PROOF that Barack Obama was/is a Socialist??

[Jermyn Davidson]

Yes I was trying to poke holes. I try to do that whenever anyone comes up with something off the wall.


FOX news is clearly biased to the "Right". So, if there was to be a valid attack on Sen. Obama, I would expect it from FOX. That is why I kept asking about them.

After all, they are the most trusted name in news....


I'd like to see their platforms, again to see how anti-American and dangerous this organization was, along with some one or something else that establishes his membership in a dangerous organization.

My head is not buried in the sand. By the fact that I have gone this distance with you on this thread should show that I am open to the FACTS when the FACTS are presented in a verifiable way.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by 1399

Yes I was trying to poke holes. I try to do that whenever anyone comes up with something off the wall.

FOX news is clearly biased to the "Right". So, if there was to be a valid attack on Sen. Obama, I would expect it from FOX. That is why I kept asking about them.

After all, they are the most trusted name in news....

I'd like to see their platforms, again to see how anti-American and dangerous this organization was, along with some one or something else that establishes his membership in a dangerous organization.

My head is not buried in the sand. By the fact that I have gone this distance with you on this thread should show that I am open to the FACTS when the FACTS are presented in a verifiable way.

Off the wall?

That says it all right there. Clearly, you never intended to be fair-minded if you already pre-judged the assertion as being "off the wall".

(Lets not forget that earlier on, you had already decided that there was "something fishy" about the info, and that it was all part of "an elaborate attempt to blow smoke" , even before you had properly looked into the relevant facts. That told me from the very beginning what your mindset was regarding the information.)

So tell me: What is so "off the wall" about the idea that a young, left-leaning Democrat would join a Socialist party whose views he agreed with, while involved in local politics... and then would distance himself from that party later on when he developed national political aspirations?

Maybe the idea is only "off the wall" if it's something you don't want to believe, because you don't want his past radical associations to come back and hurt him in his national campaign.

It's one thing to carefully dissect an assertion in order to judge whether it's true or not. It's another thing to look for weaknesses and try to find fault with, poke holes in, and undermine the truthfulness of something because you've already decided it's "off the wall". Anyway, the facts are very straightforward sir. You can do with them as you wish. Yes, some might say the facts in question were gathered by various conservative websites, but the sources used, and references they provided for their information are solid and verifiable. You have not been able to demonstrate that a single one of their factual assertions is wrong, nor that the websites they referenced did not contain the information they said was there.

However, it's clear that you would like the facts to fit the view that you're already pre-disposed to. So be it.

Take it easy, bro.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Off the wall?

That says it all right there. Clearly, you never intended to be fair-minded if you already pre-judged the assertion as being "off the wall".

(Lets not forget that earlier on, you had already decided that there was "something fishy" about the info, and that it was all part of "an elaborate attempt to blow smoke" , even before you had properly looked into the relevant facts. That told me from the very beginning what your mindset was regarding the information.)

So tell me: What is so "off the wall" about the idea that a young, left-leaning Democrat would join a Socialist party whose views he agreed with, while involved in local politics... and then would distance himself from that party later on when he developed national political aspirations?

Maybe the idea is only "off the wall" if it's something you don't want to believe, because you don't want his past radical associations to come back and hurt him in his national campaign.

It's one thing to carefully dissect an assertion in order to judge whether it's true or not. It's another thing to look for weaknesses and try to find fault with, poke holes in, and undermine the truthfulness of something because you've already decided it's "off the wall". Anyway, the facts are very straightforward sir. You can do with them as you wish. Yes, some might say the facts in question were gathered by various conservative websites, but the sources used, and references they provided for their information are solid and verifiable. You have not been able to demonstrate that a single one of their factual assertions is wrong, nor that the websites they referenced did not contain the information they said was there.

However, it's clear that you would like the facts to fit the view that you're already pre-disposed to. So be it.

Take it easy, bro.

"PROOF that Barack Obama was/is a Socialist" is not off the wall? Maybe it shouldn't be considered "off the wall" since he has been accused of being a baby eating Muslim Terrorist Extremist that inspires young militants!


This forum is filled with anti-Sen. Obama voices whose attacks have been mostly cynical, though some are factual.

But you have to cut through a lot of stuff to get to the facts-- not just here, but with the media in general.

Realizing this, yes, whenever I read anything from FOX, NEWSMAX, Falwell's Son, and most stuff on here and it is political in nature I am already looking for bias, mischaracterizations, or even lies.


There are a few things fishy about all of this:

1) The timing of this "new found information" on his past;

2) The websites, as mentioned earlier, seemed unprofessional, lacking depth, and seemed "fake"-- there was another one I didn't mention, "Politically Drunk on Power". When I did a google search on this organization or whatever it is, I came up with 14 Google pages of references and were almost ALL anti-Obama in nature-- can't count that as a reputable source of information;

3) The story created more smoke than presenting facts-- another sign that it's contents of the story may not be valid.


