s/o Will there be a revolution?

[KingM]

Thanks Keptwoman and Wishbonedawn. I'm really glad we have non-American posters here to give us perspective.

 

Addressing the government ownership of GM, Citi, and AIG, let's see if the government still owns these corporations in five or ten years. I suspect they'll get rid of them as soon as they can.

[lionfamily1999]

Part of me thinks that 'we the people' are being squeezed and more and more people are moving towards the idea of trying to start over. It's not much of a shock, Jefferson thought we would have to tear down and rebuild eventually.

 

Another part of me wonders if Americans haven't ALWAYS felt this way. IOW, federalist anti-federalist, oooh, we're going to have to rebel, heck in a hand basket, etc etc. I wonder if this isn't the American condition.

[KingM]

Another part of me wonders if Americans haven't ALWAYS felt this way. IOW, federalist anti-federalist, oooh, we're going to have to rebel, heck in a hand basket, etc etc. I wonder if this isn't the American condition.

 

It might just be the human condition. Look at the French. Now there's a people always looking for an excuse to throw up barricades in the streets of Paris.

[katilac]

I think you overestimate the intelligence of the everyman back then. I suspect most of them were dumb as posts.

 

But it's kind of like how everything was built better back then, too. We only see the well-built stuff; the rest has been torn down or otherwise disappeared. So all the crappy buildings are from the last hundred years. Similarly, we only read the intellectual discourse of earlier generations. The bad stuff has slipped into obscurity, and the majority of dumb, uneducated people left no trace.

 

Ha, excellent!

[[email protected]]

Keep it nonpartisan, please.

 

That means no "all Republicans" or "all Democrats" or "you people" statements.

 

Moderator

[lionfamily1999]

It might just be the human condition. Look at the French. Now there's a people always looking for an excuse to throw up barricades in the streets of Paris.

I guess it all depends on perspective. It seems to me that there are plenty of places where the people are willing to sit back and take it, for whatever reason. It seems like, here in the USA, we're always spoiling for reason to overthrow the government. Whether or not the reasons are solid is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I think preserving our freedoms is enough. Another person might think that saving one group over another is enough. Another might find cruddy school systems enough. The secret to the Revolution was Thomas Paine, giving everyone a reason to fight together, instead of complaining apart.

[Heather in WI]

It might just be the human condition. Look at the French. Now there's a people always looking for an excuse to throw up barricades in the streets of Paris.

 

:lol:

 

Back to the OP, however, I think the idea of Revolution is very easy to get all worked up about in theory, but is insane when you start thinking about actual Revolution in our country. Seriously, are people to the point of war with other citizens over losing an election? Are people ready to pick up guns and shoot at other Americans over the Government owning General Motors? Are people ready to lose everything .... including their husbands, children, and family members who may fight on either side?

 

Any cursory research on the Civil War combined with the thought of modern weapons being introduced into the mix makes me shudder and my stomach revolt.

 

I love my country. I love my liberal friends. I even, although I didn't vote for him, support the President in his office. Of course, being a Reformed Christian who believes in the sovereignty of God maybe has something to do with that.

 

 

 

Romans 13:1-2 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

 

 

:)

[Gretchen in NJ]

1. General Motors

2. Nationalized Healthcare

3. Cradle to Grave government interference

 

 

 

 

Socialism - "Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating government or whole community ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation."

 

1. General Motors - government run auto dealership

2. Healthcare mandatory for all citizens, all employers will be forced to provide healthcare

3. Cradle to Grave - mandatory pre-pre-school

4. Citibank - government bank

5. Due to bail outs and nationalized healthcare approximately 35% of our citizens will be added to the government's employment rolls (making close to half of our citizens recipients of government payroll checks)

6. The attitude that rich people should give their wealth to poor people. That rich people don't have the right to retain their wealth when there are poor people. Of course, those with more should morally help those with less, but the government shouldn't mandate it.

 

Cheryl great post. These are my thoughts too.;) Let's not forget about Social Security and Medicare.

[MomLovesClassics]

We do not have a democracy!:banghead: Sorry, but that mis-use of terminology needs to corrected whenever we can do so. We have a republic (of weak leadership of late voting on polls and NOT being statesman/visionaries, etc), but not a democracy, at all. Actually, several founding fathers thought the democracy was a disaster of a gov't. You might be able to google some quotes.

 

Sorry, off the soap box.:)

 

I think secession will be more of the natural order than a war. It isn't all about Barak or Clinton.... or about Bush.... (not party oriented at all)... but about the lack of restraint to honor the Constitution and run a limited gov't that works for the people... not the people working until JULY every year to fill the coffers of "elected reps". (the WAR would be the government using force)

 

It is about money being forcibly taken from us to support IMMORAL acts and things that my go contrary to our beliefs... and us being to shut up and pass on some more! About property rights being trampled... about gun rights being misinterpreted... about illegal search & seizures (given a nod by ever tyrannical courts)... about the blurring of separation of powers... about benevelonce by elected officials with money that they are NOT given authority to use in such a manner... on & on & on.

 

This "matter" has been brewing for sometime... maybe since FDR... he was a huge socialist & really did great harm in the US & the world (but PS textbooks make him out to be glorious). I think the pot has been getting warm for some time... but lately with Bush & Obama.... the heat has been up on HIGH for too many things & the frog wants out!

