T Nation

Obama is a Socialist Party Member

Politics and World Issues
#1

I’m shocked! I tell you. Shocked! Here is an excerpt from the article that says yes Obama was a member of New Party, he also belonged to their front group Progressive Chicago.

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as todayâ??s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Partyâ??s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a â??crackpot smear.â?? Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that â??Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.â?? I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a â??contractâ?? promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Here is Glenn Beck discussing the article. At the end of the video when he read this quote. It appears he has been vindicated in what he has been telling us about Obama.

To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven.

#2

This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.

#3

Frankly, I’m sick and tired of people coming on here and pretending that the media didn’t do it’s best to look the other way for this man. He flat out lied about this. Absolutely, bald-faced lied. Does anyone actually believe that the mainstream media cared to dig deeper themselves? No, they get scooped by right-wing media. Mainstream journalism is a cess pool of leftist activists, grown up, trying to change the world instead of reporting about it. And if they have to overlook the facts-and-nothing-but-the-facts for the ‘greater good,’ so be it.

#4

Romney’s record at Bain in the mid-90s is being and will be scrutinized as part of his candidacy - and that is perfectly fair; it’s relevant, it speaks to his experience in business and politics.

During the same time period - exactly the same time period - Obama joins a fringe party to the left of the Democratic Party in Chicago and it apparently doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

It’s ludicrous.

But, given the trajectory of the Obama campaign, as infuriating as this deliberate oversight is, there is almost no room to talk about it. With scandal after fresh scandal unfolding - for example, a rash of national security leaks from the highest levels that, rather than expose something bad the government has done (i.e., whistleblowing), these leaks serve no purpose other than to make the president look better on national security? sheesh, you can’t write this stuff - Obama’s affiliation with fringe political parties would have to take a back seat to the unfolding train wreck we are witnessing.

That said, had there been a proper vetting, this train wreck - which I derive no satisfaction from, it’s dishonoring the presidency, electoral politics aside - could have been avoided, all of us for the better.

#5

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.

#6

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.[/quote]

Nonsense, total nonsense. FOX was the first to expose the Rev. Wright story. After that any liberal media that was forced to air it or publish it (because of FOX) also had a slew of syncophants creating an atomosphere of excuses for Obama’s 20 year attendance at a racist church.

As far as airing the truth about Obama on their own they never did. Did you happen to notice the title of this thread? Where was the story about Obama’s involvement in this socialist organization back in 2008?

WHERE WAS IT?

But today the press is all worried about Romney’s involvement in Bain Capital. How interesting, a former Governor and the savior of the Olympics gets grilled about legitimately making money 30 years ago. Yet, on the other hand Candidate Obama’s socialist ties was never mentioned. Anyone who doesn’t admit a liberal bias in the press is either stupid or a democrat. And in many cases it’s the same thing!

You should have stayed in retirement because you brought nothing to this debate but more excuses for the chosen one.

#7

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.[/quote]

Nonsense, total nonsense. FOX was the first to expose the Rev. Wright story. After that any liberal media that was forced to air it or publish it (because of FOX) also had a slew of syncophants creating an atomosphere of excuses for Obama’s 20 year attendance at a racist church.

As far as airing the truth about Obama on their own they never did. Did you happen to notice the title of this thread? Where was the story about Obama’s involvement in this socialist organization back in 2008?

WHERE WAS IT?

But today the press is all worried about Romney’s involvement in Bain Capital. How interesting, a former Governor and the savior of the Olympics gets grilled about legitimately making money 30 years ago. Yet, on the other hand Candidate Obama’s socialist ties was never mentioned. Anyone who doesn’t admit a liberal bias in the press is either stupid or a democrat. And in many cases it’s the same thing!

You should have stayed in retirement because you brought nothing to this debate but more excuses for the chosen one.

[/quote]

You are incorrect, despite your argument by assertion. I believe that Tucker Carlson was the first to mention it, very early on and only in passing (on MSNBC). The first direct, mainstream treatment of the substance of Wright’s crackpot idiocy is the following, a Washington Post piece on Wright having given an award to an anti-Semite–dated Jan. 15, 2008:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

That predates the initial Fox and ABC stories–which ran 16 hours apart, on March 12 and 13–by two months.

#8

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.[/quote]

Nonsense, total nonsense. FOX was the first to expose the Rev. Wright story. After that any liberal media that was forced to air it or publish it (because of FOX) also had a slew of syncophants creating an atomosphere of excuses for Obama’s 20 year attendance at a racist church.

