Obama is a Socialist Party Member

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Here’s the Wikipedia entry for the New Party (I’ve never heard of it before this thread):

[/quote]

If you’ve never heard of it before, what makes you feel qualified to speculate on it after reading a wikipedia entry? There are lots of posters here who have heard of it before.

"The New Party was a political organization founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor and Joel Rogers, with the objective of electing leftist or socialist individuals to public office in several states; the goal was to move the Democratic Party further to the left, with the ultimate objective of creating a major third party whose platform is Marxism.

Daniel Cantor, a former staffer with Jesse Jackson during his 1988 presidential campaign, and sociology/law professor Joel Rogers from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) created the New party, drawing many members from the Democratic Socialists of America and the civil organization group ACORN; the chapter in Chicago included former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members who had gathered together under the group name “Committees of Correspondence”. Among their most prominent members was Barack Obama, first picked to succeed Illinois state senator Alice Palmer while in the home of Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in 1995."

Founding party members include the radical anarchist Noam Chomksy, former SDS terrorist Carl Davidson, Communist Party member Raphael Pizzaro, black racialist Cornel West, Socialist Columbia University professor Manning Marable and Marxist welfare terrorist Francis Fox Piven.

'The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system â?? including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”

Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.'[/quote]

I see a quote with a lot of spin, but no attribution. Embarrassed?

It’s mostly guilt-by-association stuff (former communists), fear-mongering, and exaggerations (‘Marxist Welfare Terrorist’, etc).

Yawn.

This kind of stuff fires up Republicans, but Democrats mostly take it in stride, and it doesn’t seem to sway swing voters. The American public has already seen Obama in charge for 3.5 years, it’s way too late to try to convince people he is a radical. If Obama’s such a Socialist, why is the stock market positively booming? Wealthy people are still sitting exactly where they were before. Obama’s big radical move: return tax rates to where they were under Clinton. I don’t recall this kind of fear-mongering under Clinton (but then Clinton wasn’t black.)

Glenn Beck was kicked off Fox News for being too weird. Any thread based on what Glenn Beck says can immediately be dismissed as a fucking joke. In another era, you jokers would have been fans of Father Coughlin.

OMFG, after more careful reading, I see that Obama launched his political career in Bill Ayer’s living room!!!

LOL, just kidding, you guys are idiots.

[quote]K2000 wrote:

I see a quote with a lot of spin, but no attribution. Embarrassed?

[/quote]

Huh?

Actually “Marxist Welfare Terrorist” is not a quote. The quotes have quotation marks around them so you know they’re quotes.

Do you know what the ‘economic cycle’ is? We’re supposed to be in a ‘recovery’ after the 07-08 recession. Instead Obama is leading us into a double recession or depression.

Clinton wasn’t raised by a Communist(Frank Marshall Davis) and he didn’t associate with domestic terrorists and radicals nor appoint them in his administration. Nor did he attend a racist church for 20 years.

Uh huh…so presumably you’ll go on to explain what that has to do with anything…

Right…which thread is based on what “Glenn Beck says?”

[quote]
In another era, you jokers would have been fans of Father Coughlin.[/quote]

“You jokers?” I don’t even know what you’re talking about buddy.

Maybe SexMachine is competing with Headhunter to see who can be the dumbest on PWI.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.

Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]

As usual you’re not even close Irish. In fact, I was the one who said that Romney has slightly less than 50/50 chance of beating obama. And here’s what will happen if Obama is reelected. I will continue to make a lot of money in business as I’ve been doing now for over 20 years. And you will continue to work like a dog for somewhere around minimum wage. And the moral of the story is that the President, no matter who he or she may be, is far less important to ones personal success than what the specific individual brings to the game.

And I am cool with that!

Edit: And that’s why liberal politicians who hand out money as if it’s their own, (like Obama), never really help anyone in the long run.[/quote]

Do you fail to see the Republicans hand out money to the wealthy and the Democrats hand out money to Wealthy and the Poor :slight_smile:
[/quote]
This isn’t true. Republicans only publicly seem to appose “entitlements” because of the media presence of a limited number of vocal members and officials. For the most part they vote for an expansion in various social programs as often as democrats. However, having a democratic president to antagonize has elevated Republican opposition at least publicly.
[/quote]

I forgot about political foot ball

[quote]K2000 wrote:
I am an idiots.[/quote]

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Maybe SexMachine is competing with Headhunter to see who can be the dumbest on PWI.[/quote]

While there are many things I do not agree with him on, he does post alot of historically relevant facts and is fairly knowledgeable. This is far more than you could hope to say for yourself by A) not providing any sort of factual substance B) continuing with A by alluding any sort of counter point to your argument as a Glen Beck talking point. Please. He never mentioned Beck once. C) In doing so you are creating an ad hominem argument based on logical fallacy. D) Your analysis of the stock market is sophomoric. Booming? By comparison to what? If you cannot see that the economy has been in the shitter for 4 years then you are even more stupid than all your posts make you out to be.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.

Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]

As usual you’re not even close Irish. In fact, I was the one who said that Romney has slightly less than 50/50 chance of beating obama. And here’s what will happen if Obama is reelected. I will continue to make a lot of money in business as I’ve been doing now for over 20 years. And you will continue to work like a dog for somewhere around minimum wage. And the moral of the story is that the President, no matter who he or she may be, is far less important to ones personal success than what the specific individual brings to the game.

And I am cool with that!

Edit: And that’s why liberal politicians who hand out money as if it’s their own, (like Obama), never really help anyone in the long run.[/quote]

Do you fail to see the Republicans hand out money to the wealthy and the Democrats hand out money to Wealthy and the Poor :slight_smile:
[/quote]
This isn’t true. Republicans only publicly seem to appose “entitlements” because of the media presence of a limited number of vocal members and officials. For the most part they vote for an expansion in various social programs as often as democrats. However, having a democratic president to antagonize has elevated Republican opposition at least publicly.
[/quote]

You did not read my post right , The Republicans only want social programs for the wealthy and the Democrats want social programs for the wealthy and the poor

they really have to grasp at straws to try and make Romney look bad. I know for the most part he is just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but you have to admit his record is pretty damn clean.

Can’t say the same thing for Obama, yet people still support him??

[quote]StevenF wrote:
they really have to grasp at straws to try and make Romney look bad. I know for the most part he is just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but you have to admit his record is pretty damn clean.

Can’t say the same thing for Obama, yet people still support him??[/quote]

You know how it is, digging up scandals on a Mormon?

Do you have any idea what their idea of a good first date is?

Because I do, thanks to the forum that shall not be named.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
they really have to grasp at straws to try and make Romney look bad. I know for the most part he is just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but you have to admit his record is pretty damn clean.

Can’t say the same thing for Obama, yet people still support him??[/quote]

You know how it is, digging up scandals on a Mormon?

Do you have any idea what their idea of a good first date is?

Because I do, thanks to the forum that shall not be named.[/quote]

Ha I think I remember that.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Sifu should stick to posting in the Combat forum, where he seems to know something, rather than doing the equivalent of flailing his arms around wildly here, and looking pretty foolish.

Your posts are all over the place, you can’t even express a coherent train of thought. You’re just ranting in general, basically.

This brings your other posts into question as well.[/quote]

Thank you for your input, I’ll take it under advisement.