Is Obama a Socialist?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.