As far as airing the truth about Obama on their own they never did. Did you happen to notice the title of this thread? Where was the story about Obama’s involvement in this socialist organization back in 2008?

WHERE WAS IT?

But today the press is all worried about Romney’s involvement in Bain Capital. How interesting, a former Governor and the savior of the Olympics gets grilled about legitimately making money 30 years ago. Yet, on the other hand Candidate Obama’s socialist ties was never mentioned. Anyone who doesn’t admit a liberal bias in the press is either stupid or a democrat. And in many cases it’s the same thing!

You should have stayed in retirement because you brought nothing to this debate but more excuses for the chosen one.

[/quote]

You are incorrect, despite your argument by assertion. I believe that Tucker Carlson was the first to mention it, very early on and only in passing (on MSNBC). The first direct, mainstream treatment of the substance of Wright’s crackpot idiocy is the following, a Washington Post piece on Wright having given an award to an anti-Semite–dated Jan. 15, 2008:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

That predates the initial Fox and ABC stories–which ran 16 hours apart, on March 12 and 13–by two months.[/quote]

Stop it you’re embarrassing yourself. I don’t care which conservative commentator ran the story first. In fact, it might have been Sean Hannity on his radio show, and as you know he works for FOX. The point is the same. The MSLM made excuses for Obama as soon as the story broke. And as I reminded you where were the stories about Obama’s Socialist party membership? While Romney was making a forutne in private business Obama was reading Marx. But for some reason the media is focused on what Romney was doing some 25 years ago but they didn’t bother talking about Obama’s activities back then.

The press is bias to the point of being absurd. They don’t even pretend anymore.

#9

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.[/quote]

Nonsense, total nonsense. FOX was the first to expose the Rev. Wright story. After that any liberal media that was forced to air it or publish it (because of FOX) also had a slew of syncophants creating an atomosphere of excuses for Obama’s 20 year attendance at a racist church.

As far as airing the truth about Obama on their own they never did. Did you happen to notice the title of this thread? Where was the story about Obama’s involvement in this socialist organization back in 2008?

WHERE WAS IT?

But today the press is all worried about Romney’s involvement in Bain Capital. How interesting, a former Governor and the savior of the Olympics gets grilled about legitimately making money 30 years ago. Yet, on the other hand Candidate Obama’s socialist ties was never mentioned. Anyone who doesn’t admit a liberal bias in the press is either stupid or a democrat. And in many cases it’s the same thing!

You should have stayed in retirement because you brought nothing to this debate but more excuses for the chosen one.

[/quote]

You are incorrect, despite your argument by assertion. I believe that Tucker Carlson was the first to mention it, very early on and only in passing (on MSNBC). The first direct, mainstream treatment of the substance of Wright’s crackpot idiocy is the following, a Washington Post piece on Wright having given an award to an anti-Semite–dated Jan. 15, 2008:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

That predates the initial Fox and ABC stories–which ran 16 hours apart, on March 12 and 13–by two months.[/quote]

So this article came out in the Washington Post and none of the TV news services ran with it for two months. It reinforces the point that Obama got a pass from the press. Even FOX went soft on him.

The story about his socialist party membership also came out in 2008! But all he had to do is the Jedi mind trick and say is it “preposterous, these aren’t the associations you’re looking for, move along” and the press moved on.

Now we have actual documentation proving that it’s not made up, he really was a member of a socialist party, that wants to remake America into a European style socialist state. Which confirms what I wrote in the “birthers are crazy?” thread in reference to his going to Europe and telling the Europeans that they have the leading role in the world that Americans are arrogant to dismiss.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/birthers_are_crazy?id=5230433&pageNo=11

That’s why I started this thread. Because it is a story that is at least as worthy of discussion. European style socialism is where he is taking us and after he’s reelected he’ll have “more flexibility” to “fundamentally transform America”.

#10

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.[/quote]

Nonsense, total nonsense. FOX was the first to expose the Rev. Wright story. After that any liberal media that was forced to air it or publish it (because of FOX) also had a slew of syncophants creating an atomosphere of excuses for Obama’s 20 year attendance at a racist church.

As far as airing the truth about Obama on their own they never did. Did you happen to notice the title of this thread? Where was the story about Obama’s involvement in this socialist organization back in 2008?

WHERE WAS IT?

But today the press is all worried about Romney’s involvement in Bain Capital. How interesting, a former Governor and the savior of the Olympics gets grilled about legitimately making money 30 years ago. Yet, on the other hand Candidate Obama’s socialist ties was never mentioned. Anyone who doesn’t admit a liberal bias in the press is either stupid or a democrat. And in many cases it’s the same thing!

