Socialism explained

[lazarus]

What was the point you were trying to make by posting the article about minorities? I'm not clear on that.

[lazarus]

Obama does not see the US Constitution as a positive.

please provide quotes

Quote:

On;y under the freedoms here did innovations,invention and private enterprise flourish as had never been seen before. [ It still isn't in third world countries and other socialistic governments still on average cannot compete.

The use of the word "only" must have been a typo.?

[bonnie]

Quote:

please provide quotes

Later this evening or tomorrow I will look up again the quote by Obama concerning "negative restraints of the constitution"

Quote:

The use of the word "only" must have been a typo.?

No it is not a typo. The US provided for a different mind set.Altho it must have taken a lot of courage or desperation to leave their homelands it was not the people were special,but the opportunity was. Nor were the people perfect doing everything well or right.

I am sure there were inventions and progress made in european countries,however not like here. Nor could the status of a poor man without title be elevated.

Here it could.

I firmly believe the US had a special place in prophecy. Many times that has been squandered. It did not make the US Constitution wrong or incomplete,only fallible humans.

Some honest mistakes and some "mistakes" for self inter3est or profit does not take away from the freedoms here that we have enjoyed. Freedoms we have been told by God we will lose.

[lazarus]

As guilty as the "white man" was, they only did what the native americans had been doing to each other for centuries.

In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.

Even a cursory glance at American history would show that your statement to be way off the mark

[Key Guy]

Bonnie,

It doesn't matter that blacks in Africa kidnapped and sold other blacks for the slave trade in Britain and the Americas.

Euro-Whitey is the fault of every ill in this world... not just before we were born, but even today! In fact E-W should be strung up for future crimes... after they pay out big $$ in cash for all of the sins ever committed.

I publicly predict that E-W will be blamed for more crimes that we haven't thought of, yet. Stay tuned. Let's see how bad E-W will be in future posts.

[bonnie]

Quote:

In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.

Even a cursory glance at American history would show that your statement to be way off the mark

American history does tell of of wars,raids,stealing,landgrabs of the Native Americans by Native Americans.

Was the destruction more by the europeans? Yes,there were simply more of them with better weapons. Does it make it right?? No

It was the times and the mindset.

It still does not do away with what they were willing to do to their own race.

Slavery was not right either. Nothing about it was,going back to the beginning of african americans selling their kinsmen for profit.

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

It doesn't matter that blacks in Africa kidnapped and sold other blacks for the slave trade in Britain and the Americas.

Euro-Whitey is the fault of every ill in this world... not just before we were born, but even today! In fact E-W should be strung up for future crimes... after they pay out big $$ in cash for all of the sins ever committed.

I publicly predict that E-W will be blamed for more crimes that we haven't thought of, yet. Stay tuned. Let's see how bad E-W will be in future posts.

I know that it gets tiresome to be called to account for generations of abuses that took place before I was born and had no part in. I don't understand what it was like to be a slave but I know african americans of today don't either.

Slavery has been with us almost since the beginning. I imagine Joseph could have given a first hand account. Life hasn't been fair since Cain smacked Abel upside the head with a rock and it never will be fair.

I can't make it so that slavery didn't happen,I can't apologize for something I didn't do either before I was born or since.

I can only be responsible for what I do,How I treat anyone,not just someone that is black. The only impact I can have is to speak up if I see racial abuse.

My ancestors had slaves,nothing I can do about that.

My ancestors were killed and run from their lands in Scotland,so what? They and millions more over the years.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

This is a 21st century mindset judging a 17th century document.

Are you saying the constitution was a perfect document? Are you saying that Americans have less freedoms now than when it was written?

I am saying "This is a 21st century mindset judging a 17th century document.". I don't know how much plainer I can say that.

Do Americans have more freedom today? Of course they do. The entire world does. When America was founded it was ahead of its time on freedom. We cannot compare the freedom of today with the freedom of then. When we do that we are judging the 17th century with a 21st century mindset. In order to understand the 17th century we have to try and put ourselves in that mindset. When America was founded slavery was ban north of the Ohio River. That was ahead of its time. A date was established for the end of the slave trade. That was ahead of its time. Southern states were not allowed to count all their slaves for the purpose of representation (the 3/5 compromise).

Some liberal spin-misters spin the 3/5 compromise to be an anti-black provision of the Constitution. However it is actually the opposite. The northern states wanted to weaken the power of the southern slave states. For the purposes of representation in Congress, the southern states wanted to count all their slaves - that would allow them more representatives in Congress and more power in the federal government. The northern states didn't want to allow any slaves to be counted because the slaves couldn't vote and thus were not being represented. The 3/5th compromise decreased the influence of the southern states in the federal government. It did not apply to free blacks living in the north.

[Dr. Shane]

In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.

