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

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by buster2010

 

Hope you enjoy your cheap, abundant food, clothing, television, consumer electronics, air conditioner and entertainment mr/ms anti capitalism. You'd have to be blind to think our current problems are due to "unregulated" capatilism. There isnt a thing in this country that isnt regulated at some level. Capitalism is not about big capitist brother watching out for your best interest, its about unburdening you to look out for your own self interest. Look around, most of our big societal probls find their root in government. Most of the things that make your life easier and better than your great great grandparents is primarilly a result of capitalism.

edit on 7-6-2012 by snusfanatic because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2012 by snusfanatic because: (no reason given)

Really? Sure wish I was paying what my grandparents paid in rent.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


He was a member signed their contract.....are you related to him or something? How can you continually lie when faced with the facts?

According to Kurtz, Obama "signed a 'contract' promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office." Not only was the President a member of the group, the document revealed that he asked the party for an endorsement. Minutes taken at a January 1996 meeting of the Chicago chapter of the New Party read, in part: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

www.examiner.com...

@OP
Well, somehow Obama didn't learn from it because he became the biggest Corporatist since George W Bush.
Quit calling him a socialist. He's a radical corporatist, as many of his predecessors were.

It appears to me that Obama doesn't know the meaning of socialism and neither do most of you.

Originally posted by pirhanna
@OP
Well, somehow Obama didn't learn from it because he became the biggest Corporatist since George W Bush.
Quit calling him a socialist. He's a radical corporatist, as many of his predecessors were.

It appears to me that Obama doesn't know the meaning of socialism and neither do most of you.

Forget all the textbook definitions. They are hoodwinking you.

Obama is a Marxist / Corporatist.

And should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.

Who got all that money when the U.S. Treasury was Looted ?

A similar pattern is happening in Europe.

It's the Marxist / Corporatist complex at work.

It is international.

The U.S. needs to fend it off at all costs.

The localized business plan is better, and it helps keep the wolves away.

reply to post by pirhanna


I think it's the liberals and socialists themselves that don't understand the many definitions of the term....one of the versions of socialism is government taking over the means of production....Obama is doing that through unions and bailouts...hint...they aren't bailouts....the government will not let go of it's interest in the companies under Obama....IE...the government controls the corps that took the bailouts.....that equals socialism.

The unions control any business they are involved and they give millions and millions to get their political picks elected so they can keep their control of the corps...unions and government working together to control the corps for the workers (and their own) benefit. That equals socialism.

Whenever the government has a hand in taking control of companies away from the owners by union force, bailouts or regulations.....that is socialism.

And round and round you all go, squabbling amongst yourselves believing that things will magically change when the next clown steps in to the White House.

No, I'm not from the US but from the outside looking in, things look just as messed up as they would have been under any other Left/Right President.

I do find it amazing that over there a publicly funded health system is considered to be such an evil thing by so many. I can't wrap my head around that one lol

Anywho, carry on.

Obama is NOT socialist. He's NOT, he's NOT. How many times have we heard that from lefties?

Wrong again, libs. Caught in yet another lie.

He was born in Hawaii, too.

Let's admit it....

We would have been better off with McCain Palin. Then McCain stepping aside for Palin to move up to POTUS.

You can't tell me she would be worse than Obama.... No Way.

And, she most likely wouldn't be referencing to oral sex jokes about her spouse at fundraisers... (which was his 174th fundraiser). Bush had 58ish. Regan 12.

I smell........

Originally posted by buster2010

He IS NOT concerned with YOUR best interest.

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

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

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

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

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.

This bears repeating as many times as possible...

What republicans fail to realize is that most Americans would prefer a Kenyan born socialist president before we elect another braindead "cowboy" in to office to start wars, give more breaks to the wealthy and generally just act and speak like a fool.

The GOP is on its way out of American politics. The recent group of presidential candidates was an absolute circus and no one took it seriously at all

Michelle Bachmann? Rick Perry? Sarah Palin and Donald Trump?


The whole thing's like a bad SNL sketch. And now we've got the republican version of John Kerry to run against Obama. Ready for a landslide?

Ron Paul was the GOP's chance to turn this country around. The media and the GOP made absolute certain that it wouldn't ever happen..

Originally posted by jzenman
Some of you are talking like socialism is a bad thing. I don't get it.

Actually socialism works under the right situation. Typically with smaller populations, like under 50 mil, large work force, large technical programs to funnel most of the population into the areas that the system needs, total control of the medical system, one medical system.. And many other factors.

A population like America would create a huge cost to support it and socialism would shudder to a failing halt as it becomes impossible to support such a costly system.

Originally posted by buster2010
Care to show me where the capitalist system is concerned with my best interest?

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

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

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

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.

More importantly, what did YOU do to improve YOU situation? Or, are you the type of person that expects someone else to take care of YOUR every need? When are YOU going to take personal responsibility for what your bank account says, or what you're doing for a career and quit blaming everyone else for YOUR failures?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
By allowing you to have private property...

By allowing individual rights, and not "collective rights"...

By allowing you to succeed if you work hard enough for it...

Distribution in capitalism is not based on how hard one as an individual works to his ability, but how hard he can work compared to others. So, for people who are either physically or mentally incapable of working as hard as others, he will get the shorter end of the stick.

Also, being allowed to own private property can be a burden on society, as people are able to exploit resources and labourers. This is why the U.S. was in such a pickle during the Industrial Revolution, why workers had such poor working conditions and pay, the country did not adapt during the turn of the industrial age with regulations or limits and was nearly bent to the mercy of the private sector

That is only because of your ignorance of world history... Capitalism helped billions of people better their lives over thousands of years. Ancient tribes traded with others, and amongst themselves goods and services which made their lives better.... That is a free market/capitalism. It was the "nationalization" of goods and services in the hand of a few that has ALWAYS brought dictatorships, and suffering to the people... Socialism gives ALL power to the state, and in the name of "the collective" socialism takes away individual rights which means the rights of EVERYONE is taken away "in the name of the collective" or "in the name of the revolution" or "in the name of the Earth"...