You should have stayed in retirement because you brought nothing to this debate but more excuses for the chosen one.

[/quote]

You are incorrect, despite your argument by assertion. I believe that Tucker Carlson was the first to mention it, very early on and only in passing (on MSNBC). The first direct, mainstream treatment of the substance of Wright’s crackpot idiocy is the following, a Washington Post piece on Wright having given an award to an anti-Semite–dated Jan. 15, 2008:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

That predates the initial Fox and ABC stories–which ran 16 hours apart, on March 12 and 13–by two months.[/quote]

So this article came out in the Washington Post and none of the TV news services ran with it for two months. It reinforces the point that Obama got a pass from the press. Even FOX went soft on him.

The story about his socialist party membership also came out in 2008! But all he had to do is the Jedi mind trick and say is it “preposterous, these aren’t the associations you’re looking for, move along” and the press moved on.

Now we have actual documentation proving that it’s not made up, he really was a member of a socialist party, that wants to remake America into a European style socialist state. Which confirms what I wrote in the “birthers are crazy?” thread in reference to his going to Europe and telling the Europeans that they have the leading role in the world that Americans are arrogant to dismiss.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/birthers_are_crazy?id=5230433&pageNo=11

That’s why I started this thread. Because it is a story that is at least as worthy of discussion. European style socialism is where he is taking us and after he’s reelected he’ll have “more flexibility” to “fundamentally transform America”.

[/quote]

I was taking issue with a specific, specious claim of Zeb’s, not the premise of the original post. If you’d like me to address the latter: now that there is documentary evidence, it is a story, and should be treated as such.

#11

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Stop it you’re embarrassing yourself. I don’t care which conservative commentator ran the story first. In fact, it might have been Sean Hannity on his radio show, and as you know he works for FOX. The point is the same. The MSLM made excuses for Obama as soon as the story broke. And as I reminded you where were the stories about Obama’s Socialist party membership? While Romney was making a forutne in private business Obama was reading Marx. But for some reason the media is focused on what Romney was doing some 25 years ago but they didn’t bother talking about Obama’s activities back then.

The press is bias to the point of being absurd. They don’t even pretend anymore.[/quote]

If you look back, I waded into this discussion with a narrow goal. I do not have any desire to launch into a debate about media bias–I agree with you on much of it, and the rest is irreconcilable.

Misinformation is different. You said that the press ignored the Wright controversy. You said they “left it out.”

You were wrong. The first substantive mention of Wright’s idiocy in an outlet of influence came in the Washington Post–a liberal rag, is it not? And then Fox and ABC came out with independent analyses two months later. Not one of the three pieces editorialized any more than the next.

Then I mentioned to you that a New York Times search for Wright yields multiple thousands of results. If you read results from the editorial side, you will find both left and right-leaning interpretations. And you will find apologists, for whom I have as little respect as do you.

But if you read the newsy treatments–if you can’t tell which is which, news stories have justified margins while editorialized pieces do not–you will find coverage indistinguishable form that of Fox or ABC or whatever. In other words, you will find the story as it is.

It is easy to attach a popular opinion to some hot-air assertion and shove it up your laptop’s ass. It is much more difficult to make sure that you are correct.

#12

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Stop it you’re embarrassing yourself. I don’t care which conservative commentator ran the story first. In fact, it might have been Sean Hannity on his radio show, and as you know he works for FOX. The point is the same. The MSLM made excuses for Obama as soon as the story broke. And as I reminded you where were the stories about Obama’s Socialist party membership? While Romney was making a forutne in private business Obama was reading Marx. But for some reason the media is focused on what Romney was doing some 25 years ago but they didn’t bother talking about Obama’s activities back then.

The press is bias to the point of being absurd. They don’t even pretend anymore.[/quote]

If you look back, I waded into this discussion with a narrow goal. I do not have any desire to launch into a debate about media bias–I agree with you on much of it, and the rest is irreconcilable.[/quote]

Then you should not have said this in your first post, [quote] if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old. [/quote]

But, glad you now agree with me that the main stream media has a liberal bias. But, as far as I’m concerned that’s like agreeing that today is Monday.

[quote]Misinformation is different. You said that the press ignored the Wright controversy. You said they “left it out.”

You were wrong. The first substantive mention of Wright’s idiocy in an outlet of influence came in the Washington Post–a liberal rag, is it not? And then Fox and ABC came out with independent analyses two months later. Not one of the three pieces editorialized any more than the next.

