Is Obama a Socialist?

[steelish]

Many have rolled eyes and shunned the idea that we might have a Socialist President who is trying to transform America. Before dismissing the thought, read these facts, then decide for yourself.

Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)

*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits...
- Obama Sr. on socialism (Link (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html))
- Overview of the paper (Link (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGZiMGZlNGRiOWJjYzE5OTEwMWEwZWZhOTQzZjVjMTY=))
*Harvard educated economist
*Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes
*Demonized corporations
*Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)

Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)

*Communist sympathizer
*Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism)
*Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
*Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
*Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies
*Left Barack Obama Jr.

Mentor

*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html))
*Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents

College & Church

*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4EHmzslKLw))
*Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/is_obama_a_socialist.asp))
*Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link (http://www.acton.org/commentary/443_marxist_roots_of_black_liberation_theology.php ))

Career

*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM))
*Voted for TARP (Link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/03/13/record-shows-obama-was-board-tarp-september-every-bit-socialist-bush))
*$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
*Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth'
*Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk))
*President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
*President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
*President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
*President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'
*President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
*Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich'
*Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."
*Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
*Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502426.html))
*Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/04/05/glimmer-hope-cnn-suggests-democratic-economic-policy-could-create-jobless))
*Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o))

Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration

*Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
*Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
*Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
*Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
*John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
*Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
*Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
*Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar'
*Carol Browner, socialist
*Robert Creamer, socialist

[Kendal]

Are you trying to suggest what he is on the basis of what his parents may or may not have been. That's a dangerous road to go down... sins of the father are vested in the son. We talked about this in another topic.

He met, read, knows, been influenced by socialists and communists. Yes, so what. I read Mein Kampf, does that make me fascist. Are politi'c's like contagious diseases - shake a man's hand and you catch his politics. If the President of the United States of America offered you his hand would you refuse that hand.

Would it not be better to look at what the man himself says rather than looking at what church his mother went to. Seems to me like political profiling or a McCarthy type evidence of a man's political beliefs. I once danced with a woman who danced with a man who danced with a communist.

Personally I hope he has socialists tendencies - if not he is in the wrong job as a left wing President. Dems are left yes. Socialism is the counterbalance to capitalism. What do want a ying without a yang. For me suggesting a left wing democrat is a communist is like suggesting a right wing republican is a fascist. If Obama is Stalin then McCain is Hitler.

The poor in every undeveloped country are socialist. The fact his "father advised government to redistribute income through higher taxes" is in my view a plus point. Most African bureaucrats steal from the poor to feather their own nest and become the rich. Looks like Obama Snr. wanted to steal from the corrupt rich to give to the poor. Good on him.

[steelish]

Would it not be better to look at what the man himself says rather than looking at what church his mother went to.

I guess you didn't click on every posted link, because he shows his Socialist beliefs in his own words.

It's one thing to have a liberal left wing President...it's another to have one who ignores the entire right and plows ahead with his own agenda. With him as President, there is no Yin/Yang. There's only Yin.

[Kendal]

I guess you didn't click on every posted link, because he shows his Socialist beliefs in his own words.

No I did not click on the links because I would not be surprised if he held socialist beliefs. In fact I expect him to. Most left wing politicians in Europe (including current and previous UK PM) have some socialist beliefs. So what.

If you just kept to the links then fine no problem. But you did not. You went on at great length in a long list about his mom and pop and what church they went to and what pop did in Nairobi etc etc etc etc. My post was address at the relevance of that - not the links.

[DuncanONeil]

If you read "Mein Kampf", more power to you. But in the case of Obama it is not one book. It is a lifetime of association. There is evidence that the values of any given person are set by the time they are ten. Of course that is not set in concrete, but in this case the beliefs of the Presidents youth are mirrored by his associations in adulthood.
We are not presented with an aberration in his belief system but a compendium of a large set that all is of a kind.

Government control of everything is not a counterbalance to anything. Least of all Capitalism!


Are you trying to suggest what he is on the basis of what his parents may or may not have been. That's a dangerous road to go down... sins of the father are vested in the son. We talked about this in another topic.

He met, read, knows, been influenced by socialists and communists. Yes, so what. I read Mein Kampf, does that make me fascist. Are politi'c's like contagious diseases - shake a man's hand and you catch his politics. If the President of the United States of America offered you his hand would you refuse that hand.

Would it not be better to look at what the man himself says rather than looking at what church his mother went to. Seems to me like political profiling or a McCarthy type evidence of a man's political beliefs. I once danced with a woman who danced with a man who danced with a communist.

Personally I hope he has socialists tendencies - if not he is in the wrong job as a left wing President. Dems are left yes. Socialism is the counterbalance to capitalism. What do want a ying without a yang. For me suggesting a left wing democrat is a communist is like suggesting a right wing republican is a fascist. If Obama is Stalin then McCain is Hitler.

The poor in every undeveloped country are socialist. The fact his "father advised government to redistribute income through higher taxes" is in my view a plus point. Most African bureaucrats steal from the poor to feather their own nest and become the rich. Looks like Obama Snr. wanted to steal from the corrupt rich to give to the poor. Good on him.

[DuncanONeil]

You believe that Government ownership and/or control of everything is good for the country? You cite European countries as the example of that position? Yet the fact that those countries are trending downward provides no concern?
Why must the USofA be like Europe?? The major problem with you view, socialism counterbalances capitalism, is that socialism also counterbalances liberty. That is most definately not a good thing!!

If so desire to live under the auspices of socialism perhaps you would be better served to choose a residence where such is already the manner of operation.


No I did not click on the links because I would not be surprised if he held socialist beliefs. In fact I expect him to. Most left wing politicians in Europe (including current and previous UK PM) have some socialist beliefs. So what.

If you just kept to the links then fine no problem. But you did not. You went on at great length in a long list about his mom and pop and what church they went to and what pop did in Nairobi etc etc etc etc. My post was address at the relevance of that - not the links.

[steelish]

No I did not click on the links because I would not be surprised if he held socialist beliefs. In fact I expect him to. Most left wing politicians in Europe (including current and previous UK PM) have some socialist beliefs. So what.

If you just kept to the links then fine no problem. But you did not. You went on at great length in a long list about his mom and pop and what church they went to and what pop did in Nairobi etc etc etc etc. My post was address at the relevance of that - not the links.

So you think how someone is raised has absolutely no bearing on how they turn out or what they believe in?

He continues to live/think the way his parents did.

[denuseri]

Well if he is a socialist President...he is most certianly not the first one.

lol

[steelish]

Well if he is a socialist President...he is most certianly not the first one.

lol

No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority. He is the first President to welcome the advice of someone who bombed the Pentagon. He is the first President to welcome the advice of people who hate America and everything the country stands for.

There is a difference between past Presidents who believed in progress and change and the current President who wants to transform America into a completely different country.

[denuseri]

I honestly dont think he is transforming anything in as grave a matter as you are sugesting steelish.

Heck FDR was way more of a socialist and changed things way way more and faster than I think Obama ever will manage in todays quagmire of partisanship.

[Lion]

Why does socialism = less rights again?

Where were the Tea Party people when the PATRIOT act was being signed? I ask this because the understanding that I get is that Obama is signing away the rights of Americans. And in the last 10 years, I think the biggest threat to the American constitution was when security trumped freedoms.

Duncan said that European countries are trending downwards. A lot of countries are, US is too. Canada is comparitively socialist, and our economy is not going down. Feel free to decide the path of your own country, but saying that socialist countries are going down in a sweeping statement is inaccurate and misleading.

Btw, some people still think my responses are sarcastic. My questions are questions, and my comments are comments. I do not imply anything other then what I say. I am tired of people assuming I mean malice with what I say, or some sort of perverted, snarky response to others.

[Kendal]

So you think how someone is raised has absolutely no bearing on how they turn out or what they believe in? He continues to live/think the way his parents did. People are no doubt influenced by their upbringing but it can go either direction. Some people rebel and are the opposite of the parents, others follow in the footsteps. My point was we should discuss Obama's politics not the politics of the parents or what church his mom went to.

Angela Merkel - chancellor of Germany - was raised in communist East Germany and an active member of socialist political parties. By your logic with her socialiast background and leanings Germany should be in chaos but Germany is doing a lot better than USA.

Jack Straw - UK Home Secretary - is a socialist whose father was imprisoned as a consciencous objector in WW2. Yet Straw and his pal Tony Blair made UK the only power to join repulican Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanmistan. America had no problem with Tony or Jack's socialism.

You see it in such black and white terms. Anybody who wants fairer wealth redistribution is a socialist, a socialist is a communist and communie bastards are the enemy. I don't see it that way. In the UK the entire Labour party are socialist, Sweden has cradle to grave welfare programs and Canada, as Lion points out, has socialists policies. These countries are not in chaos and manage to tick over okay.

To address your question. No Obama is not a socialist. He would be laughed out of a socialist convention. He would be considered right wing in Europe. Yes he has been influenced by socialist thinking and the poverty and corruption he has undoubtely seen in Africa and Asia. Yes some of his policies and thoughts are closer to socialism than those of the Republicans but that does not make them socialist.


No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority. Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

[DuncanONeil]

In a socialist controlled country a person is not free to make their own choices. Nor are they free to choose the uses for the fruits of their labors.
Others are making those decisions for them.

As for the Patriot Act and the tea party, um it did not exist?


Why does socialism = less rights again?

Where were the Tea Party people when the PATRIOT act was being signed? I ask this because the understanding that I get is that Obama is signing away the rights of Americans. And in the last 10 years, I think the biggest threat to the American constitution was when security trumped freedoms.

Duncan said that European countries are trending downwards. A lot of countries are, US is too. Canada is comparitively socialist, and our economy is not going down. Feel free to decide the path of your own country, but saying that socialist countries are going down in a sweeping statement is inaccurate and misleading.

Btw, some people still think my responses are sarcastic. My questions are questions, and my comments are comments. I do not imply anything other then what I say. I am tired of people assuming I mean malice with what I say, or some sort of perverted, snarky response to others.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish did not limit herself to Obama's parents. Nor even only those that raised him.
Although you are going to great lengths to include only those sources.
The vast majority of Obama's mentors, associates, confidants, advisers, and friends are members of the radical left. Unapologetic, at that, of the violence they did.
The totality, that you ignore, makes the conclusion of Obama being socialist appropriate. Add to that his blatant disregard of the will of the people means we need to see the end of an error Jan 20 2013.

Socialists are not communists. Just how do you propose to go about making a "fairer wealth redistribution". Any plan to do so is going to confiscate from those that produce in favor of those that do not. Yes that is concrete but you know full well what is meant.
Obama is not socialist, answered that already!

The lesser of two weevils are what got them into office. This is one of the only Presidential candidates that actually had was actually composed of no planks. His entire campaign was "change"! Each and every person heard that and believed that he was going to change their personal peeve. This campaign, that has yet to end, was the most egregious in promising everything to get the power to not govern but rule.
We tossed King George! We will toss King Obama - and his nobles & barons!


People are no doubt influenced by their upbringing but it can go either direction. Some people rebel and are the opposite of the parents, others follow in the footsteps. My point was we should discuss Obama's politics not the politics of the parents or what church his mom went to.

Angela Merkel - chancellor of Germany - was raised in communist East Germany and an active member of socialist political parties. By your logic with her socialiast background and leanings Germany should be in chaos but Germany is doing a lot better than USA.

Jack Straw - UK Home Secretary - is a socialist whose father was imprisoned as a consciencous objector in WW2. Yet Straw and his pal Tony Blair made UK the only power to join repulican Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanmistan. America had no problem with Tony or Jack's socialism.

You see it in such black and white terms. Anybody who wants fairer wealth redistribution is a socialist, a socialist is a communist and communie bastards are the enemy. I don't see it that way. In the UK the entire Labour party are socialist, Sweden has cradle to grave welfare programs and Canada, as Lion points out, has socialists policies. These countries are not in chaos and manage to tick over okay.

To address your question. No Obama is not a socialist. He would be laughed out of a socialist convention. He would be considered right wing in Europe. Yes he has been influenced by socialist thinking and the poverty and corruption he has undoubtely seen in Africa and Asia. Yes some of his policies and thoughts are closer to socialism than those of the Republicans but that does not make them socialist.

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

[Lion]

In a socialist controlled country a person is not free to make their own choices. Nor are they free to choose the uses for the fruits of their labors.
Others are making those decisions for them.

As for the Patriot Act and the tea party, um it did not exist?

Are you confusing socialism with communism? European countries are socialist, but citizens over there have rights that are found in US (free speech, press, assembly).

Fruits of their labour? Again, residents of socialist countries do pay higher tax rates compared to US, (I can think of a few Scandinavian countries), but enjoy a higher standard of living then US. They also buy cars, houses, electronics, furniture, sex toys, etc, and the government isn't telling them which ones to buy. So again, are you confusing communists with socialism, cause it seems that you have them confused.

My question regarding the PATRIOT act is where were most of these current Tea party activists when THEIR rights were beign eroded. My issue with these activist, and this whole movement is that it seems to be highly partisan. When there was a Republican in office, there was no huge protest when they signed a $700 billion dollar bailout. The country marched into a second war without so much of a plan in any regards (post war, financial aspect, etc), and 4 years after the fact, there was no Tea party movement, no outrage over the government's unplanned war. When the government expanded under Bush, again, there was no large protest on 'big government', or accusations that Bush is a socialist. Year after year, the country was running a deficit, but no protest about fiscal responsibility. Obama's in office, now people all of a sudden seem to care that there are bailouts, wars, deficits, and czars.

[Kendal]

Republicans want the other man out and their man in. This is to be expected. Fifty years of cold war and hollywood movies have conditioned Americans to believe the communist is evil and spells the end of the world. The average American does not know the difference between socialism and communism. Convince him Obama is socialist and its a short step to say he is a commie and it is your patriotic duuty to fight him.

What bothers me is the behind the scenes work here. I see a republican party campaign HQ with highly paid advisors coming up with dirty tricks on how to influence public opion. One says - lets suggest he is not American born and spread some BS about his birth certificate. Nah says another - lets imply he is a commie.

This is wrong. It does not matter what he is, what matters is his policies and perrformance. You don't like his healthcare reforms, fine bash him on that by all means but don't bash him because of what church his mom went to or what books he read as a student.

[steelish]

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

That is NOT how this country was designed nor intended. That might be politics in YOUR two party system, but not in ours.

In our system there IS supposed to be transparency. There IS supposed to be representation. Our representatives and senators are supposed to find out what the majority in their districts want, then go to Washington and represent them. The President is supposed to listen to what the senators and representatives say, and act accordingly. That obviously is not happening now. We have senators and reps "getting in bed" with the President's agenda, and damned to the people!

[steelish]

Republicans want the other man out and their man in.

I don't give a rat's ass whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office. What I care about is that someone who loves this country and respects the process is in office. I want someone with ideals in office, not someone who thinks that the founders of the Weather Underground are "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who believes in forced steriliization is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who hates America is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who admires Chairman Mao is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who admires Chavez is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who admires Castro is "ok" peeps.

[steelish]

I honestly dont think he is transforming anything in as grave a matter as you are sugesting steelish.

Heck FDR was way more of a socialist and changed things way way more and faster than I think Obama ever will manage in todays quagmire of partisanship.

So FDR's first year in office he
*became President of two major American auto manufacturers?
*he seized control of an insurance giant?
*he lead America to a single payer healthcare system?
*he seized control of the Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'?
*he seized control in massive land grabs?
*he added trillions (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/budget-create-deficits)to the deficit in one fell swoop?

Remember this speech? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=related)
or how about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM)?
Hmmmmm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfHPjhhbvLc&feature=related)

I agree that we've had many Socialist Presidents who have "set the stage", but I believe Obama is doing more damage to America and doing it more quickly than ever before and I think it's time for Americans to stand up and take control of the country through the polling booths once again. For too long now we've simply voted for known names, popular names, etc. instead of voting with our heads and values.

[Lion]

So FDR's first year in office he
*became President of two major American auto manufacturers?


I wasn't going to address this, but since you brought it up again to affirm your point, I feel it prudent to clarify this.

Obama is not the president of GM and Chrysler. The CEO of GM is Whitacre while the CEO of Chrysler is Marchionne.

The federal governments of Canada and US, and the Provincial government of Ontario have loaned the two companies money in order to restructure themselves, and remain viable. It is unfair that a large company gets the advantage of public funds, while a small business does not. But the issue at hand here is that millions of families would be affected if just these two companies fail. Downside to pure, unadulterated capitalism is that if an industry leader fails, the public suffers. Between the choice of hundreds of thousands of people becoming unemployed overnight, worsening the whole housing mess even further, and loaning money to these companies with public funds (which they have to return), I choose jobs. You may disagree, which is fine. What you can not state though, is that Obama is the president of these two companies. Without government loans, there would be no GM, no Chrysler today. Tax payers are shareholders of the company. Obama cannot become president of a company by using tax payers money.





*he lead America to a single payer healthcare system?


Again, no he didn't. I wish people really informed themselves with what was included in the bill. There is no death panels, no conspiracy to become the Soviets, and no single payer healthcare system.

Single payer is what we have in Canada. Public Option which was what the Dems were trying to push until Liberman demanded it's removal, was a system to offered an alternative to private healthcare for those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.




*he seized control in massive land grabs?


The federal government buying more land is socialist? The 14 sites were selected designated to protect National landscapes. There are tons of federal and state parks that aren't considered land grabs when they were first proposed, so why is this? I visisted the Adirondacks, and fell in love with the place. Gas stations made money by me fueling up, the local bar made money when I ate there. There were boat tours, and a vast number of services offered to tourists. Economic activity was not depressed.

And this land belongs to the government, your government. Not Obama, so when a Republican gets into office, it still belongs to the government. Democratic government or Republican government.


Bah...not going to address all the points. I don't want to write a book.

[Canyon]

Of course Barak Obama is a socialist. His entire history, politics, etc lead one that direction I remember a quote, which I wish I could find but can only remember part of where he said "make no mistake, I am a progressive." He said it somewhere on the west coast, after his comments about Pennsylvanians. Progressive is a word often used if "Liberal" or "Socialist" (yes I am aware there are minor differences between them, but they are generally similar) will drive away votes. I am only dissapointed, that in American Politics, people misrepresent themselves to get votes. There are honesty and integrety issues here and I wonder who is truthful. One of the leaders of the Democrats, Nancy Peloci, recently said something to the effect of "you say a lot of things on the campaign trail." And on that point, I'm dissapointed in all politicians and parties who say what are effectively lies.

[steelish]

I wasn't going to address this, but since you brought it up again to affirm your point, I feel it prudent to clarify this.

Obama is not the president of GM and Chrysler. The CEO of GM is Whitacre while the CEO of Chrysler is Marchionne.

But he is their boss.




Again, no he didn't. I wish people really informed themselves with what was included in the bill. There is no death panels, no conspiracy to become the Soviets, and no single payer healthcare system.

Single payer is what we have in Canada. Public Option which was what the Dems were trying to push until Liberman demanded it's removal, was a system to offered an alternative to private healthcare for those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

So you didn't watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk) entire video?





The federal government buying more land is socialist? The 14 sites were selected designated to protect National landscapes. There are tons of federal and state parks that aren't considered land grabs when they were first proposed, so why is this? I visisted the Adirondacks, and fell in love with the place. Gas stations made money by me fueling up, the local bar made money when I ate there. There were boat tours, and a vast number of services offered to tourists. Economic activity was not depressed.

And this land belongs to the government, your government. Not Obama, so when a Republican gets into office, it still belongs to the government. Democratic government or Republican government.


Bah...not going to address all the points. I don't want to write a book.

And you are unaware of what I am referring to. I am not talking about undeveloped land to be set aside as National Parks. Here is an article written June 2009:

The nation took a step closer to the largest federal land grab in the nation’s history last week, according to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

That’s thanks to passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In basic terms the CRWA (S. 787) would grant the federal government authority of all water – both navigable, which it now presides over, as well as non-navigable.

Without defining and confining federal authority to navigable waters, an NCBA spokesman said, “…the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches – potentially even ground water – under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government.”

Though the bill was amended last week, NCBA officials explain, “The amendment is a smoke screen that allegedly takes care of agricultural concerns by exempting prior-converted croplands from federal jurisdiction. Cattle are generally not grazed on prior-converted croplands, so this amendment does nothing to mitigate the potential damage to livestock production from this legislation. The amendment is a diversion from the real issue, which is the removal of the word ‘navigable’ from the definition of waters.”

NCBA and Public Lands Council oppose the legislation because it obviously infringes on private property rights, but also because it limits the state partnerships and flexibility that have made the current Clean Water Act successful.

[tedteague]

He's NOT a socialist. He's a statist

[tedteague]

No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority. He is the first President to welcome the advice of someone who bombed the Pentagon. He is the first President to welcome the advice of people who hate America and everything the country stands for.

There is a difference between past Presidents who believed in progress and change and the current President who wants to transform America into a completely different country.

I dunno, Bush did a lot of stuff the majority does not agree with. Furthermore, there is actually a lot of support from the left in favor of healthcare reform. He isnt necessarily going against the majority

[tedteague]

That is NOT how this country was designed nor intended. That might be politics in YOUR two party system, but not in ours.

In our system there IS supposed to be transparency. There IS supposed to be representation. Our representatives and senators are supposed to find out what the majority in their districts want, then go to Washington and represent them. The President is supposed to listen to what the senators and representatives say, and act accordingly. That obviously is not happening now. We have senators and reps "getting in bed" with the President's agenda, and damned to the people!

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

[Canyon]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.

[steelish]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

You're absolutely right. That's why it's also our responsibility to regain control (as concerned American citizens "regaining" our Republic). We've sat idle too long, trusting in our elected officials, believing that the "greater good" would prevail. Well, we've learned such is not the case.

[DuncanONeil]

He's NOT a socialist. He's a statist


Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.


Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.


I don't see any real difference here!

[DuncanONeil]

Prior to the vote on the health care takeover some 70% of the people were opposed to passage of the bill as written. That is a significant number!! Totally ignored!


I dunno, Bush did a lot of stuff the majority does not agree with. Furthermore, there is actually a lot of support from the left in favor of healthcare reform. He isnt necessarily going against the majority

[DuncanONeil]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters


Agreed! But that does not absolve those in Congress of responsibility to honor their oath of office!

[DuncanONeil]

Don't forget those that vote both sides of an issue!
Example;

Congress passed a measure to build a fence on the southern border, I believe by a large margin.
Yet when it came time to vote the funds to build the fence it failed!

What are the chances that those that voted for the fence and against the money used those votes to gain support from differing groups of people?


Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.

[MMI]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

[DuncanONeil]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....


Why!?!?

Besides where has socialism not failed?

[leo9]

Besides where has socialism not failed?

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[denuseri]

The United States? Great Brittan?.um..France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China,??/ ...the list goes on and on and on.

All these countries and more use socialism to one extent or another and have been for many many many generations.

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

[denuseri]

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[MMI]

It is my perception that the centre has moved some way to the right in recent decades from where it used to be. It's not hard right, so as to include movements like Aryan Nations or the KKK, but it does enable the Democrats to claim to be liberals ... Only in America - lol, and here we witness the inglorious spectacle of a leftwards-leaning party prostituting itself with the Tories just so that it can get a taste of power.

Does anyone disagree with the term "prostituting itself" concerning what the Liberals are doing?

Obama's a Democrat ...perhaps he had no better option when he decided what his politics were, but I would expect him to stand well to the right of the most "moderate" social democratic party. With significant public shareholdiongs in the US banking system, and the timid beginnings of a public health service, there are hopeful signs to be seen.

[denuseri]

Well from one thing I read he was a member of the social democrat party here in the states at one time too.

And speaking from an academic perspective...generally speaking: all governments have a natural tendency to move towards the right over time so as to solidify their control over the populace and then experience eaither revolution or reform to different degrees depending upon various circumstances where in some of that power is temporaraly relinquished or redacted or the illusion of it redirected..

