Is Obama a Socialist?

[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 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 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_U...tates_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_U...tates_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_U...tates_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. 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.

[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. 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.