Documents prove Obama was member of socialist New Party... (see for yourself)

reply to post by TheTardis

But what sickens me is that your sitting there basically telling a guy that BUSTED HIS ASS and earned a lot of money that instead of having nice things and leaving money to his kids and grand kids that he should go give it to some schmuck on the street that isn't working for it. Are you kidding me? Would you? You would work your butt off and earn money and go give it away? If you said yes you are lying. Your just mad that he has it and you want it.

Uh, you don't know anything about me. My father also busted his ass...and earned enough money to live comfortably. My now-widow mother is set. She grew up in a home that was unstable, my father did not.

He provided for us everything that we needed, from a modest bungalow in a working-class neighborhood, although he was a business owner and senior engineer himself. The system worked for him and my mother. Then it stopped working. Fortunately he saved his money, rather than living in a mansion with all the accoutrements of visible wealth.

What sickens ME is that you twisted what I said about HUNGRY CHILDREN. Those HUNGRY CHILDREN are to blame? I did finish college, and achieved a Master's Degree, thanks very much....and became a Clinical Social Worker, which my mother did also. Did I make big bucks? NO. Did I work hard? YES.

Do you have any right to tell me who I am, or that I'm lying? That I'm"just mad that he has it and I want it"?? No, you do not. Couldn't be further from the truth. If I had it (which I don't -- but I do have a modest well-built home, a hard-working spouse who ALSO saves money for retirement purposes, who put himself through college via the National Guard, clothes to wear, food to eat, and two very healthy kids who in their early 20s are out on their own, successfully)...I would absolutely be distributing it to those in need, since I don't really need much to be comfortable, fed, clothed, and entertained.

I am talking about children who are hungry, homeless, and ignored. I'm talking about the millions of people who WANT to work, but are either too old to get hired (because they are unable to work the 80-hour weeks required of the Neocon Yuppies), or have been displaced by foreigners. Who have depleted their savings due to the "capitalist" greed (raises hand -- my husband was out of work for nine months -- he is a senior software analyst and very capable) that has gambled with other people's money, lost it, and got bailed out.

I want no part of it, and hell yes, if I could, I would expat myself to a socialist economy TODAY. You don't understand what it means, obviously. Your rabid hoarding blinds you to the plight of the majority of the world. But you aren't suffering, are you? So, to hell with them.


I don't usually agree with Outkast's opinions, but I have starred nearly every ONE of his posts here. Capitalism is a cancer.

Ever heard the phrase "pay it forward"?
Yeah, didn't think so.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by mutatismutandis

 

Well, it's the system we current live in. Can't do much about change fromt the outside.

Pick one of the other or sit out. Not the way I want it to be... just the way it is.

Sure we can change things..
#1. The people need to refuse to elect another single official until lobbying is outlawed.
#2. If they refuse to clean up their act then fire them all, because if they do not have our own interests in mind we have no use for them.

#3. We have the technology that allows us to communicate an handle issues ourselves way more effectively than congress ever has. All we need is a secure network that each voting citizen has a confidential log on. (ss#?)
Hire the top accountants to crunch the numbers and allow every citizen to vote on the issues at hand.

This way there would be no excuses, and never again would we see 6 to 9 months of deliberation to end up making no decision on what ever B.S. issue congress has decided to blow up in the media that month.

Congress has become inefficient and outdated...and they know it. That's precisly why they carry on the sharade of "we gonna get things done this four year!" and then do absolutly nothing about the real issues. The truth Is, helping the average citizen will never happen with either party because it will always be the bankbook holders calling the shots.

As long as the struggling citizen remains big business nothing will change if we rely on them to make the changes...

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by TheTardis

 

But what sickens me is that your sitting there basically telling a guy that BUSTED HIS ASS and earned a lot of money that instead of having nice things and leaving money to his kids and grand kids that he should go give it to some schmuck on the street that isn't working for it. Are you kidding me? Would you? You would work your butt off and earn money and go give it away? If you said yes you are lying. Your just mad that he has it and you want it.

Uh, you don't know anything about me. My father also busted his ass...and earned enough money to live comfortably. My now-widow mother is set. She grew up in a home that was unstable, my father did not.

He provided for us everything that we needed, from a modest bungalow in a working-class neighborhood, although he was a business owner and senior engineer himself. The system worked for him and my mother. Then it stopped working. Fortunately he saved his money, rather than living in a mansion with all the accoutrements of visible wealth.

