Obama is a Socialist.

[Yonivore]

Forget what he says, look at his voting record, look at his friends, look at his history:

Everything below is Hyperlinked to a site within the Chicago Democratic party archives, there is no conjecture, no guessing, The fact is that as recently as 1996 Senator Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party:

On their website the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) has a description of their political perspective called Where We Stand (http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html). It says, in part,


We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
At least according to its newsletter called the New Ground ,Senator Barack Obama attended at least a few meetings of the Chicago Chapter of this group in 1996. And from the way he was described in the newsletter he "talked the talk" and "walked the walk".

New Ground 45 (http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html)


March - April, 1996

A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity: Employment and Survival in Urban America
By Bob Roman
Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago's 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA's National Political Committee....

....Now the issue is again coming to the front, but he wished the issue was on the Democratic agenda not just on Buchanan's.

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama's campaign is "what does it take to create productive communities", not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is "human capital development". By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a "workforce preparation strategy". Public education requires equality in funding. It's not that money is the only solution to public education's problems but it's a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it's also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By "workforce preparation strategy", Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.....
SENATOR OBAMA EVEN SIGNED A CONTRACT:


In September or October 1995 (http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932) he signed a contract promising an visible and open relationship with the Marxist New Party:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.
The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama.....

In July-August 1996 (http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html#anchor781435) the Socialist Party celebrated Obama's Primary victory:

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
Barack Obama is not an extreme Liberal. Hillary Clinton is an Extreme liberal. Barack Obama is a Socialist. He campaigned on their ticket, signed their contracts and attended their meetings.

it is inconceivable that the American people would elect a socialist President. So, if this report is correct, something's got to give.

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. ...

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, those pajamas wearing bloggers discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

Here it is:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/NewParty117.jpg

So the New Party claimed Obama as a member as of 1996. Progressive Populist magazine agreed in this editorial (http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html):


New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.
The Democratic Socialist Party of America (http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html) was slightly more modest in claiming Senator Obama as an adherent:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/DemocraticSocialists212.jpg

Still, it appears clear that as of 1996, the New Party and its parent organization the Democratic Socialists of America considered Barack Obama to be their guy--one of a handful of avowed socialists running for office at any level in the United States. It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do...and not just about William Ayers which, I predict, will become more of a problem as well.

As Senator McCain has said time and time again, don't listen to the words coming out of Obama's mouth, look at his record, look at his history (what you can find of it), and look at who he hangs around with.

He's a socialist. I know there are people in this forum who lean way left -- probably even are socialists themselves -- who won't, either for partisanship or pride, admit this is a big fucking problem for their man Barack. But, if this gets wide play, he's toast.

[FromWayDowntown]

He's winning.

[MannyIsGod]

K

[Yonivore]

He's winning.
He's winning? The game doesn't start until 7:00 A.M. on November 4th.

[Yonivore]

K
That's all you can muster? Why reply at all?

[MannyIsGod]

That's all you can muster? Why reply at all?

My reply was fitting of your post.

[Yonivore]

My reply was fitting of your post.
How so?

Would you agree or not that Obama is a socialist?

[CubanMustGo]

... must
... grasp
... at
... straws

[Yonivore]

... must
... grasp
... at
... straws
Okay, don't respond to the evidence. That's cool.

I think with the revelation that he was a card-carrying member of the DSA in 1996, William Ayers becomes the least of his worries.

[fyatuk]

Not that I bothered reading all that, but what's the big deal?

Then again, I'm a social democrat (at least once you get down to state level), so "socialist" doesn't bother me anyway. Socialist, and even "democrat socialist" covers a LARGE range of beliefs. Blanket terms are stupid.

[Yonivore]

Not that I bothered reading all that, but what's the big deal?

Then again, I'm a social democrat (at least once you get down to state level), so "socialist" doesn't bother me anyway. Socialist, and even "democrat socialist" covers a LARGE range of beliefs. Blanket terms are stupid.
Democratic Socialists of America is a specific party with specific ideals. Look 'em up. I'm also willing to bet William Ayers was a member. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they attended meetings to that club, together, as well.