Then I mentioned to you that a New York Times search for Wright yields multiple thousands of results. If you read results from the editorial side, you will find both left and right-leaning interpretations. And you will find apologists, for whom I have as little respect as do you.[/quote]

My assertion is that the MSLM would have loved to not talk about Wright, they did, and when they did they had many excuses for Obama’s deplorable behavior in attending that racist church for 20 years. I could google the many soft peddled stories that YOUR liberal brothers in the press did but I don’t have the time or desire. AND–YOU KNOW I’M RIGHT!

[quote]But if you read the newsy treatments–if you can’t tell which is which, news stories have justified margins while editorialized pieces do not–you will find coverage indistinguishable form that of Fox or ABC or whatever. In other words, you will find the story as it is.

It is easy to attach a popular opinion to some hot-air assertion and shove it up your laptop’s ass. It is much more difficult to make sure that you are correct.[/quote]

The only hot air assertion is one made in defending a liberal news media.

It’s easy to attach an opinion that the MSLM soft peddled Obama attending a racist church for 20 years because because that is exactly what they did!

And I bring up the title of this thread to point out that Wright is not the only story that was soft peddled by the MSLM.

Nothing about Obama joining a Socialist organization 20 years ago? That isn’t nearly as important as Romney making a couple hundred million in a free enterprise system. What a bunch of crap!

Where was the headline’s about bomber Ayers and Obama’s close relationship with this person?

Where are the headlines about Harvard not releasing Obama’s grades?

Where is the outrage about Obama’s cocaine use? When Bush admitted pot use the press had a field day up to his last day in the White House!

Where are the current headlines about Obama lying about being from Kenya in order to garner certain monetary favors relative to tuition etc.? (And you liberals are sooo insulted that anyone would think that Obama is not from the US–idiots)

In short, when GW Bush was President there was a mean spirited headline every other day. Hell, Bush didn’t even have to do anything all he had to do was breath. But with Obama, perhaps because of his color and certainly because of his left leaning policies the MSLM gives him a pass day in and day out. And if he does win reelection it will be because the MSLM covered for him just as they did in 2008.

The main stream liberal news media is a sham!

And your arguments are totally without merit!

#13

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is what happens when you have a media that is so liberal they refused to vent candidate Obama.

They conveniently left this out along with his 20 year attendance at a racist church.

But had a republican been part of a far right wing group, or attended a racist church it would be on the front page as it should be. And it will be difficult to beat a guy who has this kind of backing. Possible for sure but difficult.[/quote]

Had to come out of retirement for this one, Zeb. Candidate Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright became a public controversy because of a March 2008 expose undertakes an published by ABC–an outlet that I assume falls squarely in the “liberal media” column for you and your fellow-travelers here.

A search for “Reverend Wright” on the New York Times’ website yields 3,430 internal results. More than ten of them appeared on the front page, above the fold.

There is a glut of Romney stories at the moment because this is his first time as the Republican nominee. Stories about Obama’s past were done–done EVERYWHERE–in 2008. Now those stories are old, and if newsmen have any real overriding bias, it is for the new and against the old.[/quote]

Nonsense, total nonsense. FOX was the first to expose the Rev. Wright story. After that any liberal media that was forced to air it or publish it (because of FOX) also had a slew of syncophants creating an atomosphere of excuses for Obama’s 20 year attendance at a racist church.

As far as airing the truth about Obama on their own they never did. Did you happen to notice the title of this thread? Where was the story about Obama’s involvement in this socialist organization back in 2008?

WHERE WAS IT?

But today the press is all worried about Romney’s involvement in Bain Capital. How interesting, a former Governor and the savior of the Olympics gets grilled about legitimately making money 30 years ago. Yet, on the other hand Candidate Obama’s socialist ties was never mentioned. Anyone who doesn’t admit a liberal bias in the press is either stupid or a democrat. And in many cases it’s the same thing!

You should have stayed in retirement because you brought nothing to this debate but more excuses for the chosen one.

[/quote]

You are incorrect, despite your argument by assertion. I believe that Tucker Carlson was the first to mention it, very early on and only in passing (on MSNBC). The first direct, mainstream treatment of the substance of Wright’s crackpot idiocy is the following, a Washington Post piece on Wright having given an award to an anti-Semite–dated Jan. 15, 2008:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

That predates the initial Fox and ABC stories–which ran 16 hours apart, on March 12 and 13–by two months.[/quote]

So this article came out in the Washington Post and none of the TV news services ran with it for two months. It reinforces the point that Obama got a pass from the press. Even FOX went soft on him.

