Obama '08?

@okie,

Obama is clearly a centrist. His actions since entering office have been Centrist ones. You can't point to anything that he's done which is socialist in any way. You don't have an argument to stand on whatsoever, for calling him 'ultra' liberal. Literally nobody here agrees with you on this point, Okie.

Quote:

Is there a possibility that Obama could grow out of his radicalism, if that is a possibility, I certainly hope so, but based upon his words and actions, I don't see it, he continues to blame everything on Bush

So does the country. Recent polling has shown that well over 50% of the country specifically blames Bush and the Republican party for the financial crisis and the cleanup Obama has had to do. You are in the minority when you claim anything different, Okie.

You say that Obama is 'no lover of capitalism.' How do you square that with his actions, in which he DID NOT use the power he had to take over banks and the financial industry? You have no explanation for this!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Its on record, Bill, they did try to purge the records of what happened there, but sorry, it was too late. Bill, go ahead and keep supporting the ultra Socialist agenda, if that is what you believe, but be aware conservatives will come out in droves in every upcoming election to fight your ilk.

Tell me Okie, what is it that makes you think this was proven?

okie wrote:

"OBAMA,"NEW PARTY MEMBER" AND DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST ASSOCIATION
The New Party, ACORN, and the Arab American Action Network are not by any stretch of the imagination mainstream political or social organizations. They are radical anti-capitalist, pro-Marxist, and in the case of the AAAN a group supporting the terrorist activities of the Palestinians. The New Party is an unabashed Marxist "fusion" party from which Barack Obama actively sought out and received an endorsement for his state senate candidacy. [1]

Is it that nifty little "1" that indicates the source of their scoop? I clicked on it and just about fell out of my chair laughing at the title of the website you're using as PROOF:
rightwingnuthouse.com

You can't make this stuff up!

0 Replies

Roosevelt did not end his unemployment depression by having the government GIVE services, products, and commodities to businesses and individuals. Roosevelt began ending his unemployment depression in 1941 by having the government BUY services, products, and commodities from businesses and individuals to defend the USA.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay then, since you think you can explain all of them away, what about the "New Party" endorsement and membership? That appears to me to be pretty much case closed on your baseless defense of all of Obama's Marxist associations and connections.

The Illinois political universe is not so big that even a small fringe party would fall completely off of my radar screen, so it was with some surprise that I read okie's claim that the "New Party" endorsed Obama in his first state senate run. I had never heard of this "New Party" before, so I was curious to find out more about it.

Well, it turns out that there actually is a New Party -- or rather there was a New Party (it was founded in 1992 and fizzled out six years later). Whether Obama ever sought its endorsement or became a member, however, is a story largely spun by one man: Stanley Kurtz. It should be noted that Kurtz, like every good pundit, initially picked up the thread of this tale from a blog (without attribution), but it appears that he is the primary standard bearer for this story now. In an opinion piece for the National Review (does it print anything else?), Kurtz tried to connect the dots between Joel Rogers, one of the New Party's founders, to Obama, with intermediate stops at Noam Chomsky and, of course, ACORN. Ultimately, Kurtz concludes:

Quote:

At any rate, there can be no doubt that in 1996, Obama made his first run for office as a New Party-endorsed candidate. And while Obama and Joel Rogers continue to deny it, a raft of accumulating evidence points to the fact that Obama was a New Party member.

Well, maybe not a raft, per se. Actually, more like this raft:

http://www.nightsea.com/photos/medusa.gif

It's less a "raft of accumulating evidence" than a pile of accumulating innuendo, but then that's what passes for "evidence" in the world of conservative think tanks and the National Review. As is usually the case with these sorts of things, then, it's the wingnut echo chamber effect, where one piece of misinformation is repeated hundreds of times, and the reverberating echo is cited as proof for its truth. That okie has joined this chorus of reverberations was to be expected.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Obama is in the process of converting the USA's constitutional system into a demagogic aristography, and converting the USA's capitalist economy into a redistribution economy.

What does that make Obama?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Roosevelt did not end his unemployment depression by having the government GIVE services, products, and commodities to businesses and individuals. Roosevelt began ending his unemployment depression in 1941 by having the government BUY services, products, and commodities from businesses and individuals to defend the USA.

How is that any different then the Stim bill? It had three components -

1 - tax cuts. I'm sure you aren't bitching about the hundreds of billions in tax cuts in the bill.

2 - assistance to states which couldn't pay their bills. I'm sure you would rather see this then see Texas lay off tons of police and firefighters, which is exactly what would have happened.

3 - capital projects funding, in which the government BUYS services from private industry to build things.

Cycl0ptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The Federal assistance to state governments has simply been a narcotic that has prevented the individual states from facing the financial consequences of their bloated brueaucracies, now increasingly unionized and highly resistant to sorely needed improvementts in productivity and efficiency.

As a result the eventual correction of these issues will be further delayed with far worse eventual consequences for the states. Californias is merely one of the worst cases out there. The state legislature is largely controlled by state employee unions and a comical finbancial crisis coupled with a political impasse continues without any near term prospect of resolution. Meanwhile people and businesses are leaving the statein growing numbers.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The Federal assistance to state governments has simply been a narcotic that has prevented the individual states from facing the financial consequences of their bloated brueaucracies, now increasingly unionized and highly resistant to sorely needed improvementts in productivity and efficiency.

Thanks for your incisive analysis! That being said, you would have been happier - and feel the State would have been better off - if CA hadn't received assistance from the government, and instead YOUR state taxes skyrocketed?

For that is exactly what would have happened, as I'm sure you know.

It's easy to go on about 'efficiency' in government when you don't give a **** for at least half the expenditures the government undertakes, because you are unconcerned with the lives of the people involved and the problems which are trying to be addressed. I've noticed this a lot with Conservatives.