 

This is more than dem/repub. Way more. It is more of a battle between LIBERTY v/s SLAVERY.... or INDIVIDUALISM v/s COLLECTIVISM. (caps for emphasis.. .not shouting)

 

Umm, NO, I don't want to live in a country like Canada or England. Great to visit... not to live.

;)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Cheryl in NM]

I'm not saying socialism is a boogeyman, just that I don't want to live in a socialist country. America was not founded as a socialist country and socialism goes against our constitution. I don't really care about other country's governments, all due respect, I like the government our founders set up.

 

I know the problem started many years ago. I listed current examples because some posters doubted the socialist tendencies of our current leader.

 

As far as a revolution is concerned I think we can have a non-violent revolution as long as too many of our rights are not trampled. As soon as the government tries to take away guns shots will be fired. As soon as government makes the people hungry shots will be fired. Another poster said that we have bred an aristocracy over the years. I agree with that, but I don't think the rich should be forced to give their money to the poor. They already pay about 50% of the taxes in the US. 48% of Americans pay no taxes, which means in order to cut their taxes the government will be writing them a check. That money will come from the richest 2% of our country. That equals redistribution of wealth by force.

 

Back in the 1700s and 1800s there were not as many government regulations. There are so many regulations now that we have lost many of our freedoms. At some point, we Americans, wanted so badly to be taken care of that we gave up our right to think for ourselves and make our own decisions.

[AnotherE]

I have a very lame theory, because this seems to come up every so often. As a society, we have it relatively easy. Most of our needs are taken care of and most of our struggles are ones of comfort and not survival. But aren't we hard-wired for survival? I think those genes or inclinations for survival (whatever it may be) are more active for some and there really isn't an outlet the way we live today. In the past these people could be pioneers, or adventurers, or trailblazers, but the opportunity doesn't really exist in today's society.

 

When situations arise (I'm thinking Y2K, the recession, etc...) it presents the opportunity to exercise those survival (and I can't think of the word because it is so darn hot) urges? Every day life can become a life or death scenario and stockpiling food, weapons, whatever can feed that survival mode.

 

I'm sure I'm not articulating this the right way, and I do *not* mean for it to be offensive in any way. I believe there are people who just have a stronger instinct for this, but no outlet for it in the way we live today.

[lionfamily1999]

I have a very lame theory, because this seems to come up every so often. As a society, we have it relatively easy. Most of our needs are taken care of and most of our struggles are ones of comfort and not survival. But aren't we hard-wired for survival? I think those genes or inclinations for survival (whatever it may be) are more active for some and there really isn't an outlet the way we live today. In the past these people could be pioneers, or adventurers, or trailblazers, but the opportunity doesn't really exist in today's society.

 

When situations arise (I'm thinking Y2K, the recession, etc...) it presents the opportunity to exercise those survival (and I can't think of the word because it is so darn hot) urges? Every day life can become a life or death scenario and stockpiling food, weapons, whatever can feed that survival mode.

 

I'm sure I'm not articulating this the right way, and I do *not* mean for it to be offensive in any way. I believe there are people who just have a stronger instinct for this, but no outlet for it in the way we live today.

I heard a program on NPR where they discussed a person's needed level of risk. They said that laws that reduce risk only increase a person's need to risk. IOW, seat belt laws mean that a person has to drive twice as dangerously to fulfill their needed level of risk.

 

It's not exactly what you're talking about, but pretty close, imo.

 

One of the reasons that mankind has moved forward is through the risk takers, pushing the limits and doing things that couldn't be done. The survival instinct, fight or flight, could feed into that. So, as a society, maybe we look for reasons to spur on the fight or flight survival instinct and then those give us reasons to take more risks?

[AnotherE]

I heard a program on NPR where they discussed a person's needed level of risk. They said that laws that reduce risk only increase a person's need to risk. IOW, seat belt laws mean that a person has to drive twice as dangerously to fulfill their needed level of risk.

 

It's not exactly what you're talking about, but pretty close, imo.

 

One of the reasons that mankind has moved forward is through the risk takers, pushing the limits and doing things that couldn't be done. The survival instinct, fight or flight, could feed into that. So, as a society, maybe we look for reasons to spur on the fight or flight survival instinct and then those give us reasons to take more risks?

 

This is very close to what I was trying to say. Will you be my translator?

[MomLovesClassics]

A perception I have is that most people have a blind eye as to how our government has grown and changed into something it was never intended. many laws are passed when big corporations convince the government it is in the best interest of the people. In the end the law is not protecting people but making a big corporation more wealthy. These corporations in turn support those in the government and help them remain in a position that is beneficial to the corporation that is making money supposedly protecting people. Some examples are the FDA making it illegal to consume raw milk in many states. Who does this benefit? It benefits the milk industry, not people, not farmers. Another example is vaccines, every year there seems to be new vaccines to protect us. Do we need so many vaccines that the government mandates? These laws benefit vaccine makers not people. Laws passed to patent GMO seeds, who does this benefit? It benefits corporations not people or farmers. Fluoride in our drinking water, who does this benefit? There seem to be money trails where some laws are concerned. And now people are expected to just sit around and keep quiet while the government grows, becomes more powerful, turning into something it was never intended to be? I myself am shocked. If things continue, everyone will be getting government payroll checks. When are people going to wake up and realize or even care? I myself think I must be a coward, because I am too selfish to stand up for what my country once was and should be. I protect my family the best I can, and forget about everyone else, and that is just not sufficient. I do believe at this point patriots are rebels. If you joined the army, you would be protecting the government not the people. So things are a bit screwed up in my opinion. Probably no one agrees with me, and that is understandable.