What sickens ME is that you twisted what I said about HUNGRY CHILDREN. Those HUNGRY CHILDREN are to blame? I did finish college, and achieved a Master's Degree, thanks very much....and became a Clinical Social Worker, which my mother did also. Did I make big bucks? NO. Did I work hard? YES.

Do you have any right to tell me who I am, or that I'm lying? That I'm"just mad that he has it and I want it"?? No, you do not. Couldn't be further from the truth. If I had it (which I don't -- but I do have a modest well-built home, a hard-working spouse who ALSO saves money for retirement purposes, who put himself through college via the National Guard, clothes to wear, food to eat, and two very healthy kids who in their early 20s are out on their own, successfully)...I would absolutely be distributing it to those in need, since I don't really need much to be comfortable, fed, clothed, and entertained.

I am talking about children who are hungry, homeless, and ignored. I'm talking about the millions of people who WANT to work, but are either too old to get hired (because they are unable to work the 80-hour weeks required of the Neocon Yuppies), or have been displaced by foreigners. Who have depleted their savings due to the "capitalist" greed (raises hand -- my husband was out of work for nine months -- he is a senior software analyst and very capable) that has gambled with other people's money, lost it, and got bailed out.

I want no part of it, and hell yes, if I could, I would expat myself to a socialist economy TODAY. You don't understand what it means, obviously. Your rabid hoarding blinds you to the plight of the majority of the world. But you aren't suffering, are you? So, to hell with them.

I don't usually agree with Outkast's opinions, but I have starred nearly every ONE of his posts here. Capitalism is a cancer.

Ever heard the phrase "pay it forward"?
Yeah, didn't think so.

I didnt read all of that. I am at work and you wrote a book. Bottom line is this. He has everything he wants right now and worked for it and he will pay it forward by leaving all of that to his family who will continue to reap the rewards he earned. You put him down for that and attacked him for making something of himself. And the fact that you starred all of OS's posts says a lot. If you dont like Capitalism them dont use it. I have seen places that redistribute wealth. No one works hard. Everyone leaves when the whistle blows and the quality of work suffers. People tend to work harder when they know it is rewarded. I was raised knowing that if you work hard you will be rewarded and if you dont you will suffer. So no I dont feel sorry for people that refuse to get off their ass and work. Its not my fault. I earned what I have and I am not rich. I live paycheck to paycheck. But its nice to know that in our society if I keep working hard I may get ahead. I welcome you to send me some of your wealth since you want to spread it. My kids would appreciate it. Oh and I would like to see where these 80 hour a week jobs are. We dont have any of those were I work nor anywhere I have ever worked. I think you might be the one with a warped sense of the working class.

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left.

Stopped reading there
I don't know what the "new party" is, and frankly, I won't bother researching much about them. Anyone that uses the term "radical" turns me off, as it is purely subjective.
the terms were implanted as so:
radical left
far left
forced to the left.

This is brainwashing to create a negative view of not only the left, but then to make it seem like some sort of terrorist mindset if you want to educate and clean up the environment, etc (add left based idealisms).

Its total trash, and no information that starts off painting this picture can be trusted to give an actual accounting without tons of misleading narratives.

Is Barack Obama a socialist?
Policy for the last 4 years shows the opposite..there is no public option in healthcare, there is no not only roleback but massive increase on taxes via executive order, etc.
What we have here is just another topping of bs on top of the giant pile of corporate bs that is about as original as a hula hoop. The "radical ties" crap was tried and laughed at in 2008, and will be even more laughed at in 2012 as it resurfaces. Just waiting for Jeremiah Wright to start coming back up.

As far as anyone whom seriously uses the term "Marxist". What a disgusting display. Calling Obama a Marxist is the same as calling Ron Paul an Anarchist. It is completely destroying, not just distorting, but destroying the word.

You should feel shame, if you have any principles. (many of you lack those however)

So what is your point
The guy paid his way into office, he made it so corporations can fund his presidency or any other future neo con, he has had over 2000 corporate visitors at the white house some even were allowed the priviledge of spending the night.
He lied about where he was born there is a fake birth certificate to prove this there are biographies from his past that state he was born in kenya.
WHO F IN CARES ALREADY there is dick all anyone can do about it! there is not much you can do about any kinda unjust we live in a controlled enviroment where all we are is comfortable slaves if you can proove this to be un true please ELABORATE ! So I say who god damn cares other than people that cant make a difference even if their simple little lives depended on it?? WHATS YOUR OPINION ??

