How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Any Topic Goes Thread   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ]
 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Any Topic Goes Thread

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


200 posted 12-19-2008 10:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

But he wasn't a President or Vice President, Bob, so his place of birth isn't an issue.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


201 posted 12-20-2008 04:55 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     It is absolutely true that he was not a President or Vice President.  He was, however, a Founding Father, wasn't he?  And that was the assertion that was made, that all the Founding Fathers were born in this country.

     The reason I bring this up is that I believe the reason for the native born stipulation in the constitution — and I cannot remember exactly where I read this, so if anybody else has run across this and can remember, I'd be grateful — is specifically to exclude Hamilton from running for President.  If you will remember the way the early elections were held, the victor in the election was elected President, and the loser from the other party was then the Vice-President.  This was the policy through at least the first few election cycles, until the full folly of the practice became clear.

     So, you see, Hamilton is especially important because he supplies at least part of the reasoning for these Constitutional Provisions in the first place.  This makes this particular aspect of the Constitution one of the first aspects of American law specifically enacted to exclude the presence of a single person, and the ideas he most powerfully presented, from having the effect they might otherwise have had in the emerging nation.

     Another example is the granting of the southern states the right to count their slave populations at three fifths parity when figuring out the representation for Congressional Representation.  This is a sad compromise, but one that enabled the country to exist; the south had otherwise refused to ratify the constitution.

     I mention these things because I wanted to make clear that the wisdom of the founders was often not wisdom but compromise forced by necessity, and not necessarily a matter of transcendent knowledge.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


202 posted 12-20-2008 10:19 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm sorry, Bob, I misspoke (now I really sound like a politician). What I meant to say was that I was surprised that all of the Founding Fathers who became President were born here.

I read that 'exclusion of Hamilton' explanation somewhere too, but I highly doubt that was the reason for the natural born clause because it wouldn't have excluded him in any event since he would have been covered under the grandfather clause in that he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He may very well have become one of our Presidents if he hadn't been killed in that duel with Aaron Burr.

Because some of their decisions may have been based on necessity shouldn't cast doubt on all of the decisions made in framing the Constitution. I think that is just a weak argument by some in an attempt to undermine the validity of the Constitution in its entirety and an excuse to ignore what they don't like. As it stands, it is the foundation of our form of goverment and laws. If some portion of it is now deemed outdated or unnecessary, there is a process for dealing with that. And that process is NOT simply ignoring what one doesn't like.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


203 posted 12-20-2008 03:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          I don't think the fact that the Constitution was arrived at by a human process means that it isn't valid.  

     If we pretend the Constitution wasn't a human document, we distance ourselves from it and don't understand how very important it is to our everyday lives.  I don't pretend the Constitution is perfect, merely that it is good enough to be a living document than needs to be respected.

     As I said before, Denise, we are jousting at different windmills here, and I would be sad if you didn't follow through on yours.  Because I see you being critical of the man in other fora, I believe you are trying your best to keep Obama out of office in whatever way you can.  (Something about information vacuums is the most recent one I recall)  This one seems possible to you; you put  a lot of energy into it.

     I remember my feelings in both 2000 and 2004.  I remember my feelings of betrayal.  Because I'm myself and not you, I certainly feel my own cause was better, but then  if you didn't feel the same way about yours I'd feel completely perplexed as well.  I'd like to blame the current mess on Bush, you'd possibly like to go back to Clinton and Carter.

     Perhaps we can settle on Chester A. Arthur.  I have it on good authority that he wasn't a natural born citizen, and that he destroyed the evidence.  What do you say?

Sincerely,  Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


204 posted 12-20-2008 04:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Who is pretending that the Constitution is not a human document, Bob? And it is a living document in that it has a process built in for amending it.

I have many disagreements with Obama, from his stand on abortion and euthenasia, the fact that he was a member of the New Party (Communist) in his earlier years in Chicago, to his views on redistribution of wealth and his disappointment that the Supreme Court did not break away from the constraints of the Constitution on the issue, his views on legalizing the illegal immigrants and government controlled health care, to his affiliations and associations over the years with some very unsavory characters, including terrorists and racists.

I am under no delusion, however, that I can keep him out of office! I am just exercising my Constitutional right to express my views.

And as tempting as it may be to blame previous administrations for messes we find ourselves in, I don't think it serves any useful purpose.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


205 posted 12-20-2008 08:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Sorry, Denise, I apparently misunderstood you when you said,

quote:

Because some of their decisions may have been based on necessity shouldn't cast doubt on all of the decisions made in framing the Constitution



to mean that some folks might think that necessity-based decisions might in fact cast doubt in the minds of some people on all the decisions made in framing the constitution.  It seems to meant something entirely different that used the same words in the same order but somehow came to a completely different conclusion, apparently the complete opposite of what you actually said.