[WishboneDawn]

I'm not saying socialism is a boogeyman, just that I don't want to live in a socialist country. America was not founded as a socialist country and socialism goes against our constitution. I don't really care about other country's governments, all due respect, I like the government our founders set up.

 

 

Please don't think I'm telling you guys what to do. Although I tend to agree with some of the measures the current administration is trying for I also recognize that a) there are some very good reasons for NOT doing those things and b) that I really don't have a horse in this race (except from maybe a few bets I've placed. :))

 

I'm just saying what you guys are inching towards isn't socialism. It isn't even close. Again, that doesn't mean what's happening shouldn't cause alarm and debate for some but that it's not socialism. Some of you are standing at the end of a spectrum and so everything looks likes it to the left of you. :)

 

I think that's important because when the alarms ring out about socialism then the people to the left of you, the people you most need to engage in discussion, shut down. They don't want to talk. But that's probably what you guys need to do the most - have some kind of national debate on the issues that isn't polarizing and actually leads to some rethinking of what America should be.

 

As an outsider, I think the US is at a really exciting time. It's not going to be the world leader it once once because of emerging powers like India and China. It's not going to be the beacon of democracy it once was because democracy has flourished in many forms in many other countries and there are now other models. What the founding fathers imagined may NOT be what the US needs to be in the future or perhaps there needs to be a complete re-commitment to that (keeping in mind how radical, how liberal in the best sense, their vision of the US was) but regardless, something needs to happen and you guys get to be in on it. How lucky!

[lionfamily1999]

This is very close to what I was trying to say. Will you be my translator?

:001_huh: You've only gotten to read one of my good posts... trust me ;)

 

:lol:

[Krista in LA]

We do not have a democracy!:banghead: Sorry, but that mis-use of terminology needs to corrected whenever we can do so. We have a republic (of weak leadership of late voting on polls and NOT being statesman/visionaries, etc), but not a democracy, at all. Actually, several founding fathers thought the democracy was a disaster of a gov't. You might be able to google some quotes.

 

Sorry, off the soap box.:)

 

I think secession will be more of the natural order than a war. It isn't all about Barak or Clinton.... or about Bush.... (not party oriented at all)... but about the lack of restraint to honor the Constitution and run a limited gov't that works for the people... not the people working until JULY every year to fill the coffers of "elected reps". (the WAR would be the government using force)

 

It is about money being forcibly taken from us to support IMMORAL acts and things that my go contrary to our beliefs... and us being to shut up and pass on some more! About property rights being trampled... about gun rights being misinterpreted... about illegal search & seizures (given a nod by ever tyrannical courts)... about the blurring of separation of powers... about benevelonce by elected officials with money that they are NOT given authority to use in such a manner... on & on & on.

 

This "matter" has been brewing for sometime... maybe since FDR... he was a huge socialist & really did great harm in the US & the world (but PS textbooks make him out to be glorious). I think the pot has been getting warm for some time... but lately with Bush & Obama.... the heat has been up on HIGH for too many things & the frog wants out!

 

This is more than dem/repub. Way more. It is more of a battle between LIBERTY v/s SLAVERY.... or INDIVIDUALISM v/s COLLECTIVISM. (caps for emphasis.. .not shouting)

 

Umm, NO, I don't want to live in a country like Canada or England. Great to visit... not to live.

;)

 

:iagree: Great post.

[KingM]

Please don't think I'm telling you guys what to do.

 

Oh, please do. After all, we always tell your country what to do. ;)

 

Or, to make another lame joke, I figure what's good for the Canada goose is good for the gander.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

A perception I have is that most people have a blind eye as to how our government has grown and changed into something it was never intended. many laws are passed when big corporations convince the government it is in the best interest of the people. In the end the law is not protecting people but making a big corporation more wealthy. These corporations in turn support those in the government and help them remain in a position that is beneficial to the corporation that is making money supposedly protecting people. Some examples are the FDA making it illegal to consume raw milk in many states. Who does this benefit? It benefits the milk industry, not people, not farmers. Another example is vaccines, every year there seems to be new vaccines to protect us. Do we need so many vaccines that the government mandates? These laws benefit vaccine makers not people. Laws passed to patent GMO seeds, who does this benefit? It benefits corporations not people or farmers. Fluoride in our drinking water, who does this benefit? There seem to be money trails where some laws are concerned. And now people are expected to just sit around and keep quiet while the government grows, becomes more powerful, turning into something it was never intended to be? I myself am shocked. If things continue, everyone will be getting government payroll checks. When are people going to wake up and realize or even care? I myself think I must be a coward, because I am too selfish to stand up for what my country once was and should be. I protect my family the best I can, and forget about everyone else, and that is just not sufficient. I do believe at this point patriots are rebels. If you joined the army, you would be protecting the government not the people. So things are a bit screwed up in my opinion. Probably no one agrees with me, and that is understandable.

