If there is a 9/11 scale attack on US soil in the next 24 months

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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?

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?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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".

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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?

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?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

You still have not given a single instance of a maxist/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.

Hugo Chavez called Bush a socialist. LOL. Is he not a true socliast?

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


Do you have ANYTHING or just your own opinion here? I love how you keep trying to change the rules because you have nothing. LOL

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Hugo Chavez called Bush a socialist. LOL. Is he not a true socliast?

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


Do you have ANYTHING or just your own opinion here? I love how you keep trying to change the rules because you have nothing. LOL

I said marxist/socialist "scholar." Are you now claiming Chavez is a scholar?
Again, I say that if you want to know the opinion of some Marxist/socialist scholars, the only thing I can tell you to do is find them and ask them. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you.
I have asked you a simple question, and you refuse to answer it....which is fine. We have had this lengthy and uninteresting discussion twice now and have made no headway either time. I have no idea why you decided to bring the topic up again in this thread, but it has ended with predictable results.
Neither one of us is going to convince the other so what is the point in going on?
I think you are wrong, and you think I am. Fine.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I said marxist/socialist "scholar." Are you now claiming Chavez is a scholar?
Again, I say that if you want to know the opinion of some Marxist/socialist scholars, the only thing I can tell you to do is find them and ask them. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you.
I have asked you a simple question, and you refuse to answer it....which is fine. We have had this lengthy and uninteresting discussion twice now and have made no headway either time. I have no idea why you decided to bring the topic up again in this thread, but it has ended with predictable results.
Neither one of us is going to convince the other so what is the point in going on?
I think you are wrong, and you think I am. Fine.

You are unable to simply admit you are wrong and take the defeat with grace. I think its funny. I give you a definition accepted in every dictionary on the web? You say the definition is wrong. You say "no scholar would call Bush a socialist". So then i provide links to scholars that do indeed call Bush Socialist. What do you do? You say they need to be socialist scholars and question Roubini as reliable. LOL

In the meantime, you have provided nothing except rambling minutiae. Do you have anything to back up your point? Any quote from ANY scholar socialist or not??????????????????????????????

If not, you lose.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You are unable to simply admit you are wrong and take the defeat with grace. I think its funny. I give you a definition accepted in every dictionary on the web? You say the definition is wrong. You say "no scholar would call Bush a socialist". So then i provide links to scholars that do indeed call Bush Socialist. What do you do? You say they need to be socialist scholars and question Roubini as reliable. LOL

In the meantime, you have provided nothing except rambling minutiae. Do you have anything to back up your point? Any quote from ANY scholar socialist or not??????????????????????????????

If not, you lose.

Still can't find anything huh?
If you refuse to answer my questions....that is fine....I consider the matter closed.
As for me saying that no scholar would call Bush a socialist, I shouldn't have said that and have admitted so in this thread. That was a legitimate overstatement on my part.
As for Roubini, I called him a "generally resepected economist" which I don't see as calling him unreliable.
Again, my point is relatively simple. If George W. Bush was a socialist, don't you think there would be a lot of socialist scholars celebrating this great shift by the G.O.P. to socialism? You have yet to give a single example of such an instance or answer my repeated attempts to get you to explain how a man who disagrees with probably 99% of what a party stands for is actually the same ideologically as that Party.
If you choose to celebrate that as a victory in this discussion, I know of nothing else to do other than to offer you my heartfelt congratulations.

Now seriously, I'm done with this conversation. I'll let this thread get back to discussing your ridiculous hypothetical/blame question.