[ElNono]

What's so wrong about socialism, other than you don't agree with it's philosophy?

[Yonivore]

What's so wrong about socialism, other than you don't agree with it's philosophy?
It doesn't work and has failed every where it's been tried.

[Anti.Hero]

Wasting time.

They are so hard for Obama they don't give a shit.

[Anti.Hero]

What's so wrong about socialism, other than you don't agree with it's philosophy?

America wasn't fucking meant for it.


Jesus Christ. If people want socialism, go find a fucking boat.

[fyatuk]

Democratic Socialists of America is a specific party with specific ideals. Look 'em up. I'm also willing to bet William Ayers was a member. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they attended meetings to that club, together, as well.

I know their ideals. They happen to be closest to mine (of any party I've looked at ideals for) and at one time I considered signing up before I decided it was stupid for me to do since my ideals vary wildly based on which level of government we're talking about.

What you posted associated Obama with several different parties (the glance I took). Didn't look to see which it focused on. But my point was "Obama is a socialist". You're taking advantage of a blanket term that has an unjust negative connotation in order to stir up fear about Obama. That was my complaint.

[Yonivore]

Wasting time.

They are so hard for Obama they don't give a shit.
I know but, it's fun seeing all the intelligent responses...oh, wait, that didn't happen either.

[Anti.Hero]

America.

Fool the weak into thinking they deserve/will get everything, let the government gain full power over everyone, force the few to pay for the many.

God Bless Amerika.

[fyatuk]

America wasn't fucking meant for it.


Jesus Christ. If people want socialism, go find a fucking boat.

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If the majority want socialism, the US becomes socialist.

That is the ideal of America. Government determined by the people, serving the people in the capacity they desire.

[Shastafarian]

The fact is that as recently as 1996 Senator Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party:

Well shit son, if he was a member back in 1996 I do declare he's a socialist! Any recent information Yoni? Or should we go back and see what John McCain was doing in 1996?

[Yonivore]

I know their ideals. They happen to be closest to mine (of any party I've looked at ideals for) and at one time I considered signing up before I decided it was stupid for me to do since my ideals vary wildly based on which level of government we're talking about.

What you posted associated Obama with several different parties (the glance I took). Didn't look to see which it focused on. But my point was "Obama is a socialist". You're taking advantage of a blanket term that has an unjust negative connotation in order to stir up fear about Obama. That was my complaint.
Apparently, he signed a contract with the DSA in 1996. A socialist political party. If I'm taking advantage of Obama's choice, so be it. Complain all you want.

Plus, taken in conjunction with all the radical, left-wing friends and associates he's had to throw under the bus at the eleventh hour, I'm beginning to think his own Democratic Party didn't vet him very well before making Barack their nominee.

Barack has the most liberal voting record in Congress, he's a radical, left-wing, socialist who was part and parcel to that culture. Now that he wants to be president, his history is rather inconvenient. Why? America doesn't want a socialist as its president.

[Anti.Hero]

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If the majority want socialism, the US becomes socialist.

That is the ideal of America. Government determined by the people, serving the people in the capacity they desire.

This shit makes me absolutely sick.

Don't you understand!? Those who are paying for it are getting trumped by the government promising the masses they will take care of them.

[Yonivore]

The fact is that as recently as 1996 Senator Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party:

Well shit son, if he was a member back in 1996 I do declare he's a socialist! Any recent information Yoni? Or should we go back and see what John McCain was doing in 1996?
Well, let's see, his political coming out party was thrown by a terrorist and he signed on the dotted line for the socialist party in 1996. I don't know when his association with the DSA ended. Maybe someone should ask him.

[Yonivore]

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If the majority want socialism, the US becomes socialist.

That is the ideal of America. Government determined by the people, serving the people in the capacity they desire.
The he should be honest about it so the people can be well-informed.

The reason he isn't is because he knows the majority don't want a socialist as president. Otherwise, he'd be loud and proud about his past affiliation with the DSA.

[hitmanyr2k]

Obama was a card carrying socialist back in the day. Do I need to tell you what the fuck you can do as a card carrying socialist?

Socialist!!

That don't scare you? Fine, I didn't want to say this....