 

I agree with you. I would even add that I don't think we have a representative government anymore. Sure we elect the government officials, but lately they have been choosing to do "what is in our country's best interest" instead of what their constituents want.

 

People have been making their voices heard. They are calling, sending e-mails and letters addressing their concerns, now more than ever. In spite of that laws are being passed that do not represent the people's wishes.

 

People who called their congressmen were overwhelmingly against the "bailout." That is why it didn't go through the first time. It was passed in the second round because the incentives (read money for pet projects) were too good to pass up. The people's minds didn't change, the congressmen's did.

 

A recent poll suggests that 75% of the American people are for auditing the Fed. A majority of congressmen have listened and have agreed to sign the bill.

However, it may never even make it out of committee, because of the committe chair, Barney Frank. And it still might never make it to an actual vote because Nancy Pelosi has the power to keep it from being voted on.

 

Even if it should come out of committe, so much junk that has nothing to do with auditing the Fed. could be added to it that it might be rejected, which is the purpose of tacking on the extra stuff. The whole process is a fiasco.

 

The more I learn, the more I am surprised that our government can manage to get anything done.

[astrid]

 

Back in the 1700s and 1800s there were not as many government regulations.

 

.......and there were no automobiles, flying along at 80 mph with children bouncing around inside, un-tethered (or "double-buckled" as some of you seem to do here)

 

There were no factories belching pollutants into the water, air and soil.

 

There were no pharmaceutical corporations waging billion dollar ad campaigns to peddle untested, perhaps unnecessary drugs to consumers.

 

There was slavery.

 

You could pretty much accept the fact that not all of your children would live through childhood, let alone reach adulthood.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Many, many things you depend on daily are the result of government regulation.

 

astrid

[astrid]

I would even add that I don't think we have a representative government anymore. Sure we elect the government officials, but lately they have been choosing to do "what is in our country's best interest" instead of what their constituents want.

 

 

Actually, what really wigs me out is that the elected officials seem to be doing what is in THEIR PERSONAL best interest (lining their pockets with lobbyist money) rather than what is in the best interests of their country. I'd be happy if they did what's in the best interest of their country.

 

What if all of their constituents wanted to bring back "whites only" restaurants. Do you think they should do everything in their power to accompoish that, because that's what a majority of their constituents want?

 

What if a majority of their constituents implored them to insist that the Bible be taught in all American public schools, and everyone of differing faiths be forced to learn Bible verses?

 

What if a majority of their constituents wanted marijuana legalized? Or same-sex marriage?

 

Would you support measures that you personally disagree with, even though you may be in the minority among your fellow constituents, just as long as your congressional leader was doing what the majority wanted?

 

Astrid

[theresatwist]

My sense is that there is a fairly sizable group here who don't want government to play any role in their lives outside of protecting them from outside forces. There have been tons of discussion lately from various viewpoints about the role of government. I guess if that's how you see the proper role of government I can sort of see why you would think we are heading towards socialism. I think some government programs are socialistic. (Social security would be an example--I happen to think it was one of the greatest programs of all times.)

 

The dictatorship bit, with all due respect, I find ridiculous. It seems like Americans (and I'm an American) have this tendency to claim that they are living under a dictatorship anytime a president or party they don't agree with is in power. The left did that under Bush, the right is doing that under Obama. Our country has changed since the time of the founding fathers, but in some ways we sure haven't grown up any. We might as well continue to resolve disputes through duels.

[lionfamily1999]

People wanting less government intervention does not necessarily mean they're racist or want "all white" anything. It means they think the government has gotten too big and has stopped listening to the voices of the people they're supposed to be representing.

 

ETA, that's a pretty big jump.

[theresatwist]

Actually, what really wigs me out is that the elected officials seem to be doing what is in THEIR PERSONAL best interest (lining their pockets with lobbyist money) rather than what is in the best interests of their country. I'd be happy if they did what's in the best interest of their country.

 

What if all of their constituents wanted to bring back "whites only" restaurants. Do you think they should do everything in their power to accompoish that, because that's what a majority of their constituents want?

 

What if a majority of their constituents implored them to insist that the Bible be taught in all American public schools, and everyone of differing faiths be forced to learn Bible verses?

 

What if a majority of their constituents wanted marijuana legalized? Or same-sex marriage?

 

Would you support measures that you personally disagree with, even though you may be in the minority among your fellow constituents, just as long as your congressional leader was doing what the majority wanted?

 

Astrid

 

:iagree:

 

If every policy was decided on a one vote per person basis we would basically be running our country like we do school boards and you see how well that's turned out for the public schools! We get to vote for our representatives in this country and it amazes me how many people don't exercise that right and how many people who do exercise that right are woefully uninformed. I might add that I do not think that the fact that most Americans are uninformed is that fault of the public schools. If you care about something you find the resources to pursue it/ learn about it. The resources are out there.

[theresatwist]

.......and there were no automobiles, flying along at 80 mph with children bouncing around inside, un-tethered (or "double-buckled" as some of you seem to do here)

 

There were no factories belching pollutants into the water, air and soil.