Originally posted by TheTardis
If you dont like Capitalism them dont use it. I have seen places that redistribute wealth. No one works hard. Everyone leaves when the whistle blows and the quality of work suffers.

Where have you been? I have been around the world (except the far east) through my former company. I have seen many contrasts, and "places that redistribute wealth"..aka, holland, denmark, etc are some of the most free and happy, productive areas I have seen on earth.

So, where have you been? Why were you there? what cities were you in? what hotels did you stay in?
Because frankly, I don't believe you. I think your lying. Your allegory statements after the ones highlighting is a standard staplemark retoric response from corporatists that have educated the monkeys to demand suffering.

reply to post by wildtimes


Very moving yet your facts are wrong.

Socialism does not end hunger.

The Indian subcontinent has nearly half the world's hungry people.
Africa and the rest of Asia together have approximately 40%, and the remaining
hungry people are found in Latin America and other parts of the world.library.thinkquest.org...

Despite the fact that the communist movement promised to abolish hunger;
famines managed to occur several times under state socialism.

Russia experienced a famine from 1919 to 1920, as did the Soviet Union from 1931 to 1933
and again in 1947. Famines also occurred in the People’s Republic of China (1959-1961),
in Cambodia in 1979, and in North Korea in the nineties. The Chinese famine during the
Great Leap Forward is even considered as the most devastating in world history, as it took
15 to 45 million lives. hunger.univie.ac.at...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
and "places that redistribute wealth"..aka, holland, denmark, etc are some of the most free and happy, productive areas I have seen on earth.

Very selective and quite misleading.

What about the other socialist countries where there is a large population
of hungry people at the hands of the state sponsored socialist governments?

reply to post by SaturnFX


He seems to be a Neo Con no ?

And a pretty good liar too lol

reply to post by TheTardis

So no I dont feel sorry for people that refuse to get off their ass and work. Its not my fault. I earned what I have and I am not rich. I live paycheck to paycheck. But its nice to know that in our society if I keep working hard I may get ahead. I welcome you to send me some of your wealth since you want to spread it.

You didn't even read the post?

That figures.

I am not talking about giving money to "SOME SCHMUCK WHO DOESN'T WANT TO WORK". I am talking about HUNGRY CHILDREN and displaced American workers. Honest people and innocents. So get off your high horse. I'm not wealthy, not even close.

I was brought up to believe in working hard...education, dilligence, and honesty...and I have never, ever taken government welfare -- I worked for 40 years and counting. I was taught to MAKE DO with what I had; to fix what broke; to re-use, re-cycle, to sacrifice extravagance for common sense and future security....and to care about the welfare of other people less fortunate than I.

You're at work, eh? What are you doing taking advantage of your employer's internet access to spout your capitalist rhetoric? Who will pay for the productivity lost while you are not doing your job but instead attacking me? Hmmmm? I'm not at work at an employer's place of business. I continue to do what I do, with no compensation at all...which is to promote assistance for the needy, help for the troubled, and hope for the future.

I don't ask for help. But if I am asked for help, I do what I can to provide it. Your children are obviously not wanting. They don't need my help. They have you providing it for them, just like my father provided for us. Good for you, you aren't homeless, starving, or out of work due to the greed of corporations.

reply to post by burntheships


It does if it's handled correctly.
There are many kinds of socialism. You are talking about Communism. Different thing altogether.

Originally posted by wildtimes
You are talking about Communism. .

What, you did not even read the links?

Consider other socialist/communist nations: Cuba, China, former USSR,
North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, all of the -stans and most -ia's in
Eastern Europe such as Albania, former Yugoslavia, etc.
The socialist experiment failed in the 20th century.
Each of these countries live on the edge of starvation.
Their GDP per capita are among the lowest in the world.
Standards of living have declined every year as socialism grew.

The Indian subcontinent has nearly half the world's hungry people.
Africa and the rest of Asia together have approximately 40%, and the remaining
hungry people are found in Latin America and other parts of the world.library.thinkquest.org...

Clearly those hunger statistics are in Socialist countries.

reply to post by burntheships


Socialism in its pure form (which is impossible to achieve) DOES end hunger. Everyone is fed, looked after, and contributes to the welfare of everyone else, everyone works to the best of their ability, and are compensated for it to the degree that they contribute.

www.diffen.com...

