Do You Think Obama is....

[AcesFull]

Yes.

 

Obama's Red Roots

 

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:20 PM PT

 

Election '08: The word is that Barack Obama is a mainstream politician who sometimes attracts fringe leftists. The record tells a different story — that he has sought out radicals. What does that say of his agenda?

 

It's natural to be skeptical of excessive claims about Obama's radical associations. After all, there are so many. But one bears attention — because it helped him get his start in politics. In 1996, he won an Illinois state senate seat on a "fusion" ticket of the Democratic Party and leftist group called the "New Party."

 

The New Party, founded in 1992 with 7,000 members at its peak, had been an explicitly anti-capitalist party of ex-Communists, socialists and activists from ACORN, the hard-left group that's constantly in trouble over voter fraud. The New Party didn't ask for Obama's association; he asked for the New Party's endorsement.

 

Blogger Rick Moran of the American Thinker has found disturbing particulars. First, the New Party didn't give its support and campaign volunteers to just anyone. Obama actually had to audition for it. According to a September-October 1995 update on the New Party-aligned Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Web site:

[AcesFull]

Some notes from a 1995 meeting of the Chicago New Party...

 

Chicago New Party Update

 

by Bruce Bentley

 

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

 

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

[Augger]

Hugo Chavez is a socialist dictator

 

Bush is a misguided semi-conservative.

 

Clinton has definite socialistic leanings.

 

Roosevelt I don't know enough about to answer. How much of his New Deal was based on raising taxes on the wealthy to fund the programs?

 

No the US is not a socialist state but there are some in it's government (Maxine Waters, Obama, Keith Ellison, the socialist from Vermont whose name escapes me etal) that would like nothing better then to see it become one. Waters has said as much.

 

I have explained more then once why I believe Obama is a socialist. Look those explainations up.

 

How about you explain why he's not a socialist.

 

He wants to nationalize health care, he wants more government oversite of business, he wants more government funded entitlement programs, he wants to take more from those he considers wealthy to give to those he considers poor. If that's not socialistic then what is?

 

BTW my registration say Democrat but I'm not a socialist so I guess the answer to that question would be no.

 

Finally IF all liberals are in favor of nationalizing industries, increasing the tax burden on wealthy people to "benefit" poor and in favor of more government control on our lives THEN yes I would say that all liberals are socialists.

 

Great post :thumb:

[oldrambler]

:lol:

 

For some reason, he just doesn't strike me as Stalinesque. I couldn't have ever imagined Stalin ever standing in church on Father's Day and exempifying what it means to be a man of faith ,a responsible father to his kids, and extolling those virtues as ones that others in his community should adhere to.

:lol:

Neither could Obama, he was just making a "church" campaign speech and telling people what they wanted to hear.

[oldrambler]

Yes.

:thumb::thumb:

 

Some notes from a 1995 meeting of the Chicago New Party...

 

:thumb::thumb:

 

 

(if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it.......)

[ScarHeel]

 

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it.......

 

...could be a dragon doing a duck impersonation.

[Habib]

Yes.

 

http://www.newparty.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_%28USA%29

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12340

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN

 

I've never heard of either organization previous to this post, but these look like communistic organizations to me. Or is it socialistic? You do know there's a difference, right? It stands to reason that if he's one, we could at least rule out the other. Unless, of course, ones goal is to use scary words without regard to their meaning to devalue a person.

 

Unless someone wants to take a shot at my last post, I'm finished here.

 

Here is my question then: If the United States is a capitalist state (the most capitalist in the world, I might add) despite having massive agricultural subsidies, a public infrastructure system, military, a progressive tax system, social security, some forms of nationalized healthcare in medicare and medicaide, etc., then what is it that still makes us capitalist and what is it that Obama is reversing that will make us socialist? Is George Bush a socialist because of the exorbitant public spending seen under his watch, the steel cartel created under his watch, or his hallmark increases into the size of national industries (secondary education and Medicare)? Where is the line?

 

Is an increase in government spending socialist? I contend that it is a liberal enterprise, but not a socialist one.

 

The meaning of the word has been so far diluted that it's used to describe anyone that isn't Adam Smith (and some on here would still call him a socialist). Is that really being honest? We already have a word to describe those who advocate a larger government - liberal. Socialism rejects the markets as the mechanism that moves the economy in favor of central planning through the ownership of industries, private property, and the termination of free enterprise. That is a fundamental difference in ideology, not a blurred line between parties, especially American parties.

[halfback20]

http://www.newparty.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_%28USA%29

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12340

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN

 

I've never heard of either organization previous to this post, but these look like communistic organizations to me. Or is it socialistic? You do know there's a difference, right? It stands to reason that if he's one, we could at least rule out the other. Unless, of course, ones goal is to use scary words without regard to their meaning to devalue a person.

 

Unless someone wants to take a shot at my last post, I'm finished here.

 

:thumb::thumb: Good stuff.

[nWo]

:lol:

Neither could Obama, he was just making a "church" campaign speech and telling people what they wanted to hear.

I can state unequivocally there were some who didn't want to hear his "church" campaign speech. The reason being he was telling the truth.

[AcesFull]

http://www.newparty.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_%28USA%29

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12340

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN

 

I've never heard of either organization previous to this post, but these look like communistic organizations to me. Or is it socialistic? You do know there's a difference, right? It stands to reason that if he's one, we could at least rule out the other. Unless, of course, ones goal is to use scary words without regard to their meaning to devalue a person.

 

Unless someone wants to take a shot at my last post, I'm finished here.

Yes, I know the difference. National politicians and those aspiring to be national politicians cannot thrive in today's America by declaring themselves to be either communists or socialists. The New Party sought mostly Democrats with whom they shared common ground and worked to get them elected. The party felt some kinship with Obama and gave him their endorsement and provided him with some foot soldiers for his campaign.