Obama went to Africa and bought some yellow cake. OK? The MF went to Africa and bought some yellow cake.

[ElNono]

It doesn't work and has failed every where it's been tried.

Not true. And is this savage neocon capitalism working? Have you read the news lately?

[Shastafarian]

Well, let's see, his political coming out party was thrown by a terrorist and he signed on the dotted line for the socialist party in 1996. I don't know when his association with the DSA ended. Maybe someone should ask him.

It seems your buddies think he ended his affiliation in 1996 or they wouldn't have said, "as recently as 1996". So should we see what McCain was doing in 1996? We already know he sat on the board of a group that was chocked full of people who gave money to Contras (who many people deemed terrorists). We recently found out a large supporter of his once said a woman who shot an abortion doctor was a "fine lady".

[Yonivore]

Not true. And is this savage neocon capitalism working? Have you read the news lately?
Where has socialism succeeded?

And, yes, I've read the news lately. Corruption and government interference have collapsed the financial markets...who'd of thunk it. I guarantee you socialism won't fix it.

[fyatuk]

This shit makes me absolutely sick.

Don't you understand!? Those who are paying for it are getting trumped by the government promising the masses they will take care of them.

Of course I understand. I'm not socialist in any form at the federal level. I'm very much a minimalist at the federal level. The socialist style programs are disgustingly inefficiently run, and their hybrid socialist/capitalist nature guarantees they will always cause problems.

That comment was in regards to "go find a fucking boat." You denigrate it as not an American ideal, but the true ideal of America is that the people choose what the government has power over. An overwhelming number of people support welfare, wic, social security, medicare, etc. They support some forms of socialist enterprises within the government. The American ideal is that those programs continue to move forward.

If you don't want to do what the majority (and in many cases vast majority) want, YOU should "find a fucking boat".

[ElNono]

America wasn't fucking meant for it.
Jesus Christ. If people want socialism, go find a fucking boat.

Now, that I can agree with. America is the heart and soul of capitalism, attempting to tell the goodness of being a capitalist to the rest of the world.
That's why this massive fail of the economy is actually pretty catastrophic in more ways that people think.

[Yonivore]

It seems your buddies think he ended his affiliation in 1996 or they wouldn't have said, "as recently as 1996". So should we see what McCain was doing in 1996? We already know he sat on the board of a group that was chocked full of people who gave money to Contras (who many people deemed terrorists). We recently found out a large supporter of his once said a woman who shot an abortion doctor was a "fine lady".
1996 is when he signed the contract.

Sure, what was McCain doing in '96?


(who many people deemed...)
Everyone thinks Ayers was a terrorist.


a large supporter of his...
William Ayers is a large supporter of Obama's and he didn't just say stuff, he tried to kill people. A lot of them. He still wishes he'd of been a more successful terrorist.

[Anti.Hero]

Of course I understand. I'm not socialist in any form at the federal level. I'm very much a minimalist at the federal level. The socialist style programs are disgustingly inefficiently run, and their hybrid socialist/capitalist nature guarantees they will always cause problems.

That comment was in regards to "go find a fucking boat." You denigrate it as not an American ideal, but the true ideal of America is that the people choose what the government has power over. An overwhelming number of people support welfare, wic, social security, medicare, etc. They support some forms of socialist enterprises within the government. The American ideal is that those programs continue to move forward.

If you don't want to do what the majority (and in many cases vast majority) want, YOU should "find a fucking boat".

Where would I go? Honest Question. :depressed

Nah, it wouldn't get THAT bad for a couple more decades. :toast I won't be one of those people. :lol


But to your post, you have lived life. Have you observed that the majority are usually right? In my time, the answer is no. That is America. The majority of people would rather stick out their hand then grab a shovel.

[ElNono]

Where has socialism succeeded?

And, yes, I've read the news lately. Corruption and government interference have collapsed the financial markets...who'd of thunk it. I guarantee you socialism won't fix it.

There's plenty of social democrat parties that have done pretty well in Europe and other parts of the world, by using more of a mixture of capitalism and socialism in contrast to neo-capitalism. Countries like France and Spain come to mind.