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

[MMI]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

Not really ... in fact, now I think about it, it doesn't matter at all.

What shall we talk about now?

[leo9]

Prior to the vote on the health care takeover some 70% of the people were opposed to passage of the bill as written. That is a significant number!! Totally ignored!

But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)

[leo9]

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

Outside of such wild cases as the American frontier and Pol Pot's Cambodia, there has never been a purely capitalist or purely socialist economy. And those cases didn't last long and only survived by drawing on the mixed economies beyond their borders.

The US has never been as purely capitalist as it likes to claim, any more than China is as purely socialist as it pretends. All successful economies are a mix of state provision and private enterprise: the argument is over the best balance, which depends on the circumstances and can't be decided by pure theory or ideology.

Most economists agree that our present troubles come from the US and its client economies tilting way too far on the side of unregulated capitalism, and needing a good dose of state control to right the balance. There have been other times when economies have failed through too much socialism (Wilson's UK is an arguable example), but we are very far from that today.

[steelish]

But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)

And many people are still angry with him over that as well. Obama is great at slight-of-hand and getting people (the media, actually) to focus on one thing while he's doing another. So...he took the focus off bringing home the troops and placed it upon the "Stimulus Package". When that didn't really pan out the way it was intended - because let's face it, things have gotten worse - he took the focus off that and concentrated on the Health Care Bill regardless of everything else that needed his attention.

[steelish]

BTW - Just because mainstream media doesn't report the anger of the voters in regards to any given "Obama-ism" doesn't mean it isn't there. I highly anyone in another country can know exactly how frustrated and irritated most Americans are with almost ALL of Obama's moves so far unless they live here. However, it's starting to be shown in the polls.

[steelish]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

[denuseri]

Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.

Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.

Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).

Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.

After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?

When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.

And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

[steelish]

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

True. But the thing he wants to "fix" is the Constitution, and by changing that, he changes America. He freely admits that he sought out the Marxists and radicals while in college. Now he is in a position to "create" the kind of world he wants.



Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

Not necessarily. Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society. In a socialist society, much of what you rely upon for living is "purchased" from the government or doled out by the government.

[denuseri]

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

[steelish]

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

Sorry, I have to disagree. In a free market, you purchase from a retailer or merchant and in turn, that merchant or retailer spends the money they receive and the market grows and prospers. If they provide poor service or the quality of product is poor, their business suffers as a result and the market ebbs and flows naturally. In socialism, when the government is full of entitlement programs and provides and/or sells much of what the "consumer" needs, the money does not flow through the market, nor is there any consequence to the government for poor service or a poor quality product. It's almost a one-way street. Remember the lines for food in Russia?

[steelish]

Besides, in a barter system you exchange something of value for something that you view to be of equal value. The government can demand whatever value (cost) they want for whatever the deem to bestow upon their citizens.

[denuseri]

And in those cases that you so eloquently pointed out: a service provider fails to provide sufficently for the demand (government controled or otherwise)...those doing the demanding go elsewhere (as they did to the blackmarket in russia)....hence its still econmoics 101 hard at work.

Its the difference between theory and reality.

[steelish]

Here's an unbiased opinion (http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/socialism-vs-the-free-market/) posted by a political scientist. I quite enjoyed reading it.

[MMI]

Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society.

You get by if you have capital and you fail if you don't. Merit? Quality? Don't make me laugh.

And Michael Martine's activities mark him out as a capitalist, not as an "unbiased political scientist".

[DuncanONeil]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist. Since communism is the result of a failed socialist state QED socialist states have failed. The single state listed as socialist and not communist is North Korea. It is, or should be clear, to most everyone that there is no way that North Korea can be listed among the successful states.
Even your own words; "(M)ost European nations, at one time or another.", support the contention that socialism fails!


NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[DuncanONeil]

The simple definition of socialism is "state ownership of industry" such has not been the case in modern nation states.
Further social programs in a capitalist state does not make the country socialist.
Further I would have to take the position that a pure system of politics, which is likely to never occur, is also like not a good thing. However, a system that rewards the person for effort is immeasurably better than one that tries to make everyone the same regardless of effort. With no reward for effort all you produce is mediocrity.


The United States? Great Brittan?.um..France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China,??/ ...the list goes on and on and on.

All these countries and more use socialism to one extent or another and have been for many many many generations.

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

[DuncanONeil]

Us politicians only campaign to the middle. Once in office they do damn well as they please. Like and of the landed gentry of the middle ages.


Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[DuncanONeil]

the US electorate is composed of 15% liberal, 29% moderates, 34% conservative, and most dangerous of all 16% progressive.
This makes the split 31 - 34. Therefore campaigns are directed at, and rest on the shoulders of the 29% moderate. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/)


Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[DuncanONeil]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?


It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

[DuncanONeil]

"Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?"

Doing the
right thing Should not
be involved Unsure
% % %
4/14-19/10 56 36 8

"Do you think eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for or not?"

Is
worthwhile Is not
worthwhile Unsure
% % %
4/14-19/10 61 31 8
(http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm)

The most recent data I can find that includes Iraq is a war on terror poll. This poll has 42% say we are winning, 25% - losing, and 26% think it is a draw.(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update)

Hence I can not find support for you claim!



But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)

[DuncanONeil]

Nothing closeted about it! He has been very clear in his beliefs.
Calling him socialist is actually being nice. There is evidence that he is more progressive than socialist. And as hard as it may be to believe they are worse than socialists.


Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.

Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.

Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).

Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.

After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?

When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.

And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

[DuncanONeil]

No they are not!

In a capitalist system I make a product. I take the risk of putting my resources into the product. I make a good product and a perceived good price and I succeed.

In a socialist system the government makes all the products. The is no reward or incentive for me to improve or do a better job. Further if the product is shoddy or perceived of as too expensive (i.e. poor value) I have no choice. There is only one source!


They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

[DuncanONeil]

Besides, in a barter system you exchange something of value for something that you view to be of equal value. The government can demand whatever value (cost) they want for whatever the deem to bestow upon their citizens.


Just look at the "cost" of your drivers license! In my state at least it is only supposed to cost what it costs the state to produce it for me. I even have to pay an extra fee to see the person at the counter, and a "convenience" fee to do it online.

[DuncanONeil]

And in those cases that you so eloquently pointed out: a service provider fails to provide sufficently for the demand (government controled or otherwise)...those doing the demanding go elsewhere (as they did to the blackmarket in russia)....hence its still econmoics 101 hard at work.

Its the difference between theory and reality.


You realize that the "black market" in a socialist system is capitalism. Capitalism that exists because the socialist system fails the customer!

[denuseri]

One should realize that in socialism the government doesnt nessesarally own everything only some things...just like here in the USA.

The point I am making is one of the reality of economic preceptions: IE every economic system to date in human history has basically worked the same in the end regardless of who owned what portions of production and or suppy and or consumption/demand.

Necessity is ultimately unescapable as the ocean in which the economic boat is driven regardless of who is at the helm.

Weather the village cron is assisting in midwifery for the exchange of a couple chickens or out of the goodness of her heart knowing someday the mother will perhaps return the favor, or by the direction of the king whom she submits to for what land he grants her to live upon and ply her trade for food...the laws of equivelant exchange still prevail.

[leo9]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist.
Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.

By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.

In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.

[leo9]

BTW - Just because mainstream media doesn't report the anger of the voters in regards to any given "Obama-ism" doesn't mean it isn't there. I highly anyone in another country can know exactly how frustrated and irritated most Americans are with almost ALL of Obama's moves so far unless they live here. However, it's starting to be shown in the polls.

Ah, the "silent majority", I remember them from British politics. They don't vote, they don't show up on opinion polls, but we know they are there and only we speak up for them, so we're really in the majority even if we look like a handful of radicals.

On the Left the equivalent imaginary constituency is called "the workers" or "the people".

[leo9]

Further social programs in a capitalist state does not make the country socialist.


A very sensible judgement, so why are you so panicked over the possibility that some very moderate social programs may be introduced to the US?

[leo9]

True. But the thing he wants to "fix" is the Constitution, and by changing that, he changes America.

I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?

[steelish]

I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?

That's not what I am talking about. He stated, "The Constitution is fundamentally flawed"

FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

That's the same as saying it needs to be fixed. That the document we were founded on is incorrect.

[steelish]

Ah, the "silent majority", I remember them from British politics. They don't vote, they don't show up on opinion polls, but we know they are there and only we speak up for them, so we're really in the majority even if we look like a handful of radicals.

On the Left the equivalent imaginary constituency is called "the workers" or "the people".

Obviously it's not the "silent majority". The recent voting results show that.

[steelish]

Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion.

I don't want to live in a Communist country either. If I did, I would move to one.

[steelish]

You realize that the "black market" in a socialist system is capitalism. Capitalism that exists because the socialist system fails the customer!

PERFECT! I couldn't figure out a way to explain that.

[denuseri]

Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?

The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.

Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.

[steelish]

Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?

The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.

Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.

You're speaking of illegal items/trade. LEGAL items are often on the black market in a socialist country.

[Thorne]

There's a huge difference between using an underground economy to purchase luxuries (non-medicinal drugs, prostitutes, etc.) and being forced to use that underground economy to purchase necessities (food, clean water, clothing) because the government can't supply sufficient quantities. This is the kind of thing that happened in the USSR. But only for the common people. The party elite always had enough, with their own private stores.

[DuncanONeil]

so·cial·ism
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

so·cial·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Encyclopedia of Economics
* | Socialism

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on.

Dictionary: so·cial·ism (West's Encyclopedia of American Law.
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Seems to me all the definitions place ownership and or control in the hands of the Government? Your example does not apply. Grant of land and freedom to set prices for a service are not equivalent to socialism. Ownership of land by the "Lord", their decision as to what a person's work will be, setting the price for that work, now that is socialism. Your eaxmple is actually capitalist.


One should realize that in socialism the government doesnt nessesarally own everything only some things...just like here in the USA.

The point I am making is one of the reality of economic preceptions: IE every economic system to date in human history has basically worked the same in the end regardless of who owned what portions of production and or suppy and or consumption/demand.

Necessity is ultimately unescapable as the ocean in which the economic boat is driven regardless of who is at the helm.

Weather the village cron is assisting in midwifery for the exchange of a couple chickens or out of the goodness of her heart knowing someday the mother will perhaps return the favor, or by the direction of the king whom she submits to for what land he grants her to live upon and ply her trade for food...the laws of equivelant exchange still prevail.

[DuncanONeil]

First you do not know if I am in fact an "Obama detractor" Second I did not exclude anything. You are reading something into my response that is not there. While at the same time ignoring the substance and turning the focus away from the subject and on to me personally. I believe such an action is incorrect within the confines of this forum.


Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.

By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.

In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.

[DuncanONeil]

Because there is nothing moderate about them!

Social Security is actually a moderate program and look how intrusive it has become.


A very sensible judgement, so why are you so panicked over the possibility that some very moderate social programs may be introduced to the US?

[DuncanONeil]

Administrations do not "amend" the Constitution.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

And this is the most recent amendment!
"Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 5/7/1992
History
Article 1, Section 6 "


I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?

[DuncanONeil]

May be puh-tey-tohes - puh-tah-tohes but the issue is actually called illegal. Black-market transactions typically occur as a way for participants to avoid government price controls or taxes.


Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?

The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.

Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.

[MMI]

That's not what I am talking about. He stated, "The Constitution is fundamentally flawed"

FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

That's the same as saying it needs to be fixed. That the document we were founded on is incorrect.

Fundamentally flawed ...hmmm. Well it sure wasn't handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments were. If the US Constitution were divinely ordained, then it would never need to be fixed. As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.

(Yet look how America sneers at Europe now, and the French especially.)

There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.

[Thorne]

Well it sure wasn't handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments were.
Funny thing: neither were the Ten Commandments.


As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.
My, oh my, he really does want the colonies back, doesn't he?
In truth, though, these men who stole the land from the Crown (who stole it for themselves simply by weight of arms) were perfectly willing to pay taxes, provided they had some representation in Parliament about how those taxes were used.


There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.
All quite true, which is part of the beauty of the document. It was designed to be adaptable, allowing for change when necessary. Which means it's not fundamentally flawed, unless you disagree with the notion that the government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". There seems to be a growing group within the government who have forgotten, or ignored, that statement. They want people who are servants OF the government, controlled BY the government, and existing only FOR the government to abuse.

[Darkness_within]

YES HE IS, change in some ways are good, but for the most part America is wonderful as it is, if we change it to much, we may make the rest of the world happy.. BUT will we still be the U.S.A?, NO COUNTRY IS PERFICT, BUT DAMN WE ARE SO GOOD, FUCK ALL THAT, THIS AND THAT SHIT, IN THE END WE ARE SO GOOD AS WE ARE, WE MUST GROW YES, BUT LET IT BE OUR GROWTH NOT THE WORLDS. WE WILL MAKE MISTAKES AND FUCK UP TO THE HILT, BUT IT WILL BE OURS NOT THE WOLD AT LARGE

[tyrannyoferos]

Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

[MMI]

Funny thing: neither were the Ten Commandments.

Yes they were.



My, oh my, he really does want the colonies back, doesn't he?

Well, after you left the Empire and went your own sweet way, we did quite well without your help ... reluctant and tardy though it was, and are still doing reasonably well for a nation the size of Kentucky and the population of California and Texas. So come back if you want to: there's always a welcome for the prodigal son.

However, I doubt many Americans could stomach the tolerant, socially aware lifestyle that prevails in European and Commonwealth nations and it would rebel once again ... I hope not by provoking another world war like it did the first time.



In truth, though, these men who stole the land from the Crown (who stole it for themselves simply by weight of arms) were perfectly willing to pay taxes, provided they had some representation in Parliament about how those taxes were used.

We obtained the colonies by conquest and settlement. Not necessarily noble means of acquisition, but far better than stealing from one's own compatriots: that's treachery.

As for taxation in return for representation, that was mere posturing: (a) you could have had it if you really wanted it; (b) America was already becoming more and more republican in response to the belief that Britain was a den of iniquity and that the only way to prevent the disease from infecting the colonies was to secede; (c) it preferred to trade with the enemy; (d) it wanted to occupy more and more Indian or French territory, despite British Treaties recognising the rights of the Indians/French ...


All quite true, which is part of the beauty of the document. It was designed to be adaptable, allowing for change when necessary. Which means it's not fundamentally flawed, unless you disagree with the notion that the government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". There seems to be a growing group within the government who have forgotten, or ignored, that statement. They want people who are servants OF the government, controlled BY the government, and existing only FOR the government to abuse.

A beautiful, adaptable, versatile document can still be fundamentally flawed if its provisions are found wanting ...

You final statement reeks of the rantings of the radical right, which does not represent the People at all, but simply a vocal minority paranoid at the prospect of a legally constituted government actually taking its role and responsibilities seriously.

[TantricSoul]

It seems as though a reminder to stay on topic ... and off each others backs ... is needed.
Please do so ...

Instead of calling each other out on your arguing styles ... how about you try just posting some facts that support your opinion? ... just a thought.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

Yes they were.
Proof?


... I hope not by provoking another world war like it did the first time.
A rag-tag bunch of rebels did all that?


We obtained the colonies by conquest and settlement. Not necessarily noble means of acquisition, but far better than stealing from one's own compatriots: that's treachery.
Only if you fail!


A beautiful, adaptable, versatile document can still be fundamentally flawed if its provisions are found wanting ...
Well I for one would appreciate someone showing me how the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Is it because it protects us from a tyrannical government? Is it because it allows us freedoms rarely seen in the world before it's formation? Is it because of the built in checks and balances which keep the government more-or-less under control? Just what is the big "flaw" here?


You final statement reeks of the rantings of the radical right, which does not represent the People at all, but simply a vocal minority paranoid at the prospect of a legally constituted government actually taking its role and responsibilities seriously.
I'm not claiming that either side is in the right here. The radical right is as bad as the radical left. The moderate middle is shrinking. And if the government were,indeed, taking its role and responsibilities seriously, they would not be trying to tear down that Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend! And that goes for conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, left wing and right wing. I play no favorites.

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

[steelish]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

??? Who shouted?

[steelish]

You get by if you have capital and you fail if you don't. Merit? Quality? Don't make me laugh.

And Michael Martine's activities mark him out as a capitalist, not as an "unbiased political scientist".

For your first statement - do you really think a little privately owned restaurant (a mom-and-pop establishment) that makes poor quality dishes, is dirty, people get sick from eating there, etc. will stay in business in America?

As to the second statement - he wrote positive notes on both systems, as well as negative ones. He was unbiased, no matter what you want to call him.

[TantricSoul]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

Cathryn,
Members should always strive to be courteous and respectful to other members and their opinions. In the editorial section, we are given slightly more leeway than other areas of the forums due to the passionate nature of the topics addressed here. So the short answer to your question is no, the post you have quoted would not earn a warning or citation.

As the single moderator for this area, I am kept busy enough searching out and responding to more flagrant violations of respectful debate protocol.
You may always send me a PM (with a link please) to a thread if you feel insulted or flamed by a poster.

On that note, please folks, I ask each of you that contribute to this area to keep in mind that all members have an equal right to participate in these threads and deserve the same respect as you would expect for yourself.

As my Sifu would say: "Not right, not wrong, just different."

Respectfully,
Tantric

[MMI]

Proof?

Wikipedia says:


The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin


A rag-tag bunch of rebels did all that?

If you regard George Washington and the Virginia Militia a rag-tag bunch of rebels, yes.



Only if you fail!

No, always. Just because you escape justice doesn't make you innocent



Well I for one would appreciate someone showing me how the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Is it because it protects us from a tyrannical government? Is it because it allows us freedoms rarely seen in the world before it's formation? Is it because of the built in checks and balances which keep the government more-or-less under control? Just what is the big "flaw" here?

I have absolutely no idea, but apparently that nice Mr Obama thinks so. I'm just saying that the Constitution is obviously not perfect, because it is an eighteenth century historical document, it is man-made, and it had already had to be amended.



I'm not claiming that either side is in the right here. The radical right is as bad as the radical left. The moderate middle is shrinking. And if the government were,indeed, taking its role and responsibilities seriously, they would not be trying to tear down that Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend! And that goes for conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, left wing and right wing. I play no favorites.

Upholding the Constitution does not prevent its amendment. Amending the Constitution is not "tearing it down", because the new laws will rely on that same Constituion for their validity.

[MMI]

For your first statement - do you really think a little privately owned restaurant (a mom-and-pop establishment) that makes poor quality dishes, is dirty, people get sick from eating there, etc. will stay in business in America?

As to the second statement - he wrote positive notes on both systems, as well as negative ones. He was unbiased, no matter what you want to call him.

1. McDonalds?

2. I can say balanced things about capitalism, and sometimes I do. It doesn't stop me being biased in favour of social democracy, whatever you want to call me. Martine is openly and unapologetically conservative, and drives the point home with a patronising page addressed to Liberals, by which he seems to mean anyone to the left of his position. He was biased, certes

[steelish]

1. McDonalds?

That is a corporation. Not a little mom and pop business, which is btw, the bread and butter backbone of the US. I am speaking of a small store/establishment owned and run by an individual


2. I can say balanced things about capitalism, and sometimes I do. It doesn't stop me being biased in favour of social democracy, whatever you want to call me. Martine is openly and unapologetically conservative, and drives the point home with a patronising page addressed to Liberals, by which he seems to mean anyone to the left of his position. He was biased, certes

That may very well be. But he wasn't on that particuiar article. And that is the only one I am referring to.

[Thorne]

Wikipedia says:


The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin
I think I'll move this portion to the Religion forum, where it is more appropriate.


If you regard George Washington and the Virginia Militia a rag-tag bunch of rebels, yes.
I'm quite sure the British generals regarded them as such.


No, always. Just because you escape justice doesn't make you innocent
Whose justice?


I have absolutely no idea, but apparently that nice Mr Obama thinks so. I'm just saying that the Constitution is obviously not perfect, because it is an eighteenth century historical document, it is man-made, and it had already had to be amended.
I never claimed it was perfect, and it may even have flaws in it. But fundamentally flawed? That implies he would like to toss it out completely.

[TantricSoul]

That is a corporation. Not a little mom and pop business, which is btw, the bread and butter backbone of the US. I am speaking of a small store/establishment owned and run by an individual


McDonalds Corporation only actually operates 25% of their locations. The other 75% are franchise owned and operated.

[MMI]

That is a corporation. Not a little mom and pop business, which is btw, the bread and butter backbone of the US. I am speaking of a small store/establishment owned and run by an individual



That may very well be. But he wasn't on that particuiar article. And that is the only one I am referring to.

McDonald's was started by two brothers. Not a dear little old lady and her husband, but I thought it was close enough. The fact that they turned themselves into a huge worldwide corporation answers your question.

[Thorne]

McDonald's was started by two brothers. Not a dear little old lady and her husband, but I thought it was close enough. The fact that they turned themselves into a huge worldwide corporation answers your question.
But they did so by providing quality food (each to his own opinion, of course) in a clean environment at a reasonable price. If their first restaurant had been a dingy, dreary dump with roaches crawling all over the counters and poor quality food they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

[MMI]

I never claimed it was perfect, and it may even have flaws in it. But fundamentally flawed? That implies he would like to toss it out completely.

Maybe he would, but I doubt it. I didn't choose those words, and I don't know what caused him to use them.

However, he'll need a Constitution to validate whatever new laws he wants to introduce.

[MMI]

But they did so by providing quality food (each to his own opinion, of course) in a clean environment at a reasonable price. If their first restaurant had been a dingy, dreary dump with roaches crawling all over the counters and poor quality food they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

To be honest, I don't know what the first outlet was like, but they set a pattern.

Have you never met anyone who suffered stomach upset after eating at McDonalds? I have


Have you never been in a dirty McDonalds? I have

The food might seem to be cheap, but hamburgers are not known for their healthy qualities; nor are chips. Who does not attribute much of the blame for nationwide obesity to McDonalds and the like?

[Thorne]

However, he'll need a Constitution to validate whatever new laws he wants to introduce.
Unless he's planning on setting up a dictatorship. (And no, I don't for one second believe that.)

[denuseri]

All of which has what to do exactly with Obama being or not being a socialist?

[MMI]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

[grinner666]

I do not know how long the OP has been alive or what she's experienced, but I can tell her from personal memory that Obama's so-called "radical left, socialist" policies and positions would have, only 30 or 35 years ago, been considered centrist-right.

The problem with the right is that every time in the past 50 years that its policies have failed, its excuse has always been, "well, we just never tried a TRULY conservative approach; let's move a little further right," instead of maybe adapting to reality and trying a more centrist approach.

The current policies and beliefs of the mainstream Rethuglican party today would have been, and in fact WERE, dismissed as the rantings of the lunatic fringe as recently as the 1960s. Please remember that the John Birch society, now welcomed on the right, was dismissed during the '60s as an extremist group.

I suggest the OP acquire a little perspective and sense of history before making outrageous claims (or asking outrageous questions that are, in point of fact, outrageous claims) in future.

[denuseri]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???


lol Not at all...I was just genuinely wondering what the heck half of what the past few posts had to do with the main topic. (btw I am not the moderator for these or any other forums MMI)

[steelish]

Oh, my god!!!! Stop, Stop, Stop it! You're killing me I"m ROFLMAO!! Steelish we must have a friendly debate. Your source materials you've listed is bias....Period. They come from a very right wing conservative ideology. Who right now even as we speak is asking the gov't to step in and take over the Oil spill fiasco.....Whaaa????

EPA:

Our Mission

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:


all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.


I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "right winger" who is asking for the government to step in, but the mere existence of the EPA suggests that the government SHOULD step in to ensure that BP does clean up the mess...COMPLETELY. No one (well, at the very least, I'm not) is asking for the government to do the "cleaning up".


is that not the responsibility of BP and not GOV'T intervention...i.e socialism.