 

Obama's past associations should scare people who believe that capitalism is the fairest way to distribute resources and that is what I believe. The less free a society's economy is, the more likely that misery among its people is widespread. Whether poverty and misery are shared equally is not important to me. Our goal should be to eliminate poverty and misery to the greatest extent possible and if many wealthy people are created in the process then so much the better. I find the class envy used by both communists and socialists very scary and I am not going to refrain from pointing out the methods that candidates like Obama use to gain and maintain public office.

[75center]

I agree. I have seen or heard nothing from Obama to indicate that he comes anywhere close to meeting the definition of a socialist.

 

 

"The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring pwer entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly." The Illuminatus/Trilogy

 

 

"Under socialism, all the means of production are the property of the community. It is the community alone that can dispose of them and which determines their use in production." Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth-- Ludwig von Mises

 

"Private property is eliminated, individualism goes by the board, individuality is flattened, all property is owned and controlled communally, and the individual units of the new collective organism, are in som vague way equal to one another." Murray N. Rothbard-- Classical Economics, vol.II, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought

 

"It may mean, and is often used to describe,merely the ideals of social justice,greater equality, and security, which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialistshope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense, socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepeneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body." The Road to Surfdom-- F.A. Hayek

 

I don't think there is anything in Sen. Obama's rhetoric, record, or rationale that suggests that he need be labeled "socialist." That's a label attached to him by some who just want to rile people up and continue the pattern of divisive politics that have left the country stagnating in a pool of partisian tomfoolery.

 

 

:thumb: I'm already getting tired of the labels and posts about slips of the tongue and whatever. Argue policies, experiences and vp candidates all day long and I'm there. There's enough to like and dislike about both candidates to compare, contrast and argue about anyway.

[the mathemagician]

:thumb: I'm already getting tired of the labels and posts about slips of the tongue and whatever. Argue policies, experiences and vp candidates all day long and I'm there. There's enough to like and dislike about both candidates to compare, contrast and argue about anyway.

 

 

 

Gosh, you're good, '75. I couldn't agree more. Both of these candidates are able men, folks. No facists or communists here. Both are far from perfect, but I believe decent, well-meaning men. McCain is experienced and courageous; Obama is intelligent and charismatic. Neither one of these men scare me in the least. I think whichever one of them becomes president will surround himself with competant people.The scary rhetoric and the labeling that we have seen is laughable. I have seen a lot of talk about how bad these two men are as presumptive nominees of their respective parties. I just don't see it. These are two well-meaning, capable leaders. We should be glad about that.

[oldrambler]

...could be a dragon doing a duck impersonation.

 

:laugh::laugh:

[Hatz]

1. YES, Chavez is a socialist.

2. NO, That imo is a joke of a question, Bush has made plenty of mistakes and imo surrounded himself and stuck too long with some people that gave him bad information but in no way is he a socialist, that's just crazy.

3. Maybe, A lot of Clinton's ideas and policies were definatley borderline if not all out socialist ideas. I don't know about socialist or not but I do wonder about "mafia" connections with the list of people that had the info (dirt) on them and the Whitewater scandal that are no longer with us (JMO and a hunch)....:sssh:

4. NO, I personally do not remember Roosevelt but from what all I can remember hearing he was a great President.

5. NO, That is an insult t even ask imo. Take a look Arlington and all of the other cemetary's around this great country at the graves of the ones that paid the ultimate price to keep us free and you will find that answer.

6. NO, I do not lump all into one category at all. I will say that most of the Dems/liberals in office right now are leaning more and more that way.

7. NO, I come from a long line of True Democrats that are quite frankly sickened by the flaming liberal idiots :madman: of today tht are calling themselves a Democrat. They in no way represent a true democrat's views on things and are an absolute emabarrassment!

 

 

1. :thumb:

 

2. Why is it a joke? Isn't part of socialism and increase of government control and creation of beauracracies and funding? What do you call "No Child left Behind?" Bush created an entire agency called "Homeland Security" instead of retooling existing agencies like the CIA and FBI to the job. Whereas Bush's intent is far from socialist, his actions make this question not so ludicruous if you are honest.

 

3. You really ought to give your "grassy knoll" ineuendos a rest as there has been more real evidence put forth on her to debunk that stuff than anyone has ever put forth to prove it.

 

4. Roosevelt was more Patrician acting but pretty close to Socialist in his revamping of America in the New Deal.

 

5. What that has to do with the question concerning America as a Socialist Country is beyond me. I think we are Capitalist but have some Socialist tendencies.

 

6. There are still some of those "old school Dems" around. I agree that the far left has too long been the ones that are heard. The party looks a lot less like the party of Bobby Kennedy and Harry Truman. (Note I did not care for the Democratic party of Strom Thurmond or George Wallace)

[oldrambler]

I can state unequivocally there were some who didn't want to hear his "church" campaign speech. The reason being he was telling the truth.

 

Point taken. I still believe that he was speaking to a group that some may not have liked it but imo he was still trying to get his smoke screen/same old politics message out. Obama knew that would be broadcast all over the news and that more would like it than not. I really don't think that Obama cares about the people at all, he cares about his own personal and power hungry agenda. JMO

Anyway, as I said before I respect others opinions here and am just voicing mine as well. I have no problem with others disagreeing as long as they do it in the right way and that has been the case with this and on most of the threads/post on here. :thumb:

I still want to see of the man can speak from the heart and without a teleprompter or without someone like Oprah Winfrey feeding him questions and kissing his butt.

(Oprah backing Obama is reason enough for me not to vote for him )