TexasCHLforum.com

Even if bambam is not a socialist, he is socialistic, and he's a Chicago politician, which is damning in and of itself.

Good point about being from Chicago.

He has nationalized the banks nationalized our Automobile industry, Threaten forced confiscation of those he deemed we bonused to much. He wants to make the rich poorer to subsidize the poor. And he threatens to nationalize our Medical care If he isn't a socialist there isn't any such thing. The only difference between him and Lenin is that he hasn't got as far ...... yet.

Not so about the banks or the auto industry. The initial $300+ billion given to financial institutions was done so under the Bush W. administration with no strings attached and no oversight. The money vanished in to an abyss and nobody in the Federal gov't knows how it is used. The auto industry is still in trouble, GM may go bankrupt the last I heard. And there were several strings attached to the Feds giving the auto companies bailout money. No strings were attached to the money given to the Wall Street types.

Also, the Federal gov't has been regulating and standardizing and "nationalizing" banks for over a 100 years.
The National Bank Act (ch. 58, 12 Stat. 665, February 25, 1863) was a United States federal law that established a system of national charters for banks. It encouraged development of a national currency based on bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.

and

The first Glass-Steagall Act was passed in February, 1932 in an effort to stop deflation and expanded the Federal Reserve's ability to offer rediscounts on more types of assets and issue government bonds as well as commercial paper.[4] The second Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933 in reaction to the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933.

Rushing bills that nobody can review fast enough? Who knows what could be hidden in those bills, yet they were passed. Just another stepping stone? I dont know, I really dont, but from my limited view of things, it's not looking good.. You tack on the other issues, add them all together, does it not seem strange?

This is exactly what was done with the Patriot Act of 2001.

In my opinion, the Congress has done a monumentally poor job of representing us for quite some time. They need to answer for their narrow minded, partisan behavior and we have the ultimate tool - the vote. Please remember that come election time. That's the way I see it, but heck, I could be wrong.

I agree. If we could get rid of the entire group and start over, with term limits, maybe all of us "ordinary Joe's" might get the representation we deserve.




One more thing - wheel guns rule.

I see the term Socialism tossed around a lot on gun forums, usually as part of an anti-Obama posting or thread.

So let's look at the term socialism. According to Wikipedia, "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would represent a transitional stage between the capitalist and communist modes of production."

With that said, socialism that we have seen during the 20th century was not socialism at all but authoritarianism or at worst totalitarianism. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-sung, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, to name a few, all claimed to be socialists. They were not. They were all despots, dictators, who at least suppressed those they ruled and at worst denied many of them, who exhibited free thought or other crimes against the regime, the basic right of life. These terribly evil men were not socialists. They were power hungry dictators. They used any means to gain power and stay in power. At first, they gained support by giving people the hope of equality and fair compensation. Once in power, they installed themselves as supreme rulers above those that supported them. So much for equality. None of these regimes were ruled by law. They were all ruled by men, usually a single man. So don't toss the term socialism as though humanity has experienced it before. Because it has not.

All those regimes, except the Third Reich, mentioned above had another thing in common, they did not lift up the masses to be equal. They tore down the rich and made everyone poor. Hitler did not last long enough for the world to see how his economic plan would work. The problem with extreme forms of socialism and communism is that it does not acknowledge the human spirit, the yearning for more, the wanting to be better, economic competition where the best rises above the ordinary.

The United States is ruled by laws and the supreme law of the US is the Constitution of the United States. All our laws are judged by it. Anything not judged to be in compliance with the Constitution is no at enforceable law. We have all the different strata of social classes in the US, And we are a nation that rewards a person for his efforts. That is how Dale Carnegie, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, to name a few, became successful and wealthy. And we still stand by that way of doing things. Nothing has changed with the election of Obama.

Obama is no socialist. If he were he would sound like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He would have our Constitution amended beyond recognition. Declare himself President for Life and we all now how that would go over with the masses. Why? Because we had the experience of being lorded over by a despot, George III, before 1776. We never forgot that lesson and our Constitution is a document based upon lessons learned. An example is the Bill of Rights. Many of our rights are protected by the Bill of Rights because they were violated by our British masters. Look at the 3rd Amendment. Another example is the separation of powers between the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch. The idea was to prevent a single branch or worse a single man from grabbing power over the others.

This post has become long enough. I'll just say that Obama is not a socialist or a Marxist, or a communist. He may have ideas that some people do not agree with or even dislike. That only makes him human. One thing humanity has taught me, we all cannot and will not ever agree about everything. And I thank God for that.

So, if you don't like Obama, if your choice for President failed to get elected, then have the intestinal fortitude to say so. The only thing name calling does is reflect poorly only the person calling names. It does not impress anyone.

And if you are wondering, yes I voted for Obama. Do I agree with everything he says and does? NO. Will I get mad when I think he or the Congress does something I dislike greatly? YES, I already did and voiced my opinion to them. But, I do believe in the Constitution, all of it, not just the 2nd Amendment. We, all of us must defend and protect it. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it, and we do not need any man's permission to enforce it," including the President, whoever that may be.

Liberty wrote:Obama is about power, control and a socialist agenda...The only way to prevent speculation is to take control away from the market and put that control into a central authority. In other words Obamism.

I don't see that way at all.