America's treatment of the Native Americans was not good. They fought them in wars for land. Hindsight is 20/20. There were many better things they could have done to handle the situation. One major problem the American government had to deal with was the settlers that did not abide by treaties. The government would enter into treaties with the Native Americans and the settlers would not respect the treaties. This put the government in an awkward position. Did they defend the tax-paying voters or the Native Americans? History shows us what they did.

I really question the accuracy of this quote by David Stannard. America made treaties with the Native Americans which established Indian lands. Settlers broke those treaties, wars resulted and new treaties were made. Cortez did not make any such treaties with the Aztecs. Cortez declared the Aztecs to be pagans, slaughtered all the men and took the women for the wives of Spanish settlers. The Mexican "race" is a hybrid of Aztec women and Spanish men. There are no Aztecs today. They were completely exterminated. One of the big reasons for this is because Americans were Protestants and the Spanish were Catholics.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.

America's treatment of the Native Americans was not good. They fought them in wars for land. Hindsight is 20/20. There were many better things they could have done to handle the situation. One major problem the American government had to deal with was the settlers that did not abide by treaties. The government would enter into treaties with the Native Americans and the settlers would not respect the treaties. This put the government in an awkward position. Did they defend the tax-paying voters or the Native Americans? History shows us what they did.

I really question the accuracy of this quote by David Stannard. America made treaties with the Native Americans which established Indian lands. Settlers broke those treaties, wars resulted and new treaties were made. Cortez did not make any such treaties with the Aztecs. Cortex declared the Aztecs to be pagans, slaughtered all the men and took the women for the wives of Spanish settlers. The Mexican "race" is a hybrid of Aztec women and Spanish men. There are no Aztecs today. They were completely exterminated. One of the big reasons for this is because Americans were Protestants and the Spanish were Catholics.

The above does not change the fact that Native Americans warred with other tribes. Stealing land other tribes considered theirs,killing,taking captive.

It was considered a natural state of affairs when they did it. But something much worse when whites did it to them.

It was not right but all thru history the stronger has conquered those weaker.

Not a specific mindset of european settlers. I susoect that african tribes did the same to one another and considered it their right

[lazarus]

Bonnie,

It doesn't matter that blacks in Africa kidnapped and sold other blacks for the slave trade in Britain and the Americas.

Euro-Whitey is the fault of every ill in this world... not just before we were born, but even today! In fact E-W should be strung up for future crimes... after they pay out big $$ in cash for all of the sins ever committed.

I publicly predict that E-W will be blamed for more crimes that we haven't thought of, yet. Stay tuned. Let's see how bad E-W will be in future posts.

Why so defensive? I feel sorry that you can't deal with this kind of discussion in a mature way, but your reaction is nothing new. The use of the term E-whitey in the way that you do is quite revealing. It will be interesting to see how much deeper you dig!

[lazarus]

Bonnie,

It doesn't matter that blacks in Africa kidnapped and sold other blacks for the slave trade in Britain and the Americas.

There is a lot of information available that describe the key differences between the European slave trade and the African slave trade.

[lazarus]

Quote:

please provide quotes

Later this evening or tomorrow I will look up again the quote by Obama concerning "negative restraints of the constitution"

[lazarus]

To all

I am simply arguing for a little more humility an sophistication when extolling the virtues and the realities of American freedom and democracy.

[Key Guy]

Laz,

I think the ongoing tension is the 2 different approaches that seem to be exhibited in this and other threads.

Your comment above wants an ongoing recognition of past sins and the humility that should come with it. You obviously believe we haven't beaten ourselves up enough over our past. That constitutes a very low level of 'sophistication' in your book.

Then there are those of us who in fact do recognize that reality, and the past, is not what we want or shoot for. We WANT the ideal, we STRIVE for the ideal, we ENCOURAGE to reach the ideal.

King David's big mistake was his ALLOWING Satan to beat him down about his past. He became a less effective father because of it and we see the effects in the messed up kids that he had.

You expect us to keep asking forgiveness for:

A: Sins we didn't commit (slavery is over!)

B: Ongoing problems with humans not reaching a perfect level of national freedom and beauty of pure capitalism (there is such a thing).

In the process, you advocate a socialistic alternative and we simply cannot accept such a flawed, failed system. History proves the failure of socialism, yet that's a part of history you seem to ignore.

I'm not gonna be a David and keep wallowing in the sad parts of US (and world) history. Mistakes were made, sins were committed. I repent for what I'm responsible for, nothing more. Nothing more. I will much rather focus on growth in my walk.

We've learned from the past. Now, let's leave it there and go on.

[bonnie]

To all

I am simply arguing for a little more humility an sophistication when extolling the virtues and the realities of American freedom and democracy.

The sophistication and virtue of American freedom was the American constitution. Not perfect by any means and not able to make perfect people anymore than the bible can.

A careful reading of that and the federalists papers show a understanding that was way beyond it's day.

What you mistake as some kind of false pride and a belief by some that America has always been perfect is a appreciation for the opportunities provided here. Even with racism and bigotry that many people brought with them when coming to this country it has excelled beyond what those early settlers should have been able to accomplish.

