest to democracies in Europe.

What threats do the Europeans keep us from? In case you haven't noticed they can't even put out all of the cars that the Muslims lit up. The last time I was in London it was like being in Tehran. Europeans are too busy becoming extinct to protect themselves or anyone else. Do you honestly believe that the French, Germans, or Italians would've gone to war with the Soviets? American nuclear arms kept Europe safe not some BS one sided alliance. They sure have helped us in Afghanistan huh?

Neither was on the SC for Kelo-New London. I'm not sure about the other cases you refer to, but I would be surprised if either voted for eminent domain to be used to increase a tax base.

From what I can remember the Supreme Court said that emminent domain allowed the city of Oakland to tear down "blighted" areas so that the city could bring in business. In other words, the ghetto doesn't bring in enough tax revenue.

keep in mind 9/11 happened in 2001, less than 1 year after Bush took office. Hard to undo years of institutional issues in less than a year. Although without 9/11 I doubt Bush would've tackled this. However, he did remove barriers between various intel agencies which is a good thing. To go farther to increase performance and efficiencies would be better but to use this to justify that Republicans are socialists is a real reach...even for you. Sometimes you don't read. If you know anything about Homeland Security there's a consolidation of about 13 agencies under the umbrella of DHS. What I said was these agencies should've been consolidated to reduce costs....but I guess you missed that part.

Sometimes I don't have the time or inclination to go through every thread you've posted. I'm sure you don't look over all of mine. Trimming fat from the government is conservative but adding another layer of beauracracy to do it isn't. If they want to consolidate why not put it all into the CIA? There would be only one agency to hold accountable then.

This is something my kid would say. I guess it makes sense to murder 32M people, a vast majority who had absolutely nothing to do with terrorists or 9/11. I'm sure there would've been no additional attacks then. What part of "long-term strategy not-so-much" did you not get. I'm a fan of the Lemay Doctrine.

I'm not familiar with the Lemay Doctrine. I'm more of a Sun Tzu kind of guy. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Curtis Lemay personally lead firebombing missions and advocate nuclear war with Japan? Didn't he predict we would lose in Vietnam because we weren't willing to do what it took to win, just like now? I'm sure not every Japanese raped Nanking and not every German gassed Slavs, but war is war. A long protracted war is the ruin of a nation.

We all know the President only has so much control over the economy, but the steps he did take were the correct ones IMO.

Your opinion.

Again you have your wires crossed. The Bush Economic Stimulus Act was "mostly tax rebates".
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry, I thought he went on the television and said he was bailing out Wall Street? I guess I was hearing things? You heard tax cut and I heard bailout. In other words, certain institutions were too big to fail. That's what I heard.

When the corporations do what their told by the government it's called Gov't oversight or regulation. When government becomes part or takes over the corporation it's socialism

Hmmm, GE, General Motors, Bank Of America, Fannie Mae . . . . .

It was left up to the American people and they overwhelmingly let their representatives know they approved of this legislation or there would've been more debate over it. I don't really care what point of view it's from, I'm just glad I don't get those damn calls anymore and it's a minimal cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

You're arguing for the outcome. I argue about the principle

Since we're labeling, isolationists and anarchists mind their own business too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't WWI started when a Serbian anarchist shot the Austrian Arch Duke? What about the liberal anarchist that threw bombs in the sixties and seventies?

Why not stand behind something. If you're a Progressive Republican than so be it; Teddy Roosevelt was one. Democrats used to be the only reason to vote Republican. Now there's no difference between the two.

From what I get, you're not advocating the principles, just the outcomes. It's alright if we do this progressive thing or that, it saves lives and money. But when the Republican party got Iraqi egg on their face the public turned on them. From Wilson, to LBJ, to GWB, America has to be the protector of Democracy. BS!

I was asked what classic liberalism was. IMO natural law was the best answer. Whether it's the environment, social problems, economic decline, or just a simple scab. Nature and the common man usually fix things themselves if they're not effed with.

Perhaps I sound self-righteous. I probably am, so what? What works for me may not work for you. All I'm saying is that I mind my own business better than someone else. That's conservative. I'm was also tired of these liberal fools saying things like, "Right Wing Nazis" or "Right Wing Fascist". That is a lie.

[dmek25]

why do you have to yell?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by dmek25

why do you have to yell?

I THOUGHT THIS WAS YELLING? I'm not as good with my quotes, so I put my comments in bold to distinguish me from Sammy.