 

There were no pharmaceutical corporations waging billion dollar ad campaigns to peddle untested, perhaps unnecessary drugs to consumers.

 

There was slavery.

 

You could pretty much accept the fact that not all of your children would live through childhood, let alone reach adulthood.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Many, many things you depend on daily are the result of government regulation.

 

astrid

 

:iagree:Could the founding fathers (and I know they were absolutely brilliant) in their wildest dreams have imagined that the US would become this superpower? I think we should keep in mind too all the practices of those times that basically everyone totally agrees were disgraceful.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Actually, what really wigs me out is that the elected officials seem to be doing what is in THEIR PERSONAL best interest (lining their pockets with lobbyist money) rather than what is in the best interests of their country. I'd be happy if they did what's in the best interest of their country.

 

 

 

This is why I put "in the country's best interest" in quotes. Because it is obvious that special interests are being catered to for gain.

 

I would add that our constitution limits what kinds of laws can or cannot be passed. Those limits should be adhered to. Many of the issues you mentioned would fall under those limitations.

 

Still, why should our government called representative, if it does not represent us as individuals? When we elect an official to represent us, we usually do so because we believe his/her values come closest to our own. Congressmen and Senators are "public servants" within the limits of the constitution. They are people too, with prejudices and greed. Should we have no say in how they approach their job? To let them have free reign to do as they see fit seems crazy. Why even bother to voice our opinion, if it does not matter?

Edited July 30, 2009 by Virginia Dawn

[KingM]

Could the founding fathers (and I know they were absolutely brilliant) in their wildest dreams have imagined that the US would become this superpower?

 

Slightly off topic, but Benjamin Franklin did imagine just this as early as 1751 in his essay, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind.

 

Thus there are suppos'd to be now upwards of One Million English Souls in North-America, (tho' 'tis thought scarce 80,000 have been brought over Sea) and yet perhaps there is not one the fewer in Britain, but rather many more, on Account of the Employment the Colonies afford to Manufacturers at Home. This Million doubling, suppose but once in 25 Years, will in another Century be more than the People of England, and the greatest Number of Englishmen will be on this Side the Water.

[Kalypso]

We do not have a democracy!:banghead: Sorry, but that mis-use of terminology needs to corrected whenever we can do so. We have a republic (of weak leadership of late voting on polls and NOT being statesman/visionaries, etc), but not a democracy, at all. Actually, several founding fathers thought the democracy was a disaster of a gov't. You might be able to google some quotes.

 

Sorry, off the soap box.:)

 

I think secession will be more of the natural order than a war. It isn't all about Barak or Clinton.... or about Bush.... (not party oriented at all)... but about the lack of restraint to honor the Constitution and run a limited gov't that works for the people... not the people working until JULY every year to fill the coffers of "elected reps". (the WAR would be the government using force)

 

It is about money being forcibly taken from us to support IMMORAL acts and things that my go contrary to our beliefs... and us being to shut up and pass on some more! About property rights being trampled... about gun rights being misinterpreted... about illegal search & seizures (given a nod by ever tyrannical courts)... about the blurring of separation of powers... about benevelonce by elected officials with money that they are NOT given authority to use in such a manner... on & on & on.

 

This "matter" has been brewing for sometime... maybe since FDR... he was a huge socialist & really did great harm in the US & the world (but PS textbooks make him out to be glorious). I think the pot has been getting warm for some time... but lately with Bush & Obama.... the heat has been up on HIGH for too many things & the frog wants out!

 

This is more than dem/repub. Way more. It is more of a battle between LIBERTY v/s SLAVERY.... or INDIVIDUALISM v/s COLLECTIVISM. (caps for emphasis.. .not shouting)

 

Umm, NO, I don't want to live in a country like Canada or England. Great to visit... not to live.

;)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[mommaduck]

People wanting less government intervention does not necessarily mean they're racist or want "all white" anything. It means they think the government has gotten too big and has stopped listening to the voices of the people they're supposed to be representing.

 

ETA, that's a pretty big jump.

 

THANK YOU! Because as far as I'm concerned, "Big Government" has it's own class and racism issues. Look into the current issue going on with the Cherokee Nation.

[Melissa in FL]

People wanting less government intervention does not necessarily mean they're racist or want "all white" anything. It means they think the government has gotten too big and has stopped listening to the voices of the people they're supposed to be representing.

 

ETA, that's a pretty big jump.

 

Thank you!! You put that much nicer than I might have. Just because I hate the things "the one" is promoting does NOT make me a racist!! I did not support President Clinton either when he was living in the White house, although IMHO he was much better than President Obama. I would have supported Hillary Clinton over McCain any day. I deplore a lot of what President Bush did while in office. But I watch the President break all his campaign promises and can't understand how those of you who backed him could still support him!

 

Stop calling people racist just because they don't like where this President is taking our Country!!!

Melissa (not a racist)

[astrid]

This is why I put "in the country's best interest" in quotes. Because it is obvious that special interests are being catered to for gain.

 

Missed the sarcasm. Sorry.

 

I would add that our constitution limits what kinds of laws can or cannot be passed. Those limits should be adhered to. Many of the issues you mentioned would fall under those limitations.