I agree with you. It is BP's responsibility. But that being said, I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs.


(This quote edited by moderator )And the same people screaming at the top of their lungs about taxes.

Um, first, I am a mother. And yes, I know the educational system sucks - that's why I paid for private school. No it wasn't easy, my husband worked two jobs and I worked full time as well.

Second, I'm NOT a right winger...I'm slightly right of the center and am part of the Conservative movement. It's not about cutting taxes. (not unless the government is going to cut out all the fat) It's not about seeing people starve in the streets. It's about bringing back decent humanity to each individual. It's about values. It's about compassion, charity, hope, faith (however you interpret faith).

Third, my husband is a police officer. So no, I am not against them getting a raise. Oh, and btw - he too is a Conservative.


Oh, I know all we have to do is cut the waste and the fat ...righhhhhhht! Been there done that, Remember the Bush Tax cuts. Supposed to help grow the economy ....Ahh! but what did it really do??

Nothing. Because Bush cut taxes but didn't cut spending. (FYI - I didn't like Bush either. Oh, and I am a registered Democrat)

It is possible to cut spending (http://www.s-a-f-e.org/government_spending.htm) without doing the things you mentioned (cutting raises from teachers, police, firemen, etc) but the government would have you think otherwise. Oh and btw - the federal government doesn't pay the wages of firemen and police. Those wages are paid at the city government level.


( also edited by moderator )Under funded our regulatory agencies. Thus you have Wall steet, Insurance co's Banks, Reale state, healthcare, and let's not forget the most important thing Unemployment. In trouble! Which happened under the Bush/Cheney and Newt Gingrich Republican Watch. Remember Contract with America, 1994-2006....But you know what?? Don't believe me or the liberals. You know how I guage this fiasco now. This way, I know a few professional dommes they are having trouble making ends meet. Their once flourishing business has tanked they are now forced to enter the work force and yes go to trade schools. You know why Their clients discretionary allowance is no longer theirs! So what if we have a little socialism to go with Capitalism Nobodies saying don't make money. But hey there is a price to pay to make money in this country...Taxes! ...Put some back not all of it. just some!! My God!!! Have we become a nation of greed and selfishness. Is this what our soldiers are dying for and those who died in other wars! I can't tell you as a corpporate lawyer how many large businesses come in here and want me to find loop holes in the tax laws. So they can have some play money.

Unemployment is a government-run agency. It's not covered by a regulatory agency. Where were the regulatory agencies with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh yeah, those were government agencies as well. But they're not greedy, are they?????

Now you're calling ME greedy selfish because I want capable individuals to be responsible for their own actions. heh. I've never exhibited the qualities you're accusing me of. But I guess your post won't be considered inflammatory.

[TantricSoul]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

Every once in a while as moderator I do post a "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" message, usually if a thread goes tangential before the OP has been thoroughly discussed. Once the regular contributors have chimed in I will tend to let the thread drift wherever it wants to go, (and like this one sometimes even contribute to off topic remarks) .

I honestly don't feel I weigh these boards down with heavy handed, oppressive actions, and I consciously use a light touch when here.

Frankly I spend almost all my time here playing peacemaker. Yes I volunteered for this and am not complaining, however there are times when I would rather post a koan or write in my blog or visit the chat room or The Fit Club or any number of other activities instead of once again, acting as members brain-to-fingers filter.

The answer is NO, I for one don't want you to vacate these boards again MMI, I enjoy reading your opinions even if sometimes they make extra work for me ;)

So do me a favor people, pretty please, go have your brain-to-fingers filters checked and replaced if worn.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[blacqcobra]

Ms. Steelish I owe you an apology for certain reponses to your post. I do get carried away at times. But it is no excuse for my rude behaviour. Now, I wil say President Obama is not turning this country into a socialist state. He is trying to undo the terrible ravage this country has been put through by the past administration and it's party. I wrote another Op-ed but unfortunately I did not sign in thus I can't remember everything I said to rebute your argument. God I'm getting Old! I do remember saying this. The reasons this country is in this state today is due to the conservatives failure to uphold it's word and spend less for 12 yrs Thus the reason we are where we are... I gotta go I'm a lawyer they're calling us back in!!!! Oh, yeah I am Center of center, not right nor left one would say I'm an independent...Okay I'll accept that!:wave:

[MMI]

lol Not at all...I was just genuinely wondering what the heck half of what the past few posts had to do with the main topic. (btw I am not the moderator for these or any other forums MMI)

Well, I can only comment on the ones I was invloved in.

The discussion about McDonalds can be traced back to an assertion that I took issue with. Something about capitalism being based upon quality and merit while socialism encouraged dependancy. Before that, the discussion was to the effect that socialism was un-American and should not be foisted upon a capitalist society without its consent.

The argument over the Ten Commandments and my alleged desire to reclaim the 13 colonies for the British Empire can be traced back to a protest against Obama's claim that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed.

Both, I think, were relevant to the original question and hae helped it move on.

[steelish]

McDonalds Corporation only actually operates 25% of their locations. The other 75% are franchise owned and operated.

Ah, but an owned and operated FRANCHISE with corporate backing is hardly the same thing as a small sole proprietorship.

[TantricSoul]

Ah, but an owned and operated FRANCHISE with corporate backing is hardly the same thing as a small sole proprietorship.

Oh I agree its obviously not exactly the same, yet in many facets a franchise location is undeniably more closely related to a mom and pop store than a corporately operated location. Franchisees are typically considered small business owners, and have many of the same issues/obstacles unless they are area or territory licensees.

While bound by legal agreements and receiving "support" from the franchising corporation, the truth is once a franchisee is in a location it can be near impossible to get them out. Therefor there are huge variances in aspects such a cleanliness, quality, customer service, pricing and even selection when comparing one franchise location to another or a corporate location.

I worked for a global franchise corporation for over 20 years as a field consultant / operations expert and corporate trainer. I have seen far too many locations/operations that should have been run out of business, or had their stores taken back by the franchisor due to bad (often dangerous) or ridiculous practices or policies and yet they remained in business. Several of these franchisees that I personally know only operate these businesses as a tax shelter, and honestly don't care if they lose money or not.

To MMIs point, at least from my "half a career lifetime" experience in retail, success in capitalism is far less often the result of quality and merit as it is about doing whatever it takes to maximize profits. Its about the bottom line not about merit or people.

The average American consumer is far less sophisticated, knowledgeable or discriminatory than you might think. Which is where regulation comes into play. Were success truly based upon merit, quality, putting customers first, then we probably wouldn't need industry regulation. However time and time and time again that has not proven to be the case.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

I have to agree with her. Another way of putting it is that the document was broken the day it was written.

From your current message you have succumbed to the revisionist history that the founders were, and are, somehow evil.

That is the major problem with Progressives. they think the Constitution needs to be done away with as it gets in the way of Government!


Fundamentally flawed ...hmmm. Well it sure wasn't handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments were. If the US Constitution were divinely ordained, then it would never need to be fixed. As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.

(Yet look how America sneers at Europe now, and the French especially.)

There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.

[DuncanONeil]

Unlike the out of control spending and deficits soring to the heavens presented by the party of the non-right, can't call them left they don't like that.
* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/


Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

[DuncanONeil]

You final statement reeks of the rantings of the radical right, which does not represent the People at all, but simply a vocal minority paranoid at the prospect of a legally constituted government actually taking its role and responsibilities seriously.


Were the Government to take its role and responsibilities seriously they would not have done a decimals worth of the things they have over the past years.

The governing document for the Government severely limits what the Government is allowed to do. Congress and the various adminiastrations have sought estoric means and odd turns of phrase to subvert the intent of the Constitution.

[DuncanONeil]

Shouting? I thought THIS WAS SHOUTING.


Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

[DuncanONeil]

I do not believe "that nice Mr Obama" desires to amend the Constitution. I believe that the and the other Progressives wish to dispose of it.


Wikipedia says:


The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin



If you regard George Washington and the Virginia Militia a rag-tag bunch of rebels, yes.




No, always. Just because you escape justice doesn't make you innocent




I have absolutely no idea, but apparently that nice Mr Obama thinks so. I'm just saying that the Constitution is obviously not perfect, because it is an eighteenth century historical document, it is man-made, and it had already had to be amended.




Upholding the Constitution does not prevent its amendment. Amending the Constitution is not "tearing it down", because the new laws will rely on that same Constituion for their validity.

[grinner666]

I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "right winger" who is asking for the government to step in, but the mere existence of the EPA suggests that the government SHOULD step in to ensure that BP does clean up the mess...COMPLETELY. No one (well, at the very least, I'm not) is asking for the government to do the "cleaning up".

You should check your facts before before spouting off. The EPA's authority STOPS at the water's edge, which is where the Coast Guard's authority starts. If you don't believe the Coast Guard has been active in this fucking nightmare, then you just haven't been paying attention.


I agree with you. It is BP's responsibility. But that being said, I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs.

First, I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake; dietary advice from your government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey Aunt Mabel who never saw an eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that far and large, the government's advice is being ignored. So kindly calm down with the "regulate our fat intake" hyperbole.

As to your whine about government requirements regarding offshore oil rigs, while I agree that the Obama administration dropped the ball here on regulating the oil industry, I would first like to point out that the administration has had just over ONE year to correct the fuckups of DECADES of the control of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That isn't something Obama CAUSED but something he INHERITED. Give the man a chance.

Second, I find it not just amusing but absolutely hilarious that your opening post whined that you think Obama is a socialist, but here you're whining that you want his administration to impose MORE "socialist" restrictions on private enterprise.

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama's "radical socialist" (formerly centrist - right) agenda regarding private enterprise is right, or it's TOO FAR RIGHT, or it's wrong. It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

I suggest you come up with a coherent political philosophy YOURSELF, before arguing further. Right now you sound like an "I don't want to pay taxes but I want the federal government to take care of me anyway" teabagger.

[denuseri]

<<thinks it doesnt reallymatter weather Obama is called a socialist or progressive or anything else...when he does the same things his predessesor did as if he is following some kind of playbook left for him in the oval office by the last quarterback of the team.

[leo9]

It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.


One of the great inevitables of politics is that those who cry "Cut bureaucracy!" usually cry "Why don't the Government DO something?" in the next breath. Sometimes in the same one, and with no idea of the irony.

It's not just "I want to pay less taxes and I want the government to look after me," but "and I want them to do it with no staff." (And no, hiring private firms to do it never works. Look at the private run jails.)

[steelish]

You should check your facts before before spouting off. The EPA's authority STOPS at the water's edge, which is where the Coast Guard's authority starts. If you don't believe the Coast Guard has been active in this fucking nightmare, then you just haven't been paying attention.

You mean none of the oil has reached shores yet???? Hmmm...the news I've been watching is incorrect then.

Seriously though. Why do you think I stated that the government (through the EPA) needs to ensure that BP cleans up the mess COMPLETELY. It's because the coast of LA is now saturated with oil. I never mentioned the EPA going into the gulf to clean up the water. I am a trained Emergency Response volunteer. I help with clean up efforts after natural disasters and our group recently had to take the BP HazMat module 3 course to become certified to handle the oil cleanup. I might not have made myself clear in my post, but in no way did I "spout off" about something that you've accused me of being ignorant of.



First, I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake; dietary advice from your government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey Aunt Mabel who never saw an eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that far and large, the government's advice is being ignored. So kindly calm down with the "regulate our fat intake" hyperbole.

*sigh*

I never said there were any laws regulating anyone's fat intake. My exact phrase was: "I find it ironic that the government wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2139941) to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs."

(Notice the use of the word: WANTS)


As to your whine about government requirements regarding offshore oil rigs, while I agree that the Obama administration dropped the ball here on regulating the oil industry, I would first like to point out that the administration has had just over ONE year to correct the fuckups of DECADES of the control of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That isn't something Obama CAUSED but something he INHERITED. Give the man a chance.

Second, I find it not just amusing but absolutely hilarious that your opening post whined that you think Obama is a socialist, but here you're whining that you want his administration to impose MORE "socialist" restrictions on private enterprise.

Wow. You sure are reading a lot of inflection into the post.

I didn't whine about anything. Nor did I wish/request/want the government to regulate the oil industry. What I did was point out that I thought it ironic that they want to regulate our personal lives (fat intake) yet they don't bother to regulate something like the offshore oil drilling.



You can't have it both ways. Either Obama's "radical socialist" (formerly centrist - right) agenda regarding private enterprise is right, or it's TOO FAR RIGHT, or it's wrong. It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

I suggest you come up with a coherent political philosophy YOURSELF, before arguing further. Right now you sound like an "I don't want to pay taxes but I want the federal government to take care of me anyway" teabagger.


I believe you're totally confused. In no way did I say his agenda gets him too involved in private enterprise, yet it's not enough involvement.

Also - If you've been following most of these threads, and reading my posts, you would know (in no uncertain terms) that I have no problem paying taxes...AND, I DON'T want the federal government to take care of me. PERIOD.


Please forgive me if I come across as rude in my reply. I felt a bit defensive and wanted to correct any misconceptions.

[DuncanONeil]

I suggest that an apology is due!
And you were casitgating a member of the board to develop a coherent policy before complaining about a law!
(Section 81.08 of the New York City Health Code)
New York City’s Health Code amendment phases out the
use of artificial trans fat in all food service establishments
required to hold a New York City Health Department
permit, including restaurants, caterers, mobile food-vending
units, and mobile food commissaries:
• Beginning July 1, 2007:
You may not use partially hydrogenated vegetable
oils, shortenings, or margarines for frying, pan-frying
(sautéing), grilling, or as a spread unless you have
product labels or other documents from the
manufacturer showing that these ingredients
contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.
You may continue to use trans fat-containing oils
and shortenings for deep frying cake batter and
yeast dough until the regulation takes full effect
on July 1, 2008.
• Beginning July 1, 2008:
No food containing partially hydrogenated vegetable
oils, shortenings, or margarines with 0.5 grams or more
trans fat per serving may be stored, used, or served
by food service establishments.
• The regulation does not apply to food served in the
manufacturer’s original, sealed packaging, such as a
package of crackers or a bag of potato chips.
How can I tell if a particular product is allowed under the regulation?
Step 1. Look at the package label or ingredients
list to see if “partially hydrogenated,” “shortening,”
or “margarine” are listed. If none of these terms
appear, you may use the product.
If any of these terms are listed, go to Step 2 to
see if the product contains too much trans fat.
Step 2. Check the Nutrition Facts panel for
trans fat content. If the panel says the product has
0 grams of trans fat, or less than 0.5 grams of trans
fat per serving, you may use the product.
If the Nutrition Facts panel says the product
has 0.5 grams or more trans fat, you may not
use the product.
If there is no Nutrition Facts panel on the product,
go to Step 3.
Step 3. If there is no Nutrition Facts panel,
ask your supplier to provide a letter from the
manufacturer listing the product’s ingredients.
If the ingredients list contains the words “partially
hydrogenated,”“shortening,” or “margarine,“ the
letter must also include information on the
amount of trans fat in each serving.
As in Step 2, if the product has 0 grams of trans fat,
or less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, you
may use it.
The letter should be on the manufacturer’s
letterhead and show the manufacturer’s name
and address. Keep the letter at your food service
establishment, available for review by a Health
Department inspector.
Beginning July 1, 2007, you will need to save the label for any oils, shortenings, or margarines used for
frying, pan-frying (sautéing), or grilling, or as a spread, until the product is completely used. Labels may
be kept on the product container, photocopied, or kept separately.
Beginning July 1, 2008, when the regulation takes full effect, you will need to save the label for any
food containing oils, shortenings, or margarines, regardless of how you use the product. For instance, if you
are frying frozen French fries, you should save the label for both the frying oil and the French fries until
both have been completely used.
What should I do with products that contain artificial trans fat if they are still
in my pantry on July 1, 2008?
If a product containing partially hydrogenated oil has 0.5 grams or more trans fat per serving, you will
not be able to store, use, or serve it after July 1, 2008. The regulation gives food service establishments
time to use their remaining supplies and restock.
It does not matter where you buy the products.
Beginning July 1, 2008, all foods and ingredients stored, used, or served in New York City food service
establishments that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, shortenings, or margarines must have
less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.


You should check your facts before before spouting off. The EPA's authority STOPS at the water's edge, which is where the Coast Guard's authority starts. If you don't believe the Coast Guard has been active in this fucking nightmare, then you just haven't been paying attention.



First, I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake; dietary advice from your government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey Aunt Mabel who never saw an eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that far and large, the government's advice is being ignored. So kindly calm down with the "regulate our fat intake" hyperbole.

As to your whine about government requirements regarding offshore oil rigs, while I agree that the Obama administration dropped the ball here on regulating the oil industry, I would first like to point out that the administration has had just over ONE year to correct the fuckups of DECADES of the control of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That isn't something Obama CAUSED but something he INHERITED. Give the man a chance.

Second, I find it not just amusing but absolutely hilarious that your opening post whined that you think Obama is a socialist, but here you're whining that you want his administration to impose MORE "socialist" restrictions on private enterprise.

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama's "radical socialist" (formerly centrist - right) agenda regarding private enterprise is right, or it's TOO FAR RIGHT, or it's wrong. It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

I suggest you come up with a coherent political philosophy YOURSELF, before arguing further. Right now you sound like an "I don't want to pay taxes but I want the federal government to take care of me anyway" teabagger.

[grinner666]

Completely irrelevant example, as New York City's board of health (hell, NYC's entire government) has about as much similarity to the federal government as a bullfrog has to a Tyrannosaurus. The question under discussion is, after all, whether Obama's sliding us down that scary, evil, lefty socialist slope. What a local government chooses to do, whether you like what it's doing or not, has nothing to do with federal government functions and certainly can't be blamed on Barack Obama.

[steelish]

I do not know how long the OP has been alive or what she's experienced, but I can tell her from personal memory that Obama's so-called "radical left, socialist" policies and positions would have, only 30 or 35 years ago, been considered centrist-right.

The problem with the right is that every time in the past 50 years that its policies have failed, its excuse has always been, "well, we just never tried a TRULY conservative approach; let's move a little further right," instead of maybe adapting to reality and trying a more centrist approach.

The current policies and beliefs of the mainstream Rethuglican party today would have been, and in fact WERE, dismissed as the rantings of the lunatic fringe as recently as the 1960s. Please remember that the John Birch society, now welcomed on the right, was dismissed during the '60s as an extremist group.

I suggest the OP acquire a little perspective and sense of history before making outrageous claims (or asking outrageous questions that are, in point of fact, outrageous claims) in future.


Wow. So I'm an ignorant person?

In no way shape or form have TRUE Conservatives ever been further to the right" in our history. Progressives throughout the years have gone either further right or further left, but Conservatives have always been slightly right of center. Conservatives base their principles upon the Constitution, which is established firmly, solidly, right of center.

The '60s group that dismissed the John Birch society (http://www.jbs.org/index.php) was also a radical group. The “right” does not welcome the John Birch society BUT the Conservative group does. There are some people who call themselves Conservative without truly knowing what that means. They just jump on the bandwagon, believing, (as you do, which I can only surmise given your reactions to my posts) that it means lower taxes yet embraces Government intervention. Re“thug”licans, as you so quaintly called them, are NOT Conservatives.

When America voted Obama into office, this country wasn't voting to change the Republic. it was voting to change Washington. America wanted the lies, corruption, and childish “but they started it” games to end. Instead most Americans now see that things have only gotten worse and that the “change” the political elite think that the country wanted was a transition to a system based on entitlements and handouts. It is insult upon injury and a testament to just how out of touch with the common man BOTH our political parties have become.

You think I am saying this seems like a sudden hostile takeover. That is NOT what I have been trying to say. This has been coming for a long time and has been moved down the field by BOTH parties–the only real question was which one would put us in the end zone first.

After the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman on the street, “What have you given us, sir?”
Franklin responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

A critical moment in history has come; our Republic is in jeopardy, whether everyone wants to acknowledge it or not. The question is – can we keep it?

[TantricSoul]

Look folks there are almost 7 billion people on this planet and if you ask them their opinion on something you will get 7 billion different answers.

Please stop acting like you are the only one of the 7 billion that is correct!

You may have beliefs or ideas vastly different from others that does not mean you have the right to insult or degrade another persons perspective.

Whether you agree or not, whether you are left or right, religious or secular, male, female, transgendered, straight, pan-sexual, or abstinent, white, black, yellow, or freaking green, it does not matter, on these boards you have a right to post your opinion without being ridiculed for it.

Lets keep in mind that by being here, at this site, we all have at least one connection, one thing in common, one thing about us that is like all the other members here. We are kinky ... and we like it that way! You are not unlike me, and I am not unlike you. We are different and yet similar.

Lets stop screaming at each other about how wrong "they" are and how right "we" are.
And lets start just having an exchange of ideas. This is entirely possible if we dial down the ego knob just a notch or two.

"Can't we all just get along?" ~ Rodney King

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

IRRELEVANT!?!?!
I quote grinner666; "I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake". I believe that I have shown you such a law and you have admitted that such exists therefore your original contention is wrong. Aside from that regulations are coming out of Washington itself that regulate what our children can eat. New York was easy to find in order to prove the point!


Completely irrelevant example, as New York City's board of health (hell, NYC's entire government) has about as much similarity to the federal government as a bullfrog has to a Tyrannosaurus. The question under discussion is, after all, whether Obama's sliding us down that scary, evil, lefty socialist slope. What a local government chooses to do, whether you like what it's doing or not, has nothing to do with federal government functions and certainly can't be blamed on Barack Obama.

[leo9]

(Section 81.08 of the New York City Health Code)
New York City’s Health Code amendment phases out the
use of artificial trans fat in all food service establishments
required to hold a New York City Health Department
permit, including restaurants, caterers, mobile food-vending
units, and mobile food commissaries:

In other words, it's a public health law. Are you suggesting that no previous Administration made health laws regulating the materials restaurants were allowed to use? Or is this only a threat to democracy when done by Democrats?

{Shakes head in amazement}

[grinner666]

IRRELEVANT!?!?!
I quote grinner666; "I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake". I believe that I have shown you such a law and you have admitted that such exists therefore your original contention is wrong. Aside from that regulations are coming out of Washington itself that regulate what our children can eat. New York was easy to find in order to prove the point!

My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for not appending the word "federal" to an argument in a thread that had, UNTIL your post, consisted wholly of discussion regarding whether the head of the FEDERAL government was a socialist. I shall now edit my post; hopefully it will meet with your rather-more-strict-than-usual (i.e., trying-desperately-to-save-your-failed-argument) literary standards:

First, I have yet to see a FEDERAL law REGULATING anybody's FEDERAL fat intake; dietary advice from your FEDERAL government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey FEDERAL Aunt Mabel who never saw a FEDERAL eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of FEDERAL kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that by and large, the FEDERAL government's FEDERAL advice is being FEDERALLY ignored. So kindly calm down with the FEDERAL "regulate our fat intake" FEDERAL hyperbole.

Thank you.


*sigh*

I never said there were any laws regulating anyone's fat intake. My exact phrase was: "I find it ironic that the government wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2139941) to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs."

(Notice the use of the word: WANTS)

What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

[DuncanONeil]

While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force.
The fact is that the "government" has decided that this category of fat is not good and therefore are going to force people to stop engaging in its consumption.
But the point was that there was a claim that there was not law, only a suggestion. They are now working to do the same with salt. Although they could not figure out how to actually regulate a persons caloric intake they did force chain restaurants to post calorie counts on the menu even though this was already available to those that wanted the info. Hardly anyone objected to the calorie info and it now appears that that was only the beginning. At this rate food may end up being as appealing as the food in the school cafeteria!

By the bye, the claimed attack on democracy is you own understanding. Never even suggested such a thing.


In other words, it's a public health law. Are you suggesting that no previous Administration made health laws regulating the materials restaurants were allowed to use? Or is this only a threat to democracy when done by Democrats?

