[BillyB]

It seems that no matter how many times that I slam Bush's domestic policies, liberals still assume that I must have supported him lockstep because I oppose nearly every Obama policy. Do I consider Bush a hard line socialist, as I do Obama? No, I do not. Were the bailout socialist actions? Yes they were.

The billions of dollars that Bush spent in Africa to get Bono's approval and in the hopes that it would win the votes of black Americans was even worse than the AIG bailout. It is bad enough to take money out of the pockets of job-producing American citizens and give it to American citizens who refuse to work - but to give such an enormous sum of tax dollars to corrupt African regimes to fight AIDS was inexcusable, IMO. AIDS is a largely preventable disease. Spending money to fight it in this country can arguably be justified by the "general welfare" clause of the US Constitution but no such argument can be made to support Bush's decision.

However, Bush did not surround himself at the highest level of by a cadre of Mao-admiring communists and socialists. Obama did and besides, whatever Bush did does not excuse Obama's expansive socialist agenda.

Bush is no longer president and liberals had eight years to attack his every move. Now it is your turn to defend Obama's actions on their own merits. "Bush did it too!" is not much of a justification. Is it?

Yeah it is. I know you don't want to talk about it, but it's fair to compare the two. Saying "I didn't agree with George Bush all the time" doesn't cut it either. Obama is continuing many of the same policies Bush started. No one was running to rallies with guns strapped to their legs when Bush did it. So the new mantra around here is: Forget about everything Bush did and everything that fell apart under his watch and blame it on Obama (or Barry, or the socialist, or the foreign born Muslim, or . . .) Laughable.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yeah it is. I know you don't want to talk about it, but it's fair to compare the two. Saying "I didn't agree with George Bush all the time" doesn't cut it either. Obama is continuing many of the same policies Bush started. No one was running to rallies with guns strapped to their legs when Bush did it. So the new mantra around here is: Forget about everything Bush did and everything that fell apart under his watch and blame it on Obama (or Barry, or the socialist, or the foreign born Muslim, or . . .) Laughable.

Let's play that game and try to show that both Bush and Obama are socialists at the core. Name a few hardcore socialists and communists in Bush's inner circle. Name one CEO that Bush had fired. Name one employee of a private sector company who had his or her salary cut as a direct result of an action taken by a member of the Bush administration. Cite instances where Bush made statements with socialist overtones such as Obama's "spreading the wealth around" or "at some point you have made enough money" comments.

After you answer those questions, let's talk again about the peas in a pod socialists GW Bush and Barry Obama.

[Hoot Gibson]

I thought everybody knew the "what does a US Senator see when they look in the mirror in the morning" joke. Fair Scales Capitalism is leftist? Strange days, indeed.

Is somebody paying a royalty each time that you for use of nonsensical phrase. "Fair Scales Capitalism?" Is that what you do to earn a living? If so, business must be good. :biggrin:

[Old School]

Is somebody paying a royalty each time that you for use of nonsensical phrase. "Fair Scales Capitalism?" Is that what you do to earn a living? If so, business must be good. :biggrin:

Or using the phrase "Barrack Obama is not a socialist" :biggrin:

I guessing he get triple the scale dip when he uses both in the same post.

[thecavemaster]

The roots of "fair scales" capitalism are Biblical. There goes the neighborhood I guess. Fair Scales Capitalism describes what Barack Obama believes in... that it appears nonsensical to you fellas suggests more than you might imagine.

[Hoot Gibson]

The roots of "fair scales" capitalism are Biblical. There goes the neighborhood I guess. Fair Scales Capitalism describes what Barack Obama believes in... that it appears nonsensical to you fellas suggests more than you might imagine.

KaChing, KaChing! Capitalism has never been about allowing tin horn politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Socialism has never been about being fair.

[BillyB]

Yeah it is. I know you don't want to talk about it, but it's fair to compare the two. Saying "I didn't agree with George Bush all the time" doesn't cut it either. Obama is continuing many of the same policies Bush started. No one was running to rallies with guns strapped to their legs when Bush did it. So the new mantra around here is: Forget about everything Bush did and everything that fell apart under his watch and blame it on Obama (or Barry, or the socialist, or the foreign born Muslim, or . . .) Laughable.

Where did I say that either was a socialist?

[thecavemaster]

KaChing, KaChing! Capitalism has never been about allowing tin horn politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Socialism has never been about being fair.

Fair Scales Capitalism suggests honest goods for honest prices, good work for a living wage. It doesn't mean that everyone has to earn the same or live the same. Are we really debating this point? A General Motors demise was not in the best interests of this country, Hoot. Five years from now, you'll be forced to admit that. Your disregard for politicians, seemingly in toto, is suggestive as well.

[Hoot Gibson]

Where did I say that either was a socialist?

You defended my assertion that Obama is a socialist by claiming that he is merely carrying out many of the same policies as Bush. I am challenging you to show that Bush actively pursued the same socialist policies that Obama has. Obama's own public statements and his appointments of communists and socialists to high positions in the administration shows that your defense of Obama holds no water. If it did, then you could produce a list of socialists appointed by Bush to carry out his policies that correspond to the left wing activists in Obama's administration. You cannot do so because your argument has no merit.