The story about his socialist party membership also came out in 2008! But all he had to do is the Jedi mind trick and say is it “preposterous, these aren’t the associations you’re looking for, move along” and the press moved on.

Now we have actual documentation proving that it’s not made up, he really was a member of a socialist party, that wants to remake America into a European style socialist state. Which confirms what I wrote in the “birthers are crazy?” thread in reference to his going to Europe and telling the Europeans that they have the leading role in the world that Americans are arrogant to dismiss.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/birthers_are_crazy?id=5230433&pageNo=11

That’s why I started this thread. Because it is a story that is at least as worthy of discussion. European style socialism is where he is taking us and after he’s reelected he’ll have “more flexibility” to “fundamentally transform America”.

[/quote]

I was taking issue with a specific, specious claim of Zeb’s, not the premise of the original post. If you’d like me to address the latter: now that there is documentary evidence, it is a story, and should be treated as such.
[/quote]

But what you cleverly avoid is the obvious nature regarding one being indicative of the other. The MSLM soft peddled Obama’s attendance at a racist Church. And now they’re ignoring his Socialist ties.

There is no defending one without mentioning the others.

#14

Oh MY FUCKING GOD , sorry to break up the circle jerk but the article does not portray any thing as nefarious
a s you all

#15

Well, thought economist Thomas Sowell right in Obama’s economic beliefs. The President hasn’t show as much interest in taking over companies, as is seen with socialism. Obama is more interested in controlling private firms, and when the Presidents theories fail to workout he can blame the companies.

“Obama’s Politics Are More Insidious Than Socialism”

http://news.investors.com/article/614416/201206111754/president-obama-wants-government-control-of-economy.htm

#16

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Oh MY FUCKING GOD , sorry to break up the circle jerk but the article does not portray any thing as nefarious
a s you all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)[/quote]

Are you serious? Have you seen the news reports coming out of Europe? Do you know anything about the politics of Europe?

Four years ago candidate Obama was going around telling us how great things are in Spain because they have lots of green jobs and he was going to do the same here. At the time people were warning it was going to be a failure.

Here is this weeks news from Spain. Their economy is a wreck. It’s not getting better and it’s about to fall off a cliff.

The economy of France is doing bad but despite that, last week their new socialist president lowered the retirement age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9314666/French-president-Francois-Hollande-cuts-retirement-age.html

You need to wake up Pitbull. That is the path Obama wants to take us down. Not only is it every bit nefarious as it seems it’s even worse. Europe is headed for a huge disaster. In the process democracy is being wiped out.

#17

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Oh MY FUCKING GOD , sorry to break up the circle jerk but the article does not portray any thing as nefarious
a s you all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)[/quote]

Are you serious? Have you seen the news reports coming out of Europe? Do you know anything about the politics of Europe?

Four years ago candidate Obama was going around telling us how great things are in Spain because they have lots of green jobs and he was going to do the same here. At the time people were warning it was going to be a failure.

Here is this weeks news from Spain. Their economy is a wreck. It’s not getting better and it’s about to fall off a cliff.

The economy of France is doing bad but despite that, last week their new socialist president lowered the retirement age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9314666/French-president-Francois-Hollande-cuts-retirement-age.html

You need to wake up Pitbull. That is the path Obama wants to take us down. Not only is it every bit nefarious as it seems it’s even worse. Europe is headed for a huge disaster. In the process democracy is being wiped out.
[/quote]

Where is the mention of the ( new party ) that was the nefarious deed that Obama committed . The numbers make Obama more conservative than Bush or Reagan for that matter

#18

The video could possibly be totally factual . The problem is both sides are guilty of so much disinformation just as this board . No one cares what is true the idea is to win the argument .

#19

While I will agree with the circle jerk society that this is no a viable answer because the market has no way to make a profit on this model . But it does point out a terrible reality and something will be done some day and if we have the foresight it may be easier to swallow rather than wait until it is a necessity

#20

Member of a Socialist party - check

Elected to the Illinois Senate on a Socialist Party ticket - check

All friends and associates are Socialists/Marxists/New Left - check

Platform, stated beliefs and actions all in accord with Socialism(progressive tax system, wealth redistribution, attacks on the private sector, centralisation of power, nationalised health care, class/race warfare etc.)

So, we can all agree that natural-born citizen of the United States, “Dog Meat” Hussein Obama is a Socialist now? Good, end of story.