     Forgive my confusion.  I'll try to stay on top of that in the future.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


206 posted 12-20-2008 09:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     While I'm at it, Social Democrats are not socialists.  And socialists are not communists, despite what folks have been telling you.

     Communism has to do with mutual ownership of the means of production and division of the fruits of labor according to necessity without a class system devoted to the ownership and management of Capital.  I frankly find that pretty boring.  Socialism allows private ownership and management of Capital, with some state support of specific areas where private investment alone is not enough to take care of the social necessity.  This is the only industrial country in the world, as I understand it, where trains are not at least in part subsidized by the government, and where trains are supposed to show a yearly profit.

     France, Germany, England, Japan and all the other major auto manufacturers  have government help in keeping their shipping charges low in getting their products to market, and in making sure that their worker's health is maintained without tacking extra money onto the sticker price of the cars.  People can still buy stock in the auto makers and start businesses.  Most of those countries also have a lower rate of infant mortality today than we do because of their medical programs, and most of their populations live to older ages as well.  Most of them also have substantially longer vacation times.

     None of them are Communist.

     Some are or have been socialist.  Socialist is a party, like Republicans or Democrats.  It is also an economic philosophy, like Capitalism and like Communism, but distinct from them both.  You sometimes — and pardon me for saying so — have difficulty acknowledging these distinctions, and it makes you a bit difficult for me to follow on occasion.  I understand you don't believe this leads you to erroneous conclusions.  From my perspective, admittedly very different from your own, it appears that this is sometimes the case, as when you conflate socialism and communism.

     Where is the actual evidence that Obama is a communist?  That he once said that he thought tax money should be re-distributed?  That is the purpose of taxes, to take money from one place and purpose, and put it to another purpose in another place.  You can find Senator McCain making the same sort of statement at much greater length in previous campaigns — not because either man is a communist, but because that is an accurate description of how taxes must and do work.

     Do you think I want my tax money being used for a missile program that I'm certain will be ineffective?  To go for a war I think is evil?  To go for industrial welfare?

     But it goes there, redistributed, by vote of my representatives in Congress.  This is not Communism, even if I'm clearly not thrilled with it.  It has, in fact, the consent of the governed.  Simply because the word redistributed was used, doesn't mean I don't have the obligation to understand how it is the same and how it is different from the way Karl Marx used the word.

     So, Denise, How is it the same and how is it different?

     Pardon my rant.  I've tried to keep it polite.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


207 posted 12-20-2008 09:21 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And as tempting as it may be to blame previous administrations for messes we find ourselves in, I don't think it serves any useful purpose.

Sure it does, Denise. It allows others to also exercise their Constitutional rights to express their views.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


208 posted 12-20-2008 11:02 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, I merely stated the fact that Obama was a member previously in the New Party, which was Communist. I provided a link here ages ago that showed a picture of him with other members and a caption under the picture that stated he was one of the members and was also a recently elected State Senator. The Party is now defunct.

Well then I guess there is one use for it, Ron!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


209 posted 12-21-2008 02:52 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

           Apparently, I didn't make myself clear.  The New Party was not Communist.  To state that it was communist is an error.

quote:

Bob, I merely stated the fact that Obama was a member previously in the New Party, which was Communist.



     This is the repetition of your original error.

      You may check out the Wikipedia article on the subject, which is straightforward.  They state that The New Party was Social Democratic in leaning.  Social Democratic is another non-communist political party more common in Europe than here.  But still not Communist.  Not even close.

     You persist in calling this party Communist, and you have also suggested several times that Obama has Communist leanings.  This is not true.  You suggest that he has connections with terrorists.  Senator Obama is unlikely to have proportionately more connections with such people than The President, or Senator McCain or many republicans in Government when President Reagan was in power, and deals were being made with the Iranian Government — who then as now, supported terrorist activity — to sell them arms in exchange for hostages.  

     These were people with whom the United States government was actively in conflict, I would remind you.  The Current Vice-president and the former secretary of Defense were high officials in that administration.  Negroponte, who was filling a position for this administration in Iraq within the last few years, was a figure in in Iran Contra affair and was involved with the latin american death squads that murdered nuns.  

     This also means that President Bush was involved with these terrorists as well, certainly more directly than somebody who knew a guy who was in the SDS when he was in college.  Many of these Republican luminaries had to be pardoned, or otherwise they would have been jailed with felony records.  Several of them could have arguably been tried and convicted of treason for trafficking with the Iranian government and making deals for personal political gain in the 1980 election while Iranians were still holding our people hostage.  