{Shakes head in amazement}

[DuncanONeil]

Touched a nerve did I. Yes the thread may be about the political leanings of the current Socialist in Chief, but the message was a clear statement about the existence of any law. That statement was demonstrated false!
Perhaps the rest of the below message is more appropriate than could be expected. Perhaps you somehow channeled a future self and saw the actual results of the Obama Legacy, where everyone and everything is the property of the Government. That picture is pretty scary!


My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for not appending the word "federal" to an argument in a thread that had, UNTIL your post, consisted wholly of discussion regarding whether the head of the FEDERAL government was a socialist. I shall now edit my post; hopefully it will meet with your rather-more-strict-than-usual (i.e., trying-desperately-to-save-your-failed-argument) literary standards:

First, I have yet to see a FEDERAL law REGULATING anybody's FEDERAL fat intake; dietary advice from your FEDERAL government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey FEDERAL Aunt Mabel who never saw a FEDERAL eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of FEDERAL kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that by and large, the FEDERAL government's FEDERAL advice is being FEDERALLY ignored. So kindly calm down with the FEDERAL "regulate our fat intake" FEDERAL hyperbole.

Thank you.



What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

[steelish]

Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

Party of Southern racists? Anyone against Obama's policies are racist?

I find it deplorable what Abramoff did to the Indians. I abhor racism. I also get fed up with people playing the race card as if it is the only argument they can find.

Take note - I couldn't stand Bush and his policies either. Many of our presidents since before the great depression have been Progressives, whether they labeled themselves as Liberal or otherwise, they were Progressives. They've been slowly chipping away at our Constitution and adding to their executive powers for years. That doesn't detract from the speed at which Obama is doing it.

[steelish]

What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

Did I mention Obama's administration when replying to that post?

I DIDN'T. Nor did I say that the current administration's "dropped ball" indicates Socialism. FYI, please see my previous post in response to tyrannyoferos above, especially that last statement that begins with "Take note"

As TantricSoul has pointed out previously, sometimes threads ebb and flow and occasionally stray off topic as people respond to specific comments within a post. I'm terribly sorry if you have difficulty following along. I'm also quite apologetic (on your behalf) to others who may find offense with your unnecessary comments within your posts.

[leo9]

While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force.
I don't think that sentence makes sense, but just in case, could you translate it into English?

The fact is that the "government" has decided that this category of fat is not good and therefore are going to force people to stop engaging in its consumption.
So you weren't troubled by such bagatelles as habeas corpus or trial by jury, but you'll go to the barricades for your right to eat greaseburgers at Mcdonalds?

By the bye, the claimed attack on democracy is you own understanding. Never even suggested such a thing.

My mistake. You and Steelish have stated from the start of this thread that you see a threat to the Republic and the American way. I foolishly assumed that you considered the America you were defending to be a democracy. Now I know you don't, a lot of things make more sense.

[Thorne]

I foolishly assumed that you considered the America you were defending to be a democracy. Now I know you don't, a lot of things make more sense.

But America is not supposed to be a democracy. It's a democratic republic.

[steelish]

We're not even a democratic republic. That's a popular misconception (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html). We're a republic. Completely. Or, at least, we were in the beginning.

I believe the Ancient Roman Empire was a democratic republic. We are the first TRUE republic in history.

[denuseri]

Based upon those things we found we desired about the Roman Republic in fact.

[leo9]

Bearing in mind that all the other republics I'm familiar with are proud of and loudly proclaim their democratic nature, this is clearly an American thing that foreigners can't expect to understand. So I'll leave you to it, making a mental note that "democratic" is only and strictly a party label when discussing US politics.

[denuseri]

Hardely...we vote here all the time; we have like the Romans and Greeks before us (which our european forefathers so idolized) adapted democracy for ourselves.

[steelish]

Just because we vote on things does not make us a democracy.

[denuseri]

Our country is a form of democracy. We are a democracy wrapped in a republic. Pretty much very like the Romans. We have adapted it to our purposes. And yes, it pretty much is the voting that makes it a democracy in contemporary circles, rule by the people being excersized via the vote and by anyone from society being able to take a share in running things by political involvment or through other means of petition as opposed to the tyranny of a crown.

[MMI]

A monarchy is not a tyranny: the wearer of the Crown is not necessarily a tyrant. Tyrants are not necessarily a bad thing.

Just making the point ...

[steelish]

Tyrants are not necessarily a bad thing.

Just making the point ...

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

Seems like a bad thing to me.

[steelish]

Our country is a form of democracy. We are a democracy wrapped in a republic. Pretty much very like the Romans. We have adapted it to our purposes. And yes, it pretty much is the voting that makes it a democracy in contemporary circles, rule by the people being excersized via the vote and by anyone from society being able to take a share in running things by political involvment or through other means of petition as opposed to the tyranny of a crown.

I'm not disputing that we may have BECOME that. But we were not founded as such. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_form_of_government_does_the_US_have)

[denuseri]

Your right, its changed ever so slightly over time.



led by beliefs conserning old english, dutch, and other common laws, including church law and its influence via the reformation etc:

Puritan Religion theory guided the development of compacts, which were the first form of government utilized here by europeans (non-indegious/invaders) that we know of; voyages of Lief Ericson, Henery Sinclair, and the Clovis or others not withstanding.

Along with this we had a second type of government established called a charter company. Whose purpose was to exploit the natural resources from the new world.

The third type of government existed as proprietary companies. The king allowed individuals to set up a colony. The individuals became the sole proprietor.

And of course we had the areas ruled from abroad by their parent colonies directly or by royal grants such as NY, NJ, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Carolina.

Then came the Articles of Confederation 1781-1789 our first constitution in the new world. Many problems arouse from it in that people were loyal to their states and did not see them selves as Americans. There was not an Executive or Judicial branch and Congress had only one house giving each state one vote.

Another problem was that states produced more laws than the national government. At this time they were experiencing excessive democracy and states printed their own money.

So we had a Constitutional Convention.

The purpose of the convention was to revise the articles of confederation. The meeting was to be in Philadelphia from May 25th – September 17th 1787.

The recommended number of delegates was 74, but only 55 attended. The membership had a world view that included economics, military politics. The two most respected Americans at the meeting were Ben Franklin and George Washington, which gave the convention legitimacy. Instead of revising the delegates wrote a new constitution.

Most of which was designed by a small group of men, and they were greatly influenced by the reaserch done by one of them on all sorts of different governmental types of which the Republic of Rome was seen as most preferable to modulate with some revisions. This man (Madison) is ussually not mentioned all that much, but he is technically the architect of our government amongst our other founding fathers according to some historians.

Wanting democracy to be included in some form as the Romans had managed to do in their own government the convention tackled the question of equal representation.

Which led to several compromises like the the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plans which in turn became "The great compromise" and the "Three-fifths compromise" which apeased southerners who wanted to count slaves for population purposes.

The new constitution would be signed by 39 of 55 delegates on September 17, 1787. Those that supported the constitution were called Federalist and those who opposed the Constitution were called Anti-Federalist would soon be at odds so they came out with "The Bill of Rights" which had been on the table previously but rejected as being nessesary to include in the final draft.

The first ten amendments to the constitution is the Bill of Rights. The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such "fundamental maxims of free Government" would be "a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community" against potential oppression and would "counteract the impulses of interest and passion."

Madison's support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists' objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the "Bill of Rights."

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was "a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it." When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and "that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government."

Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. The following kinds are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.

The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think that sentence makes sense, but just in case, could you translate it into English?

" Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force."
The governments are certainly not going to start publishing a category of laws or regulations entitled "Government Control of the Poplulation"! They will put laws into whatever category they think fits. Whether or you can have a license to conduct business is an example of "government force:, do it our way or you can't do anything!


So you weren't troubled by such bagatelles as habeas corpus or trial by jury, but you'll go to the barricades for your right to eat greaseburgers at Mcdonalds?

The above Constitutional references are not "bagatelles"! But what is it you are trying to say in referring to them? That they should be? Or somehow they are being overlooked?



My mistake. You and Steelish have stated from the start of this thread that you see a threat to the Republic and the American way. I foolishly assumed that you considered the America you were defending to be a democracy. Now I know you don't, a lot of things make more sense.

No one I know, or with any education claims the US is a Democracy! The US is a Democratic Republic. As such it has functioned quite well under the rules of establishment. Now we have a cadre of people that are seeking to eliminate the rules of establishment. Seems to me that such an attempt qualifies as a threat!!

[DuncanONeil]

We're not even a democratic republic. That's a popular misconception (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html). We're a republic. Completely. Or, at least, we were in the beginning.

I believe the Ancient Roman Empire was a democratic republic. We are the first TRUE republic in history.


Interesting! Not what I was taught.
However;

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term, representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[50]

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic. The opinion of the court from In re Duncan[51] (1891) held that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition. Due to the 1875 and 1891 court decisions establishing basic definition, in the first version (1892) of the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the word republic, and like Article IV which refers to a Republican form of government, the basic definition of republic is implied and continues to do so in all subsequent versions, including the present edition, by virtue of its consistent inclusion.

Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[52]
With no monarch, most modern republics use the title president for the head of state. Originally used to refer to the presiding officer of a committee or governing body in Great Britain the usage was also applied to political leaders, including the leaders of some of the Thirteen Colonies (originally Virginia in 1608); in full, the "President of the Council."[40] The first republic to adopt the title was the United States of America. Keeping its usage as the head of a committee the President of the Continental Congress was the leader of the original congress. When the new constitution was written the title of President of the United States was conferred on the head of the new executive branch. Today almost all republics use the title president for the head of state.

If the head of state of a republic is also the head of government, this is called a presidential system. There are a number of forms of presidential government. A full-presidential system has a president with substantial authority and a central political role. The United States was the first example of such a system, and the basis for the model adopted elsewhere. In other states the legislature is dominant and the president's role is almost purely ceremonial and apolitical, such as in Germany and India.

These states are parliamentary republics and operate similarly to constitutional monarchies with parliamentary systems where the power of the monarch is also greatly circumscribed. In parliamentary systems the head of government, most often titled prime minister, exercises the most real political power. Semi-presidential systems have a president as an active head of state, but also have a head of government with important powers.

The rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, in some republics permit the appointment of a president and a prime minister who have opposing political convictions: in France, when the members of the ruling cabinet and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called cohabitation.

Also very interesting!

[denuseri]

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" has come over time to represent several different forms of of government in which the government derives its power in part or in whole from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power.

In this sense the United States is accurately called a democracy by most people (Educated or not).

More specifically the USA is a Representative Democracy in the form of a Republic.

[DuncanONeil]

And you would be considered correct! However,to say we are; "a Representative Democracy in the form of a Republic", Is a term that is open for discussion, as you kind of admit to, therefore none of the others are wrong. They are at least as correct as are you!


By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" has come over time to represent several different forms of of government in which the government derives its power in part or in whole from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power.

In this sense the United States is accurately called a democracy by most people (Educated or not).

More specifically the USA is a Representative Democracy in the form of a Republic.

[denuseri]

I did not come to this table to refuit the USA being a Republic...I only came to defend those who were rightly saying that it was also a type of democracy, in so far as this little sidebar is conserned, good Sir.

[DuncanONeil]

I did not come to this table to refuit the USA being a Republic...I only came to defend those who were rightly saying that it was also a type of democracy, in so far as this little sidebar is conserned, good Sir.


I do believe that I said no one is truly wrong. Merely that the terms are open for discussion.

[denuseri]

No one I know, or with any education claims the US is a Democracy!

If one reviews the previous posts one can seee where and why I started back in with my preceptions that had only previously been exchanging with steelish on the side bar and why.

Doth Sir think me to not be educated, (since I did figure that I lay in the "do not know" catagory) I had to wonder as I formulated my posts...grins.

So I pointed out that it is not wrong or uneducated to say that the USA could indeed be claimed to be a Democracy, and be proud of it.

Furthermore, back to the main topic:

That of Obama being a Socialist or not a socialist and if so who cares or doesnt care etc...

I believe that in The United States of America, that as with religion and ones freedom to practice it without fear of harm, threat, reprisal or interference in any way outside of one's practice violating those laws that we all hold to be sacred and in conjuction with one's right to freedom of personal speach in like manner; that one's membership in any given political party or other such afiliation, or one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself.

[DuncanONeil]

"(O)r one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself."

A separate Amendment is not required as you so ably stated such is already covered.


If one reviews the previous posts one can seee where and why I started back in with my preceptions that had only previously been exchanging with steelish on the side bar and why.

Doth Sir think me to not be educated, (since I did figure that I lay in the "do not know" catagory) I had to wonder as I formulated my posts...grins.

So I pointed out that it is not wrong or uneducated to say that the USA could indeed be claimed to be a Democracy, and be proud of it.

Furthermore, back to the main topic:

That of Obama being a Socialist or not a socialist and if so who cares or doesnt care etc...

I believe that in The United States of America, that as with religion and ones freedom to practice it without fear of harm, threat, reprisal or interference in any way outside of one's practice violating those laws that we all hold to be sacred and in conjuction with one's right to freedom of personal speach in like manner; that one's membership in any given political party or other such afiliation, or one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself.

[steelish]

What truly matters is what do we want to be?

In simple terms the chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

On the other hand a Republic has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

I want to be a citizen of a Republic! (I was born to what used to be one, I want our country to return to that and remain one).

[VaAugusta]

What does your post have to do with Obama being a socialist or not?

[steelish]

OMG, here we go again.

As stated in other threads, posts ebb and flow, and we discuss things in response to other posts. The original topic is not always at the center of the discussion.

[steelish]

What does your post have to do with Obama being a socialist or not?

And my post actually has a lot to do with Obama being a socialist or not.

If what Americans want is for America to go back to her foundation and be a Republic, and he is a Socialist who is trying to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" then my post is relevant.

[leo9]

" Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force."
The governments are certainly not going to start publishing a category of laws or regulations entitled "Government Control of the Poplulation"!
Assuming you don't mean "population control" as it is usually understood, nobody would use that category because it would include everything. One uses classes smaller than the class of all classes, not to deceive, but to be precise.
Whether or you can have a license to conduct business is an example of "government force:, do it our way or you can't do anything!
Well, yes, I'm afraid living under a government does tend to have that effect. It's called "the rule of law." But be of good cheer, there are still places left in this world where there is no rule of law and your only protection is to be faster with a gun than the next man; nobody will stop you moving there and living the noble free life for as long as you last.



The above Constitutional references are not "bagatelles"! But what is it you are trying to say in referring to them? I'm saying that the people who fear for the Constitution because a President wants to give healthcare to the poor didn't seem worried about a previous incumbent putting citizens in jail without trial and forbidding protest demonstrations. Just, you know, noticing these things.


No one I know, or with any education claims the US is a Democracy!
My mistake. I grew up in the Cold War, when every debate was framed in terms of the US defending and promoting democracy. But Americans often try to impose institutions on other nations that they wouldn't want at home: I just hadn't realised that this was one such.[/quote]
The US is a Democratic Republic. As such it has functioned quite well under the rules of establishment. Now we have a cadre of people that are seeking to eliminate the rules of establishment. Seems to me that such an attempt qualifies as a threat!![/QUOTE]
In most European countries it would be called liberation - so much so that even our conservatives have to present themselves to the voters as the foes of the establishment. But I am beginning to understand much better why the political rules I know don't work in your country. You seem to have a lot more in common with the Russians, who are also pining for the days when they lived under an autocracy and knew where they stood.

[cbtboyuk]

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

[cbtboyuk]

What truly matters is what do we want to be?

In simple terms the chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

On the other hand a Republic has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

I want to be a citizen of a Republic! (I was born to what used to be one, I want our country to return to that and remain one).


It amazes me that a debate of this nature can actually happen on a site of this kind, given that the repressive and religious nature of the "Right" politics not only threatens our sexual lifestyle in the state, but continually attemptsto repress its freedom abroad (hurrah for Europe, boo UK)

[steelish]

You were BORN in one? Where the hell were you born? Or have you not actually read your own posts on this thread? lol

It amazes me that a debate of this nature can actually happen on a site of this kind, given that the repressive and religious nature of the "Right" politics not only threatens our sexual lifestyle in the state, but continually attemptsto repress its freedom abroad (hurrah for Europe, boo UK)

In 1962 the attitude of the country was just then starting to change into a nation of handouts. (mostly due to the "flower power" generation) I was born in 1962.

And since when have I ever stated I am part of the "right"? I believe I have stated over and over that I am slightly right of center.

[steelish]

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

What does that specific post have to do with what the other nations thought of us? Do you really believe that Obama running around bowing and scraping and apologizing for America's existence will change another nation's opinion if they already hated us? It won't. What it WILL do is alienate our alliances.

[cbtboyuk]

What does that specific post have to do with what the other nations thought of us? Do you really believe that Obama running around bowing and scraping and apologizing for America's existence will change another nation's opinion if they already hated us? It won't. What it WILL do is alienate our alliances.

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples, belongs to the older nations who founded the colonies which became the USA) but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good, as it would/did the last imperialistic arrogant Western nation that romped round the globe bringing it's short sighted, prejudiced and parochial views of "right" "democracy" and "freedom", namely the UK. That is not to say that all the fault lies on one side, but the trouble is that the politics you clearly - from your own posts- espouse (i.e. this nation was fine before "handouts" and "flower-power") are all about impossible, fictional ideals and black-and-white absolutes which not only play no real part in actuality, but, in particular, cause immense problems when you (the States) come onto contact with civilisations and societies far more ancient and complex than your own (e.g. Europe or, more importantly, the Middle East), especially when you do so with unbounded belief in your "superior knowledge"....as exemplified by the immortal quote for the US marine to the Iraqui citizens "Shuddup! We are here for your fucking freedom!" Oh, well done.

As for "hand outs", it seems to me that the real measure of any civilisation is the way it treats the least of its citizens, so i suggest that the richest nation on earth needs to sort itself out if people are still homeless, hungry or dumping their parents in neighbouring states because of medical costs. Of course i might, and do, level all but the last accusation at my own country.

You call yourself "right of centre", but you seem to me to be fairly right-wing. And anyone on this site who seems to think that Obama is worse than W Bush has to be at best self-destructive. At least, however you feel about his politics, Obama is not a constant embarrassment, in the way W Chump Monkey was. If one is going to be the most unpopular Imperialistic nation on earth, i think on should at least try to look good doing it: Victoria may have been dumpy but she at least was regal. Philip is embarrassing, but we are a minor issue these days. W Bush was like a strategically shaved chimpanzee but without the social elan, tact, sense, intellect or delicious aroma. i was in Chicago when he was on telly about Iraq - "we're kicking ass!" - and i had sensible Americans coming over in the airport and apologising for their President, as well they might.

And, in the end, I don't think Obama is apologising for America's existence. i think he's started to apologise for some of the horrors, crimes and scandals which America has perpertrated globally with a blithe disregard to the welfare of people in other countries (again, do not imagine i am either unaware or forgiving of my own countries list) and that can only assist America in terms of it's world standing. You are rich and powerful, being gracious can only be a good thing, instead of throwing your weight around like an ignorant 18 yr old boy on too many steroids. Your allies (who if they are like us, are probably allies cos of your fiscal clout, rather than through real allegiance) will appreciate this, and your enemies....well if they are not won round, you might at least comfort yourselves with having actually tried to calm things, rather than making things worse.

lots of love and flower power :)

[FrgnSwtc]

As I can only thank cbtboyuk once with a button, I'll do it again here. Very well said and thanks.

[steelish]

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples

That's an assumption on your part. I never mentioned Native Americans. But he is running around the globe apologizing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N759aBBpPCE&feature=related).


but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good, as it would/did the last imperialistic arrogant Western nation that romped round the globe bringing it's short sighted, prejudiced and parochial views of "right" "democracy" and "freedom", namely the UK. That is not to say that all the fault lies on one side, but the trouble is that the politics you clearly - from your own posts- espouse (i.e. this nation was fine before "handouts" and "flower-power") are all about impossible, fictional ideals and black-and-white absolutes which not only play no real part in actuality, but, in particular, cause immense problems when you (the States) come onto contact with civilisations and societies far more ancient and complex than your own (e.g. Europe or, more importantly, the Middle East), especially when you do so with unbounded belief in your "superior knowledge"....as exemplified by the immortal quote for the US marine to the Iraqui citizens "Shuddup! We are here for your fucking freedom!" Oh, well done.

You're so right. We've never done anything to help defend other nations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3uIB67hZJg&feature=related). Don't put the burden of some asshole's words on my shoulders. I didn't tell a citizen of Iraq to "Shuddup". Those words didn't come out of my mouth and I highly doubt the majority of the US would stand behind this soldier in his defense on that specific point.

In response to your statement of "romping around the globe and trying to cram our political views upon other nations"...I am against that as well.


As for "hand outs", it seems to me that the real measure of any civilisation is the way it treats the least of its citizens, so i suggest that the richest nation on earth needs to sort itself out if people are still homeless, hungry or dumping their parents in neighbouring states because of medical costs. Of course i might, and do, level all but the last accusation at my own country.

I have nothing against "hand UPS". I think "hand outs" keep those who are in dire straits right there...in dire straits. Rather than simply handing food stamps or welfare out to citizens, the program should have been designed to enable those capable of working to learn a trade and pursue job opportunities. Instead, money is blindly handed out to those who properly "fill in the blanks".

From the 1930s on, New York City government provided welfare payments to the poor. By the 1960s, as whites moved to the suburbs, the city was having trouble making the payments and attempted to purge the rolls of those who were committing welfare fraud. Twenty individuals who had been denied welfare sued in a case that went to the United States Supreme Court, Goldberg v. Kelly. The Court ruled that those suspected of committing welfare fraud must receive individual hearings before being denied welfare. Journalist David Frum considers this ruling to be a milestone leading to the city's 1975 budget disaster.

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government. This could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, this increased to 10%. In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system. Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government. In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.

Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996), welfare was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs." Prior to reform, states were given "limitless" money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare (the state lost federal money when someone left the system). One child in seven nationwide received AFDC funds, which mostly went to single mothers.

After reforms, which President Bill Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it," amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population. Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_to_Needy_Families) (TANF). It also encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals and imposes a five-year time limit on cash assistance. The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care. The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.

While Clinton's attempt seems "noble" and appropriate, it really does nothing to stem the flow of Welfare cases. Proving you've been out on a job search is about as difficult as a 19 year old securing fake ID to drink at bars. Billions of $$ are spent for workers to process welfare cases, instead of billions being spent to have caseworkers assigned to five or six cases apiece and work directly with the recipients to secure jobs, housing, etc. Welfare is handled similar to the DMV and licensing. Go up to a window, process paperwork, walk away with $$. How is that truly helping anyone to make their life better? (especially when they spend hours in line for the $$, hours that could be better spent in a Welfare run trade school or out job searching)


You call yourself "right of centre", but you seem to me to be fairly right-wing. And anyone on this site who seems to think that Obama is worse than W Bush has to be at best self-destructive. At least, however you feel about his politics, Obama is not a constant embarrassment, in the way W Chump Monkey was. If one is going to be the most unpopular Imperialistic nation on earth, i think on should at least try to look good doing it: Victoria may have been dumpy but she at least was regal. Philip is embarrassing, but we are a minor issue these days. W Bush was like a strategically shaved chimpanzee but without the social elan, tact, sense, intellect or delicious aroma. i was in Chicago when he was on telly about Iraq - "we're kicking ass!" - and i had sensible Americans coming over in the airport and apologising for their President, as well they might.

You obviously haven't seen ALL my posts. I disliked Bush with a passion. Every time he was on TV, I had to turn the channel. Our Republic, when founded was slightly right of center. Why is it that it seems radical now?