 

Nothing says that the constitution couldn't be changed. It's happened many times.

 

Still, why should our government called representative, if it does not represent us as individuals? When we elect an official to represent us, we usually do so because we believe his/her values come closest to our own. Congressmen and Senators are "public servants" within the limits of the constitution.

 

But just because you feel they don't represent your views perfectly to a "T," it doesn't mean she/he isn't representing their constituency. Perhaps your views/opinions place you in the minority.

 

 

They are people too, with prejudices and greed. Should we have no say in how they approach their job? To let them have free reign to do as they see fit seems crazy. Why even bother to voice our opinion, if it does not matter?

 

Hmmm...I dont' remember stating that we should have no say. Could you point that out please? Majority rules; that's how elections work.

 

Interestingly, but your use of the word "reign" is quite telling. You used "Reign" as in sovereignty. I believe, though I could be wrong, that the term is "rein" as in the strap of leather attached to a bridle, used to control a horse. When you give a horse "free rein" you give them their head so they can run. When you "rein in" a horse you slow them down and limit their ability to run away.

 

Astrid

[MomLovesClassics]

Ok, just when you think you have heard it all. There is a group of Earthlings that think Obama is alien as from somewhere besides earth.

I think they are serious.

[OnTheBrink]

Thank you!! You put that much nicer than I might have. Just because I hate the things "the one" is promoting does NOT make me a racist!! I did not support President Clinton either when he was living in the White house, although IMHO he was much better than President Obama. I would have supported Hillary Clinton over McCain any day. I deplore a lot of what President Bush did while in office. But I watch the President break all his campaign promises and can't understand how those of you who backed him could still support him!

 

Stop calling people racist just because they don't like where this President is taking our Country!!!

Melissa (not a racist)

 

Amen. I get so tired of the You-don't-like-the-president-and-it's-because-he's-Black rhetoric. It's illogical, not true in many many cases, and really, a lame argument.

[Elaine]

Amen. I get so tired of the You-don't-like-the-president-and-it's-because-he's-Black rhetoric. It's illogical, not true in many many cases, and really, a lame argument.

 

:iagree:

[Hillary in KS]

Thank you!! You put that much nicer than I might have. Just because I hate the things "the one" is promoting does NOT make me a racist!! I did not support President Clinton either when he was living in the White house, although IMHO he was much better than President Obama. I would have supported Hillary Clinton over McCain any day. I deplore a lot of what President Bush did while in office. But I watch the President break all his campaign promises and can't understand how those of you who backed him could still support him!

 

Stop calling people racist just because they don't like where this President is taking our Country!!!

Melissa (not a racist)

 

:iagree:

[HollyinNNV]

Nothing says that the constitution couldn't be changed. It's happened many times.

Astrid

 

 

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "many."

 

According to wiki:

 

The Constitution of the United States, originally ratified in 1789, has been amended only 27 times, with the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, enacted all at once in 1791. The 18th amendment, relating to Prohibition, was repealed by the 21st, so there have really only been 16 changes to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.

The most recent amendment, the 27th, relating to congressional compensation, was enacted in 1992. The one prior to that, the 26th, giving 18 year olds the right to vote, was enacted in 1971.

[lionfamily1999]

THANK YOU! Because as far as I'm concerned, "Big Government" has it's own class and racism issues. Look into the current issue going on with the Cherokee Nation.

I've noticed it runs towards special interest groups to the point where the majority is completely ignored. IOW, in an ironic twist, the majority is silenced and all of the special interest groups get their way.

Thank you!! You put that much nicer than I might have. Just because I hate the things "the one" is promoting does NOT make me a racist!! I did not support President Clinton either when he was living in the White house, although IMHO he was much better than President Obama. I would have supported Hillary Clinton over McCain any day. I deplore a lot of what President Bush did while in office. But I watch the President break all his campaign promises and can't understand how those of you who backed him could still support him!

 

Stop calling people racist just because they don't like where this President is taking our Country!!!

Melissa (not a racist)

I voted for him :( I'm shocked and upset by the direction he has gone. I expected someone that would do what he thought was best, not someone that would do things 'for our own good.' Imo, there's a vast difference.

Ok, just when you think you have heard it all. There is a group of Earthlings that think Obama is alien as from somewhere besides earth.

I think they are serious.

Rank them with the anti-christ people. Sheesh.

[mommaduck]

I've noticed it runs towards special interest groups to the point where the majority is completely ignored. IOW, in an ironic twist, the majority is silenced and all of the special interest groups get their way.

 

 

 

 

I think you may have missed my point. Cherokees have not been for "big government"...they are definitely for self government. Big Brother is trying to dissolve the Cherokee's "Nation Status" (haha, don't they realise that we don't stop being Cherokee just because they say so?) over a self governing issue. That issue is where they are accusing the CN of "breaking the treaty"...uhm, a treaty that Big Brother broke 150yrs ago! See what I'm saying? If anyone has a race or class issue it's Big Brother. Far as I'm concerned, they've traded in one kind of slavery to create another, broader form of slavery...slavery of the people.

 

Oh, and some of us don't see Obama as "black". We see his dad as African and his mother as White American. He's very "white" in a lot of ways. I would have happily have seen Colin Powell as POTUS though. So where I'm racist for not liking Obama, I have no clue.