There are a few of us it seems that still believe the US had a special role in prophecy. And I believe it will hold a special but not so wonderful role again.

Was slavery right?? Of course not. Is slavery only a sin of the US? Absolutely not. But only the US is called to account at the slightest opportunity,

While calling to account for the sins of the past,the opportunities and freedoms we had are forgotten or made of no account.

Not sure how many ways it has to be stated that slavery was wrong. By any that had a hand in it. Especially those that sold their kinsmen for the almighty profit.

Maybe others feel the need to show humility and sophistication about the virtues of America. I don't. These men that drew up that very important document were sophisticated beyond what the times should have allowed for.

Again,I do believe that whether they ever felt so,God was guiding them . This became a nation without equal even with the slavery issue and the fact we took from the Indians what Indians took from one another.

It allowed freedom of religion to flourish at a time that was all but wiped out. Can't prove it but I believe the US will be the leader once again and when we lose our freedoms here as we surely will,The US will lead again.

[bonnie]

There are more if you need them. A you tube of a radio interview

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225

ELECTION 2008

Obama rips U.S. Constitution

Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'

Posted: October 27, 2008

1:46 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

(Story continues below)

[lazarus]

Laz,

You obviously believe we haven't beaten ourselves up enough over our past.

So for you a little more humility equates beating oneself up. Not so for me. Humility involves a recognition and acceptance of reality. I'm not asking for you to beat yourself up. Where is this coming from?

Quote:

You expect us to keep asking forgiveness...

Who is "us"? You've done nothing to me, I don't know you! What have you done? You're feeling a guilt I have not placed upon you.

This is stuff in your head or past conversations you have had with others, perhaps a movie or a book. Why do you feel need to argue against something that I have not said.

Quote:

In the process, you advocate a socialistic alternative and we simply cannot accept such a flawed, failed system. History proves the failure of socialism, yet that's a part of history you seem to ignore.

Herein lies the problem, socialism is an idea that has been adapted modified used misused and abused. Of course communism (one form of socialism) failed in the Soviet Union. Aspects of socialism have worked and are still working in many countries in the world today. Universal health care works well for many millions in the world. Public education, Public roads, sewers, air traffic control etc.

The US has sectors of the economy that could be private but it has chosen to make them public. Its has socialized certain aspects of the economy. That's a plain and obvious fact. The fact that you have a problem with the word "socialism" is I guess a product of your socialization. That's ok.

Whose wallowing? I'm neither discouraged or dismayed. I'm sorry if this discussion has bought you to that place. It was not my intention.

Quote:

We've learned from the past. Now, let's leave it there and go on.

this thread started with your story which was meant to be an explanation of socialism. My contention was that it was not. I presented an alternative which I believe you have yet to refute.

I posted

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.

I another post I advocated a mixed economy. A mixture of socialism and capitalism which exists in many successful economies in the world.

[lazarus]

Bonnie

There is nothing in that article that argues this:

Quote:

The difference here is that Obama does not see the US Constitution as a positive.

Just because Obama criticizes the limits of the constitution it does not mean he sees it as negative. Again, it is not perfect. How many amendments have there been?

[bonnie]

Bonnie

There is nothing in that article that argues this:

Quote:

The difference here is that Obama does not see the US Constitution as a positive.

Just because Obama criticizes the limits of the constitution it does not mean he sees it as negative. Again, it is not perfect. How many amendments have there been?

Sorry,I thought his statement was in that one. Will have to look it up again.

Of course it is not perfect,you are the one that keeps saying that,altho most of us have always known that.

It is not the amendments,it is his redistribution of wealth.

[bonnie]

It is obvious that you are a champion of socialism. That isn't a crime but does mean that those that do believe our constitution is a enduring document to continue to offer safety to us as long as possible will never agree with you.

I thought I had the one bookmarked but did not. Will continue to look.

HIs redistribution of wealth is classic socialism

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

[bonnie]

The more that want government pacifiers the faster this will be come a socialist country.The meaning of the constitution will be radically changed and soon won't matter at all.

It has to be. My dad always told us that we needed to watch the ones sitting in the pew concerning our freedoms,not the secular.

The older I get the more respect for my dad's thoughts

[lazarus]

at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I

He right in the same way that the 10 commandments is mainly a declination injunctions that are negative i.e. "Thou shalt not". He is not saying the constitution is negative in the same that you would not be saying that the 10 commandments are negative.

[lazarus]

The more that want government pacifiers the faster this will be come a socialist country.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I

He right in the same way that the 10 commandments is mainly a declination injunctions that are negative i.e. "Thou shalt not". He is not saying the constitution is negative in the same that you would not be saying that the 10 commandments are negative.

I guess another disagreement. I see nothing whatsoever in the ten commandments that are in the least negative. Every Thou Shall Not is a positive for those that do not want "Thou Shalt Do".

You cannot listen to Obama and read what he has to say and believe for one minute he is not going in strong socialist direction.