Ladies, Do you think of America as the "Land of the Free?"

[Boethius]

Nothing in Obama's stated words in that excerpt is shocking or contrary to what I posted.  In fact, he is stating that he believes the US courts are not the best place to push societal changes because historically, they have not done so, and it is not their role (which goes back to activism vs interpretation).  I suspect Obama was responding to a direct question, and nothing he said in that excerpt would be shocking to a first year law student.

The commentary was not in accordance with what Obama was stating.

[Blues Fairy]

but you should consider that Mussolini acceeded to power with a coup (the March on Rome in 1922), formed a coalition government which in 1923 enacted a new electoral law granting 2/3 of the parliamentary seats to any party obtaining 25%+ of votes (unsurprisingly similar to the law Berlusconi is now pushing forward ).  His concept of "common good" did not quite dovetail with your assumption

Then it's up to how you and I interpret the "common good".  As part of an aspiring dictator's political platform, "common good" was there in both Musso's and Hitler's rhetoric and it's not much different from the speeches of the present-day aspiring dictators.  All of them will talk of the interests of the disenfranchised, of opposing the greed of capitalists, of serving the Volk, of CHANGE and dismantling the status-quo, of building a FAIR society, etc, etc.  The terminology is painfully recognizable and who knows exactly how much of what they say they actually mean.  

[LEGAL]

IMHO We are much better off with a capitalistic society than a socialistic society  

[Sculpto]

if we have a society that allows innovators to innovate yet also provides a solid safety net for those less fortunate/creative then we would have something really awesome.

[Blues Fairy]

In fact, he is stating that he believes the US courts are not the best place to push societal changes because historically, they have not done so, and it is not their role (which goes back to activism vs interpretation).

...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 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.

Not the best place to push societal changes, eh? 
So you're still saying that he just states the as-is, without hinting at his vision of the as-it-should-be?

[Boethius]

IMHO We are much better off with a capitalistic society than a socialistic society 

Yes, and I don't think anyone is advocating for the demise of capitalism.    I think Europeans do not have socialism either, but rather, regulated markets.

Here are some excerpts from speeches by others on the common good.  Brilliant thinkers, or dangerous reactionaries?

'To pour forth benefits for the common good is divine. - Benjamin Franklin


During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. - Thomas Jefferson

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it - John Adams 

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust. - Alexander Hamilton

[Boethius]

...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 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.

Not the best place to push societal changes, eh? 
So you're still saying that he just states the as-is, without hinting at his vision of the as-it-should-be?

I think what he is saying is that because the civil rights movement turned to the courts to enforce legal rights (rights which were, incidentally, either enshrined constitutionally or through legislation), and made this the prime focus of moving ahead in their agenda, they lost sight of the bigger picture.  They lost sight of activism outside the judicial sphere, such as lobbying for say, better housing, or better schools for their communities, or more policing, etc.

Lobbying almost always brings about more real change than relying on the courts, provided such legislation is enforced and, if challenged, judicially upheld. 

I think that is "as is".  Evidently, President Obama believes much is to be done to change the way the US functions.  I don't think that is particularly nefarious, no matter how much the right tries to demonize Obama as a representative of Marxist-Leninist thought. 

[SANDRO43]

IMHO We are much better off with a capitalistic society than a socialistic society  

LEGAL, you're entitled to your opinion, but that is a rather lame simplistic statement - as can be expected with theoretical polar opposites - if made seriously .

Aside from any socio-philosophical considerations, a pragmatic evaluation would show that neither system has produced stellar performances in the recent past, examples being its two epitomes: the FSU, before and after its collapse, and more recently the USA and their 'creative finance' - do you remember the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, preceding the more recent 'derivatives' splurge?

Based on overall performance alone, the 'capitalistic' USA has experienced a steady decline these past 20 years. Who's on the upswing? China and India. How would you categorise them? Capitalistic or socialistic?

However, performance is not the ultimate yardstick, IMO. I'd say that overall quality of citizens' life is. Who's more content with their current lot? I have no time now to look for statistics answering that question, so I'll leave it open for discussion.

[bobb]

Wow - Did the title of this thread get changed and it just hasn't been recognized yet?

First this thread starts out with a hogwash statement by Ronnie and since that statement all it has been, other than Lily's first comment, a series of attacks on the current administration, each other, etc. 

