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

socialism is only a bad thing for guys like romney

I'm not like romney

socialism doesn't scare me

the thought of giving up the possibility I can be like a rockstar and live in a 9,000,000,000 home in exchange for not having to decide between retirement and a college education for my kids and healthcare for life doesn't sound like a bad deal

how is fractional reserve lending working for everyone in this thread ?

Originally posted by xuenchen
Some New Developments

Important Topic Updates

Buzzfeed's Ben Smith now concedes that Barack Obama sought the socialist New Party's endorsement in 1996--but continues to give Obama, and the New Party, the benefit of the doubt on whether Obama was in fact a member. While admitting the Obama campaign misled the press and the public about the New Party, Smith continues to let the campaign get away without comment--when, in fact, David Axelrod responded yesterday.

Granted, Axelrod's response was to claim that he had "no idea" about the New Party--but that is almost certainly a lie, given that he controls Obama's image tightly, and given that the campaign targeted the New Party allegation as a "smear" in 2008. It is widely known that Axelrod micromanages his candidates' speeches and biographies, and there is almost no chance he has "no idea" about Obama's New Party ties.

Ben Smith Concedes Obama's New Party Involvement; Will He Pursue or Play Down?

Important Topic Updates

In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership.

This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.

First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn't have members.

'New Party' Literature Suggests Obama Paid Dues to Join

The links in the articles have supporting documents

Convinced yet ?

No I'm not. But I am convinced from what I've seen over the past 3 years that Obama is about as left of center (and about as charismatic) as Gerald Ford

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Your description of Spains economy is a spot on definition of state capitalism...Which is exactly what happens when the Socialist take over a formerly fee market Capitalist society.

Actually, the issue came when socialists took over, but did the exact opposite of what they stood for. The went to rampant privatization, reduced government, etc..and the economy spun into destruction for decades.

Spain is ruled by corporatists and corrupt politicians..but then again, what nation isn't at this point (outside of northern Europe anyhow)

reply to post by SaturnFX


Uh huh..... Sure... They inherited it too right?

What you describe is austerity and any country that has leaned socialist for too long must must take these measures because eventually the day comes that there isnt enough money to redistribute to pay for what was promised.

Sure the transition back to the way things should be is painful (and painfully obvious) but they will be better off in long run.

reply to post by 11235813213455


As I said before, Spain has basically been under Austerity since 1996 which is when their last Socialist Prime Minister left office.

Originally posted by buster2010

Care to show me where the capitalist system is concerned with my best interest?

Capitalism isn't concerned with anyone's self interest. Neither is socialism. They're just economic systems, not living beings. But one is definitely more free than the other.

What did I get out of the bailout of wall street and the banks? Nothing

That isn't capitalism. That's actually closer to socialism.

What did I get out of the two wars the last capitalist president started? Nothing

Capitalism has nothing to do with wars. Neither does socialism. Wars are waged by governments against other governments.

What did I get out of the tax cuts that were given to the wealthy by the last capitalist president but excluded the poor and middle class? Nothing

Oh, look! Another not capitalism! That would be corporatism, or crony capitalism...which is corporatism.

I really don't see how capitalism has done me or anyone I know any good at all. A person would have to be blind to not see how unregulated capitalism has been a total failure in this country. The Mao comment was funny though maybe now it's time that you learn there are different types of socialism. You know like the ones that work.

Speaking of Mao, did you notice that most of the former socialist/communist countries, like China, are embracing capitalism, thus bestowing more freedom on their citizens? What the U.S. had or has isn't capitalism, it's a mixed system of capitalist/socialist policies. And it's the socialist policies that cause the problems.

/TOA

reply to post by mrsoul2009

No I'm not. But I am convinced from what I've seen over the past 3 years that Obama is about as left of center (and about as charismatic) as Gerald Ford

More new info:

Democratic Socialists of America Endorsed 'European' Social Democrat Obama in 2000

Further evidence that Obama fit right in with this brand of Euro-socialism can be found in another endorsement he received back in 2000. The Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Obama when he ran against Bobby Rush. Actually, the DSA endorsed Obama and Rush, but the basis of the Obama endorsement is interesting:

Barak [sic] Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy. To volunteer, call... [emphasis added]

The 1996 meeting on Economic Insecurity is something we've known about for a while. Last month Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski uncovered an ad from the local Hyde Park paper advertising the talk.

See the endorsment !!

Do you think "they" would have endorsed Gerald Ford ?

Convinced NOW ?

But notice that the Democratic Socialists of America suggested Obama's talk was right in line with "European social democracy." Again, that's exactly where Noam Chomsky placed the New Party in his contemporaneous description. So if Obama talks like a social democrat and joined a social democratic party, it's probably safe to conclude he was a social democrat at this time.

Now if you're paying very close attention, you may notice that the New Party (and Obama) are described as social democrats, while the DGA bills itself as democratic socialists. What's the difference? A few weeks ago, I came across a video by a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. His name is Joseph Schwartz, and he's a professor of political science at Temple University. He's also one of the people who was part of the 1996 "Economic Insecurity" event with Barack Obama mentioned above. Here's what Professor Schwartz had to say about social democracy and democratic socialism in a recent lecture:

Professor Schwartz puts on an entertaining and interesting presentation. You can view the entire unedited clip here. I think the takeaway with regard to the President is that social democrats, like the New Party, are not anti-capitalist per se, but they do believe in government driving the engine of capitalism. This is arguably consistent with much of what Obama has done and said as President in the last three years, from government control of private health insurance to aggressive new EPA regulations to the failed attempt at "Cap and Trade."

