American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435511]Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. Yet the Board here is bristling with talk of secession and armed rebellion if their 2nd amendment rights were infringed. To me, the Blacks were downright beaten down P.S.ychologically to endure what they had to go through without lashing out in a dramatic way. Perhaps, they were not licensed to carrry, so could not? But there is no doubt, given half a chance, the Old South would happily go back to it's George Wallace days.

Everything you mentioned, I have seen with my own eyes. So you are cursing Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton (as I often do), but are they any different from Sarah Palin & Anne Coulter?.

Just don't take personally what I say. I am not targeting you. You spoke alot of truths. And I am sure you are a great guy (really). Next time, I come to BA, I might ask you for equal opportunity loan.(smile).[/QUOTE]

Could it be that rather than performing its only legitimate function, the protection of individual rights, it was performing as a democracy, that is providing what the majority of its citizens wanted?

Don B.

[b] The “Solid South” was overwhelmingly Democratic![/b]

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435511]Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. [snip][/QUOTE]

“The term Solid South describes the electoral support of the Southern United States for Democratic Party candidates from 1877 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1964 (the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). During this time, the vast majority of local and state officeholders in the South were Democrats, as were federal politicians the region sent to Washington, D.C.. The virtual non-existence of the Republican Party in the region meant that a candidate's victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself.

The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.

Democrats won by large margins in the region in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South. In 1968, President Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is credited with allowing either the Republicans or [b]Democrat George Wallace's[/b] independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level. [highlight][b]The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994.” [/b][/highlight]

The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. Before the Civil War ended, State “Slave Codes” prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. Black Codes, which explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, America’s first gun control organization. (and the roots of todays gun control movement.)

Reconstruction Congress responded with the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1870—every one of them aimed at racial subordination in general and racist gun control laws in particular.

Republican President Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77), who would later serve as president of the National Rifle Association, vigorously prosecuted Klansmen, and even declared martial law when necessary to suppress KKK violence. It was “Southern Democrats” who strongly opposed African-American equality to whites.

Black Shirt if you don't know history study it, if you do know history stop trying to rewrite it.

Black Shirt if you don't know history study it, if you do know history stop trying to rewrite it.

In my post, I did not use any party affiliations to identify the South. Yes, I am aware of the history of the transition and transformation of the Democratic South into the Republican South. But thanks for taking the time and effort to put everything into perspective.

Racism is found in every corner of the world. I was not trying to disparage the USA in that regard, just to highlight what has gone on in history. And to highlight the point that it can easily come back tomorrow if we are not careful.

[QUOTE=Esten;435507]That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429178]My reaction is

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.[/QUOTE]12345678910.

[QUOTE=Punter127;435513]It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?[/QUOTE]It's relatively easy in Dominica and St. Kitts and Nevis, although expensive.

[QUOTE=Esten;435507]That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.[/QUOTE]Except that what's really going is that 51% of the voters are telling the other 49% how much they have to pay in taxes, said taxes which are then given to the 51% majority.

Esten, it's all in your definition of "public services". The US Constitution provides that the US Government is to "[I]provide for the general welfare[/I]", which I believe may be easily understood as government services such as a military for our common defense, a border patrol to maintain our common borders, a monetary system for our common use, a system of basic education that everyone attends, a criminal justice system that protects all of us from the criminal element in every society, etc. The Constitution does not refer to any need to provide for the "specific welfare" of individual citizens, as in cash payments to some individuals to remedy some alleged shortfall in their own personal lives.

"[I]The normal must care for themselves.[/I]"

Calvin Coolidge

[QUOTE=Punter127;435513]It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?[/QUOTE]Some provisions in the NDAA really scare the shit out of me. In another couple months I could start the process of getting an argie one, it wouldn't be my first choice, Australia or Canada would be, but it's a second one. While a lot of people from other countries may hold the politics here (Argentina) in contempt, as a rule they don't hate them.

I'm worried, not super worried, but worried that the USA could become a totalitarian state in my lifetime.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435517]

In my post, I did not use any party affiliations to identify the South. Yes, I am aware of the history of the transition and transformation of the Democratic South into the Republican South. But thanks for taking the time and effort to put everything into perspective.[/QUOTE]You didn't need to name the party we all knew what you was trying to say.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435522]Some provisions in the NDAA really scare the shit out of me. In another couple months I could start the process of getting an argie one, it wouldn't be my first choice, Australia or Canada would be, but it's a second one. While a lot of people from other countries may hold the politics here (Argentina) in contempt, as a rule they don't hate them.