[Shastafarian]

Sure, what was McCain doing in '96?


Good question. I'll check it out.


Everyone thinks Ayers was a terrorist.

So what?



William Ayers is a large supporter of Obama's and he didn't just say stuff, he tried to kill people. A lot of them. He still wishes he'd of been a more successful terrorist.

He was at the democratic convention? Because this woman who praised someone who was called a "terrorist" (by the judge that sentenced her) was a delegate at this year's Republican Convention.

[fyatuk]

The he should be honest about it so the people can be well-informed.

The reason he isn't is because he knows the majority don't want a socialist as president. Otherwise, he'd be loud and proud about his past affiliation with the DSA.

Because "socialist" has an unjust negative connotation to it. People here socialist and they start thinking tyrannical corrupt regimes. Portions of socialism are already heavily accepted in US society, not just in government, but more and more in private enterprises as well.

Many cities and a few states have very strong socialist influences in highly conservative areas, such as Alaska and Texas. It seems every year the US moves more and more socialist, just people refuse to admit that is what it is.

[Anti.Hero]

The social programs that are ticking time bombs?

You are right, America has already dipped into socialism yet all people talk about is neo-con this neo-con that. As if there is not an obvious need to cut down on that shit without going deep into socialism.

[fyatuk]

Where would I go? Honest Question. :depressed

Nah, it wouldn't get THAT bad for a couple more decades. :toast I won't be one of those people. :lol

That's a good point. The entire world is moving more and more towards the socialist end of the spectrum.


But to your post, you have lived life. Have you observed that the majority are usually right? In my time, the answer is no. That is America. Those who work and persevere rise to the top.

No, but the majority is usually not disastrously wrong, either. The few people involved in a decision, the more chance for a disturbingly bad choice, but the more chance for an amazingly good choice to be made as well. That's why we have a republican form of government instead of a true democracy (besides the impossible logistics of a true democracy in a widespread society).

[Anti.Hero]

We are on the tipping scale for CHANGE in this country and the conservatives have McDoofus as their voice. That is not democracy.

[2centsworth]

he is a socialist but it doesn't matter. He is going to win by a landslide.

[td4mvp21]

Obama has some socialist views...yes, that is pretty obvious if you look at the issues. He is for universal healthcare and wants to tax the wealthy in order to balance out the wealth.

[td4mvp21]

And just because he has socialist views doesn't mean the country is going to go socialist.

[fyatuk]

The social programs that are ticking time bombs?

Some are, some aren't. Social Security would be on sound footing if it was based on a progressive tax instead of a regressive structure (flat tax + cap means it affects the poor more than the rich). Medicare has clauses in it to support US pharmaceutical monopolies, etc, that if removed would greatly diminish it's required budget, etc. Many of the problems in the social programs are caused by trying to integrate strong capitalist influences in a socialist structure. Not to say they would be 100% secure without those capitalist influences, I have no idea on that, but the capitalist influences insure they will never work.

Then you have things like various levels of the government requiring people to use a service provided by a private enterprise (notably car insurance, and in some cases health insurance if many democrats have their way), which is just completely insane.


You are right, America has already dipped into socialism yet all people talk about is neo-con this neo-con that. As if there is not an obvious need to cut down on that shit without going deep into socialism.

Yeah, everyone is focusing on the errors made by the neo-cons without noticing the programs with the socialist portions of our government. It's sad because Social Security needs to be addressed by the next President, but it's not being discussed as the major issue it should be. Like I said before, I'm a minimalist at the federal level, and I'd love to see those programs killed to be replaced by state level programs, but that's not happening, unfortunately.

[ElNono]

All you guys that are not alarmed of Obama having socialist views just ruined Yoni's thread!
You guys should be ashamed!

:lmao

[FromWayDowntown]

Yonivore also has posted "evidence" that we found WMD's in Iraq.

[2centsworth]

All you guys that are not alarmed of Obama having socialist views just ruined Yoni's thread!
You guys should be ashamed!

:lmao

why be alarmed when there's nothing you can do about it.

[Spurminator]

Yoni, have you ever heard the story about The Boy Who Cried Socialist Terrorist's Pal?

