Is Obama a Socialist?

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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!

[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?

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it more threatening? And threatening to whom?

Methinks you focused too much on the Atheist part and not enough on the unrestricted part.

[VaAugusta]

What does your post have to do with Obama being a socialist or not?

[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.

[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.

[FrgnSwtc]

As I can only thank cbtboyuk once with a button, I'll do it again here. Very well said and thanks.

[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.

[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

[DuncanONeil]

There is humility and then there is humility. All is not the same.

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!

[gagged_Louise]

Take #2 of the above (ran out of edit time, and I hope this one is cleaner and clearer, so please skip the old one):


Yes, those were a couple of really good points Tantric. When it comes to diplomacy, speaking up to other nations and to a variety of groups around the "world community", I believe the difference between US and European ideas and expectations, ways of addressing something, are due to something else too. The US at least for the past 150 years, has known she was by far the most powerful state in its own hemisphere, and full-scale invasion of the mainland or even attempts to exert hard pressure from other countries close by hasn't really been something she needed to take into account. Superiority can be raken for granted by a wide margin, nobody expects Canada or Mexico to invade, boycott shipping or try to revile the USA in foreign media. Nobody seriously thinks Brazil would make real damage to U.S. interests by some kind of boycott or by forming an anti-American military league. Maybe you'll say Cuba has been a threat to the heartland but during the Cold War they were mostly a pawn of the Soviet Union - a state of affairs that was furthered by U'S' policies - and without strong Russian assistance they could never have posed a threat to key American security interests. And to say Cuba is a threat to United States national interests *now* is a joke.

In Euroep, every country has had to adapt to that the neighbour might react, put pressure on you or even invade: everybody's got a history of being pushed in by the others' ambitions, of being invaded and bombed at home, of having your ports mined or your claims questioned by the neighbours. These days they're not going to war with each other but the possibility of mutual pressure, boycotts, responses and backroom politics is still something that can't be escaped. It's simply not possible, certainly not in tense conditions in peacetime, sometimes not during war either to go for thje kill at once and talk ina "read my lips" style, unless you're sure the path you're going is fail safe.

When Germany reunited in 1990, the West German leadership, Kohl and the others, did show pretty openly that they were taking this into their own hands and were not going to be stopped by anyone, even if the idea of a unified Germany had been something nobody wanted to voice just a few years before- but they took that path as they became aware that there was no one who was really going to try to stop them, as long as they had the support of most people in both German states. And as long as there wasn't a sudden revamp of the Cold War and a communist revival, which were barely possible by early 1990. They knew neither Gorbachev, Thatcher nor Bush was really going to put a foot down, and East Germany was both industrially and politically bankrupt, so they could afford to go for it in a style that was kind of American.

It's always been a tighter place. To just speak no-holds-barred like John Wayne, without weighing in that there could be a response to it, open or veiled, down the line, isn't often an option to European politics, and I guess that colours the expectations of how it's communicated and discussed as well. That goes a long way to explain why modern politicians and public spokesmen in Eiurope are more diplomatic and less blunt than American presidents and the like tend to be. In the old days, when Britain, France and Russia felt they were on top of the world, they could act and speak just as bluntly as the American idea is you should do. But those days are long gone, When it comes to intra-European affairs - Bismarck speaking about Britain, in peacetime, and so on - I guess they ended came to an end already in the 19th century.

[denuseri]

Some Americans (in particular a certain congressman and some of his friends and a few others: who almost single handedly appeared to have started the CIA on the path of funding, training, and supporting soviet occupation opposition forces) tried to keep the congressional money train rolling after the war, only to have the rug pulled out from under them because it didn’t matter enough since the soviets were gone to the majority.

That was a huge mistake imho and we are still paying for it today.

As for supporting Israel...well we have been stalwart allies of theirs for decades now, and the House of Saud and it would be a very big mistake to withdraw our support now.

Israeli territorial gains however are almost entirely in response to the different times they have been attacked by their neighbors. They have good reason to be paranoid of those who have done nothing but speak of (and attempted to) destroying them since their country came once again into existence. If the people of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic republics would embrace religious freedom like most of the rest of the free world and stop oppressing their own people in restrictive theocracies; things wouldn’t be the way they are over there. Such backward attitudes in the face of progress quite literally ruined the country of my birth (Lebanon which was doing well for a short time with its confessionals until it was subsumed by outside forces) and I pray every day that they will one day cease so that Arab, Christian, Jew, and whoever else can live in peace with each other for a change.

I fail to see however, what any of this most recent trend in sidebars has to do with Obama being a socialist or not because: a close study of history reveals that foreign policy in general (however its touted or promised to be in an election) is simply not executed along party lines or political party platform agendas no matter which way one cuts it in actual practice.