So there is reason for my skepticism.


If it is not "off the wall" for this left leaning Democrat to have been a member of a Socialist Party a long time ago, then why is it even being discussed in the first place? Why is Britt Hume bringing it up?

BECAUSE IT IS OFF THE WALL, NOT EXPECTED, AND IF TRUE, IT COULD REVEAL THE MIND OF SEN. OBAMA, being that he can't be trusted anyway....


I will go through the links you provided, looking for a clear, verifiable association between the "New Party" and Sen. Obama. Then I will find out what I can about the "New Party", in an attempt to determine it's threat to our Country and our way of life.


If it turns out that there is a fire, kudos to you for showing us the smoke.

But far too often, folks have created smoke when there was no fire.

[deacon blues]

Bump

[Jermyn Davidson]

TRFRANCE:

Sir,

I promise I have scoured your links, clicked on links after your link, there is NOTHING that "proves" Sen. Obama was a New Party member in 1996.


In fact, if you reread the post where I quoted, line for line, from the CDSA website, that quote is the only thing I read that comes close to providing proof.


But, honestly, there is no proof to this. It's all smoke and lies being told by others.

Where is the "archived page" to verify his membership?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by 1399

TRFRANCE:
Sir,

I promise I have scoured your links, clicked on links after your link, there is NOTHING that "proves" Sen. Obama was a New Party member in 1996.


In fact, if you reread the post where I quoted, line for line, from the CDSA website, that quote is the only thing I read that comes close to providing proof.

But, honestly, there is no proof to this. It's all smoke and lies being told by others.

Where is the "archived page" to verify his membership?

You cant be serious with that question.

I really don't feel like providing the same links all over again, bro. It seems that you are so busy looking for "holes to poke" that you are not seeing what's plainly stated in black and white in front of you on some of those sites I referenced.

I provided you the links to the archived pages where the New Party declares Obama to be a member on their own NewParty.org website, and the Chicago DSA on their own website also referred to Obama as a New Party member.

On those pages I sent you, and in additional links on some of those other pages, Obama is/was referred to multiple times as being a New Party member, not simply by "right wingers", but by DSA members and NP members themselves! I can not believe you didnt see that plainly on those pages. If you didnt, then you're in deeper state denial than I thought. I could go, post the links again, and copy and paste the direct quotes all over again... but at this point I really feel I'd be wasting my time.

Brother, it's like you're in such serious denial right now, its almost scary.

Anyway, if you didn't see the facts in front of you before, there's no reason for me to believe you're going to all of a sudden see them now.

So I'm done here. Good day sir.

[TRFrance]

Further evidence comes to light:

Newspaper Show's Obama belonged to Socialist Party

Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership
Posted: October 24, 2008
12:50 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog) JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

[TRFrance]

Commentary on the issue by Peter Kirsanow of the National Review

New Party:Where's The Press?

New Party: Where's the Press? [Peter Kirsanow]

As Stanley notes below, despite the existence of documentary evidence that Obama was a member of the New Party, it appears that no one in the mainstream press has covered the matter.

Within days of McCain's selection of Sarah Palin the mainstream press was all over her purported membership in the Alaskan Independence Party — universally described as a fringe party.

The Alaskan Independence Party is no more fringe or radical than the New Party, the tenets of which are plainly redistributionist. Indeed, the New Party appears to have been an adjunct of the Democratic Socialists of America. In fact, a DSA newsletter refers to a speech given by Obama at the Young Democratic Socialists Conference.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...hhNmVhNmVlMjQ=

[Digging4Truth]

On the subject of Socialism...


Words from the man who should have been president.

Central Planning is sold to a hopeful people as a way to solve societal problems, to right wrongs, and bring about perfect justice and equality. Central Planning promises you everything you are entitled to. As a bonus, goods and services produced by others are added to the list of commodities that everyone has a "right" to. Suddenly everyone is entitled to healthcare, housing, education, food, et cetera. It might sound nice that the state will magically provide all these wonderful things, but these rosy promises mask a dehumanizing, ugly reality. The other side of these entitlements is that now the doctor, the builder, the teacher, the farmer are slaves to the all-powerful state. No longer do they serve patients, students, or customers. They work in complete obedience to the state, their only customer.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

On the subject of Socialism...


Words from the man who should have been president.

Ron Paul?
Please.

His racist past alone disqualifies him.

TUESDAY, JAN. 8, 2008 17:35 EST
Ron Paul, racist?

Ever since Texas Rep. Ron Paul first became a known figure in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, there has been discussion about his alleged ties to white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. For the most part, Paul's supporters have been able to dismiss the allegations and what evidence had emerged to support them. Now, though, literally on the cusp of a New Hampshire primary in which Paul is expected to beat Fred Thompson and perhaps even Rudy Giuliani, the New Republic's James Kirchick is out with extensive documentation of hate-filled and paranoiac writings that -- if not penned by Paul himself -- were published under his name.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/08/paul/

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...ers/index.html