[Hoot Gibson]

Fair Scales Capitalism suggests honest goods for honest prices, good work for a living wage. It doesn't mean that everyone has to earn the same or live the same. Are we really debating this point? A General Motors demise was not in the best interests of this country, Hoot. Five years from now, you'll be forced to admit that. Your disregard for politicians, seemingly in toto, is suggestive as well.

"Honest prices" and fair wages are most fairly set by a free market. Having politicians pick winners and losers by trying to micromanage the private sector is not capitalism. Your tireless efforts to invent your own language to allow Obama to qualify as a capitalist is bizarre. Just admit the obvious and defend socialism for what it is.

[thecavemaster]

"Honest prices" and fair wages are most fairly set by a free market. Having politicians pick winners and losers by trying to micromanage the private sector is not capitalism. Your tireless efforts to invent your own language to allow Obama to qualify as a capitalist is bizarre. Just admit the obvious and defend socialism for what it is.

Adam Smith himself (The Wealth of Nations) did not believe in this purist view that you have of "free markets." Fair Scales capitalism is not socialism. What is obvious to you, Hoot, obviously, is what serves the purpose best of reinforcing the way you see the world... that gets clearer with every word you type.

[Hoot Gibson]

Adam Smith himself (The Wealth of Nations) did not believe in this purist view that you have of "free markets." Fair Scales capitalism is not socialism. What is obvious to you, Hoot, obviously, is what serves the purpose best of reinforcing the way you see the world... that gets clearer with every word you type.

Anybody who seeks to control the free market, whether it is a corporation exploiting monopolies or politicians like Obama seizing ownership of private companies, is not a true capitalist. People need to be protected against unfair trade practices but we also need to be protected from those who would like to place the yoke of socialism on our shoulders.

[thecavemaster]

Anybody who seeks to control the free market, whether it is a corporation exploiting monopolies or politicians like Obama seizing ownership of private companies, is not a true capitalist. People need to be protected against unfair trade practices but we also need to be protected from those who would like to place the yoke of socialism on our shoulders.

Let's be clear: Barack Obama did not seize control of GM in the way that a dictator seizes control of private interests. You may not agree with Obama's decision on GM, but to cast him in the same mold with Castro or Stalin or Mao or Lenin as has been done? Come on. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I cannot take seriously those who refuse anything but the broadest generalizations, as if points of differenentiation and distinction don't matter. I may or may not like Obama's GM decision. But, he's not a socialist.

[Hoot Gibson]

Let's be clear: Barack Obama did not seize control of GM in the way that a dictator seizes control of private interests. You may not agree with Obama's decision on GM, but to cast him in the same mold with Castro or Stalin or Mao or Lenin as has been done? Come on. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I cannot take seriously those who refuse anything but the broadest generalizations, as if points of differenentiation and distinction don't matter. I may or may not like Obama's GM decision. But, he's not a socialist.

I see. So there is no bloodshed when the Obama regime takes private property for the greater good, so therefor he cannot possibly be a communist or a socialist. I see your point. :eyeroll:

[thecavemaster]

I see. So there is no bloodshed when the Obama regime takes private property for the greater good, so therefor he cannot possibly be a communist or a socialist. I see your point. :eyeroll:

Nay, nay, dear Hoot... you see the point you wanted me to make to suit your purposes. Barack Obama has no intention of taking over GM for keeps... it was a stopgap measure, a short-term bridge, and, in five years (or less) you and I can revisit this issue. Barack Obama is not a communist (offensive and ridiculous) nor a socialist (laughable), though you need him to be for purposes of 2012.

[Hoot Gibson]

Nay, nay, dear Hoot... you see the point you wanted me to make to suit your purposes. Barack Obama has no intention of taking over GM for keeps... it was a stopgap measure, a short-term bridge, and, in five years (or less) you and I can revisit this issue. Barack Obama is not a communist (offensive and ridiculous) nor a socialist (laughable), though you need him to be for purposes of 2012.

And when Barry Obama relinquishes government control of GM back to the shareholders, will he also be taking back the UAW ownership interest that he bestowed on his loyal union supporters? Obama is an incremental socialist. At least his buddy Hugo is honest about his intentions.

[Old School]

I see. So there is no bloodshed when the Obama regime takes private property for the greater good, so therefor he cannot possibly be a communist or a socialist. I see your point. :eyeroll:

....and takes away the hard working men and women's retirement funds and gives it to mean ole greedy unions. :dontthink

[Old School]

Fair Scales Capitalism suggests honest goods for honest prices, good work for a living wage. It doesn't mean that everyone has to earn the same or live the same. Are we really debating this point? A General Motors demise was not in the best interests of this country, Hoot. Five years from now, you'll be forced to admit that. Your disregard for politicians, seemingly in toto, is suggestive as well.

Who sets these honest prices?

Who sets these honest wages?