Is Obama a Socialist?

[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.

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. 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, 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 (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. 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. 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. 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.wordpr.../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. Not only is he a radical, HE spreads lies and "fear-mongers."

Obama is surrounded by people like Ron Bloom...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.



You're so right. We've never done anything to help defend other nations.

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. 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!