[fyatuk]

Yonivore also has posted "evidence" that we found WMD's in Iraq.

We did. In fact, some was used in an IED against out troops. Of course, it was 20 year old nerve toxin that no longer worked and it was assumed even Saddam wasn't aware that batch wasn't destroyed (since why would he keep incriminating evidence that was worthless). That cracked me up a few years ago when it happened. We also found a small quantity of chemical weapon delivery warheads that were supposed to have been destroyed with traces of expired chemicals.

Nothing you could consider dangerous or important though :hat

[ElNono]

why be alarmed when there's nothing you can do about it.

Exactly, plus he's not going to abolish democracy. You can vote him out in 4 years if he's truly sucking.
Not to mention that Congress won't pass everything he proposes. Especially if it's staunch socialist programs.

[timvp]

Is there a democrat alive who hasn't been accused of being a socialist? Calling a democrat a socialist is cliche to the nth degree.

[ElNono]

We did. In fact, some was used in an IED against out troops. Of course, it was 20 year old nerve toxin that no longer worked and it was assumed even Saddam wasn't aware that batch wasn't destroyed (since why would he keep incriminating evidence that was worthless). That cracked me up a few years ago when it happened. We also found a small quantity of chemical weapon delivery warheads that were supposed to have been destroyed with traces of expired chemicals.

Nothing you could consider dangerous or important though :hat

You mean Saddam didn't have those Chemical weapon trucks that Powell so clearly presented as evidence to the UN, with satellite images and all?
Gee Golly!

[spurster]

Look at what those socialists Yoni is talking about are doing now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09econ.html

U.S. May Take Ownership Stake in Banks

Article Tools Sponsored By
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MARK LANDLER
Published: October 8, 2008

WASHINGTON — Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials.

...

[101A]

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If the majority want socialism, the US becomes socialist.

That is the ideal of America. Government determined by the people, serving the people in the capacity they desire.


You think that is a tacit approval of complete wealth distribution and Socialixm/Marxism???

Is that what the fuck you think?

Go read a Federalist paper, fool.

Read ANYTHING by John Locke!!

Direct Democracy was NEVER considered for this great nation; hell, the founders only wanted LAND OWNERS voting - and then wanted those choices filtered through representative and electors!

The whole damned Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT individuals from the Fucking Government - meaning the tryranny of the majority!!!!

Good fucking God you don't know what the hell you are talking about!!!!!

[101A]

Of course I understand. I'm not socialist in any form at the federal level. I'm very much a minimalist at the federal level. The socialist style programs are disgustingly inefficiently run, and their hybrid socialist/capitalist nature guarantees they will always cause problems.

That comment was in regards to "go find a fucking boat." You denigrate it as not an American ideal, but the true ideal of America is that the people choose what the government has power over. An overwhelming number of people support welfare, wic, social security, medicare, etc. They support some forms of socialist enterprises within the government. The American ideal is that those programs continue to move forward.

If you don't want to do what the majority (and in many cases vast majority) want, YOU should "find a fucking boat".

FAIL (again).


The United States Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Read that. (I'll wait)

[Soul_Patch]

Yoni watches too much Fox news...I sware to god, if i watched that channel even for an hour, id think the entire world was fixing to end tomorrow.

What is the deal with conservatives and fear mongering.

[Soul_Patch]

I think i found a good example of a day's worth of Fox News, summed up in about 2 minutes.

This is probably on repeat on yoni's ipod all day

dlofjKEkSrA

[Findog]

Didn't McCain just propose buying up every single bad mortgage in the country?

Who's the socialist?

[101A]

Didn't McCain just propose buying up every single bad mortgage in the country?

Who's the socialist?

He did, but I think it's ALREADY in the bailout package.

We are fucked.

[smeagol]

He did, but I think it's ALREADY in the bailout package.

We are fucked.

We are fucked, but not because of the bailout.

We are fucked because of many years of "living on credit".

Party is over and the tab needs to be picked up. Bailout or no bailout.

[101A]

We are fucked, but not because of the bailout.

We are fucked because of many years of "living on credit".

Party is over and the tab needs to be picked up. Bailout or no bailout.

