Thanks for making my point. It's all about elitism for you and ateam.

Yes, elitism, blah blah blah. Another saturday night in the backwoods of kentucky.

Some day, maybe you will leave that trailer...let me know what you find.

...

Yet you're posting from home on a Saturday night.

BentMahPud called...he wants his material back.

actually im married.

Whats your excuse loser?

I never thought (and I don't think I stated it either) that people outside of NY were unsympathetic or didn't get the severity of what happened. It did affect everyone in the country. I thought people were going to start blowing themselves up on buses, like in Isreal. Or blowing up malls and so on. It was a very confusing, scary time.
I really believe that the whole nation and even parts of the world mourned with everyone affected by the tradgedy. People say, I can imagine what it was like. That's when I say, unless you were there you have absolutley no clue what the F went on. You might have had a good view from TV, but there were people who were on the playing field who were running for their lives. They really don't know how scary and dire the situation was.
The same thing goes for Oklahoma City and even the tsunami. We all felt for those people that lost loved ones and the ones who expierenced and lived through it. But we have no idea the hell that they all went through, because we weren't there.

I am in no mood to have this argument with you again since you seem completely unwilling to grasp basic concepts, but I'll give it a shot.
What do you think the socialist parties in America think of the government bailouts? By your logic they should be happy about it right? They aren't. Why? Because they see it for what it is, which is an attempt to prop up global capitalism, which is exactly what true socialists do NOT want.
I encourage you to read this article: http://socialistworker.org/2008/10/15/comrade-in-chief
The whole thing is interesting, but the real key comes at the end:
"The transition from capitalism to socialism can't be a gradual or incremental process by which the state enacts reforms and progressively takes ownership of more and larger chunks of the economy. Rather, socialism represents a radical break with the present system--and depends on the active struggles of workers and their subsequent engagement with every aspect of governing society in their own interest, under the guiding principle of human need before corporate greed."

As for what scholars think, I can only tell you that as someone that works in academics in a department where about 75% of the people are marxists, I can assure you that none of them would call the actions taken by the administration in recent weeks/months socialism.

Now please feel free to go back to calling people names like hillbilly and loser. It is real classy.

I didn't ask what your status was, stalker.

Try again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...l.creditcrunch


Is Roubini a scholar? I would say so. Not to impugn your place in the world of scholars, but i would say his word carries more weight. He calls Bush a socialist. You said No scholar would call Bush a socialist.

Wouldnt that make you...WRONG??????

Now try to talk your way out of it classy guy.

LOL. Dont need to try again. I think enough damage has been done. Goodnight coach.

I'm still laughing about you giving out a profile in defense of being online tonight. Like being married is justification for it.

Hypocrite. Dumb b.itch.

Roubini is certainly a scholar. If I did say that NO scholar would call Bush a socialist than yes, I was certainly wrong. I should have said that the overwhelming majority of scholars would not call him a socialist.
You can always come across a few guys that disagree. The same holds true with global warming. The people that deny global warming all trot out the one or two guys who deny that it is real and then argue that there is disagreement among scientists....when there isn't really much of a disagreement at all.

The fact remains that by MOST intelligent estimates, Bush is not a socialist. I think it stands to reason that the people that actually ARE socialists would be a pretty good judge of who qualifies, and they certainly wouldn't classify Bush as being one of them.

IM glad i made you laugh. Having family and a job for that matter are two thing you arent familiar with that keep you home many times on weekends.

It seems that you are the one getting defensive about being online hillbilly.:)

Or was it the loser part that bothered you?

I thought you were going to bed?

;)

This is your quote:

Secondly, I assure you that no serious academic would ever categorize George W. Bush as a socialist. He's not even close.

Roubini is one of the most respected economists in the world. His opinion would trump 99.9% of any group of scholars out there. I provided a link to his stated opinion which goes with what i am saying.

Can you provide anything to prove yours or am I supposed to take your word for it? Not to say that you are dishonest sir, I just want to know if you have anything to substantiate your point that now MOST scholars would not call
Bush socialist?

no, im not going to sleep coach, i thought you were. :wf ?

First let me just say that you might be overstating Roubini a bit. Afterall, Yale did refuse to give him tenure when he taught there.
However, Roubini's credibility isn't really the issue and he is, as you say, a generally respected economist. As I said the last time we engaged in this discussion, the only way I know that you can learn more about this topic is either to read some books on the history of socialism (I believe I recommended a couple good ones to you last time) or to actually talk with some respected marxist scholars.
There are certainly people that call Bush a socialist (mainly people on the right) but it seems that people that do (including Roubini) use a pop-culture definition of the word rather than its generally accepted meaning among academics.

Again, I ask you to look at the socialists themselves. Here is their economic platform from this year: http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html
How many of those things do you think George W. Bush would agree with? (Oh and if you read #5 carefully you will see that he would not agree with it at all). I would also encourage you to look at their other platform planks at the bottom of the link and see how many things on there you think Bush would agree with. If he really is a socialist, why does the Socialist Party disagree with him on almost every issue?

Quit trying to talk around the subject. You still arent backing up what you are saying. All you are doing, as you did before, is trying to talk down to me as this "all knowing scholar" without any proof or substance. How can you prove what is generally accepted amongst scholars? Who are you to claim that one the most famous economists in the world is not using the definion that is "accepted among scholars"?

Your link is to the socialist party. Okay, here is a link to a couple of socialists that think Bush is a socialist.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=22&sp=true

Is Hugo Chavez right wing? I would say he is as left as they come and he is calling Bush "comrade".

A few more scholars that think Bush is a socialists. One is George Reisman PHD, Prof. emeritus Pepperdine.

http://mises.org/story/3165

DW Mckenzie, Professor of economics at the coast guard

http://mises.org/story/3157

Llewellyn Rockefeller, President of the Mises institute

http://mises.org/story/3126




All of these scholars are saying socialists. Do you have anything to back your point?

You still have not given a single instance of a marxist/socialist scholar that is calling what Bush is doing socialism. You just provided three links from the Ludwig von Mises Institute which is about as libertarian and free market as you can get. Am I shocked to see them blame government intervention for the current crisis or complaining that Bush is really a lefty? Not at all. Am I shocked that Chavez took an opportunity to mock Bush (who he hates)? Of course not.

Are there a lot of scholars writing articles that say what Bush is doing is not socialism? Probably not because it is so bloody obvious. Again I ask you, look at the Socialist Party economic platform. I'm not talking down to you, I'm seriously asking you. How many of the things on that platform do you think George W. Bush (and his administration) would agree with? And then ask yourself the next logical question, if he doesn't agree with the socialist party on hardly anything, does it really make sense to call him a socialist?

I just think people like you and Sarah Palin love to throw that the word "socialist" around all the time as a pejorative without ever looking at what a true socialist actually believes.