I'm worried, not super worried, but worried that the USA could become a totalitarian state in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]I knew you could get a resident visa, but did not know you could get Argie passport. As Tiny 12 pointed out most of the time they are expensive.

I've been worried for some time and I'd say we're already well on our way to becoming a "totalitarian state". Just MHO.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435521]Except that what's really going is that 51% of the voters are telling the other 49% how much they have to pay in taxes, said taxes which are then given to the 51% majority.[/QUOTE]Jackson, why even bother posting such easily refutable statements? I can slice and dice this over and over and over it's so wrong. In one poll, 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes on [i]themselves[/i]. There are other similar polls showing the wealthy support increasing their own taxes, and polls showing that many poor people (typically conservatives) do not support raising taxes on anybody. Your statement is complete nonsense.

Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll
[URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html[/URL]

BTW, the Constitution provides a process by which democratically elected representatives can approve and fund government services and programs that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That is why our system is called a Constitutional Democracy (a form of Representative Democracy).

Amid all the weak hands in the Syria debate, both internationally and at home, Obama and others like John McCain are demonstrating real leadership in their firm calls for decisive action. There are significant implications in not responding firmly, which Obama laid out very well in his speech tonight and I won't repeat here.

My take is Obama has to play hardball with Russia and Syria on their diplomatic offer / ruse -- requiring nothing short of timely, complete and verifiable removal of all Syria's chemical weapons. In parallel Congress should draft and prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing limited military action if the diplomatic effort falls short. I will absolutely support a military strike if this is the case.

[QUOTE=Esten;435525]Jackson, why even bother posting such easily refutable statements? I can slice and dice this over and over and over it's so wrong. In one poll, 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes on [i]themselves[/i]. There are other similar polls showing the wealthy support increasing their own taxes, and polls showing that many poor people (typically conservatives) do not support raising taxes on anybody. Your statement is complete nonsense.

Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll
[URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html[/URL]

BTW, the Constitution provides a process by which democratically elected representatives can approve and fund government services and programs that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That is why our system is called a Constitutional Democracy (a form of Representative Democracy).[/QUOTE]I can't find the survey questions or the referenced American Express / Harrison Group report on line. How was the question phrased? "If you have to choose between higher tax rates for all Americans or a bankrupt country because politicians don't have the stomach to stop spending money foolishly, which do you prefer?"

From your article:

"Granted, the one percent is not happy about paying higher taxes. The American Express / Harrison poll shows that 64 percent say they carry an 'unfair tax burden in the amount of money I pay in taxes.' Nearly three quarters of them are extremely or very concerned about their taxes going up."

That doesn't exactly square with what you wrote.

Both of these polls were taken in 2012 when Obama was playing the class warfare card hard, first because he thought it would help him get re-elected, and later near the end of the year when he wanted to stick it to the rich people and the successful small businesses. And he did, by raising their taxes. That's right, Obama and Democrats were responsible for raising taxes. Contrary to what you've written, Bush is not the one to blame for the tax increases associated with the Affordable Care Act, nor for other tax rates going up the first of 2013.

I guarantee most working people (that is excluding people who inherited money from their daddies) paying the 43.4% federal tax rate, plus as much as an additional 13.3% to their state of residence, will be even more aware of their "unfair tax burden" come April 15,2014. The percentage will be higher than the 64% in your poll.

But hey, somebody needs to pay to bomb Syria. Barack Obama and John McCain say it needs to happen and they should know.

[i]I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the [b][u]Republic[/u][/b] for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."[/i]

"In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
[url]http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm[/url]

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable."

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and we all know the Chicago mob really wants to rule.

[B]Colorado Lawmakers Ousted in Recall Vote Over Gun Law[/B]

COLORADO SPRINGS — Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday in a recall vote widely seen as a test of popular support for gun restrictions after mass shootings in a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/colorado-lawmaker-concedes-defeat-in-recall-over-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all[/URL]

[QUOTE=Punter127;435528][i]I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the [b][u]Republic[/u][/b] for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."[/i]

"In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
[/QUOTE]Exactly. Because they believed that Democracy lead to mob rule, our Founding Fathers despised democracry. Yet our last few idiotic Presidents seem intent on bringing a government we don't have to places that don't want it.