Political differences between socialists and communists
Socialism rejects a class-based society. But socialists believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state.

They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

On the other hand, Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.

www.wisegeek.com...

Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, and communism generally refers to both an economic system and a political system. The means of production are publicly owned in both systems, but the ways that money and resources are distributed are different. In socialism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her input, or amount of work, and in communism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her needs. Many people consider communism to be a "higher" or more extreme form of socialism.

As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of resources is centralized to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Under communism, all people are considered equal and are provided for equally, regardless of their contributions to the economy or to society. This is different from socialism, but both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent many of the ill effects that are sometimes associated with capitalism, such as economic inequality.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by burntheships

 

Socialism in its pure form (which is impossible to achieve) DOES end hunger.

Wrong. Emotions are not facts.

The highest Global Hunger Index scores in 2011 occur in
South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa.

www.ifpri.org...

www.eastasiaforum.org...


PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN SOUTH EAST ASIA

The rural masses are everywhere oppressed by the same, or similar,
congeries of circumstances-growing population, fragmentation of
holdings, chronic indebtedness, usury, concentration of landownership,
low productivity.

Politically, the outstanding problem is the evolution
of appropriate institutions, with viable indigenous roots, which
will afford the peasants and other classes an opportunity to voice and
right their grievances-in societies whose entire previous experience
has consisted of either despotism, whether local or colonial, or grafted
representative democracy, the social impact of which has only been
skin-deep, since it has in fact disguised "top-down" rule.socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5976/2872

edit on 8-6-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

reply to post by burntheships

Wrong. Emotions are not facts.

Definitions were provided between the two.

There is no pure form of any of the "systems" anywhere...due to CORRUPTION of those in charge. Globally.
Done arguing with you. You are missing the points, purposefully.

I'm talking about concepts, that, in pure form, are perfectly legitimate.

You are holding up failed states that do not practice pure socialism.

Go back and read the orange and the underlined parts. Educate yourself.

reply to post by wildtimes


Every time the issue of capitalism versus socialism is brought up, those in favor of socialism always point out belief that, in theory, socialism is perfect.

The problem is when theory ends and reality begins, things fall apart. Humans are flawed, and we make flawed systems. For socialism to work humanity would need to be more like ants than individuals, or to have some greater collective goal that everyone would be working towards. Hell, we can't even agree on what is blue versus what is teal half the time, so that might as well be a pipe dream.

My socialist friends are good people whom I know I can count on, but I am very skeptical of their chosen theories on governance, just as they are skeptical of mine.

Originally posted by wildtimes

There is no pure form of any of the "systems" anywhere...due to CORRUPTION of those in charge. Globally.

If that is true why blame hunger on capitalism, when that is proven wrong?

I'm talking about concepts, that, in pure form, are perfectly legitimate.

Which you admit your concepts dont exist and in fact never will.

The fact is Socialism is no utopia, and it does not end hunger.

I have already posted facts from 2011 on Hunger in Asia and Africa.

India is also starving. In fact its very high on the Global Hunger Index.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheTardis
If you dont like Capitalism them dont use it. I have seen places that redistribute wealth. No one works hard. Everyone leaves when the whistle blows and the quality of work suffers.

Where have you been? I have been around the world (except the far east) through my former company. I have seen many contrasts, and "places that redistribute wealth"..aka, holland, denmark, etc are some of the most free and happy, productive areas I have seen on earth.

So, where have you been? Why were you there? what cities were you in? what hotels did you stay in?
Because frankly, I don't believe you. I think your lying. Your allegory statements after the ones highlighting is a standard staplemark retoric response from corporatists that have educated the monkeys to demand suffering.

I spent 6 weeks in Munich with my old company working side by side with people that were given 6 weeks vacation the minute they signed on. Nearly everyone in the office made the same money and they were all very laid back. Its not that they didnt get work done but they certainly didnt give that little extra that I see here. So call me a liar all you want but you sir do not know me. I at the time worked for Linde which has a engineering office here in Tulsa called Linde Process Plants, Look it up. I stayed in Grunwald just across the river from the Linde offices in the Alter Wirt hotel. The address there is 1 Marketplats PL. Look it up big man.

