Jump to content

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


NEXT

Recommended Posts

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

 

The problem is when people have a legitimate concern about his record and his associations people who have bought into his talk don't listen. They just follow their great speaking leader and ignore those facts like he is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

It won't be asked, and I can honestly see why. It's a huge issue in almost any other time. Problem is right now people will not base their vote on the fact that he doesn't want babies that are alive to receive medical treatment. People want to know why their retirement is down 25% and what's going to be done about it. This was best case scenario for Obama. There's only two chances left for McCain IMO. One is severe racism in states like Ohio and Virginia. The other, and I hope this doesn't happen, is Israel bombs Iran in the next two weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

I think you paint a good picture (and perhaps true one) of what happened. It's kind of like the aforementioned "Log Cabin Republicans." (Gay Republican goup) For more than one campaign they gave money to the GOP candidate(s) and claimed them as "one of their own." It was during the contentious "Gay Marriage" issue election of '04 that Bush gave the money back. (And only then if memory serves after it was brought to his campaign's attention) So does that mean that any GOP candidate was "in the bag" (sorry the pun) with the Log Cabin Boys?

 

As to the apology I decried the "Yellow Journalsim" approach of JD on the thread title. I stick to the belief that this is what it was. Thanks for the thoughtful reply LN. :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is when people have a legitimate concern about his record and his associations people who have bought into his talk don't listen. They just follow their great speaking leader and ignore those facts like he is doing.

 

I'm voting McCain. But I defend either when I see attacks that I believe are not as readily "factual" as some claim. (This piece may turn out to be totally true but the link above does little to reveal that truth nor warrant the headline it produced) What happened to disclaimers like "May" "Might" or "Alleged"? I could have yelled out that the AIG is a bunch of free loading parasites in my title but decided to let the article speak for itself and let people draw the conclusions from the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting McCain. But I defend either when I see attacks that I believe are not as readily "factual" as some claim. (This piece may turn out to be totally true but the link above does little to reveal that truth nor warrant the headline it produced) What happened to disclaimers like "May" "Might" or "Alleged"? I could have yelled out that the AIG is a bunch of free loading parasites in my title but decided to let the article speak for itself and let people draw the conclusions from the data.

 

Which is great of you, and honestly if you would have put that about AIG it would have been well received. The problem is most of O's backers could care less about his voting history or his stance on most things. They like to hear what he has to say. If people honestly believe that he's for lowering taxes for 95% of Americans they need to do some research. That's what is frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Hatz. And the "in the bag" was a very bad pun. :D

 

And I agree with part of what Latch is saying. There are Obama supporters that one on hand say "stick to the voting record" issue (which as you know I totally think people should focus on) then claim to support him not on his voting record, but for what he's saying on the stump. If his supporters all had the same philosophy as Obama's voting record would indicate he has, I could totally understand their support. I'm not a liberal but I'm okay with any person that is a liberal because its what they genuinely believe in. We all don't have to think alike and it would be dangerous if we did. Its those that are supporting him based on what he says on the campaign stump he will do if elected President that really makes me wonder about American votes, and probably causes some McCain supporters to continually try and dig up things in his past to prove that the real Obama is not the one on the stump but rather the one who voted on issues in the past, if that makes sense.

 

And you have to admit, people on both sides of the election are doing the same thing. We've read and heard countless Democrats say that McCain isn't being truthful on the stump and try to dig up instances in his past to try and show the real McCain is not the one on the stump.

 

And I don't have any problem with that as long as people are being truthful and factual, because of my strong belief that you should judge people how they have acted, not how they say they are going to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:thumb: absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns and abortion are non-starters for me . . . I don't mind paying taxes in return for government services, some of which might not give me a DIRECT benefit but that might promote the 'general welfare.'

 

So it is not a matter of not 'hearing' what you say about his record, or what is actual voting record is, it is that I agree with MOST of his stances. Since that is the case you then feel the need to scare me to vote against him and I resent that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Hatz. And the "in the bag" was a very bad pun. :D

 

And I agree with part of what Latch is saying. There are Obama supporters that one on hand say "stick to the voting record" issue (which as you know I totally think people should focus on) then claim to support him not on his voting record, but for what he's saying on the stump. If his supporters all had the same philosophy as Obama's voting record would indicate he has, I could totally understand their support. I'm not a liberal but I'm okay with any person that is a liberal because its what they genuinely believe in. We all don't have to think alike and it would be dangerous if we did. Its those that are supporting him based on what he says on the campaign stump he will do if elected President that really makes me wonder about American votes, and probably causes some McCain supporters to continually try and dig up things in his past to prove that the real Obama is not the one on the stump but rather the one who voted on issues in the past, if that makes sense.

 

And you have to admit, people on both sides of the election are doing the same thing. We've read and heard countless Democrats say that McCain isn't being truthful on the stump and try to dig up instances in his past to try and show the real McCain is not the one on the stump.

 

And I don't have any problem with that as long as people are being truthful and factual, because of my strong belief that you should judge people how they have acted, not how they say they are going to act.

 

 

I totally agree, and I don't try to dig stuff up. I just read what gets dug up. I am totally against most things he has voted for or against. Anyone who is willing to let a live baby die w/o medical treatment would never get my vote, ever. If people don't have an issue w/ that its their opinion that I disagree w/. People that could care less about voter fraud bother me too. If O wins fairly I'll get behind him and hope that my beliefs about his true beliefs are proven wrong. I just hope it doesn't come to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns and abortion are non-starters for me . . . I don't mind paying taxes in return for government services, some of which might not give me a DIRECT benefit but that might promote the 'general welfare.'

 

So it is not a matter of not 'hearing' what you say about his record, or what is actual voting record is, it is that I agree with MOST of his stances. Since that is the case you then feel the need to scare me to vote against him and I resent that.

 

I don't know who the "you" is in your post since you didn't clarify. I sincerely doubt you can find any post where I tried to scare you or anyone else to vote against Obama. If you agree with Obama's stances based on his voting record, I have no problem whatsoever with you voting for him; to the contrary, I commend you for voting for someone that shares the same values that you do, even if I have different values. To that point, I have much, much more respect for Teddy Kennedy (his personal incidents aside) than I do Bill Clinton. Kennedy is a person with firm convictions whose actions have stayed true to his convictions. President Clinton I believe to have been a President whose convictions changed based on the most recent poll. Its also why I have respect for President Bush. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that we needed to replace Hussein and took action based on those beliefs and has stayed true to those beliefs even when it cost him heavily politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.