Obviously, there is a continuum of political views which makes it difficult to define where one view begins and another ends. That said, the evidence suggests that at one point not so very long ago Obama identified himself with (and was identified by other socialists as being in line with) Euro-style social democracy.

reply to post by Kali74


And I'm sure that their completely failed attempt at a centrally planned green on the outside and red on the inside economy has has nothing to do with their austerity measures either? I wonder who's brilliant idea that was? Dare I say......the socialists.

Isnt Obama trying the green/red economy here too?

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by mrsoul2009

 

No I'm not. But I am convinced from what I've seen over the past 3 years that Obama is about as left of center (and about as charismatic) as Gerald Ford

More new info:

Democratic Socialists of America Endorsed 'European' Social Democrat Obama in 2000

Further evidence that Obama fit right in with this brand of Euro-socialism can be found in another endorsement he received back in 2000. The Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Obama when he ran against Bobby Rush. Actually, the DSA endorsed Obama and Rush, but the basis of the Obama endorsement is interesting:

Barak [sic] Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy. To volunteer, call... [emphasis added]

The 1996 meeting on Economic Insecurity is something we've known about for a while. Last month Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski uncovered an ad from the local Hyde Park paper advertising the talk.

See the endorsment !!

Do you think "they" would have endorsed Gerald Ford ?

Convinced NOW ?

But notice that the Democratic Socialists of America suggested Obama's talk was right in line with "European social democracy." Again, that's exactly where Noam Chomsky placed the New Party in his contemporaneous description. So if Obama talks like a social democrat and joined a social democratic party, it's probably safe to conclude he was a social democrat at this time.

Now if you're paying very close attention, you may notice that the New Party (and Obama) are described as social democrats, while the DGA bills itself as democratic socialists. What's the difference? A few weeks ago, I came across a video by a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. His name is Joseph Schwartz, and he's a professor of political science at Temple University. He's also one of the people who was part of the 1996 "Economic Insecurity" event with Barack Obama mentioned above. Here's what Professor Schwartz had to say about social democracy and democratic socialism in a recent lecture:

Professor Schwartz puts on an entertaining and interesting presentation. You can view the entire unedited clip here. I think the takeaway with regard to the President is that social democrats, like the New Party, are not anti-capitalist per se, but they do believe in government driving the engine of capitalism. This is arguably consistent with much of what Obama has done and said as President in the last three years, from government control of private health insurance to aggressive new EPA regulations to the failed attempt at "Cap and Trade."

Obviously, there is a continuum of political views which makes it difficult to define where one view begins and another ends. That said, the evidence suggests that at one point not so very long ago Obama identified himself with (and was identified by other socialists as being in line with) Euro-style social democracy.

Well I'm not sure about that but I do know if Gerald Ford was in power today he would probably be considered a socialist by the GOP and the tea party. Regan would be considered left-wing as well since he actually raised the debt ceiling and increased taxes numerous times over his 2 terms.

So what's your point? Obama is a socialist? That he's going to implement a socialist agenda? Nothing he's done in his first term even resembles a left wing agenda. You do realize the left hates him for not being progressive enough right? Your premise is laughable.

reply to post by 11235813213455


I think if you want to use any European country as an example you would be wise to study up on them. There is a massive misconception in America on just how socialist Europe has been over the last 10-15 years. Look at who was in power how things were before and now.

reply to post by Kali74


Ok so I get in now. You believe that the socialism will work perfectly as long as the capitalists hold up their end of the bargain and make all the money needed so the socialist can redistribute it to buy votes.

reply to post by 11235813213455


If you want to be lazy and assume that's what Socialism is then there's really not much hope for you. I agree that it's so much easier and simpler to go through life believing in soundbites.

reply to post by Kali74


Is Obama a Socialist?

reply to post by anon72


yep..

y'all got duped again .. ~!

2 verse.. same as the 1st.. little bit louder and

and damm

site

worse~!

STOP VOTING~! PERIOD~! It's your RIGHT NOT to vote~!

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by Kali74

 

Is Obama a Socialist?

guess you didn't

read

the OP

reply to post by 11235813213455


No he's a Fascist.

reply to post by Kali74


I can do you one better and say that he's a Marxist. But saying that will only define him a little better. I see him as one who wants to avoid any definition whatsoever. After all, as soon as the monster has a name its easier to defeat right?

Any of the modern totalitarian ideologies have roots Marx. Theyre really all sister ideologies that move a society in the same direction (centralized government power). Sure their proponents like to haggle why and for their version but the reality of it all is that there is very little daylight and they have been designed that way. Ones type of totalitarian control may be utopia to them while opressive to others because it doesnt meet their view of what totalitarian control should be. Both want totalitarian control none the less.

So I have no problem with anyone calling him a Fascist, Socialist, Communist etc because if you take an honest look at them all and admit where they move a society they really are pretty much the same. So....The argument can be successfully made that he can be any of them. So ya, he's a Fascist too.

I think that he is a power hungry person and saw an advantage in the counter culture anti status quo socialist party at the time and decided to take the path of least resistance toward gaining that power.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by Kali74

 

Is Obama a Socialist?

Hardly. He leans much more to fascism than socialism. Socialists at least pretend to care about the well-being of the citizenry.

/TOA

The New Party......if only...too bad more voters back then hadn't been concerned with these parts of their platform

-more public control/regulation of banking and financial systems, along with more community controlled "alternative financial institutions"

-less spending on the military and an end to unilateral military interventions

-more, not less, progressive tax system

-an end to trade policies that benefit only multinational corporations and their shareholders

-full employment, vacations, health care, lifelong education/training

-public financing of elections, voter registration

Well, banksters and global corporations saw fit to distract voters with cultural issues, distortions, and lies, in order to promote their agenda. Nice try, it worked...for them.

source and excellent info for The New Party written at the time