And FYI.. They thought I was nuts for wanting to stay a little late to finish a project or when I asked if they had a "on call" phone rotation I should put my name on. They dont work over and they dont come in early.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by TheTardis

 

So no I dont feel sorry for people that refuse to get off their ass and work. Its not my fault. I earned what I have and I am not rich. I live paycheck to paycheck. But its nice to know that in our society if I keep working hard I may get ahead. I welcome you to send me some of your wealth since you want to spread it.

You didn't even read the post?

That figures.

I am not talking about giving money to "SOME SCHMUCK WHO DOESN'T WANT TO WORK". I am talking about HUNGRY CHILDREN and displaced American workers. Honest people and innocents. So get off your high horse. I'm not wealthy, not even close.

I was brought up to believe in working hard...education, dilligence, and honesty...and I have never, ever taken government welfare -- I worked for 40 years and counting. I was taught to MAKE DO with what I had; to fix what broke; to re-use, re-cycle, to sacrifice extravagance for common sense and future security....and to care about the welfare of other people less fortunate than I.

You're at work, eh? What are you doing taking advantage of your employer's internet access to spout your capitalist rhetoric? Who will pay for the productivity lost while you are not doing your job but instead attacking me? Hmmmm? I'm not at work at an employer's place of business. I continue to do what I do, with no compensation at all...which is to promote assistance for the needy, help for the troubled, and hope for the future.

I don't ask for help. But if I am asked for help, I do what I can to provide it. Your children are obviously not wanting. They don't need my help. They have you providing it for them, just like my father provided for us. Good for you, you aren't homeless, starving, or out of work due to the greed of corporations.

I am doing my work. Its called Multitasking.. I am very good at my job. But I want to see these hungry kids.. Where are they? If your talking about the ones on tv at night where they want me to pay just 25 cents a day thats great.. You go ahead and send your money. Most if it wont make it to them. And I am not attacking you. I am pointing out that you have no right to attack someone for pulling themselves out of the gutter and making a life for themselves. My kids are not going hungry but they dont have the best of everything. They are going to learn that you have to work for things.. If that is so wrong then tough.. I dont want my kids to think if they sit around and wait then someone will come and give you things. Why is that so bad?

Originally posted by TheTardis
You seriously are going to put someone down for making something out of themselves. I know people that work hard too and dont have a lot but you know what. A lot of those people made poor choices in their lives or didnt take advantage of programs offered to them. If you are poor there is a good chance you can get grants and scholarships to college. Even if your not you can get student loans and go to college. I for one did not go to college. Or at least I didnt finish college and I dont have a degree but I own a car, I have a nice place to live and I made a descent living. I figured out what I was good at and I did it. The point is that at least in our system there are opportunities. In some systems there arent and when you stop rewarding hard work you stop getting hard workers. Its plain and simple. I know not everyone makes it in life and some people still struggle despite their best efforts, but I will bet you that 90% of the time. If someone works hard and is smart about it, they can make a good living. But they have to get off their ass and try. Bottom line. But what sickens me is that your sitting there basically telling a guy that BUSTED HIS ASS and earned a lot of money that instead of having nice things and leaving money to his kids and grand kids that he should go give it to some schmuck on the street that isn't working for it. Are you kidding me? Would you? You would work your butt off and earn money and go give it away? If you said yes you are lying. Your just mad that he has it and you want it.

edit on 8-6-2012 by TheTardis because: (no reason given)

1) Most (if not all) programs offered as "opportunities" are government based. These things would not exist in the free market nightmare had we stuck to outdated Austrian economics.

2) How are one's kids a better beneficiary of a man's fortune then the public at large? His kids didn't work hard, they, in fact, would have to work less in order to become equally as successful as their parent.

3) Like I said before, social mobility is a can very seldom be reached. I don't care about how many novels that you've read that say otherwise, it is simply an illusion that existing financial conditions can be improved dramatically.

4) If someone is to work hard, shouldn't they be working hard in something that they enjoy? Some say "laziness would run rampant in the socialist system because people's needs are provided for them in the get go" but this is hardly true. If one one being provided for already, they are going to be more inclined to do something that they enjoy. There are alot of people out there who want to be doctors or lawyers, but simply cannot do that because of the unfair playing field. Because the socialist system ensures that educational opportunities are fair, people are more open to occupations they enjoy. The motivation to do work would shift from money and meeting ones needs, to doing something they enjoy and acceptance by one's peers. Let me say again, if all of your needs were provided to you, you wouldn't simply sit on your ass and be depressed, you would do something that you enjoy, something that you are more open to