Wake up people - There are too many of these ridiculous threads circulating on RWD.  I suggest you start some personal blogs and duke it out there.

I don't give a r@t's a@@ what a person's political thoughts are nor what they think they believe is true when it comes to a political viewpoint. 

I thought there was supposed to not be any political discussions according to the terms of service.  Or, maybe I just understand it incorrectly or it is ignored.

[LEGAL]

IMHO I believe what we are seeing evolve is Back door socialism.

[Simoni]

I thought there was supposed to not be any political discussions according to the terms of service.  Or, maybe I just understand it incorrectly or it is ignored.

Exactly my warning way back at the beginning of this thread.

Admin...  Is there a way to ignore a thread, in the same way we can ignore a poster?

[LEGAL]

Exactly my warning way back at the beginning of this thread.

Admin...  Is there a way to ignore a thread, in the same way we can ignore a poster?

Just turn your computer off.

[Admin]

Wow - Did the title of this thread get changed and it just hasn't been recognized yet?

First this thread starts out with a hogwash statement by Ronnie and since that statement all it has been, other than Lily's first comment, a series of attacks on the current administration, each other, etc. 

Wake up people - There are too many of these ridiculous threads circulating on RWD.  I suggest you start some personal blogs and duke it out there.

I don't give a r@t's a@@ what a person's political thoughts are nor what they think they believe is true when it comes to a political viewpoint. 

I thought there was supposed to not be any political discussions according to the terms of service.  Or, maybe I just understand it incorrectly or it is ignored.

I *think* the starting point was peripherally associated with our theme in that it addressed the issues of RW's perceptions of America (according to the Subject line). Then, the socialism versus capitalism contrast was introduced - which, arguably, is another semi-related topic. Admittedly, I did not read it all closely - and might easily have missed something, and maybe a LOT of something.

But you are correct that we placed a restriction against non-thematic political and religious debates at RWD. Reason being - they inevitably devolve into a quagmire and accomplish nothing except to offend SOMEONE - and there are other fora more suitable for those debates with moderators and members whose purpose is to foster and manage such debates.

Since nobody hit the 'Report to moderator' button - I did not know this was an issue nor that anyone felt it was inappropriate - I just cannot read all the posts at RWD anymore like I once did.

Anyway - with all that said - let's all see if we can move this back to being consistent with the theme of RWD in some way. OK?

- Dan

PS. As RWD political topics go - and based on reading only a little - this has been pretty well-mannered. I think there were some interesting historical perspectives raised and opinions expressed. I hope no-one became offended.

[Ronnie]

First this thread starts out with a hogwash statement by Ronnie and since that statement all it has been, other than Lily's first comment, a series of attacks on the current administration, each other, etc. 

Bobb,

Would you care to define hogwash?  The intelligent and fair thing to do would be to address the specific point you think you disagree with.

Dan is right, this has been a fairly civil dialogue about the horrendous attack that is killing America's freedom.  If you don't think this is so, then perhaps you will tell us how this country is going to pay for the blatantly destructive spending our Congress and the administration is engaging in. If you can tell me that, I'll stop worrying and stop trying to curb this looting of our children's future.

In ordinary times, these kinds of topics would be outside the scope of this forum.  However, these are not ordinary times.  Our freedoms are being stripped away and the longer we remain silent, the more difficult it will be to get our country back.

[SANDRO43]

In ordinary times, these kinds of topics would be outside the scope of this forum.  However, these are not ordinary times.  Our freedoms are being stripped away and the longer we remain silent, the more difficult it will be to get our country back.

Which shows that your real motivation for starting this thread was NOT hearing the ladies' opinion, but repeating your already oft-stated views on the current US Administration .

Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park would be a more appropriate venue than RWD for your soapbox.

[groovlstk]

In ordinary times, these kinds of topics would be outside the scope of this forum.  However, these are not ordinary times.  Our freedoms are being stripped away and the longer we remain silent, the more difficult it will be to get our country back.

To me this seems a silly justification for using RWD to promote your political agenda. You and Sculpto may be on opposite sides of the political spectrum but you may as well be blood brothers in your ability to annoy others and hijack this board for your own purposes.

