Is Obama a Socialist?

[TantricSoul]

It seems as though a reminder to stay on topic ... and off each others backs ... is needed.
Please do so ...

Instead of calling each other out on your arguing styles ... how about you try just posting some facts that support your opinion? ... just a thought.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[denuseri]

All of which has what to do exactly with Obama being or not being a socialist?

[MMI]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

[grinner666]

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.

[denuseri]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

lol Not at all...I was just genuinely wondering what the heck half of what the past few posts had to do with the main topic. (btw I am not the moderator for these or any other forums MMI)

[MMI]

lol Not at all...I was just genuinely wondering what the heck half of what the past few posts had to do with the main topic. (btw I am not the moderator for these or any other forums MMI)

Well, I can only comment on the ones I was invloved in.

The discussion about McDonalds can be traced back to an assertion that I took issue with. Something about capitalism being based upon quality and merit while socialism encouraged dependancy. Before that, the discussion was to the effect that socialism was un-American and should not be foisted upon a capitalist society without its consent.

The argument over the Ten Commandments and my alleged desire to reclaim the 13 colonies for the British Empire can be traced back to a protest against Obama's claim that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed.

Both, I think, were relevant to the original question and hae helped it move on.

[TantricSoul]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

Every once in a while as moderator I do post a "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" message, usually if a thread goes tangential before the OP has been thoroughly discussed. Once the regular contributors have chimed in I will tend to let the thread drift wherever it wants to go, (and like this one sometimes even contribute to off topic remarks) .

I honestly don't feel I weigh these boards down with heavy handed, oppressive actions, and I consciously use a light touch when here.

Frankly I spend almost all my time here playing peacemaker. Yes I volunteered for this and am not complaining, however there are times when I would rather post a koan or write in my blog or visit the chat room or The Fit Club or any number of other activities instead of once again, acting as members brain-to-fingers filter.

The answer is NO, I for one don't want you to vacate these boards again MMI, I enjoy reading your opinions even if sometimes they make extra work for me

So do me a favor people, pretty please, go have your brain-to-fingers filters checked and replaced if worn.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[blacqcobra]

Ms. Steelish I owe you an apology for certain reponses to your post. I do get carried away at times. But it is no excuse for my rude behaviour. Now, I wil say President Obama is not turning this country into a socialist state. He is trying to undo the terrible ravage this country has been put through by the past administration and it's party. I wrote another Op-ed but unfortunately I did not sign in thus I can't remember everything I said to rebute your argument. God I'm getting Old! I do remember saying this. The reasons this country is in this state today is due to the conservatives failure to uphold it's word and spend less for 12 yrs Thus the reason we are where we are... I gotta go I'm a lawyer they're calling us back in!!!! Oh, yeah I am Center of center, not right nor left one would say I'm an independent...Okay I'll accept that!

[steelish]

Oh, my god!!!! Stop, Stop, Stop it! You're killing me I"m ROFLMAO!! Steelish we must have a friendly debate. Your source materials you've listed is bias....Period. They come from a very right wing conservative ideology. Who right now even as we speak is asking the gov't to step in and take over the Oil spill fiasco.....Whaaa????

EPA:

Our Mission

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

• all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
• national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
• federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
• environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
• all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
• environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
• the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "right winger" who is asking for the government to step in, but the mere existence of the EPA suggests that the government SHOULD step in to ensure that BP does clean up the mess...COMPLETELY. No one (well, at the very least, I'm not) is asking for the government to do the "cleaning up".

is that not the responsibility of BP and not GOV'T intervention...i.e socialism.

I agree with you. It is BP's responsibility. But that being said, 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.

(This quote edited by moderator )And the same people screaming at the top of their lungs about taxes.

Um, first, I am a mother. And yes, I know the educational system sucks - that's why I paid for private school. No it wasn't easy, my husband worked two jobs and I worked full time as well.

Second, I'm NOT a right winger...I'm slightly right of the center and am part of the Conservative movement. It's not about cutting taxes. (not unless the government is going to cut out all the fat) It's not about seeing people starve in the streets. It's about bringing back decent humanity to each individual. It's about values. It's about compassion, charity, hope, faith (however you interpret faith).

Third, my husband is a police officer. So no, I am not against them getting a raise. Oh, and btw - he too is a Conservative.