And, in the end, I don't think Obama is apologising for America's existence. i think he's started to apologise for some of the horrors, crimes and scandals which America has perpertrated globally with a blithe disregard to the welfare of people in other countries (again, do not imagine i am either unaware or forgiving of my own countries list) and that can only assist America in terms of it's world standing. You are rich and powerful, being gracious can only be a good thing, instead of throwing your weight around like an ignorant 18 yr old boy on too many steroids. Your allies (who if they are like us, are probably allies cos of your fiscal clout, rather than through real allegiance) will appreciate this, and your enemies....well if they are not won round, you might at least comfort yourselves with having actually tried to calm things, rather than making things worse.

lots of love and flower power :)

ROFL! Flower power? That's rich. The "flower power" children of the 60's are the ones who now have Obama's ear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g). Bill Ayers and his wife, for example. At one time they had a plan to take over America and eliminate (kill) all the "diehard" capitalists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ&feature=related). Remember, the Jihad terrorists came to America and were peaceful at first, took flying lessons (as do many Americans) and lived as if they were one of us. They lived among us for over three years before the attack on the Trade Center took place. Why is it so difficult to believe that the radicals of the 60s who are now grown are not doing the same thing?

And then there are the slightly younger revolutionaries, like Van Jones (http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf). Just because he is no longer a Czar, doesn't mean he is without influence in todays American political arena.

How about we try and "calm" the storm that rages in America?

[TantricSoul]

Or heres another view on "Flower Power"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_power

Just my humble opinion but I am not really all that worried about those hippies taking over the world...

in fact they sound kinda fun!

[steelish]

Or heres another view on "Flower Power"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_power

Just my humble opinion but I am not really all that worried about those hippies taking over the world...

in fact they sound kinda fun!

???????? William Ayers and his beliefs sound kinda fun????

Kill 25 million people who don't believe the same thing you do?

[VaAugusta]

Chastising someone by association to others is a little pointless. I'm sure that I've probably unknowingly shook hands with a pedophile. Should that really reflect on my views or actions? I would hope not.

Take for instance this picture of Ron Paul featured with the leaders of Stormfront (the white nationalist group):
http://ladylibertyslamp.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rp-and-db.jpg

Clearly Ron Paul supports a Neo-Nazi agenda.

Or maybe not..

Perhaps Stormfront sees it can best implement its agenda with a government that favors a strictly-constitutional view. Is Ron Paul really to blame for they're support? In my opinion, no.

[steelish]

There's a huge difference between unknowingly (or even knowingly) simply shaking the hand of a pedophile/criminal...whatever and what is going on with the current administration and who they seek out.

Valerie Jarret, one of Obama's advisors admitted they actively pursued Van Jones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDoYoCBusZ4). Not only is he a radical, HE spreads lies and "fear-mongers." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBI41AdkAB8)

Obama is surrounded by people like Ron Bloom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g&feature=related)...as a matter of fact - he ACTIVELY sought out people like that in college.

[DuncanONeil]

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol


What they thought before they still think! Although many are certain the country is weaker.

[DuncanONeil]

It amazes me that a debate of this nature can actually happen on a site of this kind, given that the repressive and religious nature of the "Right" politics not only threatens our sexual lifestyle in the state, but continually attemptsto repress its freedom abroad (hurrah for Europe, boo UK)


Then I am to presume that the nature of the left is unrestrictive and atheist? That is perhaps more threatening!

[DuncanONeil]

You have not been paying attention!!


Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples, belongs to the older nations who founded the colonies which became the USA) but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good,

[Thorne]

Then I am to presume that the nature of the left is unrestrictive and atheist? That is perhaps more threatening!
Why is it more threatening? And threatening to whom?

[Lion]

That's an assumption on your part. I never mentioned Native Americans. But he is running around the globe apologizing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N759aBBpPCE&feature=related).



You're so right. We've never done anything to help defend other nations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3uIB67hZJg&feature=related).

There is no denying that US has in its history helped other nations of the world. I find it admirable that US, France AND Britain airlifted tons of aid to Berlin when Russia blocked all land access to it. This was soon after the second world war where thousands of Allied soldiers died fighting the Germans.

US has also contributed immensely to aid around the world since then. It's achievements in science and technology is also remarkable. I am grateful for it's contributions to the world.

But America is not without it's dark spots. When people talk about American arrogance, it's mistakes that it has yet to recognize, or apologize for, they are talking about something substantial.

In 1953, to further Western interests, Americans played a hand in removing the democratically elected ruler of Iran.

US has held a relatively unwavering support of Israel over the entire land conflict. Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, consistently supporting one side with money, arms and political support for an issue that is anything but simple gives of an impression of partiality.

In 1988, a passenger jet was shot down by an American ship. As of today, there has been no apology.

The CIA funded and trained thousands of Afghans to fight the Soviets. At the conclusion of the war, when the Afghans defeated the enemy of the Americans, the money to rebuild was no where to be found. The fighters who were so willingly trained now had no home to go to, and no money to replace it.

These are just a few events that people in the other part of the world remembers when they think of America. If you think America is guilt free, then you are sorely wrong. Yes, other countries in the world have done a lot of crap, their hands have blood on them. But when you think of the global reach that the world's super power has to a country like Egypt or Iran, then you have less people affected by their actions.

And as for arrogance, when US-UK marched into war in Iraq with false assumptions, while France and Germany resisted, I remember outrage that the French could betray a country that saved them. French fries were now freedom fries, French wines were poured down the drain, a country that decided to listen to it's own populace and make it's own decision was now the betrayers?

Like cbtboyuk said, a little humility doesn't hurt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8626041.stm). In fact, it can help your standing in the world. What good is a expensive military if you aren't liked in the world?

As for Obama, hate or love his domestic policies, but his foreign is much better then what I've seen in the last decade. I used to know so many people who had nothing but respect for the USA. Two wars later not so much.

[denuseri]

I love your post Lion well said indeed sugar.

Though I do have to disagree about the last little bit, the part about foriegn policy and respect.

The respect thing has been up and down throughout history and one nation's idea of us doing something good, is allmost allways another one's idea of us doing something bad.

Obama talks a good talk but he doesn't nessesarally wlak that talk if you know what I mean. In my observations of his actions and results compared to what his promises and what comes out of his mouth in his speaches; he hasn't done a thing different imho than his predecessors were allready doing and had planned out when it comes down to the brass tacks.

[Lion]

I love your post Lion well said indeed sugar.

Though I do have to disagree about the last little bit, the part about foriegn policy and respect.

The respect thing has been up and down throughout history and one nation's idea of us doing something good, is allmost allways another one's idea of us doing something bad.

Obama talks a good talk but he doesn't nessesarally wlak that talk if you know what I mean. In my observations of his actions and results compared to what his promises and what comes out of his mouth in his speaches; he hasn't done a thing different imho than his predecessors were allready doing and had planned out when it comes down to the brass tacks.

Thanks :)

The respect part comes from my own personal experience, people I've talked to, etc. I guess it was a little presumptuous of me to generalize a larger population. I know as a Canadian, judging for media, surveys, and just talking to others here, we weren't particularly fond of Americans 2003-2008. It's changed a lot when Obama came to office, which is kinda odd since Canada actually benefits from the economic plans that Republicans have usually.

But yeah, your points are well taken, he is a lot of talk followed by a lot more talk.

[leo9]

It's changed a lot when Obama came to office, which is kinda odd since Canada actually benefits from the economic plans that Republicans have usually.

The rest of the world usually benefits economically when Republicans impoverish the US, but that doesn't make up for their foreign policies.

[steelish]

The rest of the world usually benefits economically when Republicans impoverish the US, but that doesn't make up for their foreign policies.

So it only goes to reason that the rest of the world will also benefit as the Democrats impoverish the U.S.

[Lion]

The rest of the world usually benefits economically when Republicans impoverish the US, but that doesn't make up for their foreign policies.

Well, depends on how you look at NAFTA. Trade between the two countries (I don't know about Mexico) has resulted in job growth in both countries.

I can't speak for American trade agreements with other countries.

[TantricSoul]

When speaking of apologies and respect abroad one might take into account the differences between low and high context cultures. The U.S. is a low context culture, where respect is earned by "straight talk." In short we are blunt, straight to the point, we primarily use language to express our thoughts, feelings and ideas as directly as possible. We tend to get annoyed by what we perceive as "beating around the bush."

Many other cultures (especially Asian and Middle Eastern) are high context, relying on subtle gestures and non verbal cues to help maintain harmony between people. These cultures generally place more emphasis on, and derive meaning from, the context in which a message is delivered. High context cultures are far more ritualistic in their communication. They are often offended by the "bluntness" and "arrogance" of low context communications.

The U.S. is a culture that is highly individualistic, hallmarked by self-reliance and competition. We place a higher value on helping ourselves, where collectivistic cultures place higher value on in-groups: extended families, communities, even organizations one works for. They tend to value the group over the individual and "saving face" (not so much your own but allowing others to save face) is the grease that keep the gears of their societies moving.

An apology in different cultures is a sign of strength not of weakness.

I for one, am happy we have a president that understands a little humility goes a long way abroad.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[MMI]

Thank-you, Tantric. A very useful post indeed.

[Lion]

Very insightful, thanks!

[gagged_Louise]

Take #2 of the above (ran out of edit time, and I hope this one is cleaner and clearer, so please skip the old one):


Yes, those were a couple of really good points Tantric. When it comes to diplomacy, speaking up to other nations and to a variety of groups around the "world community", I believe the difference between US and European ideas and expectations, ways of addressing something, are due to something else too. The US at least for the past 150 years, has known she was by far the most powerful state in its own hemisphere, and full-scale invasion of the mainland or even attempts to exert hard pressure from other countries close by hasn't really been something she needed to take into account. Superiority can be raken for granted by a wide margin, nobody expects Canada or Mexico to invade, boycott shipping or try to revile the USA in foreign media. Nobody seriously thinks Brazil would make real damage to U.S. interests by some kind of boycott or by forming an anti-American military league. Maybe you'll say Cuba has been a threat to the heartland but during the Cold War they were mostly a pawn of the Soviet Union - a state of affairs that was furthered by U'S' policies - and without strong Russian assistance they could never have posed a threat to key American security interests. And to say Cuba is a threat to United States national interests *now* is a joke.

In Euroep, every country has had to adapt to that the neighbour might react, put pressure on you or even invade: everybody's got a history of being pushed in by the others' ambitions, of being invaded and bombed at home, of having your ports mined or your claims questioned by the neighbours. These days they're not going to war with each other but the possibility of mutual pressure, boycotts, responses and backroom politics is still something that can't be escaped. It's simply not possible, certainly not in tense conditions in peacetime, sometimes not during war either to go for thje kill at once and talk ina "read my lips" style, unless you're sure the path you're going is fail safe.

When Germany reunited in 1990, the West German leadership, Kohl and the others, did show pretty openly that they were taking this into their own hands and were not going to be stopped by anyone, even if the idea of a unified Germany had been something nobody wanted to voice just a few years before- but they took that path as they became aware that there was no one who was really going to try to stop them, as long as they had the support of most people in both German states. And as long as there wasn't a sudden revamp of the Cold War and a communist revival, which were barely possible by early 1990. They knew neither Gorbachev, Thatcher nor Bush was really going to put a foot down, and East Germany was both industrially and politically bankrupt, so they could afford to go for it in a style that was kind of American.

It's always been a tighter place. To just speak no-holds-barred like John Wayne, without weighing in that there could be a response to it, open or veiled, down the line, isn't often an option to European politics, and I guess that colours the expectations of how it's communicated and discussed as well. That goes a long way to explain why modern politicians and public spokesmen in Eiurope are more diplomatic and less blunt than American presidents and the like tend to be. In the old days, when Britain, France and Russia felt they were on top of the world, they could act and speak just as bluntly as the American idea is you should do. But those days are long gone, When it comes to intra-European affairs - Bismarck speaking about Britain, in peacetime, and so on - I guess they ended came to an end already in the 19th century.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it more threatening? And threatening to whom?


Methinks you focused too much on the Atheist part and not enough on the unrestricted part.

[DuncanONeil]

There is no denying that US has in its history helped other nations of the world. I find it admirable that US, France AND Britain airlifted tons of aid to Berlin when Russia blocked all land access to it. This was soon after the second world war where thousands of Allied soldiers died fighting the Germans.



US has also contributed immensely to aid around the world since then. It's achievements in science and technology is also remarkable. I am grateful for it's contributions to the world.



But America is not without it's dark spots. When people talk about American arrogance, it's mistakes that it has yet to recognize, or apologize for, they are talking about something substantial.

Arrogance? I see you try to address this lower, we'll look at that. Mistakes? Not sure this is addressed so we'll hold off till later.
Well there is an intent, but it is not clear just what you consider a mistake, arrogance, or for what we need to apologize.



In 1953, to further Western interests, Americans played a hand in removing the democratically elected ruler of Iran.

Plain comment! is that supposed to be "arrogance" or a "mistake".



US has held a relatively unwavering support of Israel over the entire land conflict. Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, consistently supporting one side with money, arms and political support for an issue that is anything but simple gives of an impression of partiality.

Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?



In 1988, a passenger jet was shot down by an American ship. As of today, there has been no apology.

Actually I would say that more properly you need to say not "formal" apology. "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[6] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims." Seems to me that there is an admission and apology inherent in such an action.



The CIA funded and trained thousands of Afghans to fight the Soviets. At the conclusion of the war, when the Afghans defeated the enemy of the Americans, the money to rebuild was no where to be found. The fighters who were so willingly trained now had no home to go to, and no money to replace it.

The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"



These are just a few events that people in the other part of the world remembers when they think of America. If you think America is guilt free, then you are sorely wrong. Yes, other countries in the world have done a lot of crap, their hands have blood on them. But when you think of the global reach that the world's super power has to a country like Egypt or Iran, then you have less people affected by their actions.

People are going to remember first the things that support their preconceived notion of the issue in question. Perhaps that applies to you as well.

guilt
   /gɪlt/
–noun
1.the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability:
2.a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.,
3.conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.:

Number one requires a determination of having committed such an act. Number two can not be assigned from without, nor determined to exist by an external entity. Number three also requires that a crime has occurred. None of these are supported by your statements.




And as for arrogance, when US-UK marched into war in Iraq with false assumptions, while France and Germany resisted, I remember outrage that the French could betray a country that saved them. French fries were now freedom fries, French wines were poured down the drain, a country that decided to listen to it's own populace and make it's own decision was now the betrayers?

France had pecuniary motives for opposition. Can't remember Germany's opposition.
Let's have a look at that "false assumption" comment? First what are the assumptions? Second how were they false? Much of the world was clear that Iran was a threat.



Like cbtboyuk said, a little humility doesn't hurt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8626041.stm). In fact, it can help your standing in the world. What good is a expensive military if you aren't liked in the world?



As for Obama, hate or love his domestic policies, but his foreign is much better then what I've seen in the last decade. I used to know so many people who had nothing but respect for the USA. Two wars later not so much.

Obama's foreign policy consists of; "We should not have done that.", "We are sorry", and "How can I express a subservient attitude?"

[DuncanONeil]

There is humility and then there is humility. All is not the same.


When speaking of apologies and respect abroad one might take into account the differences between low and high context cultures. The U.S. is a low context culture, where respect is earned by "straight talk." In short we are blunt, straight to the point, we primarily use language to express our thoughts, feelings and ideas as directly as possible. We tend to get annoyed by what we perceive as "beating around the bush."

Many other cultures (especially Asian and Middle Eastern) are high context, relying on subtle gestures and non verbal cues to help maintain harmony between people. These cultures generally place more emphasis on, and derive meaning from, the context in which a message is delivered. High context cultures are far more ritualistic in their communication. They are often offended by the "bluntness" and "arrogance" of low context communications.

The U.S. is a culture that is highly individualistic, hallmarked by self-reliance and competition. We place a higher value on helping ourselves, where collectivistic cultures place higher value on in-groups: extended families, communities, even organizations one works for. They tend to value the group over the individual and "saving face" (not so much your own but allowing others to save face) is the grease that keep the gears of their societies moving.

An apology in different cultures is a sign of strength not of weakness.

I for one, am happy we have a president that understands a little humility goes a long way abroad.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

Methinks you focused too much on the Atheist part and not enough on the unrestricted part.
Not at all. I question both of your contentions.

[Lion]

Arrogance? I see you try to address this lower, we'll look at that. Mistakes? Not sure this is addressed so we'll hold off till later.
Well there is an intent, but it is not clear just what you consider a mistake, arrogance, or for what we need to apologize.



Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try to review what I said earlier so that you don't feel the need to be so defensive.





Plain comment! is that supposed to be "arrogance" or a "mistake".



Removing a democratically elected leader of a country because that person decided to side with his population over foreign interests, over issues that resided within the country's border is wrong. In my humble opinion, that would constitute a terrible mistake. America right now says their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is to better the lives of the population living there. Awesome! And I get the Afghanistan war, I really do, and to some extent, so do people from the East. But the Iraq invasion? North Korea seems like a country that could benefit a lot more. Somalia doesn't even have a government, why not invade that country and establish order? Why Iraq? For WMDs?

So yes, mistake. They should not have interfered with the politics of a sovereign nation, I doubt you'd appreciate if China schemed a way to covertly tried to topple your government.





Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?



I'm curious with these concessions you speak of, giving that the area of Israel has increased dramatically since the creation of the country, or even 1967. Maybe in another thread so we don't derail this thread even further






Actually I would say that more properly you need to say not "formal" apology. "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[6] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims." Seems to me that there is an admission and apology inherent in such an action.



To the families of the victims, there is a huge difference. Money, and an actual apology are vastly different. This is not something I can convince you of, it's a matter of how you perceive life. In American courts, lawsuits are settled out of courts for monetary sums, but with no admission of guilt. Even in America, there is a legal difference.






The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"


Prosecution of war?? The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.





People are going to remember first the things that support their preconceived notion of the issue in question. Perhaps that applies to you as well.

guilt
   /gɪlt/
–noun
1.the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability:
2.a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.,
3.conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.:

Number one requires a determination of having committed such an act. Number two can not be assigned from without, nor determined to exist by an external entity. Number three also requires that a crime has occurred. None of these are supported by your statements.




If you think that toppling a foreign government was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

If you think that providing Chemical arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

If you think that marching into Iraq with claims of WMDs, even though this was proven to be false is not wrong, then US is not guilty.






France had pecuniary motives for opposition. Can't remember Germany's opposition.
Let's have a look at that "false assumption" comment? First what are the assumptions? Second how were they false? Much of the world was clear that Iran was a threat.


False assumption - Weapons of Mass Destruction, where were they?

I assume you meant to type Iraq, and with no WMDs, what threat was there? If much of the world thought Iraq was a threat, why did India, China and Russia object to the war? India and China alone constitute about a third of the world's population. Much of Western Europe held the same opinion. I don't remember the armies of Brazil and Argentina part of the Coalition of the Willing. The only major country taking part in the war was UK. This was a huge difference then when there was a proper form of aggression in 1990, and the world firmly stood against Iraq.









Obama's foreign policy consists of; "We should not have done that.", "We are sorry", and "How can I express a subservient attitude?"

With the civilian Iranian plane, an apology like "I am sorry" can go a long way. "We are sorry" are not words of weakness. And I don't remember Obama ever saying or hinting at asking another country about how US can be subservient to them.

[Thorne]

The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.
While I agree with much of what you've said here, I have to take issue with the above comment.

Sending aid to pay for training or arms is not a mistake if the aim of those fighting is consistent with our foreign policy. It was in the US's best interests for the Soviets to be prevented from taking control in Afghanistan, just as it was in the US's best interests to send aid to the Soviets and the British during WW2 to help them defeat the Germans. No one expected us to help pay for Soviet or British rebuilding and no one should have expected us to repay for Afghanistan's rebuilding. In fact, I would bet that many nations would have objected to our doing so because of the influence it might have garnered with the new government.

I do agree, however, that US foreign policy has frequently crossed the line into arrogance. Deposing, or helping to depose, a democratically elected government would seem to fly in the face of the very reasons this country was started. Mistakes are a bit trickier, though. What may seem a logical and rational step to take at the time can later prove to be a mistake, one which may have been unforeseeable.

[Lion]

While I agree with much of what you've said here, I have to take issue with the above comment.

Sending aid to pay for training or arms is not a mistake if the aim of those fighting is consistent with our foreign policy. It was in the US's best interests for the Soviets to be prevented from taking control in Afghanistan, just as it was in the US's best interests to send aid to the Soviets and the British during WW2 to help them defeat the Germans. No one expected us to help pay for Soviet or British rebuilding and no one should have expected us to repay for Afghanistan's rebuilding. In fact, I would bet that many nations would have objected to our doing so because of the influence it might have garnered with the new government.

I do agree, however, that US foreign policy has frequently crossed the line into arrogance. Deposing, or helping to depose, a democratically elected government would seem to fly in the face of the very reasons this country was started. Mistakes are a bit trickier, though. What may seem a logical and rational step to take at the time can later prove to be a mistake, one which may have been unforeseeable.


I get your rationale. But US paid for reconstruction efforts in Western Europe after World War 2, even funding German reconstruction efforts. They did the same for Japan. I would think that it US's best interest is to have a economically strong ally, then what Afghanistan ended up becoming.

Anyhow, that's my personal opinion, talking to people from that part of the world, they still resent Americans for not being there after the war. Things over there run differently then they do here. People do the job for what they think is mutually beneficial, they expected that they'd get help after. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it would be something you'd need to talk to people there.

[denuseri]

Some Americans (in particular a certain congressman and some of his friends and a few others: who almost single handedly appeared to have started the CIA on the path of funding, training, and supporting soviet occupation opposition forces) tried to keep the congressional money train rolling after the war, only to have the rug pulled out from under them because it didn’t matter enough since the soviets were gone to the majority.

That was a huge mistake imho and we are still paying for it today.

As for supporting Israel...well we have been stalwart allies of theirs for decades now, and the House of Saud and it would be a very big mistake to withdraw our support now.

Israeli territorial gains however are almost entirely in response to the different times they have been attacked by their neighbors. They have good reason to be paranoid of those who have done nothing but speak of (and attempted to) destroying them since their country came once again into existence. If the people of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic republics would embrace religious freedom like most of the rest of the free world and stop oppressing their own people in restrictive theocracies; things wouldn’t be the way they are over there. Such backward attitudes in the face of progress quite literally ruined the country of my birth (Lebanon which was doing well for a short time with its confessionals until it was subsumed by outside forces) and I pray every day that they will one day cease so that Arab, Christian, Jew, and whoever else can live in peace with each other for a change.

I fail to see however, what any of this most recent trend in sidebars has to do with Obama being a socialist or not because: a close study of history reveals that foreign policy in general (however its touted or promised to be in an election) is simply not executed along party lines or political party platform agendas no matter which way one cuts it in actual practice.

[tedteague]

Some Americans (in particular a certain congressman and some of his friends and a few others: who almost single handedly appeared to have started the CIA on the path of funding, training, and supporting soviet occupation opposition forces) tried to keep the congressional money train rolling after the war, only to have the rug pulled out from under them because it didn’t matter enough since the soviets were gone to the majority.

That was a huge mistake imho and we are still paying for it today.

As for supporting Israel...well we have been stalwart allies of theirs for decades now, and the House of Saud and it would be a very big mistake to withdraw our support now.

Israeli territorial gains however are almost entirely in response to the different times they have been attacked by their neighbors. They have good reason to be paranoid of those who have done nothing but speak of (and attempted to) destroying them since their country came once again into existence. If the people of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic republics would embrace religious freedom like most of the rest of the free world and stop oppressing their own people in restrictive theocracies; things wouldn’t be the way they are over there. Such backward attitudes in the face of progress quite literally ruined the country of my birth (Lebanon which was doing well for a short time with its confessionals until it was subsumed by outside forces) and I pray every day that they will one day cease so that Arab, Christian, Jew, and whoever else can live in peace with each other for a change.