[lionfamily1999]

I think you may have missed my point. Cherokees have not been for "big government"...they are definitely for self government. Big Brother is trying to dissolve the Cherokee's "Nation Status" (haha, don't they realise that we don't stop being Cherokee just because they say so?) over a self governing issue. That issue is where they are accusing the CN of "breaking the treaty"...uhm, a treaty that Big Brother broke 150yrs ago! See what I'm saying? If anyone has a race or class issue it's Big Brother. Far as I'm concerned, they've traded in one kind of slavery to create another, broader form of slavery...slavery of the people.

 

Oh, and some of us don't see Obama as "black". We see his dad as African and his mother as White American. He's very "white" in a lot of ways. I would have happily have seen Colin Powell as POTUS though. So where I'm racist for not liking Obama, I have no clue.

I would have loved to have voted for Colin Powell.

 

I see what you're saying now, about the CN. I hadn't heard anything about all that (side effect of no t.v.). I do agree with your slavery statement.

[A.D.]

Oh, and some of us don't see Obama as "black". We see his dad as African and his mother as White American. He's very "white" in a lot of ways. I would have happily have seen Colin Powell as POTUS though. So where I'm racist for not liking Obama, I have no clue.

 

Please explain to me the logic that says President Obama isn't black. Most African Americans are mixed race to some degree (including myself), which has never prevented us from being viewed by society as "black". Considering having one white parent would not have been sufficient for him to attend a white school in the south in the 50s, use the same water fountain/swimming pool/etc as white kids, and certainly wouldn't keep him from being viewed as a black male while walking down a street to this day, trying to argue he is not not "black" just boggles my mind.

I am also curious as to where you get the ability to determine who is/is not black.

[lionfamily1999]

I am also curious as to where you get the ability to determine who is/is not black.

Personal opinion.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Good grief! I guess if you've got to find something to argue about, anything will do.

 

Rein or reign, I stand by what I said. And I know what each means.

 

I never claimed you stated anything, I asked a rhetorical question.

 

I was not talking about elections but what an official does while in office.

 

I was not specifically talking about *my* personal opinions alone. I used the words "us" and "we" and "our."

 

I was speaking in generalities.

 

Now that you have picked apart every single thing I've said, I am done with this conversation. I've already broken my own rule about getting too involved.

[momofabcd]

We do not have a democracy!:banghead: Sorry, but that mis-use of terminology needs to corrected whenever we can do so. We have a republic (of weak leadership of late voting on polls and NOT being statesman/visionaries, etc), but not a democracy, at all. Actually, several founding fathers thought the democracy was a disaster of a gov't. You might be able to google some quotes.

 

Sorry, off the soap box.:)

 

I think secession will be more of the natural order than a war. It isn't all about Barak or Clinton.... or about Bush.... (not party oriented at all)... but about the lack of restraint to honor the Constitution and run a limited gov't that works for the people... not the people working until JULY every year to fill the coffers of "elected reps". (the WAR would be the government using force)

 

It is about money being forcibly taken from us to support IMMORAL acts and things that my go contrary to our beliefs... and us being to shut up and pass on some more! About property rights being trampled... about gun rights being misinterpreted... about illegal search & seizures (given a nod by ever tyrannical courts)... about the blurring of separation of powers... about benevelonce by elected officials with money that they are NOT given authority to use in such a manner... on & on & on.

 

This "matter" has been brewing for sometime... maybe since FDR... he was a huge socialist & really did great harm in the US & the world (but PS textbooks make him out to be glorious). I think the pot has been getting warm for some time... but lately with Bush & Obama.... the heat has been up on HIGH for too many things & the frog wants out!

 

This is more than dem/repub. Way more. It is more of a battle between LIBERTY v/s SLAVERY.... or INDIVIDUALISM v/s COLLECTIVISM. (caps for emphasis.. .not shouting)

 

Umm, NO, I don't want to live in a country like Canada or England. Great to visit... not to live.

;)

 

Amen, sister!!!! I couldn't have stated it better myself.:iagree:

[A.D.]

Personal opinion.

 

 

Based on...? I would love to hear the criteria you have constructed that defines race so much differently than the rest of society.

[mommaduck]

Please explain to me the logic that says President Obama isn't black. Most African Americans are mixed race to some degree (including myself), which has never prevented us from being viewed by society as "black". Considering having one white parent would not have been sufficient for him to attend a white school in the south in the 50s, use the same water fountain/swimming pool/etc as white kids, and certainly wouldn't keep him from being viewed as a black male while walking down a street to this day, trying to argue he is not not "black" just boggles my mind.

I am also curious as to where you get the ability to determine who is/is not black.

 

 

An example...

 

My midwife was a white woman that worked in Ghana. Black Americans visit various parts of Africa to "reconnect" with their heritage (totally understandable). The women in Ghana that knew my midwife were complaining about the "white people". She said, "but they are black." "No, Miss D, they are white!" She said, "but I'm also white." "No, Miss D, you are black like us."