[joethiesmanfan]

Trample is Fascism comparable to social conservatism?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

From what I get, you're not advocating the principles, just the outcomes. It's alright if we do this progressive thing or that, it saves lives and money. But when the Republican party got Iraqi egg on their face the public turned on them. From Wilson, to LBJ, to GWB, America has to be the protector of Democracy. BS!

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I'm a realist and in the real world, real choices need to be made based on human life, costs, benefits, future benefits etc. Sometimes strict adherence to a principle or set of principles may not lead one to make the best decision.

- On education, read the entire link it gives a good explanation of how the states use the Federal guidlines. The final decisions are up to the states. And at the end of the day a state can refuse funding. Again the percentage is only about 8.3%, not something that couldn't be overcome if the people of a particular state were willing to adhere to their priniciples on this.

- On abortion, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is law passed by Congress and signed by the President

- On the Africa/AIDS comments, there are a ton of things that individual taxpayers I'm sure don't want funded. I don't want abortions funded, I'm sure folks on the left don't want CIA waterboarding funded, etc., etc. But, the only recourse we have is to vote out the folks approving the funding for things we don't want. As I said on the Africa AIDS funding you are far into the minority in your view on the approval of this funding.

- On NATO, for a prior servicemember I would think you'd have a better viewpoint of Europe's strategic value to the U.S. in a potential war with the Soviets or a Middle Eastern power. Where did we stage our troops? Where do the wounded receive primary treatment after they're stabilized and lifted out of the hot areas? You can be damn sure the West Germans and Italians would've fought with us against the Soviets. (The French would've surrendered first, then waited for us to liberate them LOL)

- I honestly do not know about the Oakland case, if you can provide some sort of link or ref I would like to read about it (I'm serious, not being sarcastic on this).

- On Homeland Security, not practical to try to integrate Border Patrol, Customs, ICE, USCG, Secret Service, FEMA, etc. into CIA. Two totally different missions for these agencies vs. CIA. CIA is mostly focused on O-CONUS intelligence gathering. The agencies of DHS are primarily defensive in nature. No way the cultures would effectively mesh.

-Lemay Doctrine - The LeMay Doctrine stated that if a country decides to go to war, it must use all of its resources to win -- quickly and decisively. Other options only prolong the bloodshed and, ultimately, put more lives at risk. I'm sure his philosophy was influenced by Sun Tzu which I am a fan of also. In hindsight dealing with Iraq qould've been done more effectively with Special Ops and CIA (ala Reagan). Once the decision was made to go, I was more of an advocate of not fighting a politically correct war against the insurgents, (not nuke 'em, but there would've been curfews, guns would've been confiscated, any insurgents would've been killed not negotiated with like Al Sadr)unfortuantely Bush was not willing to approach Iraq in this way. However in Bush's defense, the decision to go was based on bad intel. After Clinton had gutted our HUMINT capabilities throughout the 90s, it shouldn't have been a huge surprise we had bad intel on Iraq.

I'm was also tired of these liberal fools saying things like, "Right Wing Nazis" or "Right Wing Fascist". That is a lie.

We agree on this point

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Trample is Fascism comparable to social conservatism?

Not in the least from what I can understand of Social Conservatism. I'm not a religious person, so maybe someone with a socially conservative outlook on things could best explain it better. Fascism is usually defined by its economic, socialistic, and nationlistic outlook.

Having said that, from what I understand of social conservatism, it is the exact opposite of Fascism. Fascist, like all socialist, traditionally want to replace religious values with those scientifically "prescribed" by they state. Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with his racist pagan ideology. Mussolini wanted to restore a pagan Roman Empire. My own state of Virginia (as well as many other states) steralized blacks, indians, and the mentally ill.

Like most early followers of Marx, the old school Fascist thought religion is poison and wanted and did replace it with the idolatry of the state.

Social conservatives are classically liberal in the sense that they have freedom of association, even if those being associated with are undiserable to them. Fascist usually liquidate, seperate, or at the very least marginalize those they deem undesirable so they cannot infect the whole. They do this not only because of their morals, they do it because undesirables are a drain on society. This is what all socialism comes too, economics.

I don't think cultural conservatives are limited to economic theories based on their religious beliefs. Many of the devoutly anti-religious on the left debase the Republicans as being Christian. I know of too many Christians on the left who advocate "being your brother's keeper" through the government, which is socialism.