     If you actually believe the The New Party to be Communist, or Obama to be CommunistI request that you please offer some citations to back up what seem to me to me repeated errors in fact.  If these allegations are accurate, you should substantiate them.  If they are not, you should retract them or account for why you continue to state them as if they were accurate.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


210 posted 12-21-2008 09:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You may check out the Wikipedia article on the subject, which is straightforward.

Sorry to butt in, Bob, but perhaps you can understand my chuckle based on the flak I got over using Wiki as a valid reference and then seeing your comment.

You brightened ole Balladeer's morning
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


211 posted 12-21-2008 11:32 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The New Party was designed as a loose confederation of unions, socialists, communists, and black activists who shared common values, but often had different goals.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/barack_obama_sought_the_new_partys_endorsement_knowing_it_was_a_radical_left_organization
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


212 posted 12-21-2008 11:40 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


That’s not evidence Denise - it’s hearsay.

Repeating unsubstantiated claims from biased sources doesn’t make them any more credible.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


213 posted 12-21-2008 11:53 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Balladeer,

          You may have gotten flak about using Wikipedia as a reference, but if you'll look back at the postings at that time, you'll notice you got nothing but sympathy and support from me because of the self-correcting nature of that encyclopedia.  Which is why I have continued to use it.  Even though Ron doesn't like it.  And why I will continue to do so.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

     As Grinch says, Denise, Hearsay.  Repetition of slander doesn't make the slander true.  Not that calling somebody a member of a  legitimate political party in this country, by the way, should have ever been allowed to have been turned into a slander.

     Obama being endorsed by The New Party says nothing but they endorsed somebody that they believed was somewhat in like with issues of social justice that they agreed with.  There may be elements of their platform you might agree with yourself, how would I know, Denise?

     Endorsements also frequently come on the basis of incomplete agreement.  For example, the support of Saddam Hussein by several American Governments prior to the first Gulf war didn't mean, one might hope, our agreement with his gassing of the Kurds or the rape and murder of dissidents by his police.  Yet we still sent him money.  As an example.

     You have still showed no evidence of Obama being a communist or a Marxist that would stand up to any sort of investigative scrutiny.  Nor indeed any evidence of The New Party being Communist.  I did see in one article somebody triumphantly proclaiming that there were Marxist and Socialist members of The New Party, as though that made The New Party Socialist or Communist.  Certainly Klansmen have run as Republicans, which doesn't make the Republican Party The Ku Klux Klan, does it?  When the Democrats in the south supported segregation, certainly there were Klansmen who were registered as Democrats.  That didn't make The Democratic Party The Ku Klux Klan either.

     I'm afraid that you're going to have to do better than this article, Denise.  I have recommended in the past that neutral sources, neither right nor left, and sources with a history of paying close attention to documentation are the most convincing.  I haven't been tossing any left wing sources at you, have I?  I've been making a point of avoiding them in our discussions.  Using them would be unfair, since you would rightfully feel them biased in the first place.  Whether they were or not.  How could you prevent yourself?

[This message has been edited by Bob K (12-21-2008 12:55 PM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


214 posted 12-21-2008 12:11 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

I think Wiki is great as a jumping off point for further research.

Denise, one sparrow doesn't make a Spring.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


215 posted 12-21-2008 02:35 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Whether they were Socialist, Communist, or anything in between, they certainly seem to have leaned toward the extreme left view in their agenda.

I tend to believe that their membership had a various assortment of left-leaning thinkers, no matter how they personally described their own brand of political philosophy. But you were right Bob. In re-reading my original source, it described them as a Socialist organization, and not as Communist one. My apologies for the mistake.

What is more troubling than any particular label that one could ascribe to it, is that Obama, having been a member of the New Party, distanced himself from it during the campaign, having his campaign disavow his membership, and leaving it out of his official bio. Was he ashamed of it, or did he believe that he would never have won an election for President if he admitted to it?

I guess he wasn't counting on anyone digging up old New Party news clippings that countered his assertions.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html  

LOL Moonbeam, you're right, one sparrow doesn't make a Spring! I think in Obama's case though we've seen a flock of them!

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


216 posted 12-23-2008 06:53 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

What is more troubling than any particular label that one could ascribe to it, is that Obama, having been a member of the New Party, distanced himself from it during the campaign, having his campaign disavow his membership, and leaving it out of his official bio. Was he ashamed of it, or did he believe that he would never have won an election for President if he admitted to it?




Dear Denise,

           Based on the scan of a photocopy of a newsletter that was proof-read by whom, Denise?  High-schools have better fact-checkers than most local political party newsletters.  They're at least under faculty supervision.
Was there a fact checker here.  I mentioned a diving platform once in a poem, "a 16 meter tower."  The magazine came back wanting to change the spelling of meter to "metre" and told me that there was no such thing as a diving platform at that height in competitive diving.  