 

 

 

Yes, he's mixed...so am I. However, I find it funny with him being half white and half black that he is automatically "black" where I am considered automatically "white". Personally, if he wasn't wanting to be divisive he would #1 have run on the issue that he IS biracial and #2 not have made a choice to ignore part of his hertitage and only focus on the other, but rather embraced both sets of people and worked to bring MORE unity. I recognise both parts of my heritage. I also have an Arabic name (funny, because I have an Arabic male name that is a somewhat common name for black males here in America). I'm not Arabic, but I am proud of my name as it was given to me by my godmother who was B'hai...and I'm Christian. I don't treat one side of myself as less than another side. From what I've seen and heard of him and his wife, they treat people of obvious colour well and white people like cr@p. This is no different than a white person treating white people well and black people like cr@p. I wonder how they would treat me based on looks alone and not knowing my hertitage.

 

 

Also, I didn't say that I don't see him as black as if he weren't black. I don't see him as JUST black nor do I see him as your average black American. I see him as biracial. He's black AND he's white. Like my example above...I don't see him as black trying to make it in a white world as he tries to come off as...I see him as biracial, raised by white family, and trying to relate to his black side. Much as I am part white, was raised by white people, but I don't fully fit anywhere. There is another name for both of us...it's called being a Third Culture Kid.

 

 

Just as you can't say he's white as though he isn't also black, you can't say that he's black as though he isn't also white.

Edited July 30, 2009 by mommaduck

[lionfamily1999]

Based on...? I would love to hear the criteria you have constructed that defines race so much differently than the rest of society.

Mommaduck answered above, since she was the one you asked ;)

 

My point was that people with brains have the "ability" to have opinions, even ones you don't agree with or may find faulty. She thinks, therefore she has the ability to have an opinion.

[A.D.]

An example...

 

My midwife was a white woman that worked in Ghana. Black Americans visit various parts of Africa to "reconnect" with their heritage (totally understandable). The women in Ghana that knew my midwife were complaining about the "white people". She said, "but they are black." "No, Miss D, they are white!" She said, "but I'm also white." "No, Miss D, you are black like us."

 

I have no idea what point you think that makes.

 

 

However, I find it funny with him being half white and half black that he is automatically "black" where I am considered automatically "white".

 

Considering that "black" under the law for a couple of centuries, I have no idea why you would find that funny. Now, if he were able to "pass" (ie not look "black"), then you would have a point. I have no idea why you are considered white, but it has nothing to do with President Obama. (BTW, *if* you are of mixed heritage, you can legally claim the minority status.)

I notice you didn't address my point that throughout US history, Obama would have been given the status of a black male. Keep in mind that we now have a president that would have been denied the vote for a significant portion of our nation's history. If you cannot see why that is important, then I am not sure what to say.

 

Personally, if he wasn't wanting to be divisive he would #1 have run on the issue that he IS biracial and #2 not have made a choice to ignore part of his hertitage and only focus on the other, but rather embraced both sets of people and worked to bring MORE unity. I recognise both parts of my heritage.

 

He has never denied his "white" heritage. However, he has grown up as a black man in America. Trust me, being biracial doesn't matter a fig when it comes to most issues.

 

From what I've seen and heard of him and his wife, they treat people of obvious colour well and white people like

Proof?

 

This is no different than a white person treating white people well and black people like cr@p. I wonder how they would treat me based on looks alone and not knowing my hertitage.

 

It is fairly clear to me a lot of your issues regarding Obama are centered around race, no matter how much you protest otherwise.

[Audrey]

She thinks, therefore she has the ability to have an opinion.

 

 

What is that saying? "Opinions are like ________. Everybody has one."

[lionfamily1999]

It is fairly clear to me a lot of your issues regarding Obama are centered around race, no matter how much you protest otherwise.

One might be tempted to say the same for you.

 

She comes from a different set of circumstances and different background. Her view of race is different.

 

That does not mean that her view of Obama centers around his race.

 

She made a comment about his race, her views concerning his race are different from yours, obviously, but it does not automatically follow that ALL of her opinions on Obama are centered around his race.

IOh, and some of us don't see Obama as "black". We see his dad as African and his mother as White American. He's very "white" in a lot of ways. I would have happily have seen Colin Powell as POTUS though. So where I'm racist for not liking Obama, I have no clue.

IOW, not as exclusively black. Some people have more distinctions where race is concerned. Personally, I don't even try to guess anymore. I say what color if it's important (light tannish whatever), but I avoid trying to nail down someone's race, because people today are so mixed, it's pretty hard to get it right.

Please explain to me the logic that says President Obama isn't black. Most African Americans are mixed race to some degree (including myself), which has never prevented us from being viewed by society as "black". Considering having one white parent would not have been sufficient for him to attend a white school in the south in the 50s, use the same water fountain/swimming pool/etc as white kids, and certainly wouldn't keep him from being viewed as a black male while walking down a street to this day, trying to argue he is not not "black" just boggles my mind.

I am also curious as to where you get the ability to determine who is/is not black.

Just because you or society see things one way doesn't a. make it right or b. make any alternative wrong. It's interesting because it almost seems as though you're trying to make people adhere to the old standards, which were, imo, rediculously vague.

[lionfamily1999]

What is that saying? "Opinions are like ________. Everybody has one."

Thank you. I never heard you had to pass a test, or learn some secret ability to have an opinion.