True that.

[Hook Dem]

Exactly, plus he's not going to abolish democracy. You can vote him out in 4 years if he's truly sucking.
Not to mention that Congress won't pass everything he proposes. Especially if it's staunch socialist programs.

LOL A democratic congress wont pass everything he proposes???? Get real!

[Hook Dem]

After reading the political forum, I have come to the conclusion that 101A is the most intellegent poster here!

[ElNono]

LOL A democratic congress wont pass everything he proposes???? Get real!

Of course not. Who do you think pay for those congressman's campaigns? Is not Obama or the government. Is the same lobby groups that pay Republicans. The same insurance companies that would get screwed over with Obama's health plan. The same rich folks that got the bailout passed. The same oil co's that push for more drilling and less alternative fuels.

He might be able to pass a thing or two by force of public opinion, but eventually we'll go back to same old tricks.

[Hook Dem]

Of course not. Who do you think pay for those congressman's campaigns? Is not Obama or the government. Is the same lobby groups that pay Republicans. The same insurance companies that would get screwed over with Obama's health plan. The same rich folks that got the bailout passed. The same oil co's that push for more drilling and less alternative fuels.

He might be able to pass a thing or two by force of public opinion, but eventually we'll go back to same old tricks.

LOL You truly don't understand what a democratic controlled congress would do. Vote your conscience though!

[fyatuk]

Go read a Federalist paper, fool.

Read ANYTHING by John Locke!!

Direct Democracy was NEVER considered for this great nation; hell, the founders only wanted LAND OWNERS voting - and then wanted those choices filtered through representative and electors!

The whole damned Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT individuals from the Fucking Government - meaning the tryranny of the majority!!!!

Good fucking God you don't know what the hell you are talking about!!!!!

Actually, I know a great deal about what I'm talking about. The Constitution designed the generic form of the government and vague lists of powers of each branch and didn't go too much into specifics.

It was purposely designed vague to allow for changing needs and desires by the American people. The founding fathers had their own opinions, as you point out, but they did NOT put it in the Constitution. They knew times changed.

Get off your high horse. If you want to make an argument against socialism, start at the Tenth Amendment and force federal socialists to justify those programs under the powers enumerated within the Constitution. There are several things that probably should have required an Amendment to become law. That's a much better argument than "Read the federalist papers!" or "It's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind".

You make your own argument worthless by bringing up the "right to vote" thing. That's another thing that was not defined in the Constitution, ensuring that it was easy to change. Those people were brilliant in what they decided to make permanent and what to leave maleable.

The Founding Fathers wanted a government to represent the interests of the people. If you are arguing against that, you have a serious problem.

[ElNono]

LOL You truly don't understand what a democratic controlled congress would do. Vote your conscience though!

Excuse me? What party controls Congress right now? I thought it was the Democrats. We just had a major socialist bill in the 'bailout' there not 3 weeks ago. It wouldn't pass without Republican consent. Are you reading the news?

And I can't vote. Love being a spectator though!

[boutons_]

"It wouldn't pass without Republican consent"

but it DID pass with Repug consent. your point?

[ElNono]

"It wouldn't pass without Republican consent"

but it DID pass with Repug consent. your point?

Go back and read what we were arguing about. Then answer your own question.

[101A]

LOL A democratic congress wont pass everything he proposes???? Get real!

Look at both Carter and Clinton's presidencies: BOTH started with Dem. congresses; both got put in their place. Now, Obama comes from the Senate, and isn't some small-state southern Hick, but still; Pelosi won't cede all the power just because.

[Hook Dem]

Excuse me? What party controls Congress right now? I thought it was the Democrats. We just had a major socialist bill in the 'bailout' there not 3 weeks ago. It wouldn't pass without Republican consent. Are you reading the news?

And I can't vote. Love being a spectator though!

Wrong! The democrats could have passed it on their own but didn't because Madam Pelosi gave those ,who were in election contest, permission to vote against it! Politics at it's best! They didn't want to pass it on their own because an election is coming up!

[JoeChalupa]

Fact is that republicans including McCain voted for the bail out too.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

both parties are guilty. no such thing as almost pregnant.

