Obama belonged to the Democratic Socialist Party in the 90s (The REAL SOCIALISTS!)

[NEXT]

I didn't even read it because it came from a site called "Politically Drunk" and if it had any true merit, it would probably be hitting the major channels.

 

Really? Just like the major channels are carrying anything negative about Obama.

 

The very Liberal MSM has an agenda.

[3wishes]

:lol: Obama won his state senate seat as a member of the New Party, not the Democratic Party? Guess I should take their word for it.

 

It was an article from the NP, so why wouldn't they place their name next to BHO's? They are not saying he wasn't a Democrat, look at he verse before that:

 

"Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory."

 

You cannot just laugh this off with this little guy (:lol:) everytime you don't agree with an article, whether it is true or not.

[True blue (and gold)]

It was an article from the NP, so why wouldn't they place their name next to BHO's? They are not saying he wasn't a Democrat, look at he verse before that:

 

"Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory."

 

You cannot just laugh this off with this little guy (:lol:) everytime you don't agree with an article, whether it is true or not.

 

In all fairness, Habib is FAR from the only poster on this site...and not the only side of the aisle...that uses :lol: frequently.

[TheDeuce]

Obama/Biden '08.

[3wishes]

In all fairness, Habib is FAR from the only poster on this site...and not the only side of the aisle...that uses :lol: frequently.

 

When a serious discussion is taking place and nothing seems to be funny, I just took it as sarcastic because I'm not sure why the :lol: is even warranted other than him just dismissing something that is true...

 

I think too many people are just scanning the headline and nothing more.

 

When you are attempting to prove a point in serious discussions, I just don't like one lined statements when they are off base.:thumb:

[True blue (and gold)]

When a serious discussion is taking place and nothing seems to be funny, I just took it as sarcastic because I'm not sure why the :lol: is even warranted other than him just dismissing something that is true...

 

I think too many people are just scanning the headline and nothing more.

 

When you are attempting to prove a point in serious discussions, I just don't like one lined statements when they are off base.:thumb:

 

I don't disagree with what you say. I have been guilty of this myself, usually in retaliation for someone already using it before me. As far as the "true" part, sometimes truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. (Can I use that one? j/k)

[leatherneck]

Actually if you read the link and not just the part that JD quoted, you'll find a pretty compelling argument that Obama was in fact a member of the Socialist party. It apparently goes much beyond just receiving the endorsement. Take a moment and read the link. My first reaction was the same as several posters; then I read the link. Some folks owe JD an apology.

 

Still waiting to read those apologies.

[Hoot Gibson]

Three separate sources citing Obama's membership in the New Party seems to be pretty significant to me. The fact that many far left wing groups have actively supported Obama throughout his political career is just more evidence that Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate and not the moderate Democrat that he became after winning the Democratic Party's nomination.

 

The New York Times printed a front page, above the fold story on Governor Palin's alleged membership in the Alaskan Independence Party with far less documentation than JD provided here. As I recall, many BGP members continued to claim a link between Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party even after the NYT retracted the allegations because they were totally false.

 

I agree with Leatherneck, some apologies are due on this one. There is a clear double standard at work here.

[Hatz]

Here's what I saw when I read the article. A group (A Socialist Party Group) claims Obama as one of their own and declares him a member. Because of his success in his campaign it certainly makes sense to want to claim the successful ones.

 

However none of those links show me where he was member of the party. It shows me where the party/group claims he is.

 

The biggest example I can think of where this is misleading would be in my church circles.

 

Example: My church gives our missions money to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. We also give and cooperate in missions with the Virginia Baptist General Association. Because of our affiliation with the State body, we are still listed as a Southern Baptist Church even though we do nothing with them and send no money. They claim us as "one of their own," when nothing in practice and reality could be farther from the truth.

 

I still believe that JD's "yellow journalism" title was just that.

 

 

There is enough wrong with Obama's policies and ideology to not have to stoop to trying to bring in "guilt by association" rhetoric to the table. I think the problem is that McCain is not getting enough of his message out there so the people can see the differences between where his policies will take us versus where Obama's policies will take us.

 

And as Forrest Gump said, "That's All I'm going to say about that."

[leatherneck]

Here's what I saw when I read the article. A group (A Socialist Party Group) claims Obama as one of their own and declares him a member. Because of his success in his campaign it certainly makes sense to want to claim the successful ones.

 

However none of those links show me where he was member of the party. It shows me where the party/group claims he is.

 

The biggest example I can think of where this is misleading would be in my church circles.

