Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
First of all let me say that this is probably the most boring discussion I have ever been involved in on this site.
But secondly, let me keep this boring conversation going a bit longer. It seems like your argument breaks down like this:
1) Socialists advocate increasing the size and power of the government.
2) The Bush administration has increased the size and power of the government.
Therefore.....George W. Bush is a socialist.
That is flawed logic, and I think an analogy from the world of horse racing might illustrate why:
1) Good racehorses win horseraces.
2) Pepper's Pride wins horseraces.
By your logic this would mean that Pepper's Pride is a good racehorse.....which of course, she is not.
Just because two things share common characteristics does not mean they are the same thing.
If you really are interested in learning about socialism, I would suggest reading either Lichtheim's The Origins of Socialism, or perhaps, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (the name of the author on this one escapes me at the moment). Both books are a bit dated at this point (I think they were both written in the 70s) but I had to read them a few years ago and they both do a pretty good job of explaining what distinguishes socialism from other political/economic philosophies.
|
Actually, you are putting words into my mouth or rather you are trying to make it seem as if i said something that i didnt. Lets rehash because you have obviously dug yourself into a hole and you don't want to admit it. So...
Originally, I stated that George W. Bush is a socialist. You said that I am wrong. Fine. I then supported my contention with these rhetorical questions:
Is the idea of bailing out wall st with public funds socialist?
1. Is the idea of a "stimulus package" socialist?
2. Is the idea smart growth socialist?
3. Is the idea to build 1300 new power plants with government funds socialist?
4, Is the nationalization of 90% of the mortgage industry socialist?
To this you replied that the answer would be "no".
To that I provided a link to wikipedia. To this you question the validity of the info.
Then i Provided a link to britannica and The dictionary. To that you replied with nebulous banter that you somehow tried to relate to horseracing.
Do you want me to post the definition of socialism found in the dictionary and encyclopedia again and tell you how Bush has helped to govern in a socialist way? Or do you want to continue to talk in circles? Support your points or be done.