[101A]

Actually, I know a great deal about what I'm talking about. The Constitution designed the generic form of the government and vague lists of powers of each branch and didn't go too much into specifics.

It was purposely designed vague to allow for changing needs and desires by the American people. The founding fathers had their own opinions, as you point out, but they did NOT put it in the Constitution. They knew times changed.

Get off your high horse. If you want to make an argument against socialism, start at the Tenth Amendment and force federal socialists to justify those programs under the powers enumerated within the Constitution. There are several things that probably should have required an Amendment to become law. That's a much better argument than "Read the federalist papers!" or "It's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind".

You make your own argument worthless by bringing up the "right to vote" thing. That's another thing that was not defined in the Constitution, ensuring that it was easy to change. Those people were brilliant in what they decided to make permanent and what to leave maleable.

The Founding Fathers wanted a government to represent the interests of the people. If you are arguing against that, you have a serious problem.

At least you mention the 10th ammendment...there's the rub, isn't it. If that wasn't used as toilet paper for the past 150 years; the discussion would be academic. That ammendment, alone, should have precluded the constant power grab that the federal govt. has been making ever since; and certainly would have made a Socialist, federal economy an academic discussion. If the founders wanted the Federal Govt. SO maleable, why did they include that? The consitution assumed a relatively weak govt. to help preside over the "United" States which had allied themselves. The Constitution did not allow for what has happened; it simply has been ignored.

[101A]

Fact is that republicans including McCain voted for the bail out too.

""

[smeagol]

Fact is that republicans including McCain voted for the bail out too.

Fact is there is nothing wrong with voting for the bailout.

[fyatuk]

At least you mention the 10th ammendment...there's the rub, isn't it. If that wasn't used as toilet paper for the past 150 years; the discussion would be academic. That ammendment, alone, should have precluded the constant power grab that the federal govt. has been making ever since; and certainly would have made a Socialist, federal economy an academic discussion. If the founders wanted the Federal Govt. SO maleable, why did they include that? The consitution assumed a relatively weak govt. to help preside over the "United" States which had allied themselves. The Constitution did not allow for what has happened; it simply has been ignored.

Yep, Lincoln, an otherwise exemplary man, killed the 10th Amendment for all intents and purposes. I said earlier in this thread that I, personally, prefer minimalism in terms of strength of the federal government. I'm a State's Rights Social Democrat.

I've asked federal socialists to justify those programs and they usually resort to justifying them under the "promote the general welfare" of the Preamble. I keep telling them that doesn't classify since the 10th Amendment refers to enumerated powers which are listed within the actual Articles, and not the Preamble which is nothing more than a mission statement. I'm still waiting for quality reasons to allow them on the federal level, without requiring an Amendment to enumerate those powers for the federal government (which shouldn't be hard to pass since public opinion is pretty much on the side of many of the current socialist programs).

[ElNono]

Wrong! The democrats could have passed it on their own but didn't because Madam Pelosi gave those ,who were in election contest, permission to vote against it! Politics at it's best! They didn't want to pass it on their own because an election is coming up!

But it was the ultimate socialist bill! I mean, they're all socialist right? Which means that whoever puts them in office are all socialist too! Under your theory, they SHOULD have passed the bailout on their own, because it would have strengthened their position with his voters!

You're full of shit. That's the story here.

[101A]

Yep, Lincoln, an otherwise exemplary man, killed the 10th Amendment for all intents and purposes. I said earlier in this thread that I, personally, prefer minimalism in terms of strength of the federal government. I'm a State's Rights Social Democrat.

I've asked federal socialists to justify those programs and they usually resort to justifying them under the "promote the general welfare" of the Preamble. I keep telling them that doesn't classify since the 10th Amendment refers to enumerated powers which are listed within the actual Articles, and not the Preamble which is nothing more than a mission statement. I'm still waiting for quality reasons to allow them on the federal level, without requiring an Amendment to enumerate those powers for the federal government (which shouldn't be hard to pass since public opinion is pretty much on the side of many of the current socialist programs).

At some point, obviously, I got my wires crossed in my estimation of you.

I apologize.