I fail to see however, what any of this most recent trend in sidebars has to do with Obama being a socialist or not because: a close study of history reveals that foreign policy in general (however its touted or promised to be in an election) is simply not executed along party lines or political party platform agendas no matter which way one cuts it in actual practice.


Very true, foreign policy has remained the same for clinton, bush 2, and Obama

[IAN 2411]

The US at least for the past 150 years, has known she was by far the most powerful state in its own hemisphere, and full-scale invasion of the mainland or even attempts to exert hard pressure from other countries close by hasn't really been something she needed to take into account.
Give me a break for fucks sake 150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid. The Gatling gun had not been invented, The United states was at war with itself Britain ruled the waves and the JFK aircraft carrier was nonexistent. Where the hell did you pick that number from?

Superiority can be taken for granted wide margin,
That was one of the reasons Pearl Harbour took place. [Before you scream at me, I am in no way making fun at a most tragic event in American history] Complacency; thinking that an atrocity such as that could never happen on or near your mainland.

Nobody expects Canada or Mexico to invade, boycott shipping or try to revile the USA in foreign media. Nobody seriously thinks Brazil would make real damage to U.S. interests by some kind of boycott or by forming an anti-American military league.
Nobody expected the London Tube disaster, 9/11, Canary Wharf, Lockerby, but they took place, there is an unwritten rule in the UK Special Forces expect the unexpected.

In Europe, every country has had to adapt to that the neighbour might react, put pressure on you or even invade: everybody's got a history of being pushed in by the others' ambitions, of being invaded and bombed at home, of having your ports mined or your claims questioned by the neighbours. These days they're not going to war with each other but the possibility of mutual pressure, boycotts, responses and backroom politics is still something that can't be escaped. It's simply not possible, certainly not in tense conditions in peacetime, sometimes not during war either to go for the kill at once and talk in a "read my lips" style, unless you're sure the path you're going is fail safe.
The UK has never bowed down to pressure from Europe when it comes to things that matter to us and our closest Allies. The USA ought to be thankful for that fact, because if the UK had not pushed them as hard as the United States were pushing, Sadam would still be in charge if Iraq and Both of our countries would not be over in Afghanistan getting our asses kicked, and for the Brits it is for the second time in history.

In the old days, when Britain, France and Russia felt they were on top of the world, they could act and speak just as bluntly as the American idea is you should do. But those days are long gone, When it comes to intra-European affairs - Bismarck speaking about Britain, in peacetime, and so on - I guess they ended came to an end already in the 19th century.
You really are living in a cotton wool world, just before the fall of the Berlin wall; Britain held the balance of nuclear power in the western world. We still have nuclear subs, and we still hold the balance of power, while you and the Russians were getting rid of war heads Britain retained theirs. So, Discounting the American war heads that you left England with, we are still a force to be counted. In years to come the world will be split into three, Europe, that includes Britain, France and Russia, USA+ South America, and Asia, we will all be dead and gone but let’s hope by then our descendents are not as complacent as you are talking now.
1...Now as for the question about your President, He failed to take charge of the oil spill.
2...He has just sacked General Chrystal Afghanistan’s only expert in counterinsurgency and probably the best in the world, why because his ego was dented. Then to rub salt in the wounds he sent another General to fall on his sword. Why have you got a non combatant as Commander in Chief, running your Military for?
3...His popularity is now down to 45% with a factor of 48% unpopular.
4...He has had the brass neck to tell the rest of the world how to get their economy straight, and if I am not mistaken the cause of all the problems in the first place was Merrill Lynch, Leamans, and Goldman Sax. China holds more American debt than the Americans, and if they pull the plug you will be in the same shit as Europe.

ANSWER, yes he is a Socialist, and just like Europe you will have to put the Conservatives in to get you out of the mire.
Regards ian 2411

[TantricSoul]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the ability to post it without being insulted.
This fact "protects" your biased opinion as well as everyone else's.
Please do attempt to keep from insulting other members while you post your "ridiculous" responses to their "ridiculous" posts.

"I look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won't presume to probe into the faults of others."~ Mohandas Gandhi

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:

Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?


I'm curious with these concessions you speak of, giving that the area of Israel has increased dramatically since the creation of the country, or even 1967. Maybe in another thread so we don't derail this thread even further


The concessions were prior to May 14, 1948. The Palestine was divided by the UN into Israel and the Transjordan. Even with the Transjordan being some 75% of Palestine there were objections the future Israelis surrendered a further 25% of the lands to the Arabs. To date this and all other concessions have never been enough. As for maintaining "more" lands those are called security zones.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:

The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"


Prosecution of war?? The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.

"The aid was to fund training and arms." What is that if not assisting in prosecution of war? Some would say, ally, and perhaps be correct, some would say, akin to "Lend/Lease", and perhaps be correct. However, "they resent you for it" is bit over the top. Many around the world "resent" us just because. Many do not! that is unlikely to change as long as people are what they are.

[DuncanONeil]

If you think that toppling a foreign government was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

Depends!


If you think that providing Chemical arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

Debatable!


If you think that marching into Iraq with claims of WMDs, even though this was proven to be false is not wrong, then US is not guilty.

Sorry there is no way I will concede that reasons, based on Intel, are invalid on after the fact determinations. There was too much info and varied sources that all agreed. Add to that the words of Saddam himself who admits, specifically, to working to convince Iran he was a nuclear power. All make the Intel and resulting decision valid. And for those of you that think it is important the UN was on board as well.

[DuncanONeil]

False assumption - Weapons of Mass Destruction, where were they?

Let me think! If I have something I am not supposed to have and you say I am going to kick in the door and look in five months. Is not that five months sufficient time to clean house? Yet in spite of cleaning house evidence of the existence of WMDs still surfaced. As well as Saddam's admission he wanted Iran to believe he actually had nukes already!
Odds are that any active WMDs were moved into or through Saudi territory.

[DuncanONeil]

With the civilian Iranian plane, an apology like "I am sorry" can go a long way. "We are sorry" are not words of weakness. And I don't remember Obama ever saying or hinting at asking another country about how US can be subservient to them.


In some respects you are correct about apologies. But when the head of a country begins to apologize for practically anything and everything it smacks of appeasement.
Of course he will never be heard to ask that question, save the odd open mike.
But a glaring example was the bow to the emperor of Japan. That bow in and of itself told, the Japanese at least, that the President saw himself as a person of lower stature than the Emperor. Yes bows are accepted greeting in Japan but the depth of bow is important. Two rulers would present equal bows, not what Obama did. Add to that the bow to the Saudi. These all show a level of misunderstanding of just what it is he is doing.

[DuncanONeil]

Give me a break for fucks sake 150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid. The Gatling gun had not been invented, The United states was at war with itself Britain ruled the waves and the JFK aircraft carrier was nonexistent. Where the hell did you pick that number from?


Seems to me your data is more off than the originators.
Invention of the Gatling gun; your going to quibble about ONE year? The war was just getting started. In the nineteenth century Britain's "rule" of the waves was in decline. What is the point of mentioning the JFK?

[gagged_Louise]

The UK has never bowed down to pressure from Europe when it comes to things that matter to us and our closest Allies. The USA ought to be thankful for that fact, because if the UK had not pushed them as hard as the United States were pushing, Sadam would still be in charge if Iraq and Both of our countries would not be over in Afghanistan getting our asses kicked, and for the Brits it is for the second time in history.

Sorry, you seem to have missed the plot, and as you're clearly worked up I'm not going to make any further replies on this line. At least, you missed the real gist of what I was saying. The UK may have acted headstrong sometimes but not once sxince the Suez crisis (1956) have British leaders attempted to do gunboat diplomacy by openly or indirectly invoking their *own* nuclear arms (no, not the US war capabilities or American nukes). And actually the UK wouldn't have picked to go to war with Hitler in 1937, probably not even if Churchill had been PM at the ime, unless Hitler had acted like a complete fool and forced his hand, which he wouldn't do.

I'm picking that up because 1937 - or Munich in 1938 - is often cited as a point when Britain (and France. but hey we all know the French can't fight don't we?) should have spoken loud and saved the world, and as a precedent for "staring the bad guys down" and taking on a first-strike war against a tyrant. The trouble is, it's so unlikely any British leader would have declared war on Hitler in 1937 even if he had been perfectly aware of that Hitler was planning a new Europe-wide war.. Why? Because England was nowhere near ready for a war in terms of armament, anyone could see that, You picked up speed a good deal in the years up to 1939 and kept running: more and better airplanes, most of all, and a wider awareness that the war was coming. In 1937, Hitler would have crushed you and that was part of the cold reality behind why Hitler wasn't addressed the way Nazi majors are sometimes spoken to in the movies. I admit it would have been morally right, but the point is that doing it - declaring war in 1937 - is just a rear mirror dream: Britain would not have done it, and if she did she would have lost that war.

The stuff I'm discussing is when a country tries to rearrange the part of the world close to her own shores mainly by her own design, simply by resort to her own force, peaceful (economic) or military. Britain didn't quite do that one single time with Europe at least post 1920, and most of the time didn't even try. In the colonial world yes, sometimes, in Europe no, not simply grabbing the reins and reordering things to your liking.. Neither in 1914 nor in 1939 did Britain go to war on its own, by its own terms and out of a decision that was simply her own decision, triggered by none other than the immediate reasons for the war. Which is substantially what the USA would do in 1941, did in 2003, and would have done in 1950 and 1962 if the Korea and Cuba crisises had led to direct, hot face-to-face confrontations.

Suppose the Red Brigades, the commie terrorist group,from Italy, had struck in London in the early 80s, perhaps in collusion with the IRA, and there had been some kind of spurious evidence that they had acted in connivance with the Italian government at the time (stranger things have happened for sure!). Does anyone think Margaret Thatcher would have spoken boldly to Rome, demanded an unconditional excuse by the Italian cabinet before anything ahd been found out - or a confronation? That she would have kicked off a war with Italy over the affair, even if the British public were as furious as they were with Argentina? Or even threatened Italy the way Bush spoke of Iraq up to March 2003? Nope, and that's the difference in how political action and political language work in America and in Europe.

[gagged_Louise]

150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid


Billy was shot in 1881: twenty years off the mark. Now, I read sometime during the early Bush years about an Arizona politician/lawyer who was trying to get Billy the Kid posthumously pardoned and recognized as a brave man. And no, the guy running that campaign was neither Obama nor McCain.

[IAN 2411]

gagged_louise, I can see that you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder and it is for that reason i will not reply to drivel. In three posts you have said nothing about the Socialist tendencies of President Obama, all you have done is used the thread as a platform to run down England and the rest of Europe with your rants. I don’t know if you are American or an American living in Sweden but you are directing an argument that has nothing to do with this thread. I will leave your rant unchecked, and I wish you luck in your pursuit to changing history to the way that makes you feel more comfortable.

My most sincere regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

Seems to me your data is more off than the originators.
Invention of the Gatling gun; your going to quibble about ONE year? The war was just getting started. In the nineteenth century Britain's "rule" of the waves was in decline. What is the point of mentioning the JFK?

Is that the only bit i messed up on?? The JFK was an afterthought, i spent many nights on the JFK 1968-69 and the food on board was great and i just had to give it a mention. LOL

[gagged_Louise]

gagged_louise, I can see that you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder and it is for that reason i will not reply to drivel. In three posts you have said nothing about the Socialist tendencies of President Obama, all you have done is used the thread as a platform to run down England and the rest of Europe....

I wasn't even discussing England in the first post,just noting that Britain has *not* been an exception to the way other ancient European great powers have acted - and I only took it up later because you swerved the discussion on to UK leadership and England's wars. But I can see you have a considerably more imperial vision of Britain, even in the 21st century, than what most people have today. Fine. I was discussing political communication and people's ideas of how a president or a prime minister should - or even *can* - communicate in public with the leading people of other independent nations. No, I'm not American, buit it's obvious to anyone that the expectations of how a national front man should talk and act are different between many U.S. Americans - let's say, Middle Americans, especially, plus the neo-cons -and a majority of Western Europeans. Both the people, the media and the political class themselves, by the way.

And that's coloured by the fact that America has traditionally been more free to do as she pleases without anyone nearby bumping back into her with equal force. I'm not moralizing, just pointing out a fact. I think Obama recognizes this difference , just like JFK and Jimmy Carter did, so his style of talking to other nations appears more European, more diplomatic. And if one is used to a John Wayne style of communication - "smoke 'em out", "We're gonna chase down that mad dog" or flatly declaring that this shit ain't worth the paper it's written on - then maybe it will appear confusing but that's not his problem.

[IAN 2411]

gagged_louise, I will not side track this thread anymore than it has been but if you wish to start another thread i am in no doubt that we have a lot to discus about [my imperial vision,] [i love that LMFAO]

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the ability to post it without being insulted. This fact "protects" your biased opinion as well as everyone else's.

Please do attempt to keep from insulting other members while you post your "ridiculous" responses to their "ridiculous" posts.

After you read your first quote, I will ask you to read your second quote and tell me. Is that supposed to be funny, or are you being sarcastic, derogatory and insulting to gagged_louise and myself. Explain to everyone in one of your colourful Posts, seeing as you have done those very things in public.

Regards ian 2411

[gagged_Louise]

Best regards Ian, but if you think I just jumped in out of the blue you should take a look at the posts immediately before my first one; they're at the bottom of the page before this one. I was following up on TantricSoul's post about political speech in high and low-context cultures. He was contrsting Asia and the U.S., I was taking that contrast to the U.S. vs Europe - and guess what, he recognized the link as soon as he read my post. I'm absolutely okay with the fact that Obama doesn't talk like in a Hollywood movie when he's addressing other nations or speaking on tv, the world isn't Hollywood.

Returning ot the header question, no, Obama is not a socialist. Besides the celebrated quote that Steelish pulled up is garbled, what Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. The society was flawed in a number of ways, he never sadi the text was "fundamentally flawed". Okay, if you think the text is to be read as if it was handed down from heaven, then this might be the same kind of thing, but maybe he doesn't. Not very sensational. Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic - and that had a few side effects on how the political system evolved. Even if the U.S. constitution doesn't mention slaves outrright, the way it was written and interpreted presupposed slavery (and segregation) for a long time. What's the trouble?

[DuncanONeil]

Is that the only bit i messed up on?? The JFK was an afterthought, i spent many nights on the JFK 1968-69 and the food on board was great and i just had to give it a mention. LOL

Well Gagged did say you were off by 20 on Billy the Kid!

[DuncanONeil]

Yes Obama is Socialist in his beliefs.

As to your interpretation of his comments in 2001. I am afraid I must disagree. In saying "it is marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18th century" he is speaking of the Constitution. That statement means he believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. His own words! Surely crafted to flow in a fashion for people to come to the conclusion you reached. But your conclusion is in error.

On to slavery! "(A)bsolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic". This is simply untrue. Many wanted to eliminate slavery. But in doing so they would have doomed the birth of the United States. The language extent in the Constitution was in fact a compromise between the pro and anti slavery blocs in the convention.




(W)hat Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. ... Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic -

[TantricSoul]

After you read your first quote, I will ask you to read your second quote and tell me. Is that supposed to be funny, or are you being sarcastic, derogatory and insulting to gagged_louise and myself. Explain to everyone in one of your colourful Posts, seeing as you have done those very things in public.

Regards ian 2411

In response to your statement, ian2411, I was attempting to interject an element of thoughtful humor into yet another warning message sent to a member whose post was deleted from this thread. The word "ridiculous" was entered into quotations in my response so that the offending member would get the message that their previous post was out of line, without having to make a big deal out of it. (since said member had used that description more than once).

I see by your reaction that you recieved the message but misunderstood the meaning.

If you prefer I would be happy to PM you and make the message very clear.

And Ill even do it colorfully :)

Respectfully,
Tantric

[SadisticNature]

Wow I think I finally agree with you on 1 point, its ridiculous for the Americans who caused the crisis to try and dictate to the world how it should be solved.

The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?

Regarding the Oil Spill what do you want him to do, nationalize the rig, put in experts and solve it? The problem is that rig didn't meet basic standards regulated by most of the world, but not required by the US anti-regulation party (aka the Republicans who cry communism whenever someone tries to pass a reasonable regulation that tries to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.) Basic equipment that could have prevented the spill was absent from the rig because the US government is one of few in the world that chose not to require it.

As for the sacking of the General, it is impossible to execute policy on the ground when people not only disagree with you but air their grievances publicly. The US has been at war in Afghanistan that the idea they have only ONE counterinsurgency expert for the region is ludicrous.

As for Obama being a socialist, he's to the right of most of the world. His health care plan is far to the right of the plan that Britains convervatives don't dare attack in virtually every other country in the world he'd be in a right wing party. The democrats nominated him in the primaries because he was to the RIGHT of Clinton who was seen as too left to win. Clinton was also seen as a repeat of a Clinton presidency which wasn't accused of being socialist.

[DuncanONeil]

As usual you do not bother to let anyone know to what, or who, you are responding.

That makes it very hard to form a coherent response. Further much of what you say sounds like unsupported "talking points".

Therefore dream on!


Wow I think I finally agree with you on 1 point, its ridiculous for the Americans who caused the crisis to try and dictate to the world how it should be solved.

The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?

Regarding the Oil Spill what do you want him to do, nationalize the rig, put in experts and solve it? The problem is that rig didn't meet basic standards regulated by most of the world, but not required by the US anti-regulation party (aka the Republicans who cry communism whenever someone tries to pass a reasonable regulation that tries to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.) Basic equipment that could have prevented the spill was absent from the rig because the US government is one of few in the world that chose not to require it.

As for the sacking of the General, it is impossible to execute policy on the ground when people not only disagree with you but air their grievances publicly. The US has been at war in Afghanistan that the idea they have only ONE counterinsurgency expert for the region is ludicrous.

As for Obama being a socialist, he's to the right of most of the world. His health care plan is far to the right of the plan that Britains convervatives don't dare attack in virtually every other country in the world he'd be in a right wing party. The democrats nominated him in the primaries because he was to the RIGHT of Clinton who was seen as too left to win. Clinton was also seen as a repeat of a Clinton presidency which wasn't accused of being socialist.

[mkemse]

No, I do not believe he is

[Lion]

As usual you do not bother to let anyone know to what, or who, you are responding.

That makes it very hard to form a coherent response. Further much of what you say sounds like unsupported "talking points".

Therefore dream on!


How about just rebutting the "talking points" instead of being critical on the way he conveyed his opinion?

[DuncanONeil]

No, I do not believe he is

Why not? Most of what he is forcing down the nations throat is socialist agenda items.

[DuncanONeil]

How about just rebutting the "talking points" instead of being critical on the way he conveyed his opinion?


Because without the reference of what caused him to say what he did it is difficult to understand what gave rise to what he said.
There are other reasons, more personal in nature, That I choose to reserve.

[leo9]

How about just rebutting the "talking points" instead of being critical on the way he conveyed his opinion?

Since he can't, he's got to find some other response.

[leo9]

Why not? Most of what he is forcing down the nations throat is socialist agenda items.

Cheer up! You are not alone in your struggle:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7888741/Barack-Obama-compared-to-Hitler-and-Lenin-in-Tea-Party-billboard.html

I mean, we can all see what he means about Obama being in "lock-step" with Hitler. Didn't he abolish the rights of habeas corpus, jury trial and peaceful protest, set up a new police organisation with the right to make secret wiretaps and monitor citizens' library lists and internet use, authorise interogation by torture and run a prison camp outside the law where detainees have no rights?

Or was that another President? No, couldn't have been; these defenders of liberty would have been up in arms about it right away.

[DuncanONeil]

It is kind of hard to respond when he, essentially, refused to provide any reference to the issue his response is related to.
For example; "The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?"

Which poll is he talking about? Without that info how would you respond!?!?!

[DuncanONeil]

Cheer up! You are not alone in your struggle:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7888741/Barack-Obama-compared-to-Hitler-and-Lenin-in-Tea-Party-billboard.html

I mean, we can all see what he means about Obama being in "lock-step" with Hitler. Didn't he abolish the rights of habeas corpus,

We know the following to be true;


On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana, during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore,

In 1942, eight German saboteurs, including two U.S. citizens, who had entered the United States were convicted by a secret military court set up by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In Ex parte Quirin (1942)[12] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the writ of habeas corpus did not apply, and that the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try the saboteurs, due to their status as unlawful combatants.

In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor martial law was declared in Hawaii and habeas corpus was suspended, pursuant to a section of the Hawaiian Organic Ac. The period of martial law in Hawaii ended in October 1944.

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. However in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)[15] the U.S. Supreme Court re-confirmed the right of every American citizen to access habeas corpus even when declared to be an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus could not be revoked in the case of a citizen.

However in the case of the later there was never an attempt to suspend Habeas Corpus. Only an argument that such had occurred. As the actual act was that of Congress ...

jury trial

Depends on how you see a jury trial. Can an alien actually have a jury of his peers in the US? Further why must a "jury trial" be only those trials held in specific court with the jury drawn from a pool of US voters in the district where the trial is to be held? Trails were scheduled to be held with juries to be impaneled. Is this not a jury trial?
and peaceful protest,

Did not happen!

set up a new police organisation with the right to make secret wiretaps and monitor citizens' library lists and internet use,

No new police organization has been set up with these powers. Besides by definition all wiretaps are secret, no one has been monitoring library lists, and the very idea that internet usage can be monitored is ludicrous.

authorise interogation by torture

Not so! With the understanding that everyone seems to have a very different idea of what constitutes torture. by the definition of some all the police departments in the land engage intorture during interigations of criminal suspects.

and run a prison camp outside the law where detainees have no rights?

Again another attempt to garner a certain kind of feeling in the reader. The camp was not run outside the law. The detainees were well treated and provided with virtually all the rights enumerated in the Conventions.


Or was that another President? No, couldn't have been; these defenders of liberty would have been up in arms about it right away.

Sarcasm wasted!!

[Torq]

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay on topic or seek life elsewhere!!!!!!

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not warn again!

T

[leo9]

and peaceful protest,


Did not happen!
Does the Orwellian term "Free Speech Zone" ring a bell? As several commentators observed, up till then they'd supposed that the USA was a Free Speech Zone.

Just imagine the howls if Obama were to corral the Teabaggers out of sight like that.

[DuncanONeil]

Does the Orwellian term "Free Speech Zone" ring a bell? As several commentators observed, up till then they'd supposed that the USA was a Free Speech Zone.

Just imagine the howls if Obama were to corral the Teabaggers out of sight like that.


There was nothing in your post or the article about corrals.

[steelish]

Okay, let's approach this a bit differently, because we are straying a touch off topic and beginning to get defensive and a little irritated with each other. There are many, many reasons for many Americans to believe that Obama is Socialist. There are many many reasons for many Americans to believe we've had Socialist-leaning Presidents in the past. Obama is simply the current one who has the backing and support of some very powerful self-avowed Communists, Marxists and Revolutionary Socialists. He (Obama) is slated by those who've been working towards America becoming a Socialist-run country as their spearhead to get it done.

Here's a hard concept to get your arms around: It's the concept that there are people in this country who want to intentionally collapse our economic system.

How could it be that any American would or would want to do such a thing? Well, those involved sleep just fine at night because they tell themselves that they're not collapsing, they're transforming — transforming — America into something better.

The progressive movement in which these people are involved started around the turn of last century. These are the same people who gave us the Federal Reserve. They brought America the concept of redistribution of wealth through the progressive income tax, telling Americans at first that only the rich would be affected. They are the same people who felt that they knew better about your health than you did that they needed to force you to stop drinking alcohol-through Prohibition. They brought us the League of Nations, then the United Nations. And their biggest contribution of all: They brought the understanding that our Constitution was a flawed, living, breathing document and that our Founding Fathers were a group of rich racists.

Now, today's group of progressives do not speak the same language as many other Americans and myself do: Economic justice is taking from haves and giving to the have nots; social justice, to quote Mark Lloyd, is when someone needs to step down so someone else can have turn, and transforming America means collapsing the state as we know it and rebooting it as a progressive utopia.