However, I wonder where you got the idea that the purpose of government is to be efficient? It most certainly is not.

Quote:

As a result the eventual correction of these issues will be further delayed with far worse eventual consequences for the states. Californias is merely one of the worst cases out there. The state legislature is largely controlled by state employee unions and a comical finbancial crisis coupled with a political impasse continues without any near term prospect of resolution. Meanwhile people and businesses are leaving the statein growing numbers.

I would remind you that a large part of our financial crisis lies at the feet of Enron and the Republicans who supported their piracy of CA dollars. Great job there, guys.

You claim that people are leaving the state in growing numbers, but the facts do not support your proposition. Off the top of your head - between 2000-2008, how much do you think the population of CA grew?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If they raise the taxes any more I'll simply move to either Boise or Ketchum. Thinking about that now.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If they raise the taxes any more I'll simply move to either Boise or Ketchum. Thinking about that now.

Don't let the door hit you and the other 'Going Galt' threateners in the ass on the way out.

Seriously. If you don't like the place, leave. We will get along fine with or without any of you. Threats of this nature have ever proven to be hollow and have not meaningfully harmed CA or the USA.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You claim that people are leaving the state in growing numbers, but the facts do not support your proposition. Off the top of your head - between 2000-2008, how much do you think the population of CA grew?

Cycloptichorn

I'm not interestred in another of your duelling references wars. I simply suggest you look at recvent trends for established residfents leaving California, and the very different population that is the source for new residents. As I said the number of residents leaving Californi for other states has been increasing for several years. Same goes for businesses.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You claim that people are leaving the state in growing numbers, but the facts do not support your proposition. Off the top of your head - between 2000-2008, how much do you think the population of CA grew?

Cycloptichorn

I'm not interestred in another of your duelling references wars. I simply suggest you look at recvent trends for established residfents leaving California, and the very different population that is the source for new residents. As I said the number of residents leaving California for other states has been increasing for several years. Same goes for businesses.

Yeah, the population is filling up with those poor Brown folks that you so disdain, and rich white folks are cashing out their houses and leaving. But that hardly contradicts my point; the population of CA grew by more than 8% since 2000. If people want to move from CA to other states - let them! Why would we give a ****? Plenty of people do want to live here and do business here, that much is obvious.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Because Obama is in the process of converting the USA's constitutional system into a demagogic aristocracy, and concurrently converting the USA's capitalist economy into a redistributionist economy, he is in the process of concurrently making more of us poor, including those with brown, black, white, red, and yellow skin.

That's why a rapidly increasing majority of Americans are determined to remove Obama from office as soon as lawfully possible.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Well, I think it is very likely a credible claim. And it fits. I would rather believe that, than Obama when he said he did not hear the Marxist madman, Jeremiah Wright, shout about the chickens came home to roost, this after he regularly ranted about the rich Jews, white men, capitalism, and so forth, while praising the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Its all about who you wish to believe, Joe, but maybe its because you are a leftist in the extreme as well, could that be right, Joe?

It is mighty strange that for people that claim to be so proud of what they believe, you cannot get them to own up to anything, isn't it folks?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

let us all sing that most favourite of all childhood hymns

obama hates the population
all the population of the states
red or yellow, black or white
all are despicable in his sight
obama hates the population of the states

but fear not, with any luck the mayans will be right

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, it turns out that there actually is a New Party -- or rather there was a New Party (it was founded in 1992 and fizzled out six years later). Whether Obama ever sought its endorsement or became a member, however, is a story largely spun by one man: Stanley Kurtz. It should be noted that Kurtz, like every good pundit, initially picked up the thread of this tale from a blog (without attribution), but it appears that he is the primary standard bearer for this story now. In an opinion piece for the National Review (does it print anything else?), Kurtz tried to connect the dots between Joel Rogers, one of the New Party's founders, to Obama, with intermediate stops at Noam Chomsky and, of course, ACORN. Ultimately, Kurtz concludes:

Quote:
At any rate, there can be no doubt that in 1996, Obama made his first run for office as a New Party-endorsed candidate. And while Obama and Joel Rogers continue to deny it, a raft of accumulating evidence points to the fact that Obama was a New Party member.

I would believe Kurtz before I would believe 10 Obamas, Joe.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I would believe Kurtz before I would believe 10 Obamas, Joe.

Why don't you just admit that you don't give a **** about evidence or proof at all? This is basically what you just said: that you don't care what the reality of an accusation is, only that it supports your narrative.

Are you honestly proud of being that type of person, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

I find it funny that you would call a Christian preacher a Marxist madman. You really know no bounds to your hatred, do you okie?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

When the mainstream media refuses to do any investigative reporting, this is what we are left with, blogs and other researchers. The New Party thing is very consistent with who Obama is and what he believes, and so I think the story is very credible. Unfortunately, the New Party has removed all evidence, but it has been recorded from retrieved web pages and so forth.

If all of this had been claimed about somebody that is pro capitalist, then we would not believe it, but it is entirely consistent with who Obama is, what he says, and who he has hung around with and admired most of his entire life.

If Obama wants to prove himself to be a believer in capitalism and free markets, he is welcome to start now by saying so and governing as if he believes it. So far, he has bombed out in that regard, and that is why all of these dots mean what they mean. People were criticized for not connecting the dots ahead of all kinds of negative happenings in history. We have the dots on Obama. I would suggest it would be wise to use them, he is not a personality or a president to be trusted with our freedom and liberty, no way.

2 Replies

@parados,

Apparently you have not listened to the words of Wright, or have you? He sounds like a madman to me when I have listened to tapes of his rants. No way would I admire such a guy, the man is nuts in my opinion. If you wish to speak of hatred, perhaps you may wish to consider Wright's, and why Obama admired him? All good questions.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know