     I'd had no idea; it was a mistake on my part.  When they asked me if I wanted to change it, I said, "no."  I don't remember what I said about "metre."

     Simply because it's in print, doesn't make it true.  If this weren't something where an affectionately held dislike weren't being confirmed for you, I would hope that you would hold out for a more stringent standard of proof yourself.  Especially when there are other sources that speak of Obama as being endorsed by, and not as being a member of the party, even prior sources quoted by the same New Zealand author, if you check his references listed in the article itself, and not merely the article on the second page of the same newsletter that is made reference to in the discussion of the blog on the same page as the reference you quoted.

     The author of the response on the blog to having had this anomaly pointed out was to suggest that one might endorse a member.  This suggests that he thought that Obama had a secret membership in The New Party, which brings us back to that Joseph McCarthy thinking again, doesn't it, Denise?  Prior mentions of Obama that the writer of the article says he published, however, make mention of of endorsement and not membership, which suggests error rather than cover-up.  Occam's Razor; I fear you have been deafened by the sound of a stampede of thundering zebras, here, as are all of us from time to time.

     As seems usually the case though, Denise, you have been burned by taking your sources from dubious sources.  This one, apparently published in October, was reportedly forwarded to Fox News and apparently died there.  Fox News apparently decided they didn't want to go with it.

     As a suggestion — one you may have already followed up on, for all I know — why not write or e-mail Fox News and ask why they didn't go with this particular bit of information.  Perhaps they didn't get it?   Being a Liberal myself, and loathe to conceal that fact, I fear they would not take the e-mail from me at all seriously, but I would be interested in hearing what they said to you.

     If they haven't heard, I'm sure they'd love the tip.  If they have heard, perhaps you'll get an answer about why they didn't go with the report.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


217 posted 12-24-2008 05:55 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

From another article that I read that quoted one of the New Party's upper echelon/administrators, the Party had no official membership, per se. So in that regard the Party article may have mis-stated that Obama was a 'member'. He did however, whatever you want to call him in reference to them, associate with and accept the endorsement of, the New Party in Illinois, neglected to mention that affiliation in his official bio, thereby distancing himself from them when he hit the national stage. Should I think more highly of him as a transparent and above-board politician since the Party did not have an official 'membership' roll for their endorsed candidates? At the very least it is just one more extreme left political association to add to the rest in that information vacuum.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


218 posted 12-25-2008 12:47 AM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Yeah, well, depite all that, in this anything goes thread, I wish you all a Happy Merry day.

Good times for us.  Deb has been home for a week, in great spirits.  We had a conversation in French this morning.  Amazing!  

Next year will bring what it brings, but I hope you all get off to a good start!

Best, Jimbeaux
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


219 posted 12-25-2008 02:58 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Jim,

          Merry non-sectarian madness to you and J as well, and I hope everything is going along well with you there.  How's the draft on the screenplay going?  I hope that's working well for you as well!

Dear Denise,

           Thank you for being willing to stop calling Obama a member, then, in the light of new information.

     You may have noticed that you still stigmatize a perfectly legitimate party with legal aims and objectives.  They have the right to endorse anybody they wish, and that should be perfectly all right.  Even the socialist party is a perfectly legal party here in the United States, and in my opinion Bernie Sanders has done a wonderful job representing his constituents.  Enough of them agree to return him to office over and over again.

     What you are attempting to say about Senator Obama when you say that he accepted the endorsement of The New Party and that he associated with them escapes me.  It sounds remarkably close, however to the logical fallacy called "guilt by association."  If so and so keeps bad company, he or she must be bad him or herself.  This leaves us with the problem of who's making the judgement of what's bad company in the first place, and the fact the decent people can actually hang out with people who aren't so nice because not all decent people share our prejudices.  

     Jesus had some things to say about this, as I recall, but they've been pretty much covered over in practice for a long time, from what I've seen.

     Guilt by association isn't usually considered a kosher type of thinking in the logic texts.  It's an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and a way of bypassing the logical processes.  It wins elections and court fights often enough, mind you, because of its cracker-barrel practicality.

     But, to make a bad joke here at my own expense, I'm not sure I'd want to hang around with the kind of people who talk like that.  You know what they're like.

Exit left, quacking like a duck, sincerely, Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


220 posted 12-25-2008 10:05 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

All I will say today is:

Merry Christmas To All and God Bless Us, Every One!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


221 posted 12-25-2008 11:57 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

  

     Merry Christmas to you too Denise!  Have large amounts of fun with the grandkids, take some walks, spend time with friends.  I'll be off for several days, and look forward to hearing that you've had a great time when I get back!

All my best, Bob Kaven

     Season's greetings, and my my affection to everybody here!
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Any Topic Goes Thread   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors