Is Obama a Socialist?

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.