Is Obama a Socialist?

[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}

[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}

[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.

[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!!

[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.

[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.