None of the language is the same. What I would call socialist, they call social justice. That's critical to understand; they really believe they're making things better and they're about to finish the process.

They learned from their earlier failed attempts to transform America and the world, like the League of Nations.

First, there can't be a debate. They simply declare the debate over and that they have consensus already.

Second, they can't conduct their transformation in the open.

And third, they can never let a good crisis go to waste.

Now, as we discuss this, keep in mind that you're watching all of this through your eyes; you see this as trying to collapse our economy. But progressives see this as a fundamental transformation — something better than we've ever had — as promised by Barack Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY).

So, let me introduce you to the people you would say are fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system: Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven, authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Something else to remember is that this isn't some conspiracy theory that we're tossing out; they wrote about collapsing the economy and how they planned to do it in the article they co-authored in the '60s called, "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later, it was published in The Nation, under the title "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."

So, just what is Cloward-Piven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy)? Simply put: Cloward and Piven were radical Columbia professors in the 1960s who believed in "change" and "social justice." Inspired by the riots in Los Angeles in 1965, they wrote and published their article which outlined the best way to bring the kind of Saul Alinsky-type social change to America. In their estimation, it was to overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven instructed activists that if a crisis did not exist, promote or manufacture one by exaggerating some unthreatening predicament. (Global warming anyone? And to an extent, health care?)

Their methods worked ... for a while. From 1965 through 1974, due to the strategy and efforts of Cloward and Piven and their followers, the total recipients on welfare rocketed from 4.3 million to 10.8 million. In 1975, there were nearly 1 million welfare recipients in New York City alone. That year, New York City declared bankruptcy. The whole state nearly went down with them.

In 1998, as he was still trying to deal with some of the fallout 20 years later, Mayor Rudy Giuliani referred to the Cloward and Piven strategy, describing the economic sabotage (JULY 20, 1998):


RUDY GIULIANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: "This wasn't an accident; it wasn't an atmospheric thing; it wasn't supernatural. It was the result of policies, choices and a philosophy that was embraced in the 1960s and then enthusiastically endorsed in the City of New York."

He went on to say: "This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

In the end, it didn't work because Americans became horrified with the welfare-state situation. As a result, Cloward and Piven and their devotees learned that they needed to be in the system — we've shown you how they've done that.

The stimulus bill was written in large part by the Apollo Alliance, whose alumni include Van Jones. In New York, the Apollo Alliance is headed by Weather Underground co-founder, Jeff Jones, partner to Bill Ayers in the radical terrorist group and in whose living room Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago.

George Soros is the source of funding for so many of these radical groups and Soros and Jeff Jones went into one of the poorest sections of New York and gave away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the stimulus money.

How about ACORN? These "community organizers" are receiving untold billions in taxpayer money, despite massive voter registration fraud and corruption. Still, Congress won't turn off the spicket.

Does it sound like someone is trying to overload the system yet?

Throw in TARP — a massive, inexplicable bailout that America didn't want for people Obama himself described as "fat cats". And, by the way, you have the progressives in the Republican as well as the Democratic Party to thank for that.

A trillion and a half dollar health care overhaul that less than 36 percent of the American people want, but Obama along with House and Senate Democrats forced it on us. They say it will only cost us a trillion dollars because of the savings they'll get by making cuts to Medicare at the same time they're expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare is a program with a $74 trillion liability already. Again, the idea is: Get as many people on government assistance as possible. Does it sound like that's what's going on here?

And in case no one noticed, the Wall Street Journal published an article stating that the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574314622075560890.html)

The latest class of progressives have taken Cloward-Piven to a whole new level. TARP money to people who don't deserve it; if you're a bank and you can't figure out that some of these people you're handing out loans to shouldn't have the money, you don't deserve to continue to exist. But Barney Frank and others threatened the banks to give out risky loans to people who couldn't afford them. Even the guy who signed off on TARP — a progressive himself — George Bush, warned that tighter restrictions and regulations were needed for Fannie and Freddie … not once or twice, but 17 times. The stimulus package with millions going to fund non-existent projects in districts that don't exist.

Frank and Dodd learned the Cloward-Piven lesson in the '70s: You have to be a part of the system to make it happen — they certainly are part of it.

After the nation tired of able-bodied welfare recipients taking money from hard-working taxpayers, Cloward and Piven turned to other methods to overwhelm the system. They formed voter registration groups, like Human Serve, and worked with Project Vote, a group tied to ACORN, in their efforts.

And John Fund reports that Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer are about to introduce universal voter registration: If you're on any federal roll, you're automatically a voter. Receiving welfare, food stamps, if you own a home or are unemployed, you're automatically I — never mind, it makes me feel like my head will explode. But ponder that: If ACORN can automatically register everyone, that just might explain why members of Congress don't care about their poll numbers. This is the same ACORN already indicted for voter fraud all over the country.

Cloward and Piven lobbied heavily for the "Motor-Voter" law, which is widely blamed for getting so much deadwood fraud onto our voter rolls: Invalid registrations signed by the dead, ineligible or non-existent.

In 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Bill into law and guess who was there as the invited guests of the president? Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven — who is currently an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Then, three years later, they also supported the Clinton signing of the welfare reform bill in 1996. After working so hard to create an entire class of permanent welfare recipients in America, why would they publicly support the signing of a bill that put new restrictions on welfare recipients? Was it just a signal to the far left, saying, hey, don't worry, they won this battle, but we have the godparents of welfare excess right behind me. Don't worry, we'll win the war.

This was the same kind of signal to the far left that Senator Tom Harkin sent when he said the Senate health care bill was just a "starter home" — we'll put on the additions and do the remodeling later. It was the same signal Obama sent to the left when he announced he was committing more troops to Afghanistan and then in the next breath, said he was also bringing them home in 2011.

Just because most of us have never heard of this motley pair until recently, don't think for a minute that they haven't been heroes to the left for years. Bill Clinton knew exactly who they were in back in 1993 and, no doubt, long before.

You may not have even heard much about Saul Alinsky until recently, but Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on him. And even if you had heard of him, you may have just assumed that all Americans felt the same way about him as you did — repulsed, dare I say?

You'd be wrong again.

Here's a statement, made just a couple days before Christmas from Chris Matthews, that shows us that we're not all on the same page. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi3xcoo8LBE)

So, as for the case for progressives overloading the system — on purpose — to bring about what I would call systematic failure and catastrophic collapse, but what they would call "fundamental transformation" of America?

Case closed.

[MMI]

I wonder if there is any comparison to be drawn between Obama's alleged fundamental changes or transformations and the acts of Messrs Washington, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, et al, when they transformed a society ruled by a duly constituted Parliament and by a rightful King who reigned over all his possessions by the grace of God, in order to bring about a change that the majority did not appear to want.

[denuseri]

Again...Revolutionary War Historians place the numbers somewhat differently MMI... more like 4/5ths plus of the colonial population in support of Revolution with only 15-20% at best against it.

Which is besides the point and has nothing to do with Obama now or what he supports.

Now as for calling him a progressive...which is in no way shape or form the same really as calling him a socialist since the two things are indeed very seperate things:

Lincoln Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post:

Frustration with the Obama administration from the left due to the failure of the administration to embrace and implement a progressive program seems to be increasing. It is now clear that while Obama is a far better president than his immediate predecessor, (personally I think he sucks at about the same level myself) an extraordinarily low bar to be sure, he will not be the progressive leader for which many had hoped during the campaign. His governing style has been largely centrist with a preference for compromise over bolder, riskier decisions.

The two most common explanations for Obama's moderate governance are that critics on the left are not being fair to the president and holding him to standards that are too high or that the US is a center-right country, so left-of-center leaders like Obama are inevitably going to encounter obstacles.

The first explanation, that critics on the left are simply wrong, is based on willfully ignoring the realities of the Obama presidency. While it is true that Obama has passed health care and economic stimulus bills, defining these as progressive is demonstrably inaccurate. Moreover, Obama's failure in other areas, from strong environmental legislation to marriage equality, also undermines that explanation.

The second explanation, that Obama has failed because the US is a center-right country, is essentially a Republican talking point, and not even a creative one. It is what right wing analysts and pundits say when they have run out of other ideas. The power of the argument is that it is so devoid of meaning that it is almost impossible to rebut. Without defining what is left, right and center and determining how to accurately measure views on these issues, the assertion means nothing.

Another explanation is that Obama has simply failed because he is indebted to powerful moneyed interests, not really a progressive, or too timid. This explanation personalizes the situation too much. (However this explanation is my personal favorite)While Obama undoubtedly could have done more, it is far from clear that he could have passed sweeping progressive legislation. Presidential power, after all, is an often overrated and elusive thing.

Although there is no easy explanation for Obama's failure to deliver for the progressive movement which helped elect him, none of the explanations most commonly offered are satisfying or helpful largely because they are based on ideological positions rather than real analysis. While the direction of Obama's presidency may be difficult to explain, it has demonstrated the narrow bandwidth in which American politics occurs. Similarly, while claiming that the American people are center right is inaccurate, it is nonetheless true that politics in Washington occurs in a very limited policy space ranging from the center to the right.

The evidence for this can be seen in virtually any significant policy debate, but rarely with more clarity than in the health care debate. A single payer system, which is viewed by most of the industrial world outside the US as a centrist common sense solution, was dismissed by both parties as too radical before the health care debate really began. Instead the policies debated were largely modifications to a privatized health care system. The bandwidth was sufficiently narrow in this area that progressive solutions were ruled out before the discussion started. Similarly, throughout the economic crisis an entire range of issues such as major spending increases on infrastructure and unemployment relief, public options for the banking sector and meaningful tax increases for the richest Americans were simply never discussed.

This limited bandwidth is not due to an absence of progressive impulses, or to a center right consensus on the part of the American people, or personal failing on the part, not just of Barack Obama, but of all elected officials who run as progressives. It is, at least in part, due to institutional constraints which are structural, legal and political in nature. Obama is constrained by a Senate that over-represents conservative rural interests; a political environment in Washington and set of campaign finance laws that still give tremendous power to moneyed interests as elected officials must raise unseemly amounts of money in order to seek reelection; and a system of shared powers, overlapping jurisdictions and court challenges that make real change extremely difficult. There is also, of course, a right wing attack machine, but the noise the far right has made notwithstanding, they have not been politically relevant for much of Obama's time in office.

The existence of these constraints is part of political reality, but for many progressives there is a sense that the administration has used these constraints to rationalize away their relative inaction and timid policy making. It is clear that rapid progressive reform cannot be brought about simply through electing a president, but it is equally clear that even given these constraints more could have been done. Presidential decrees could have ended don't ask don't tell, and more aggressive bargaining would have led to a better health care. It is the failure to do this, not the failure to overcome the harsh political constraints, that should be the cause for the most concern from progressive supporters of the President.

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

[MMI]

No, den. Colhoun, if he is to be believed, said "a bare majority (of the white population) at best" supported the revolution, not 80%. The 15-20% number is his, I agree, leaving up to 35% neutral.

The point I was making (I don't know what a Progressive is anyway) was that political transformations are good or bad, according to your perspective, but your perspective is not everyone else's (unless you have conducted an impartial survey and have established that it is, as a fact). To me, a socialist president would be a good thing for America (probably) and for the rest of the world (certainly), and if anyone can effect such a transformation, he has my support.

I do not belong to any world-wide conspiracy, by the way.

Perhaps there are some people who would see a transformation to fascism as a good thing.

If the leader wishes to effect such a change, and can command the electoral support to do so, then the transformation is legitimate, and no amount of bad-tempered whingeing can change it.

[steelish]

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

Actually, I think what the Huffington Post is saying is that the Progressives do not think Obama is progressive enough!

[steelish]

To me, a socialist president would be a good thing for America (probably) and for the rest of the world (certainly), and if anyone can effect such a transformation, he has my support.

Yes, I can see how many non-Americans (and, unfortunately, even some Americans) would LOVE to see America collapse. I guess for some, it would be poetic justice.

Just one glaring difference - when America declared independence it did not cause the collapse of the nation it was leaving. It simply severed itself from that government and instituted it's own. What the Progressives are doing is trying to collapse the country...to bring about it's economic doom. Did the King's economy collapse when America declared independence? Did the country fall into ruin? Nope.

One thing to remember...if America collapses economically, don't be surprised if other countries follow suit. (http://www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org/blog/mutually-assured-economic-destruction-maed)

[denuseri]

I don't see the Progressive movement as a whole as having anything to with a desire to see America collapse.

We just wish to see our country become a better place.

[steelish]

I don't see the Progressive movement as a whole as having anything to with a desire to see America collapse.

We just wish to see our country become a better place.

Which is exactly why the Progressives will probably be able to effect a collapse. Because so many Americans can't see it happening. Instead of looking at everything that's happening and putting it all together, it's viewed as separate events - unrelated - and a "it can't happen in America, no one would want to do that" type mentality.

What's wrong with viewing it with an open mind and looking at the possibility? (especially when those who wrote on HOW to collapse the system are friends and "role models" of the very people who are in power and have the ability to do it)

[steelish]

What's wrong with viewing it with an open mind and looking at the possibility? (especially when those who wrote on HOW to collapse the system are friends and "role models" of the very people who are in power and have the ability to do it)

To add to this, think of it. The goal of the Weather Underground was a “dictatorship” of a “new democracy” that develops into socialism.

Well, if you focus on what a dictatorship is: "An autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator." Well, that could never happen in America, right? But you tell me: Are we heading in the direction of individual liberty or an all-powerful government controlled by few?

Take health care and financial reform — both massive bills that leave much of the decision-making in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are selected by the president — namely Cass Sunstein.

The SEC just announced that they don't have to answer to the Freedom of Information requests. The FBI can look at your e-mails, without going to a judge first. And what about the move to get rid of the Electoral College in states like Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington?

This is a power struggle, and which direction is the power currently heading? More power for you, the individual, or more power for Washington? You have to decide: Are all of the decisions by this administration merely a series of wild, unlucky mistakes or is it a power struggle? Is the president trying to stabilize or fundamentally transform America?

A lot of people will glance at the Weather Underground manifesto (http://ia360629.us.archive.org/1/items/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25.pdf) and say, Oh, that was the 1960s. This has got nothing to do with today. Well, it's not like President Obama has the manifesto stapled to the wall behind his picture of Lincoln so he can look at it when no one is around and secretly plot to end the Vietnam War.

But, as we look through the manifesto, you can see the philosophy is the same. Insert the victims of today over the victims of yesteryear, clean up the outdated-radical-hippie language of the '60s and you pretty much have a position paper from this administration.

Back then, the victims were the Vietnamese, the students, the labor unions, the working class, the Third World and the oppressed. Well, today, it's no longer the Vietnamese. It's the Iraqis or the Palestinians or the Afghan people.

In other words, whatever side we're supposedly not on.

And while the left is still complaining about the oppression of unions and students, their new victim of police brutality and racism are illegal immigrants. This was their approach towards the Arizona law. They knew the law specifically prohibited targeting anyone because of their race, so they had to fall back on the idea that the police were so racist that they would violate the law to harass Hispanics.

Remember this gem from the president:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen."

(I did look for the clip on YouTube, but it might have been deleted by now. I HAVE seen it before though, so he did say that!)

Anyway, this is not a new tactic. The police, presented as a racist entity of capitalism that brutalizes innocent people, have been central to this movement since the Weather Underground of the '60s: "The pigs are the capitalist state... pigs really are the issue and people will understand this, one way or another. They can have a liberal understanding that pigs are sweaty, working-class barbarians who overreact and commit 'police brutality.' Or they can understand pigs as the repressive imperialist State doing its job."

When you understand this philosophy, doesn't the “police acted stupidly” comment make a little more sense? See, it doesn't matter to them why you think the police are evil racists, it just matters that you do. The Weather Underground believed that the police had to be resisted at every turn and they followed closely a principle that might seem familiar to those who have watched this program over the past year.

They wrote: “Our beginnings should stress self-defense... moving toward (according to necessity) armed self-defense, all the time honoring and putting forth the principle that ‘political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.’"

Hmm, where have I heard that before? Here's manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g&feature=related)

(the part I am referring to starts at about 55 seconds in)

RON BLOOM, WHITE HOUSE MANUFACTURING "CZAR" states: "We know that the free market is nonsense. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

Do you know anyone who thinks like that? Anybody? Even if you did, would you hire them? Our president doesn't just know somebody who thinks like that, in his own words, he's surrounded by them.

I think the biggest problem is many progressive Americans (citizens) view progressivism as "progress" much like the progress of women's rights, and the end of slavery whereas the Progressives in power view it as a way to "fundamentally transform" America. No one is against progress, but true Progressivism is a disease.

[denuseri]

So am I a virus or a bacterial infection steelish?

I dont know what kool aide you have been drinking but I think the US government is not secretly being run by some smoking man group out to take over the world.

No do I think that the socialist or the progressive movements as a whole are ploting the downfall of civilization.

As for political power...one does not rule but for the wieght of the blades which support thee.

[VaAugusta]

No do I think that the socialist or the progressive movements as a whole are ploting the downfall of civilization.

That's exactly what a progressive with the intention to downfall our society would say!

[DuncanONeil]

Center - right country?
Well the graph did not come through!
So;
year Con Mod Lib
92 36 43 17
94 38 42 17
96 38 40 16
98 37 40 19
00 38 39 19
02 38 39 19
04 40 38 19
06 37 38 20
08 37 37 22


These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year's figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.

The things that are clear from this study is that Liberals are really a minority and that elections turn on the wishes of the Moderates. Also that moderates and Conservative have changed place over the years being 43 - 36 moderate in '91 and 40 - 35 Conservative in 2009. While Liberals have remained, essentially stagnant!

The data supports the country being center - right!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184855
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602


Again...Revolutionary War Historians place the numbers somewhat differently MMI... more like 4/5ths plus of the colonial population in support of Revolution with only 15-20% at best against it.

Which is besides the point and has nothing to do with Obama now or what he supports.

Now as for calling him a progressive...which is in no way shape or form the same really as calling him a socialist since the two things are indeed very seperate things:

Lincoln Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post:

Frustration with the Obama administration from the left due to the failure of the administration to embrace and implement a progressive program seems to be increasing. It is now clear that while Obama is a far better president than his immediate predecessor, (personally I think he sucks at about the same level myself) an extraordinarily low bar to be sure, he will not be the progressive leader for which many had hoped during the campaign. His governing style has been largely centrist with a preference for compromise over bolder, riskier decisions.

The two most common explanations for Obama's moderate governance are that critics on the left are not being fair to the president and holding him to standards that are too high or that the US is a center-right country, so left-of-center leaders like Obama are inevitably going to encounter obstacles.

The first explanation, that critics on the left are simply wrong, is based on willfully ignoring the realities of the Obama presidency. While it is true that Obama has passed health care and economic stimulus bills, defining these as progressive is demonstrably inaccurate. Moreover, Obama's failure in other areas, from strong environmental legislation to marriage equality, also undermines that explanation.

The second explanation, that Obama has failed because the US is a center-right country, is essentially a Republican talking point, and not even a creative one. It is what right wing analysts and pundits say when they have run out of other ideas. The power of the argument is that it is so devoid of meaning that it is almost impossible to rebut. Without defining what is left, right and center and determining how to accurately measure views on these issues, the assertion means nothing.

Another explanation is that Obama has simply failed because he is indebted to powerful moneyed interests, not really a progressive, or too timid. This explanation personalizes the situation too much. (However this explanation is my personal favorite)While Obama undoubtedly could have done more, it is far from clear that he could have passed sweeping progressive legislation. Presidential power, after all, is an often overrated and elusive thing.

Although there is no easy explanation for Obama's failure to deliver for the progressive movement which helped elect him, none of the explanations most commonly offered are satisfying or helpful largely because they are based on ideological positions rather than real analysis. While the direction of Obama's presidency may be difficult to explain, it has demonstrated the narrow bandwidth in which American politics occurs. Similarly, while claiming that the American people are center right is inaccurate, it is nonetheless true that politics in Washington occurs in a very limited policy space ranging from the center to the right.

The evidence for this can be seen in virtually any significant policy debate, but rarely with more clarity than in the health care debate. A single payer system, which is viewed by most of the industrial world outside the US as a centrist common sense solution, was dismissed by both parties as too radical before the health care debate really began. Instead the policies debated were largely modifications to a privatized health care system. The bandwidth was sufficiently narrow in this area that progressive solutions were ruled out before the discussion started. Similarly, throughout the economic crisis an entire range of issues such as major spending increases on infrastructure and unemployment relief, public options for the banking sector and meaningful tax increases for the richest Americans were simply never discussed.

This limited bandwidth is not due to an absence of progressive impulses, or to a center right consensus on the part of the American people, or personal failing on the part, not just of Barack Obama, but of all elected officials who run as progressives. It is, at least in part, due to institutional constraints which are structural, legal and political in nature. Obama is constrained by a Senate that over-represents conservative rural interests; a political environment in Washington and set of campaign finance laws that still give tremendous power to moneyed interests as elected officials must raise unseemly amounts of money in order to seek reelection; and a system of shared powers, overlapping jurisdictions and court challenges that make real change extremely difficult. There is also, of course, a right wing attack machine, but the noise the far right has made notwithstanding, they have not been politically relevant for much of Obama's time in office.

The existence of these constraints is part of political reality, but for many progressives there is a sense that the administration has used these constraints to rationalize away their relative inaction and timid policy making. It is clear that rapid progressive reform cannot be brought about simply through electing a president, but it is equally clear that even given these constraints more could have been done. Presidential decrees could have ended don't ask don't tell, and more aggressive bargaining would have led to a better health care. It is the failure to do this, not the failure to overcome the harsh political constraints, that should be the cause for the most concern from progressive supporters of the President.

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

[DuncanONeil]

Good Response!!


Yes, I can see how many non-Americans (and, unfortunately, even some Americans) would LOVE to see America collapse. I guess for some, it would be poetic justice.

Just one glaring difference - when America declared independence it did not cause the collapse of the nation it was leaving. It simply severed itself from that government and instituted it's own. What the Progressives are doing is trying to collapse the country...to bring about it's economic doom. Did the King's economy collapse when America declared independence? Did the country fall into ruin? Nope.

One thing to remember...if America collapses economically, don't be surprised if other countries follow suit. (http://www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org/blog/mutually-assured-economic-destruction-maed)

[DuncanONeil]

Then I respectfully submit that you do not know what the Progressive movement is about. Perhaps a little study is in order?

That is the major problem I have with the term Progressives have chosen for themselves. Way too many people see it as the adjectival form of "progress"!


I don't see the Progressive movement as a whole as having anything to with a desire to see America collapse.

We just wish to see our country become a better place.

[DuncanONeil]

Not only that but the Health Care "law" is not the end of it. The agency created to "oversee" health care has to write the regulations to implement the law. We have ZERO input into those regulations. Perhaps that is why the law is so vague and convoluted. Much of it is actually duplicated within itself.
Is that a problem? Apart from size, a portion can be repealed and still be in the bill!


To add to this, think of it. The goal of the Weather Underground was a “dictatorship” of a “new democracy” that develops into socialism.

Well, if you focus on what a dictatorship is: "An autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator." Well, that could never happen in America, right? But you tell me: Are we heading in the direction of individual liberty or an all-powerful government controlled by few?

Take health care and financial reform — both massive bills that leave much of the decision-making in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are selected by the president — namely Cass Sunstein.

The SEC just announced that they don't have to answer to the Freedom of Information requests. The FBI can look at your e-mails, without going to a judge first. And what about the move to get rid of the Electoral College in states like Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington?

This is a power struggle, and which direction is the power currently heading? More power for you, the individual, or more power for Washington? You have to decide: Are all of the decisions by this administration merely a series of wild, unlucky mistakes or is it a power struggle? Is the president trying to stabilize or fundamentally transform America?

