How are we to determine...

All the news I heard figured that clock was fixed, but it still didn't run correctly.

Cheers,

Jim

 

All the moderators are biased to the right except for one. It's not a level playing field.

 

By this definition, George Bush is a communist. We have certainly nationalized industries under his Presidency. That's a fact not a supposition as is being made against Obama. So all you Republicans voted for a Communist.

 

That should have been made clear in the OP. It is difficult to read the intention of the poster when such details are omitted.

So far the discussion has been relevant to the OP the way it was stated.

Would you like this thread closed so that we can start a new one specifically on your topic of choice?

 

I thought McCarthyism died a long time ago.....Shaking head as a foreigner, I am simply aghast. As a socialist, I am called a communist and an atheist every time a certain posts on the Board. Am I to live up to that?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Most of those here have conveniently forgotten that the early Christians were socialist.

 

I would suggest that before determining where a political candidate stands in the political spectrum, one must consider what model one is basing this on. The social model of politics, for example, is like a horizontal line with conservatives on the right (hence 'right wing') and liberals on the left (i.e. 'left wing') with 'moderates' in the middle. On the left one has looser characteristics..... for government powers, budgets, expansion, distribution, obligations, and frequent changes in policies, rules, and regulations or law, 'invention'. On the right, one finds traditionalist, government restraint, individual responsibility and risk, and stricter interpretation of law, reliance upon history as teacher. The social model is often the one used when people talk about right or left or moderate because it is the one most used by media and academia. Extremely confusing, then, is trying to fit communism on one side and socialism on the other, or facism vs communism..... because the model is a 'social model' and not a 'political or governmental model'.

The governmental model would have a line drawn horizontally to represent the continuium of rule or government: On the right is no government which is called anarchy. On the left is the greatest control of government possible. On this line republics and demorcracies are in the middle. This is the correct concept regarding government and is a model which holds for any candidate and any party regarding rule. Ditatorships and monarchies are on the left with the far left being communism and socialism. Democracies and republics don't exist between communism and socialism: neither give the people that power of free choice.....though they both may appease with demonstrative appearances that the people have that choice... but leadership dictates the choices. Now we have a model which truely means something and we can work with. Instead of concern over who is more communist and who is more socialist or if there's any significant difference in rule...... we can see our position on the political and governmental continuium as in the middle where our democratic choices are possessed by the peiople, but there is tthe rule of law which governs both the people and their leaders. If we can look at candidates in this fashion..... who would take away our freedom of choice, or obligate us to government and its policies, or control or reduce the influence of our own independance or ownership or labor, or increase the restraints against our property and its use, then these candidates are to the left of center, and are for more government: Candidates, then, who are right of center, are those which propose less restraint, reducing regulations, less government, more individual independance and self reliance, less government expense.....hence reduced taxes. Now, with this model, which is the one on which our founders based our government, having 5000 years of past history, we have a model which would work today when talking politics. The question is, can we understand that this is the model when the news and academia would have us thinking otherwise by the way they mis-represent ideas, and mis-inform or propagandized concepts to change, confuse, and distort the very way we communicate or understand those communications?

So, then, my answer to your question: Before choosing 'right or left' or communism or socialism, or conservative or liberal...... we must know which we're talking about in relationship to what... and have some understanding of definition. On the political or governmental model which I think is most correct, we can easily see the confusion that we experience in trying to see communism and socialism and facism as being so different when they really arent that different at all.....they have interlocking circles of control which make them far more similar to each other than any have in common to any democracy. Now, if we talk about 'left' or 'right' we know in which direction a man is leaning in type of governmental philosophy as his ideal. Neither have we mis-characterized a 'leaning' with more definitive terms such as socialist/communist or an anarchist.

Most of the democratic platform is socialistic. Obama's own promises regarding what government should do and how it will do it is socialistic. While the Republican platforms and promises don't seem as strong in their socialistic bent, it can be credibly argued by some that the leadership of the Republican presidency and particularly the Republicans in the Senate also show a socialistic bent: This is one of the main reasons the more they fight among each other, the more they seem to pull together when legislation is passed..... and explains why we are confused when the messages we get in a campaign differ from the actions we see from them once elected.

As for socialism..... we're well on the way on this road...... and it is what's leading us to globalism. For the most part, the rest of the world has already adopted this model of 'left' government and have lived in it so long, they have little experience or concept of 'middle' government to appreciate its value. "Middle" government is the rule of law as the supreme framework surrounding and protecting a people who are free but who have chosen that rule of law by which they govern themselves, 'of the people, by the people, for the people' (Abraham Lincoln/Gettysburg add).

 

Doesn't matter what Obama or any other politician 'is.' If he crosses his handlers he IS a dead man. Ask JFK and Bobby when you get to Heaven.

 

This is a matter of interpretation. [and this is off topic...but not meant to derail so pls..]

The day of Pentacost had past: The miracles were continuing: The opposition was rising to silence the church: Many present at this meeting, were not aware of the historic plan which the LORD already knew....that Jerusalem would eventually be sacked and the temple destroyed, and that anyone remaining would undergo severe persecutions: The LORD knew that the belongings of the people would only hold them hostage.... to location, to land, to possessions, to inheritance, to taxes, to persecutions, limit their choices and obediance. It was the miraculous move of his spirit which brought them who believed to be 'of one heart and of one soul:' so that none 'said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own: but that they had all things common.' It was by the move of the Holy Spirit upon them which bonded them in agreement..... not the bounds of law or government. It was this move of unity and oneness in Christ Jesus which gave witness to all unbelievers in Jerusalem, and added power and strength to the influence of the early church. It was the fulfilling of Jesus statement for by this shall all men know you are my disciples if you have love one to another.