[Simoni]

Agree with the last point, Groove.  It was a hijack.

And one that I refuse defend against, considering this is a Russian Woman Discussion board.  

[Ronnie]

Agree with the last point, Groove.  It was a hijack.

And one that I refuse defend against, considering this is a Russian Woman Discussion board.  

Whether the geniuses on this board realize it or not, it is the "political" differences between the USSR and the United States that made this board even a possibility. 

How many of your ladies would be with you now, were it not for President Reagan's unequivocable message that the socialist system that was dividing the world and imprisoning it's people had to end?  .  What was your level of interest in these ladies before 1989?  If there was any, you and your lady would still be looking at each other through the barbed wire of the iron curtain

With that said - and Dan will surely correct me if I'm wrong - I don't believe the issue is the topic itself, but the name-calling and emotional wrangling that certain topics elicit.  Heck, look at the outright hostility we see on some the so-called "pure RWD" topics.  Those who can't be civil in this topic are rude and belittling in other topics as well.

[Sculpto]

Whether the geniuses on this board realize it or not, it is the "political" differences between the USSR and the United States that made this board even a possibility. 

How many of your ladies would be with you now, were it not for President Reagan's unequivocable message that the socialist system that was dividing the world and imprisoning it's people had to end?  .  What was your level of interest in these ladies before 1989?  If there was any, you and your lady would still be looking at each other through the barbed wire of the iron curtain

With that said - and Dan will surely correct me if I'm wrong - I don't believe the issue is the topic itself, but the name-calling and emotional wrangling that certain topics elicit.  Heck, look at the outright hostility we see on some the so-called "pure RWD" topics.  Those who can't be civil in this topic are rude and belittling in other topics as well.

Ronnie you know I actually feel bad for you.  I mean the fantasy in which you view the world is so completely out of touch with reality to be on the verge of absurdly hilarious, if it weren't so sad.  I might have some ideas that seem strange to you and some others.. but at least I am don't believe in a fantasy that never existed.

The USSR doesn't exist anymore.  Its just silly to even bring it up in this context. 

The collapse of the USSR didn't have that much to do with your misguided hero.  Chernobyl, Afganistan, and the inflexible dinosaurs who were in control did a lot more to forge the collapse than ANYTHING Reagan did.  It would have fallen even without his moronic evil empire rhetoric.

[Lily]

Ronnie, thank you for bringing the point to the moderators' attention.

Guys and gals, please kindly stay on topic and be careful not to step in some politic debates. I have to sit for my IELTS exam today, therefore sorry I don't have much time right now to read all thread. I'll be back in the evening and look into it in more details. Meanwhile you are very welcome to send me your comments on the postings in this thread, as far as they may concern a moderator.

[Ronnie]

Lily,
Good luck with the exam.
I had hoped to hear from more ladies on this subject, perhaps they are reading but not commenting and that's fine.  There is a lot happening in the world today and it's hard to keep up with.

[Blues Fairy]

Perhaps it would be interesting to explore if/how the members of this board differ from their spouses/fiance(e)s in their political outlook and whether this affects their relationships in any way.  As for me, I would be extremely uncomfortable in a relationship with a person whose political views were the opposite of mine, for many reasons. 

[Sculpto]

Perhaps it would be interesting to explore if/how the members of this board differ from their spouses/fiance(e)s in their political outlook and whether this affects their relationships in any way.  As for me, I would be extremely uncomfortable in a relationship with a person whose political views were the opposite of mine, for many reasons. 

that is a much more interesting topic BF and not likely to cause a dispute.  Could you elaborate as to why political harmony is important to you?

[Blues Fairy]

that is a much more interesting topic BF and not likely to cause a dispute.  Could you elaborate as to why political harmony is important to you?

Let's just say the way a person thinks about politics is indicative of the way that person thinks, in general.  
Same with religion.

[Ronnie]

Let's just say the way a person thinks about politics is indicative of the way that person thinks, in general. 
Same with religion.

Which would be more problematic in your opinion - differing on politics or differing on faith?

It has become almost axiomatic that conservatives tend to have a strong faith in God, while, liberals tend toward atheism.  There are exceptions, such as yourself.  It would seem that such people might encounter difficulties finding a complete match.  Do you and your husband match on both counts?  How difficult was it for you to find each other?