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

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


If you aren't for Govt run Military, then you must be for Privatized Military.

RETIREMENT is not SOCIALIST. Maybe say it out loud.
Aren't you the self proclaimed Term Nazi, in regards to the use of Socialism?

Maybe go back, re-read your own posts and come back??? Maybe??

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
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.

because the republicans in congress wouldn't fund it.

reply to post by anon72


Obama is a socialist? I'm shocked!

-------
Now that you mentioned it, only a socialist would write - u n e n d i n g - regulations

that suffocate small business. Hmmm....you just might be right.

BTW, how many times has George Soros been to the White House?

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.

Corporist/warmonger...they're all the same
(except RON PAUL)

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

If you aren't for Govt run Military, then you must be for Privatized Military.

RETIREMENT is not SOCIALIST. Maybe say it out loud.
Aren't you the self proclaimed Term Nazi, in regards to the use of Socialism?

Maybe go back, re-read your own posts and come back??? Maybe??

I heard a rumor that Radical Marxists have taken over the unions.

Isn't Obama in bed with the unions?

Originally posted by burntheships
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...

And the founder of the party says otherwise.

Tell me...how did he run as a Democrat if he was a member of another party???


But let's say he was...so what?

Why do you think Socialism is a dirty word when we are already a partial socialist society???

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.

What part of the above statement do you not understand? or is it just you ignore?
Me thinks it is the second.

"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."

Gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. Also the whole signing the contract kind of puts the GIGANTIC PURPLE ELEPHANT in the corner.

Oh wait, I see what you are doing. Willfully omitting part of the statement to push along your other posts.
See, ignore.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

If you aren't for Govt run Military, then you must be for Privatized Military.

RETIREMENT is not SOCIALIST. Maybe say it out loud.
Aren't you the self proclaimed Term Nazi, in regards to the use of Socialism?

Maybe go back, re-read your own posts and come back??? Maybe??

You have a reading comprehension problem.

I clearly stated TWICE that I am 100% in support of socialistic Government run Military.

All Military benefits are socialist programs because they are not self funded...they are funded by the tax dollars of the entire society.

I'll say it a third time.

I fully support a socialist run government military who recieve entitlements funded through a socialist program.


Why don't you support them???

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
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.

because the republicans in congress wouldn't fund it.

I think it is a bit more complicated than that.
www.chron.com...

reply to post by macman


If you understood what "The New Party" was and what they were trying to accomplish...you would realize claiming that a politician was a "member" would be stupid.

Obama ran as a Democrat in the 1997 election for Illinois State Senator...tell me how he did that if he was an active member of another party at the exact same time???


Do you understand the difference between what a "member" is and what an "endorsement" is???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


en.wikipedia.org...

It states it involves social ownership of the economy.
Does not have anything there stating anything about Govt Military.
Has to do with the Market and Ownership of private items.

So, again.......................................................Military Retirement has nothing to do with Socialism.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

But let's say he was...so what?

He has lost credibility. He knows it, and everyone knows it.
Even Judges are not going to trust him on his word.

Thats why his signing statement of the NDAA is also rejected.

www.salon.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman

 

If you understood what "The New Party" was and what they were trying to accomplish...you would realize claiming that a politician was a "member" would be stupid.

Obama ran as a Democrat in the 1997 election for Illinois State Senator...tell me how he did that if he was an active member of another party at the exact same time???


Do you understand the difference between what a "member" is and what an "endorsement" is???

Ah, nice deflection again.
SO, go from stating he was not a member, to telling people that they must not understand what "The New Party" stood for.

The minutes from the meeting state not only endorsement, but membership.
Willful ignorance is just sad.
Maybe just go back to soap boxing people on what is and is not Socialist.

I mentioned this in some posts a ways back.I know he is a socialist but is he now going for globalist to make us more like the EU?

reply to post by macman


You forgot to use the part where it defines "social ownership"

"Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism

If the Military is socially funded...it is a socialist program.

If you don't want a socialist funded Military...I guess you are the one supporting a privatized capatilistic Military.


Socialism isn't a dirty word...you should get over your fear of it.

OK, everybody...

Some of you obviously disagree with each other. Yeah, I'm quick...

However, commentary about each other is not on. Talk about each others ideas? Sure. About each other? Not so much.

Knock it off.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Military is a Govt entity. Has nothing to do with the ownership of anything.

Nice try though.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
the only logical conclusion is that he is somewhere in the Center...which is where we should want
our leaders to be.

The truth is that he wants us to fall for the lie that he is in the center!

Like he wants us to forget that he lied in 2008 about his membership of
the Socialist New Party.

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

I really don't think you know what socialism means...honestly.

But I must ask...why do you ignore the fact that the founder of the New Party says they were never a socialist party??? Why do you ignore that the New Party's ideals were far left, but not socialism???


Let me ask you...do you beleive anything that is left is socialism???


The reason people are falling for his "lies" is because they aren't "lies"...they just aren't falling for the extreme right wing "lies" about Obama.

It's so hard to pick which lie to believe anyway.

Is he a socialist or Is he just like Bush and a wall street loving corporatist???

Is he an extreme black theologian Christain...or is he a extreme Muslim terrorist???

Is he a secret undercover Muslim pushing Sharia law....or is he an undercover CIA agent???


The problem is...every right wing accusation about Obama has another right wing accusation that completely contradicts the original.


You guys need to huddle up, get your attacks straight, and figure out which false scary picture you want to paint Obama as...because you guys are not very consistant. As long as it is anti-Obama...you find right wingers buying into it and trying to promote it...doesn't matter if it contradicts all the previous anti-Obama messages.

You Nailed it!

Obama's policies have absolutely nothing to do with the accusations at all. If the political right would actually look at his policies and compare them to what they actually vote for, they would smile!
Sadly, this is not the case. The daily attacks are all over the map and seemingly coincide the day's Breibart article or the latest WND trash. None of which take a serious look as to what the president is trying to do. No matter what he does he will always be a Muslim plant, a Manchurian candidate or somehow want everyone dependant on Governent
You can't make this stuff up

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Military is a Govt entity. Has nothing to do with the ownership of anything.

Nice try though.

The Military is funded with public funds...not private funds.

It's interesting to see how far you will go to avoid using the word "socialist" to describe your beloved Military.


It's really not a bad thing...it's one area where Socialism works very very well.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman

 

If you understood what "The New Party" was and what they were trying to accomplish...you would realize claiming that a politician was a "member" would be stupid.

Obama ran as a Democrat in the 1997 election for Illinois State Senator...tell me how he did that if he was an active member of another party at the exact same time???


Do you understand the difference between what a "member" is and what an "endorsement" is???

Ah, nice deflection again.
SO, go from stating he was not a member, to telling people that they must not understand what "The New Party" stood for.

The minutes from the meeting state not only endorsement, but membership.
Willful ignorance is just sad.
Maybe just go back to soap boxing people on what is and is not Socialist.

Obama can't run on his terrible record so they are using Plan B.

Deflect - Divert - Divide

------
It's not working in Wisconsin.

The unions took a hard hit on the chin on June 5, 2012.

We have the socialists on the run.

--------
We also have President Bill Clinton working for us as a double agent.

Obama is hiding under his desk. Socialism doesn't work.