Ananias and Sapphira were punished ....not by the people or by any law which the people enforced ....but by the hand of God who made an example of them after they had made open pledges and promises to God and then openly lied before the people and before God. Even Peter counseled "While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

 

Conveniently prove it. Jesus gave the lazy man's talent to the richest guy. Seems like the biblical example is hard work, and wise investment.....

 

Socialism in a democratic country does not exclude hard work and personal responsibility. It simply includes social responsibility for the less fortunate. There will always be moochers in this world and I fear they benefit as well.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Ok, I'll try:
It's more like designing a study as a student:

First I'd define the range of the spectrum. (See my previous post regarding the government/political model.)

Then list under each form of government those characteristics which belong primarily to that form, then list secondary characteristics which are common but less essential to that form of government... and lastly and parenthetically, those historic examples of those forms of government (good study is the characteristics of people which ruled and the economies and social characteristics of people under those examples of rule. Another good study might be in those societies where changes of government took place over a period of time from one form to another.... what was the characteristics which brought transistions.)

Now place these along a line flowing from one extreme, from anarchy at one end moving to the other end of the line with types of government where increasing control and power moves from individual to centralized rule are placed like bench marks along the continuium, to tyranny.

Now consider what a politician is promising: Consider how he expresses himself in terms of what governments should do and what people should do. When he promises he'll do something for you, what is he telling you about yourself regarding your power to take care of yourself, or your dependancy on his kind of government? Considering his position, role, promises: What is the trade off which he may not be telling you? Chances are he is not even aware of it in himself, so you must think......really think for yourself. What must you (or others if not you) trade for this benefit? What is his style of leadership in the past? What does that say about his direction for the future....your future and the future of the nation? Which kind of laws, programs, expenses does he support or will he require? What do these take from the individual? What do they give or 'promise' to the individual?

After amassing characteristics from the candidate's speaches, writings, associations, and emphasis in leadership as seen in activities of rule or work or organizations or volunteer activities...... and the directions of his supports and oppositions ...... What philosophy of government or leadership style is most in agreement with his and which is most in conflict?

Everything is a trade off: Consider how with every responsibility and freedom controled by the people, there is less control of government ....... which means, the individual takes the risks and is in control of his gains: Regardless of how good or how difficult life may become...... the individual who has had more control over his life is stronger in character, emotion, and spirit in feeling less a victim of circumstances, and has more options in responding to personal calamities than a person controlled and already bound by meeting government's conditions. This is true of people within families who have special challenges and of people under governments which exercise more or less control over them.

Socialism and communism have many 'so-similar' characteristics in actuality it not a spits worth of difference ....hardly:

Figuring out some candidates may not be as easy but Obama is definitely socialist in his philosophy. While there is some cause for concern for those of us who value our independance along with the risk, socialism is not in itself entirely threatening..... What is of real concern is that socialism gives more power and strength to government and reduces individual control through reductions of property and restrictions and penalties on use, narrowing the choices available to individuals (such as requiring utilization of assigned health care as opposed to freedom to consult specialties available elsewhere), ..... A slight change in government shifting from its concerns over its citizens to its concerns over protecting its power and intrest, real or imagined oppositions, can push people in power over the boundaries to the committing of unjust tryannies against its people....even genocide. The point of no return is a narrow and delicate one from that of republics and democracies where people and governments are ruled by law effective upon both rulers and citizens and established and dependant on participation of the people..... to that in which power and law is centralized and in control of governments and expressed through their rulers which may become tryrannical. Once power is centralized, and control of law is taken from the people, even a crisis can push governments to a small step into despotism, facism, dictatorships, or communism, and its people into a miserable heap of human dependancy and enslavement.

 

Focusing on one person or one narrow topic prevents using analogies which can help to illuminate the discussion. Comparisons with other people in the same situation can be a useful way of exploring a question. In addition, since the vast majority of people on this board are conservative Republicans they initiate most of the threads. Recently these have looked at such astute questions as:

Is Obam a Marxist. People like me who try to put this question in context are iommediately shouted down as being "off topic." Then politics section of the board thus becomes one big Obama bashing exercise.

 

Socialism and communism take the wealth from the people to promote special programs, which it deems as necessary. These programs are often designed to placate the unrest of the masses while attempting to meet the seriously real needs of a truely helpless few. Every program begun has a way of identifying new 'needs' which aren't being met..... which generates more programs, more agencies to screen and dispense.... until eventually the demand and the dependancies of the people are greater than the resources and revenue supported by the people: Either revolutions and civil unrest develops or governments turn to tyrannical controls. We are fartherist from this development as long as we insist that our leaders govern within the constraints of the constitution which is the law of the land for both rulers and citizens. When we give our leaders slack and allow drifting away from the constitutional bases of all law, we are encouraging a form of government which is closer to becoming the tyrannies which our forefathers fought against. Among these rights so protected are those of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness: They almost wrote the pursuit or the possession of property... but the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' was decided upon and ammended reflected in the final draft: It was believed by our forefathers that whether a person owned property or didn't.... 'the pursuit of happiness' covered that hope to have possessions and freedom to use as one saw fit without excessive encumbrances of governmetn .