It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
President Obama’s drive for dramatic reforms in American politics and policy is a near copycat of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 push for a Second Bill of Rights, according to one legal scholar, Cass Sunstein.
FDR announced a Second Bill of Rights in his 1944 State of the Union speech, claiming “we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence,” Mr. Sunstein said, in a Bloomberg report.
link
“Obama’s second inaugural did not refer explicitly to the Second Bill of Rights,” he said, in the Bloomberg report, “but it had an unmistakably Rooseveltian flavor. Just after a serious economic crisis, Obama emphasized ‘that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.’ Recalling Roosevelt’s central theme, Obama said that ‘every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity.’
link
In April 2005, Sunstein opened a conference at Yale Law School sponsored by George Soros’ Open Society Institute entitled, “The Constitution in 2020.” The event was designed as a forum to craft the agenda and assign the tasks for changing the nature and interpretation of the Constitution into a fully “progressive” Marxist Manifesto by the year 2020.
I'm losing track of the comparisons to what President he and his people most want to say he's like? Is it Lincoln, Roosevelt or Reagan? They'd have us believe, it seems sometimes, they are all interchangeable.
If your not paying for anything really think that is going to be worth anything?
Nope just shifts the burden on to the rest of us.
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
Originally posted by bjax9er
Sounds like the soviet constitution.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by neo96
If your not paying for anything really think that is going to be worth anything?
Nope just shifts the burden on to the rest of us.
The second Bill of rights, the dream shared by FDR and Obama’s gang, will do nothing but drag down the producers. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money and what then are we left with? Socialism will drag everyone down to the same level rather than lifting everyone up to the same level.
Could not this Thomas Sowell quote also apply to the politicians themselves?
I propose here that politics is no longer a public service, or even a vocation; rather, it has become a caste of its own within our society.
Whichever of the "two" parties you think you side with, in the end you are only guaranteed that you are siding with the politicians.
Didn't win the lottery today...
Had grinds in my coffee..
Burnt out headlight.
Stepped in poo in the yard.
Damn it Obama, why do you do all these things to me?
Obama isn't a socialist. If he was, then the healthcare package would have included a public option, which mind you was popular among voters at the time.
What Obama can be described as is a globalist scum bag. Just like all of his friends and colleagues in most seats of high power in the US. Romney was no different, he was just on overdrive.
Did I come across like that? I thought I laid out the topic of the OP fairly well.
I didn’t think mods engaged in political trolling.
So because of the exclusion of the “public option” this entire OP is somehow discredited and Obama and his buddy Cass Sunstein have no socialist agenda now?
I think their actions and words speak louder than your opinions.
Well, I have to agree with that. That doesn’t change the socialist FDR agenda he’s pushing though.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Didn't win the lottery today...
Had grinds in my coffee..
Burnt out headlight.
Stepped in poo in the yard.
Damn it Obama, why do you do all these things to me?
Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by seabag
The progressive mindset is a sickness. The symptoms include fear,apathy,intolerance,hate,arrogance. When will the middle of the road liberals wake up and see they are being fooled on a grand scale.
Just like Bush fooled all of the conservatives the liberals need to WAKE UP. Do you see Romney in power? It is because many conservatives including myself see the simple truth now. Both sides of the aisle are ruled by one master.
One last thing to the liberals who are still following their progressive masters. I hope your chains fall lightly on your shoulders.