A lot of people will glance at the Weather Underground manifesto (http://ia360629.us.archive.org/1/items/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25.pdf) and say, Oh, that was the 1960s. This has got nothing to do with today. Well, it's not like President Obama has the manifesto stapled to the wall behind his picture of Lincoln so he can look at it when no one is around and secretly plot to end the Vietnam War.

But, as we look through the manifesto, you can see the philosophy is the same. Insert the victims of today over the victims of yesteryear, clean up the outdated-radical-hippie language of the '60s and you pretty much have a position paper from this administration.

Back then, the victims were the Vietnamese, the students, the labor unions, the working class, the Third World and the oppressed. Well, today, it's no longer the Vietnamese. It's the Iraqis or the Palestinians or the Afghan people.

In other words, whatever side we're supposedly not on.

And while the left is still complaining about the oppression of unions and students, their new victim of police brutality and racism are illegal immigrants. This was their approach towards the Arizona law. They knew the law specifically prohibited targeting anyone because of their race, so they had to fall back on the idea that the police were so racist that they would violate the law to harass Hispanics.

Remember this gem from the president:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen."

(I did look for the clip on YouTube, but it might have been deleted by now. I HAVE seen it before though, so he did say that!)

Anyway, this is not a new tactic. The police, presented as a racist entity of capitalism that brutalizes innocent people, have been central to this movement since the Weather Underground of the '60s: "The pigs are the capitalist state... pigs really are the issue and people will understand this, one way or another. They can have a liberal understanding that pigs are sweaty, working-class barbarians who overreact and commit 'police brutality.' Or they can understand pigs as the repressive imperialist State doing its job."

When you understand this philosophy, doesn't the “police acted stupidly” comment make a little more sense? See, it doesn't matter to them why you think the police are evil racists, it just matters that you do. The Weather Underground believed that the police had to be resisted at every turn and they followed closely a principle that might seem familiar to those who have watched this program over the past year.

They wrote: “Our beginnings should stress self-defense... moving toward (according to necessity) armed self-defense, all the time honoring and putting forth the principle that ‘political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.’"

Hmm, where have I heard that before? Here's manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g&feature=related)

(the part I am referring to starts at about 55 seconds in)

RON BLOOM, WHITE HOUSE MANUFACTURING "CZAR" states: "We know that the free market is nonsense. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

Do you know anyone who thinks like that? Anybody? Even if you did, would you hire them? Our president doesn't just know somebody who thinks like that, in his own words, he's surrounded by them.

I think the biggest problem is many progressive Americans (citizens) view progressivism as "progress" much like the progress of women's rights, and the end of slavery whereas the Progressives in power view it as a way to "fundamentally transform" America. No one is against progress, but true Progressivism is a disease.

[DuncanONeil]

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen."

(I did look for the clip on YouTube, but it might have been deleted by now. I HAVE seen it before though, so he did say that!)


Here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ppC0uc5R5A&cc=1#t=2958s

[denuseri]

Then I respectfully submit that you do not know what the Progressive movement is about. Perhaps a little study is in order?

That is the major problem I have with the term Progressives have chosen for themselves. Way too many people see it as the adjectival form of "progress"!



Oh yes Duncan..someone (looks up at you) certianly does need to do some study here.

The Progressive Party was a factor in the presidential campaigns of three men — Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Henry Wallace. There were a few Progressive Party organizations spanning this period of time but after the 1952 elections, they disappeared entirely.

Its first incarnation came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party. Roosevelt had made no secret of his low opinion of President William H. Taft and felt he could not support the ticket. Taft had particularly angered Roosevelt, an ardent conservationist, by removing Gifford Pinchot as chief forester.

Roosevelt struck out on his own and formed the first Progressive Party, saying he was as fit as a bull moose, from which came the colloquial name "Bull Moose Party." His platform called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of industrial combinations, women’s suffrage, prohibition of child labor, and other reforms.

The new party nominated Roosevelt for president and Hiram Johnson for vice president. Although the Progressives finished well ahead of Republicans in the election, they lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. When Roosevelt returned to the Republican fold in 1916, the Progressive Party vanished for a time.

In 1924, liberals were so frustrated with conservative control of both major political parties that they formed the League of Progressive Political Action, better known as the Progressive Party. Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, a Republican, decided to run for president as an independent, but later accepted the nomination from the Progressive Party. Senator Burton K. Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, was nominated for vice-president.

The party advocated government ownership of public utilities and such labor reforms as collective bargaining. It also supported farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other such laws. Although La Follette received 17 percent of the popular vote, he only carried Wisconsin’s electoral vote.

In 1934, La Follette’s sons organized a progressive party in Wisconsin. Robert La Follette, Jr. was elected to the Senate but was beaten in 1946 by Joseph McCarthy.

Yet another progressive party was formed in 1948. Former New Deal Democrats had become dissatisfied with the policies of Harry Truman and wanted their own party. They nominated Henry A. Wallace for president and Glen H. Taylor for vice president. They advocated liberal policies that included rights for minorities, curbs on monopolies, and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The party's platform should have appealed strongly to blacks, intellectuals, and labor union members, but the support given them by the Communist Party was used against them by both major parties. The progressives maintained their right to accept support from any group. This was high-principled but politically fatal. Wallace received only 2.4 percent of the popular vote and carried no state.

In 1950, the party opposed America's decision to fight in Korea. Wallace split with the party's leadership on the issue and resigned from the party. The Progressive Party disappeared after the 1952 election. Only time will tell if another progressive party will be formed.

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. The reason for this confusion might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals.

Despite its recent tendency to lean to the left, the democratic party has in no way cornered the market on progressive thought in the political arena.

Individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and "fighting bob" La Follette, former governor and u.s. senator from Wisconsin were all republicans.

Tenets of the progressive republican platform include:

Maintaining a strong national defense.

Keeping government small.

Avoiding monopolies.

Fighting corruption in government and in big business.

Encouraging conservationism, and supporting relatively conservative social values.

Given this tradition, and the historic nature of governor Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy, the McCain-Palin ticket of 2008 can reasonably be considered a progressive renaissance within the republican party.

There are a lot more progressive replublicans in the party than you may realize.

Enough to get McCain and Palin the ticket against far more conservative party members.

[DuncanONeil]

I am sure much of what you listed is accurate. It agrees largely with what i have found. But! The biggest problem with Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent. That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.




Oh yes Duncan..someone (looks up at you) certianly does need to do some study here.

The Progressive Party was a factor in the presidential campaigns of three men — Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Henry Wallace. There were a few Progressive Party organizations spanning this period of time but after the 1952 elections, they disappeared entirely.

Its first incarnation came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party. Roosevelt had made no secret of his low opinion of President William H. Taft and felt he could not support the ticket. Taft had particularly angered Roosevelt, an ardent conservationist, by removing Gifford Pinchot as chief forester.

Roosevelt struck out on his own and formed the first Progressive Party, saying he was as fit as a bull moose, from which came the colloquial name "Bull Moose Party." His platform called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of industrial combinations, women’s suffrage, prohibition of child labor, and other reforms.

The new party nominated Roosevelt for president and Hiram Johnson for vice president. Although the Progressives finished well ahead of Republicans in the election, they lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. When Roosevelt returned to the Republican fold in 1916, the Progressive Party vanished for a time.

In 1924, liberals were so frustrated with conservative control of both major political parties that they formed the League of Progressive Political Action, better known as the Progressive Party. Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, a Republican, decided to run for president as an independent, but later accepted the nomination from the Progressive Party. Senator Burton K. Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, was nominated for vice-president.

The party advocated government ownership of public utilities and such labor reforms as collective bargaining. It also supported farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other such laws. Although La Follette received 17 percent of the popular vote, he only carried Wisconsin’s electoral vote.

In 1934, La Follette’s sons organized a progressive party in Wisconsin. Robert La Follette, Jr. was elected to the Senate but was beaten in 1946 by Joseph McCarthy.

Yet another progressive party was formed in 1948. Former New Deal Democrats had become dissatisfied with the policies of Harry Truman and wanted their own party. They nominated Henry A. Wallace for president and Glen H. Taylor for vice president. They advocated liberal policies that included rights for minorities, curbs on monopolies, and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The party's platform should have appealed strongly to blacks, intellectuals, and labor union members, but the support given them by the Communist Party was used against them by both major parties. The progressives maintained their right to accept support from any group. This was high-principled but politically fatal. Wallace received only 2.4 percent of the popular vote and carried no state.

In 1950, the party opposed America's decision to fight in Korea. Wallace split with the party's leadership on the issue and resigned from the party. The Progressive Party disappeared after the 1952 election. Only time will tell if another progressive party will be formed.

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. The reason for this confusion might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals.

Despite its recent tendency to lean to the left, the democratic party has in no way cornered the market on progressive thought in the political arena.

Individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and "fighting bob" La Follette, former governor and u.s. senator from Wisconsin were all republicans.

Tenets of the progressive republican platform include:

Maintaining a strong national defense.

Keeping government small.

Avoiding monopolies.

Fighting corruption in government and in big business.

Encouraging conservationism, and supporting relatively conservative social values.

Given this tradition, and the historic nature of governor Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy, the McCain-Palin ticket of 2008 can reasonably be considered a progressive renaissance within the republican party.

There are a lot more progressive replublicans in the party than you may realize.

Enough to get McCain and Palin the ticket against far more conservative party members.

[denuseri]

Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent.

No more so than any other political entity.

That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms.

If it is not then how does one expect anything to get done? And exactly which reforms are you speaking about?

The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

Which is exactly what the founding fathers intended. That our government be able to change from within without the need to have a blood spilling confrontation at every turn. No one is saying anything about abolishing the Consitution eaither or the entire system of government...only following the elastic clauses that our Founding Fathers put into it on purpose so that it could grow without threatening the abolishment of the state. There is no Biblical warning for fear of revelation in the Constitution saying that we all go to hell if we change anything. The founding fathers never ment for the document to be unchangeable or become stangnent. Sounds like common sence to me.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Hence all amendments, the Founding Fathers themselves even saw the need to be able to change right from the get go, any close study of the Constitution and or the Federalist Papers or written history can tell anyone that.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

And that was aplicable back when Wilson said it...it may or may not still be aplicable today that remains to be seen. We are just as mindful as any other American of the need to avoid lapsing into somthing that is not desirable. We do not want a totalitarian state. We do not want things that will be bad for our country or it's people for we the people are the state.

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.

So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.

[steelish]

Here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ppC0uc5R5A&cc=1#t=2958s

Thank you so much for finding that. I couldn't remember the keywords I used to find it in the first place. BTW - I didn't realize you needed to show a driver's license to purchase an ice cream cone. Huh. Go figure.

[steelish]

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

If you identify yourself as a Progressive and that's the way you feel, that's wonderful. Unfortunately, those in power (he ones who CAN destroy what this country was founded on) sure behave and show WITH THEIR ACTIONS that this is exactly what they are trying to do.

To put it into perspective, focus on what puts states with progressive policies at greater risk than states with more conservative ideals — and who is in deeper trouble.

Obviously a tsunami is going to put basically everyone under water and, as you'd expect, the greatest crisis since World War II means that right now 48 states are in trouble. But there's a big difference between states that will almost always be at risk for going under water and then those that are better able to weather the storm. And that is based on how progressive their policies are.

If you look at the states that the Pew Center (http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/default.aspx) ranks as most failing, you will tend to see something in common: They are like California, in terms of budget deficit and several other key factors.

Rhode Island, Michigan and Oregon are all very progressive states. If you go down the list, some conservative states pop up.

You might wonder why are Arizona and Nevada so high on that list. Well, despite conservative policies, the real estate market collapse most seriously affected Arizona and Nevada. Like I said, a tsunami puts everyone under water.

The other states, meanwhile, were running into trouble even in good times. Why?

Look at their policies, particularly their progressive taxes and other anti-business practices. These states not only heavily tax the rich and spread the wealth, but they also spend like times are always going to be good. They don't have rainy day funds that can help them get through tough times.

No, they pretty much need times to always stay good and probably even get better, just to stay in good shape — progressively ramping up their spending.

You can put it this way, "as goes California, so goes the nation." And so it's not really any surprise that California's high taxing, high spending and obliviousness to future concerns sounds just like... well, exactly what the federal government has done.

But unlike the government which can borrow money from the Fed, states start to shut down and start issuing IOUs. In each case, these progressive states counted on the high earners' revenue and the big bonuses and when they didn't come through... big trouble.

New York's foreclosure rate happened to be really low because it's so tough actually buying property and so they weren't nearly as high on the Pew Center's list as you'd expect. They're still in huge trouble, along with New Jersey.

Actually, with all these states that are reliant on heavy earners, not only do you see a lot of volatility based on market swings like we're in now, but also millionaires' taxes don't work. Look at the volatility of California. Look at how the tech bubble and the housing bubble totally wrecked their plans.

They drive people out of the states. Rich people are rich partly because they know how to protect their money. And if all the states become too progressive, they'll just take their money overseas. All this leads to the Northeast being known as "America's Economic Black Hole."

Compare the financial situations of those states in the most trouble with the states that are in tougher times than usual, but far closer to recovery. What you'll find in states like Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota is that generally they are better able to weather the storm, because they have conservative principles.

States with broad-based taxes with low rates will go through downturns, but they are so much less reliant on the rich people continuing to earn. You'll also find much less of a union influence than those progressive states. Some other states that saved when times were good are Florida and Indiana and they are doing much better now as a result.

Here's something else to look at: If you look at the 10 states that rely most on individual income taxes (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17396) — states like Oregon, New York, California — you see once again how the states with progressive income tax are generally in worse shape, due to that volatility I just spoke of.

And then check out the 10 states that concentrate their spending on public welfare. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/25452.html) Well, what a surprise, New York again. And Rhode Island, whose progressive social policies mean they are more likely spending and spreading the wealth than they are saving that wealth or keeping money in the hands of individuals.

Even more dramatic is the volatility of taxes collected: From 1990, compare California, which has the highest personal income tax rate in the country, with Texas to see whose total tax collected is more stable. (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_california.html) (By the way, Texas has no state personal income tax.) It's obvious which state sees more fluctuations and which is much more stable.


The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.

Do you watch ALL news avenues and read/research everything you can? I do. I watch mainstream media IN ADDITION to watching Fox News and researching things. I find it ironic that although mainstream media out and out lies about things many of the times, (things that can be proven as lies) that Americans who do not broaden their horizons simply take them at their word. I definitely would not watch one or two sources of information and consider myself well-informed. As to fear mongering, isn't it fear mongering for Obama to tell people they will be harassed while out getting an ice cream cone? Isn't it fear mongering for the administration to threaten doom and gloom if a specific bill doesn't get passed?

It's not fear mongering if you are simply stating facts. Nothing I've posted (with references, I might add) has raised a red flag for you?????? THAT is scary. It's almost like we're on a ship navigating iceberg filled waters, the captain is aiming for an iceberg and those of us who realize it are planning ahead for what we can do to save ourselves, but everyone else believes the captain who is saying, "We're fine. We're strong. We can withstand it" even though you can see his staff scrambling to save themselves.


So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.

Well, for one thing I do not have a constituency. I am not a public official nor do I ever aspire to be. I'm not sure who you are referring to here.

[denuseri]

When you make refrences to scources that are hardly unbiased or take what others have said completely out of context and or twist them around to suit your own agenda what do you expect for me to say?

Like the whole Cloward-Piven thing...which btw was not implemented at all in the way in which it was presented nor with the intention of producing all of the effects postulated.

Nor does it represent the Progressive or the Socialist movements as a whole in any way shape or form. Especially the Republicans who identitfy themselves as such. Whose intentions I clearly stated straight from their web site and you and Duncan appear to have ignored.

As for the topic...namely Obama and weather or not he is or is not a Socialist and what that could mean for us the American people and the world.

Do you honestly think he is personally out to destroy eaither of the above?

He may be just as suckie, perhaps even worse in some peoples eyes (certianly mine I was against him all through the election if you recall) than his immediate predessesor, but some evil genius working for radical islamic communist jihadists group bent on destruction of the world...give me a break seriously.

As for where I get my news...sighs...first off, I double and triple check anything I hear from any media source main stream or otherwise sometimes with boolean searches becuase its been my experience that sophistry is alive and well and contemporary journalists have little or no compunction against using it.

As for who my statements referenced in the quote you provided were intended for...I was addressing Duncan initially in that post though that paticular part wasnt nessesarally to him personally; I was however refering to any and all people who resort to such...so if you feel like the shoe fits you too honey, well then maby I was speaking to you as well.

In any event I can see that any other participation by myself in this paticular thread will be utterly useless...so in the words of perhaps one of the last principled journalists to ever grace the airwaves ...

"Good night, and good luck".

[steelish]

When you make refrences to scources that are hardly unbiased or take what others have said completely out of context and or twist them around to suit your own agenda what do you expect for me to say?

How is it "out of context" to point out that Obama says if you want to know how he thinks and feels, look at who he surrounds himself with. I then point out that he surrounds himself with Chavez and Mao Zedung supporters and believers. He surrounds himself with people who were American terrorists in the '60s. He surrounds himself with people who believe that Capitalism is a joke and political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water.

This is not stuff that is untrue. It's simple facts that can be found by research. They don't hide their beliefs. They state them openly. There are video clips of some of them saying this stuff in their own words and can be found on YouTube!

And what the hell is this speech really about? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I6DpDhw8i4) Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

[DuncanONeil]

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent.

No more so than any other political entity.

Not quite Progressives actually “prefer” the shadows for two reasons. They know that the people would not willingly accept what they want and they espouse the “end justifies the means”.

That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms.

If it is not then how does one expect anything to get done? And exactly which reforms are you speaking about?

Which reforms? Any of them! All of them! That which is directed to be reformed from the Halls of Government! Perhaps actively involved was a weak statement. The position is that ONLY the Government is capable of effecting reform. And the only way for that to occur is for the Government to control that being reformed.

The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

Which is exactly what the founding fathers intended. That our government be able to change from within without the need to have a blood spilling confrontation at every turn. No one is saying anything about abolishing the Consitution eaither or the entire system of government...only following the elastic clauses that our Founding Fathers put into it on purpose so that it could grow without threatening the abolishment of the state. There is no Biblical warning for fear of revelation in the Constitution saying that we all go to hell if we change anything. The founding fathers never ment for the document to be unchangeable or become stangnent. Sounds like common sence to me.

Here I must vociferously disagree. No one can deny that the Declaration of Independence is a founding document. That document clearly states; “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “ Hence the position that the only redress that the founders foresaw was “our government be able to change from within without ... confrontation at every turn.” is not accurate. Further if the founders had intended to create a readily elastic document as apparently many believe, well the process would not be so stringent. Yes the Constitution can and has been changed but not on a whim. Something that has been occurring all to often of late without even the input of Congress let alone the people. Unchangeable and stagnant are neither in the lexicon of the Progressive, they perceive the Constitution as obsolete and an impediment to Government.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Hence all amendments, the Founding Fathers themselves even saw the need to be able to change right from the get go, any close study of the Constitution and or the Federalist Papers or written history can tell anyone that.

Changeable is different that free to be interpreted in any manner a person sees fit are not the same thing. Way too much of the power of our modern government can be traced to an unfettered interpretation of the phrase “provide for the common welfare”? For me to apply that small phrase would require something applying to the people as a whole not a small portion of the people to the detriment of the rest.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

And that was aplicable back when Wilson said it...it may or may not still be aplicable today that remains to be seen. We are just as mindful as any other American of the need to avoid lapsing into somthing that is not desirable. We do not want a totalitarian state. We do not want things that will be bad for our country or it's people for we the people are the state.

But it is just exactly that. The Progressive movement will lead to a totalitarian state. It can do no less as the position is that ONLY the Government knows what is the correct thing to do. For that to occur the Government has to impose actions on the people, the very definition of totalitarian.

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

How is it that “the Constitution is an impediment to Government” eludes you? How can that be interpreted in any manner than the Constitution is in the way and needs to be removed?
“The Constitution was written and ratified to secure liberty through limited government. Central to its design were two principles: federalism and economic liberty. But at the beginning of the 20th century, Progressives began a frontal assault on those principles. Drawing on the new social sciences and a primitive understanding of economic relationships, their efforts reached fruition during the New Deal when the Constitution was essentially rewritten, without benefit of amendment. In a new Cato book, Richard Epstein traces this history, showing how Progressives replaced competitive markets with government-created cartels and monopolies. Please join us for a discussion of the roots of modern government in the Progressive Era. “ (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2655)
“One of the most telling moments in the healthcare reform debate occurred when Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trademark expression of perpetual astonishment kicked into hyper-drive after a reporter inquired about the constitutional status of ObamaCare. Pelosi paused and asked, “Are you serious?”
The shocking nature of the question jarred her sufficiently to repeat her response, pushing out something like a rhetorical hiccup. The subtext was impossible to ignore: progressives simply do not take the Constitution seriously, a point that also informed the statement issued by her office later, which assured all interested parties that the federal government can do pretty much what it wants through the commerce clause.” (http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/dr-marvin-folkertsma/04-20-2010/progressives-destroy-constitution)

The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.
Unlike the liberal side that “instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are (shouting) with are indeed fellow Americans.” Add to all that direct personal attacks and insults. Present company excluded! Some credit for that surely accrues to Tantric.

So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.
My constituents? I assure you I have many inputs. I receive correspondence from the Democrats, Media Matters, Huffington, several news sources (although papers are the least of these) such as Broadcast news and news magazines (and several specialty magazines).

[DuncanONeil]

When you make refrences to scources that are hardly unbiased or take what others have said completely out of context and or twist them around to suit your own agenda what do you expect for me to say?


This is one of the biggest problems in any discussion of this type. Each side, at least the more radical, are always accusing the other of using biased sources.

Finding a true unbiased source, at least that will be accepted as such by all, is very difficult. But at the same time having all of these different sources with a different take on a subject should at the very least present us with a position that is not settled. Some others in the world actually take a position and no matter what is said against that position accept nothing that does not support their position. When I encounter such, mostly elsewhere, I wonder if they are being intellectually honest with themselves. As an example many of the comments posted at Huffington fall into this category.

[DuncanONeil]

And followers of Saul Alinsky. Not to mention the close advisers and friends that Were in the SDS and Weather underground, and founded the new SDS in 2006. "Students for a Democratic Society is a radical, multi-issue student and youth organization working to build power in our schools and communities" But never forget that it was founded by formenr SDS radicals of the 60s. SDS developed from the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID), the youth branch of a socialist educational organization known as the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). LID descended from the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, started in 1905. Early in 1960, SLID decided to change its name into SDS. Unlike SDS-RYM and the Weathermen, SDS-WSA strongly opposed bombing and terrorism. In 1971, SDS-WSA published a pamphlet titled Who Are The Bombers? (following the like attached to this title leads to a Communist page)


How is it "out of context" to point out that Obama says if you want to know how he thinks and feels, look at who he surrounds himself with. I then point out that he surrounds himself with Chavez and Mao Zedung supporters and believers. He surrounds himself with people who were American terrorists in the '60s. He surrounds himself with people who believe that Capitalism is a joke and political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water.

This is not stuff that is untrue. It's simple facts that can be found by research. They don't hide their beliefs. They state them openly. There are video clips of some of them saying this stuff in their own words and can be found on YouTube!

And what the hell is this speech really about? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I6DpDhw8i4) Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

[Lion]

And what the hell is this speech really about? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I6DpDhw8i4) Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

Recently, a woman got fired because of comments she made in a speech. The fools who reacted to heavily to her words decided that a small snippet of her speech was enough to make a decision. I say we learn from that mistake and not judge Obama's speech the same way.

[steelish]

Recently, a woman got fired because of comments she made in a speech. The fools who reacted to heavily to her words decided that a small snippet of her speech was enough to make a decision. I say we learn from that mistake and not judge Obama's speech the same way.

That's rich. Obama and his administration are the one's who overreacted!