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

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

All I hear is Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. Your only defense is to hold people to the exact wording when quotes were not used. Good one..

Let me refresh your memory.

Go back and watch his campaign speeches where he spouts off over and over about not passing any bills till the American public has a chance to read it and he was not going to pass anything with earmarks in it.

You said it...sorry you spoke before knowing what you were talking about...but you need to own what you said.


You are now trying to back peddle because you know what you said was false...but you can't be man enough to just admit that you were wrong...you are now on the attack and are drowning in your own arrogance.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by burntheships

 

It would have been a lie to say he was a member...because he wasn't.

Obama was a member of the New Party.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:


Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
www.nationalreview.com...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1 a: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program

Entitlement isn't a dirty word.

It's just that in your mind you have stereotyped what "entitlement" means...to you it is a lazy person who recieves help from the government.

Socialism isn't a dirty word either.


You guys seriously need to get over your irrational and illogical fear of words.

edit on 7-6-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Socialism is a wonderful word. It just has no place in the lexicon of American politics.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by anon72


Well OP, people change. Obama was far left. He changed to suit his political objective. Then he was more centrist. He changed. Alas, now he's just a corporatist.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

So you are for privatized Military then?

You are a ATS contradiction.

0bama fan boy to say the least.

But again, all nations have a Govt Military. The military is not designed to be capitalistic.
The Retirement offered for Military is next to the retirement of any Govt worker. Has nothing to do with Socialism.
You just like trying to pitch that barrel full of crap because you don't like the military and think that people will buy into it because you use buzz words like "entitlement" or "benefit".

Epic failure goes to "Outkast Searcher" again.

Where did I say I'm for a privatized Military???

I SUPPORT the socialist benefits the Military recieves...it's YOU that can't admit it is a socialist program...and in your illogical mind...that must mean I support a privatized military.

Say it with me...SOCIALISM is not a dirty word.

The Military is a socialist program...the benefits they recieve are in fact entitltements by definition and are funded through a socialist program.


It's hilarious that you think I'm against the Military being a socialist program and that I'm against their socialist entitlements...I 100% support this because it is the only way it can work.

It is YOU who is so against "socialism" and "entitlements" that you can't even admit that is what the Military and it's benefits are. You are being willfully ignorant so you can lie to yourself and claim you don't support "socialism" or "entitlements".

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

All I hear is Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. Your only defense is to hold people to the exact wording when quotes were not used. Good one..

Let me refresh your memory.

Go back and watch his campaign speeches where he spouts off over and over about not passing any bills till the American public has a chance to read it and he was not going to pass anything with earmarks in it.

You said it...sorry you spoke before knowing what you were talking about...but you need to own what you said.


You are now trying to back peddle because you know what you said was false...but you can't be man enough to just admit that you were wrong...you are now on the attack and are drowning in your own arrogance.

No sir.. You read that again. First there are no QUOTES and I never said the word PROMISE as you keep saying I did. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop twisting things around. You know damn well he "IMPLIED" it all through his campaign. I even posted you two videos backing up what I said you you chose to ignore them. If you can see that then you sir are an idiot. I am very far from arrogant and I am breathing just fine. No drowning here.

reply to post by TheTardis

And your proof is where? Where is your source? Where is your video link of said founder saying this? Not saying there isnt one and I am not even saying this isnt the truth but you are the first one standing on your soap box screaming for a source from everyone else. And you really need to find one with the exact wording as you posted it or its a lie.

www.politico.com...

When this first emerged, I called up the founder of the New Party, a University of Wisconsin professor named Joel Rogers, who objected both to the characterization of the party and Obama's relationship to it.
...
As for "socialist"?

"'Socialist' means is you try to whatever extent to move the means of production under public ownership," Rogers said. "The New Party was never about that."
...
As for Obama's membership?

"We didn’t really have members," said Rogers. They also didn't have a ballot line in Chicago. So he said the line in the party newsletter appeared to refer to the fact that the party had endorsed him.

Look at that...I have sources to back up my claims

And yes...this story is as old as 2008...just recycled garbaged because Obama haters really have nothing else to attempt to attack him on.

reply to post by macman

Again with the tired old pitch that military benefits are some kind of Socialist Ideal.

Sorry, massive failure ahead for you.
Those RETIREMENT benefits are benefits from being in the military for 20 + years. Not for sitting on one's butt doing nothing.

I can vouch for that, my husband is a Vietnam vet, he/we have never benefited one iota from his service.

Don't have health care, nada, zilch, just pay taxes so others benefit, now they want us to die before even getting SS benefits,

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by burntheships

 

It would have been a lie to say he was a member...because he wasn't.

Obama was a member of the New Party.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:


Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
www.nationalreview.com...

Obama recieved an endorsement from The New Party.

That doesn't make him a member.

Logic 101.

Originally posted by travisirius
reply to post by anon72

 

Wow, none of the sources you quote don't have an agenda against Obama, huh?

You don't honestly expect sources promoting Obama's agenda or in lock step with the "progressives" to report anything negative or damaging to him do you? Do you only accept information if it is pro Obama?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by anon72

 

Well OP, people change. Obama was far left. He changed to suit his political objective. Then he was more centrist. He changed. Alas, now he's just a corporatist.

I doubt he has changed at all, just playing everyone for suckers.

reply to post by beezzer

Socialism is a wonderful word. It just has no place in the lexicon of American politics.

The fact that you think America is Socialism free is hilarious.

Social Security
Unemployment
Welfare
Military
Police
Fire Departments
Highway System
Rail System
Amtrak
The Internet
The University System
The Education System
...

I could go on and on.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

Why are we under Obama left to beg Russia to do our space launches? Something has been flipped on its head ever since he got in office.

Absolutely, you said a mouthful.

This thread is a truly delightful pissing up a rope contest.

I can foresee a new prime time reality tv series in the making for a fall premier.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1 a: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program

Entitlement isn't a dirty word.

It's just that in your mind you have stereotyped what "entitlement" means...to you it is a lazy person who recieves help from the government.

Socialism isn't a dirty word either.


You guys seriously need to get over your irrational and illogical fear of words.

edit on 7-6-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

you're right...and if you want to look at it this way...ALL tax money is for some type of socialist program...what do i mean?....monies gathered from all people, then used to benefit the lives of those people...face it, republicans want a dictator, or a king, they want people that can't work to die off, and the people that can work, do it at a minimum wage or lower if they can somehow mandate it.
look at how the republican supreme court has ruled that china, the arabs in the middle east, and russia can put billions of dollars into our federal elections all in secret with the "citizens united" law.....
republicans who vote and pass laws that help the oil-rich muslims, communist chinese, and the russian mob will be paid off with billions in election money...to the republicans, the highest bidder will own america

reply to post by TheTardis

You know damn well he "IMPLIED" it all through his campaign.

No no...YOU are claiming he implied it...I don't pretend to be a mind reader and know what Obama is secretly thinking.

I take what he SAYS to be what he plans on doing....I don't pretend to know what he is secretly implying....you are hilarious.


I'm sorry you talked out of your ass without knowing the facts...I understand you are angry now that it makes you look bad...but it would be better if you just admitted your mistake and stop trying to back peddle and deflect the fact that you are wrong.

Originally posted by Thunderheart
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

So is the information OP provided with Obama's picture and name in it NOT sufficient in your eyes to admit he at least, at one time, was socialist? Why attack the messenger and not the message? Why do you misdirect the thread?

Good question, bears repeating,

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Denial is not a river in Egypt.

A roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists
Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined. www.nationalreview.com...