Oh, I know all we have to do is cut the waste and the fat ...righhhhhhht! Been there done that, Remember the Bush Tax cuts. Supposed to help grow the economy ....Ahh! but what did it really do??

Nothing. Because Bush cut taxes but didn't cut spending. (FYI - I didn't like Bush either. Oh, and I am a registered Democrat)

It is possible to cut spending without doing the things you mentioned (cutting raises from teachers, police, firemen, etc) but the government would have you think otherwise. Oh and btw - the federal government doesn't pay the wages of firemen and police. Those wages are paid at the city government level.

( also edited by moderator )Under funded our regulatory agencies. Thus you have Wall steet, Insurance co's Banks, Reale state, healthcare, and let's not forget the most important thing Unemployment. In trouble! Which happened under the Bush/Cheney and Newt Gingrich Republican Watch. Remember Contract with America, 1994-2006....But you know what?? Don't believe me or the liberals. You know how I guage this fiasco now. This way, I know a few professional dommes they are having trouble making ends meet. Their once flourishing business has tanked they are now forced to enter the work force and yes go to trade schools. You know why Their clients discretionary allowance is no longer theirs! So what if we have a little socialism to go with Capitalism Nobodies saying don't make money. But hey there is a price to pay to make money in this country...Taxes! ...Put some back not all of it. just some!! My God!!! Have we become a nation of greed and selfishness. Is this what our soldiers are dying for and those who died in other wars! I can't tell you as a corpporate lawyer how many large businesses come in here and want me to find loop holes in the tax laws. So they can have some play money.

Unemployment is a government-run agency. It's not covered by a regulatory agency. Where were the regulatory agencies with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh yeah, those were government agencies as well. But they're not greedy, are they?????

Now you're calling ME greedy selfish because I want capable individuals to be responsible for their own actions. heh. I've never exhibited the qualities you're accusing me of. But I guess your post won't be considered inflammatory.

[grinner666]

I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "right winger" who is asking for the government to step in, but the mere existence of the EPA suggests that the government SHOULD step in to ensure that BP does clean up the mess...COMPLETELY. No one (well, at the very least, I'm not) is asking for the government to do the "cleaning up".

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.

I agree with you. It is BP's responsibility. But that being said, 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.

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.

[leo9]

It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

One of the great inevitables of politics is that those who cry "Cut bureaucracy!" usually cry "Why don't the Government DO something?" in the next breath. Sometimes in the same one, and with no idea of the irony.

It's not just "I want to pay less taxes and I want the government to look after me," but "and I want them to do it with no staff." (And no, hiring private firms to do it never works. Look at the private run jails.)

[steelish]

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.

You mean none of the oil has reached shores yet???? Hmmm...the news I've been watching is incorrect then.

Seriously though. Why do you think I stated that the government (through the EPA) needs to ensure that BP cleans up the mess COMPLETELY. It's because the coast of LA is now saturated with oil. I never mentioned the EPA going into the gulf to clean up the water. I am a trained Emergency Response volunteer. I help with clean up efforts after natural disasters and our group recently had to take the BP HazMat module 3 course to become certified to handle the oil cleanup. I might not have made myself clear in my post, but in no way did I "spout off" about something that you've accused me of being ignorant of.

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.

*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)

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.

Wow. You sure are reading a lot of inflection into the post.

I didn't whine about anything. Nor did I wish/request/want the government to regulate the oil industry. What I did was point out that I thought it ironic that they want to regulate our personal lives (fat intake) yet they don't bother to regulate something like the offshore oil drilling.

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.

I believe you're totally confused. In no way did I say his agenda gets him too involved in private enterprise, yet it's not enough involvement.

Also - If you've been following most of these threads, and reading my posts, you would know (in no uncertain terms) that I have no problem paying taxes...AND, I DON'T want the federal government to take care of me. PERIOD.


Please forgive me if I come across as rude in my reply. I felt a bit defensive and wanted to correct any misconceptions.

[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.

[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}

[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}

[denuseri]

<<thinks it doesnt reallymatter weather Obama is called a socialist or progressive or anything else...when he does the same things his predessesor did as if he is following some kind of playbook left for him in the oval office by the last quarterback of the team.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.