 

Example: My church gives our missions money to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. We also give and cooperate in missions with the Virginia Baptist General Association. Because of our affiliation with the State body, we are still listed as a Southern Baptist Church even though we do nothing with them and send no money. They claim us as "one of their own," when nothing in practice and reality could be farther from the truth.

 

I still believe that JD's "yellow journalism" title was just that.

 

 

There is enough wrong with Obama's policies and ideology to not have to stoop to trying to bring in "guilt by association" rhetoric to the table. I think the problem is that McCain is not getting enough of his message out there so the people can see the differences between where his policies will take us versus where Obama's policies will take us.

 

And as Forrest Gump said, "That's All I'm going to say about that."

 

There's some merit in your point that says the links only provide proof that the group claimed he was a member, not whether he actually was a member.

 

But lets think a little deeper. The group has a Chicago chapter and is very active in Illinois politics. It sends out a newsletter touting that New Party member Obama was uncontested. Using logic here, you have to believe that someone who knew Obama would have seen or at least been told about the newsletter's announcement and would have told Obama about it, particularly if it wasn't true.

 

Lets apply it to you. You are a politician and you despise fascists. The local fascist party sends out a newsletter saying Nazi party member Hatz is uncontested for re-election. I have a feeling that you'd hear about that newsletter and would immediately demand a retraction under threat of a defamation suit, and you'd make a big, big stink about it right then and at the time. I think you'd go to the press big time making sure your constituents knew that you were not a member of the Nazi Party and there would be all kinds of newspaper articles covering your statements that you were not a member of the Nazi Party. Agreed?

 

So back to the Obama assertion, unless Obama or someone can provide evidence that Obama did demand a retraction from the New Party, again using logic (remember, I'm an attorney and we are slaves to using logic to analyze and address problems and issues) one can safely conclude (without being absolutely certain): that Obama had to have known that the New Party claimed him to be a member; that if he was not a member, there would be all kinds of newspaper articles floating around in Chicago at the time covering demands by Obama that the New Party retract such a statement; and that unless those newpaper articles can be provided, Obama either was a member of the New Party or was willing to be considered for whatever reason as a member.

 

I still think people should apologize to JD for calling him irresponsible. They can disagree with whether its relevant if Obama was a member of the New Party, but its not irresponsible for him to say that Obama was a member of the New Party when the New Party itself said Obama was a member and there is zero evidence presented documenting that Obama at the time refuted that he was a member.

[acemona]

Your suggestions for how Obama could be good suggestions except for the fact that it is not possible for Obama, or anyone for that matter to truly defend a negative.

 

We are asked to prove he is not a Muslim - TBandG had a whole list of examples, but none of them valid for the folks on this forum - him celebrating Christmas is just a "facade."

 

Prove he was born in this country

 

Prove that he is not a terrorist

 

Prove that he is not a criminal (Rezko)

 

You see, the problem is instead of working on denying all of those things, which don't need to be defended to me, and can't be defended to you, Barack has worked diligently on getting his message to the people and spending time with them.

 

McPalin on the other hand has spent time casting aspersions instead of getting their message to the people. It appears, at this point anyway, that Barack has the better strategy.

[All Tell]

How about for once he just admit that he has made some questionable (at best) decisions about people that through his career he has chosen to align himself with?

[Hoot Gibson]

^Obama's "message to the people" is a far cry from the message he sent to the people before the general campaign started. Voters deserve to know what Obama's previous message was and more importantly, what his past actions have been. Only then can they make an informed decision about how genuine his current message is and how likely it is that he will follow through on his campaign promises. I believe that Obama will say and do pretty much anything people want to hear to win the presidency, so his message of the day is irrelevant to me.

[acemona]

^Obama's "message to the people" is a far cry from the message he sent to the people before the general campaign started. Voters deserve to know what Obama's previous message was and more importantly, what his past actions have been. Only then can they make an informed decision about how genuine his current message is and how likely it is that he will follow through on his campaign promises. I believe that Obama will say and do pretty much anything people want to hear to win the presidency, so his message of the day is irrelevant to me.

 

Then look at his voting record - and attack that. That is legitimate all this other stuff is just crap.

[Hoot Gibson]

Then look at his voting record - and attack that. That is legitimate all this other stuff is just crap.

I have attacked Obama's voting record. However, Obama's close association over the years with terrorists and socialists provide insight into how sincere his suddenly mainstream positions are.

 

Obama's support of infanticide in Illinois hospitals is a part of Obama's voting record and it alone will be a deal breaker for many Americans. I hope that the moderator of the next debate will think that the abortion issue is important enough to ask at least one question about the issue.