1) Capitalism has helped as many people as it hurt. Not just because of rampant inequality, but because all of the successes of capitalism can be tied to exploitation. The slave trade? That wasn't a government run "socialist" program, that was entirely done for the interest for private individuals in the name of profit. Africa is still suffering from the effects of which capitalism has wrought upon it today

2) "Ancient tribes" did trade goods, but the distribution was not of a matter of private interest, but a matter of public need. For example, people did not give more meat to whoever worked the hardest, they gave meat to people because an individual needed it. Do not confuse anything before 1500 in humanity's 200,000 years of existence with liberalism, please

3) Uh, dictatorships have, historically, been a matter of military matters, not economical. Sure, "nationalization" of industry could have came AFTER the dictator has already been established, but seldom is it the reason it was established in the first place.

reply to post by anon72


Obama is nothing but a paid-for, bought prostitue for the NWO, He has been passed around so many times that he can't keep track of his official lies. They won't even let him answer questions, or speak, without a teleprompter. NWO, George Soros, facism, destroy the dollar, dumb down kids so they don't know any better, one world currency.

How old is Outkast? He displayed complete Bill Ayers doctrine with his almost unintelligible rants? That was rather frightening.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Forget all the textbook definitions. They are hoodwinking you.

Obama is a Marxist / Corporatist.

And should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.

Who got all that money when the U.S. Treasury was Looted ?

A similar pattern is happening in Europe.

It's the Marxist / Corporatist complex at work.

It is international.

The U.S. needs to fend it off at all costs.

The localized business plan is better, and it helps keep the wolves away.

Uh, how are the textbook definitions "hoodwinking" us when they are taken directly from the source? And if I'm wrong and there is some secret ideals of socialism that no one knows of except this secret international movement (Hahaha), then why don't we use the ones they provided to hoodwink us as a new ideology, since they are quite good?

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
More importantly, what did YOU do to improve YOU situation? Or, are you the type of person that expects someone else to take care of YOUR every need? When are YOU going to take personal responsibility for what your bank account says, or what you're doing for a career and quit blaming everyone else for YOUR failures?

Social mobility is almost impossible in the capitalist economy. It is competition based, meaning not everyone can get first place. And it doesn't help when some people have unfair advantages, such as being born in more wealthy households, being genetically gifted in a certain aspect.

"But," says the bewildered reader "what about all of those success stories I read about where people become wildly rich from a poor background?"

Well, those stories are published for a reason. It tries to strengthen the illusion of social mobility, but it also involuntarily shows how rare it is considering it is deserving of publication. Remember, not everyone can become successful

Originally posted by Dreine

What I mean by more taxes is me being idealistic and 'hoping' (beyond hope) that said taxes will be used in good honor and faith on things like education, infrastructure, and research/technology... not for paying for people that can work who choose NOT to work.

You mean like bankers, and oligarchs, right?
Cause they are they ones who are not making the system work.
They are being subsidized and we still pay for their services.
They are the ones who entrap us into long wars.

Face it the left right is a trap to keep us divided and it works well. Stop it. Be one people one mind and we will have the power.

This thread is a great example of how the division works.( I do not subscribe to left or right by the way)
The game is rigged. There is only ONE party and they are pressing towards Global Government as fast as they can.

It's important for them to keep who ever their favorite "puppet of the term" is to have a convincing face.

They screwed up a bit this time getting all giddy being so much closer to global government and told a few too many "tall tales" to put it mildly.

In this thread as I said is a great example of how some truth about what the puppet said was put forth. Along comes someone that I will not name but they were so obviously trying to derail and turn this into a left/right contest and at the same time threw in silly straw man arguments about what words mean! EHEHE I mean they should know better the ATS community isn't dumb. When they seen failure on the horizon in this thread is it chance that someone comes along and throws out the race card in hopes that the thread would turn into a race thread(I know it could be coincidence but never the less this thread is still an example of how the division works and how often a thread is purposely derailed by people)?
EPIC FAIL!

Way to go ATS! well.. sort of.. Now stop fuss'n and fighting over the illusion that is left and right. If you want to talk about left and right core stuff then start a thread about morals because at the end of the day that's the bottom line and what is used to pit us against one another. (And just so your not tempted to do that let's all just agree to do unto others and save time and bandwidth eheh).

I suppose what the real shocker will be is how they will go about actually implementing global government and who will be the leader. I will admit on the surface it would not be a bad thing if it wasn't for the fact that the same task masters that are pulling the puppet strings will be in charge. In that light God help us all!

Please consider my words and as cliche as it may sound but.....WAKE UP!!!!!

by now I'm sure everyone knows Obama is the Manchurian candidate I just wonder how this story will end up and who will be blamed for it!

Obama should lie down on the road and wait for the bus that Bilderberg is sending his way. I hear there is a UN position waiting for him.

Originally posted by anon72
Let's admit it....

We would have been better off with McCain Palin. Then McCain stepping aside for Palin to move up to POTUS.

You can't tell me she would be worse than Obama.... No Way.

And, she most likely wouldn't be referencing to oral sex jokes about her spouse at fundraisers... (which was his 174th fundraiser). Bush had 58ish. Regan 12.

I smell........

edit on 6/7/2012 by anon72 because: (no reason given)

We would be at war with Iran...

Obama's way better!