Good post.

Oh, and, it would still be hard to pass, by design, it is very difficult to ammend the Constitution.

[Warlord23]

Oh, the irony. A Republican president makes several hundred billions of dollars available to bail out failed companies, and you guys are whining about the next likely president being socialist?

Understand this: capitalism has been gangraped in the last few weeks, and the US is now as socialist as they come. And this happened in a Republican administration. Yoni's diatribe is the equivalent of a Spur fan complaining about Pop becoming the Spurs' coach when the previous coach was Bob fucking Hill.

[fyatuk]

At some point, obviously, I got my wires crossed in my estimation of you.

I apologize.

Good post.

Oh, and, it would still be hard to pass, by design, it is very difficult to ammend the Constitution.

It's not really a problem. I'm a confusing person :hat I typically don't get along with conservatives because I'm socialist on lower levels and I don't get along with liberals because I'm fiscally conservative on the federal levels. Makes for fun arguments though.

I was saying that as far as Amendments go, it shouldn't be too hard. There's no much chance, for example, Social Security would fail to get the 2/3rds in both houses, and it's likely that at least 3/4 of the states legislatures (38/50) would ratify it. It's a difficult process, but Amendments to enumerate the necessary powers would have an easier time than say, the flag burning or gay marraige proposals would.

Now back when those programs were first starting is probably another story.

[Anti.Hero]

Is there a democrat alive who hasn't been accused of being a socialist? Calling a democrat a socialist is cliche to the nth degree.

NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS CANDIDATE.

[Anti.Hero]

Didn't McCain just propose buying up every single bad mortgage in the country?

Who's the socialist?

YES. Why do you think conservatives hate the fucking guy.

We see Obama, Congress, and a soon to be ACLU Supreme Court and know there is no republican worth a damn that can speak up enough to drill sense into you numbskulls.

[DarrinS]

After McCain proposing his Homeownership Resurgence Plan (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/Read.aspx?guid=b9af0d4c-9c0e-4a97-b27f-19df8cfec83d), I'd say he's a socialist too.


We're fucked either way.

[DarrinS]

Oh, the irony. A Republican president makes several hundred billions of dollars available to bail out failed companies, and you guys are whining about the next likely president being socialist?

Understand this: capitalism has been gangraped in the last few weeks, and the US is now as socialist as they come. And this happened in a Republican administration. Yoni's diatribe is the equivalent of a Spur fan complaining about Pop becoming the Spurs' coach when the previous coach was Bob fucking Hill.


Yes, under a Republican admin, but could not have been passed without the Democratic-controlled congress.

If con is the opposite of pro, what is the opposite of progress?

[Anti.Hero]

Excuse me? What party controls Congress right now? I thought it was the Democrats. We just had a major socialist bill in the 'bailout' there not 3 weeks ago. It wouldn't pass without Republican consent. Are you reading the news?

And I can't vote. Love being a spectator though!

Because it was a shit bill and they did not want to take 100% responsibility when it does damage. Shit, wake up.

and dis


Wrong! The democrats could have passed it on their own but didn't because Madam Pelosi gave those ,who were in election contest, permission to vote against it! Politics at it's best! They didn't want to pass it on their own because an election is coming up!

[ElNono]

Because it was a shit bill and they did not want to take 100% responsibility when it does damage. Shit, wake up.

Exactly why they won't vote for every socialist bill that comes across their desk, wether it's Obama, Bush or anybody else...

MY POINT EXACTLY

[ChumpDumper]

Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.Since this is the first anyone has heard of this, it's pretty clear no contract was fulfilled between the Obama and this party.

Throw another FAIL on the fire.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama pals around with terrorists and is a socialist? May God help us all..

[td4mvp21]

YES. Why do you think conservatives hate the fucking guy.


They hate him so much they nominated him as the GOP presidential candidate??

[Wild Cobra]

YES. Why do you think conservatives hate the fucking guy.

We see Obama, Congress, and a soon to be ACLU Supreme Court and know there is no republican worth a damn that can speak up enough to drill sense into you numbskulls.
Agreed. We conservatives are now voting for Palin, or the lesser of two evils rather than votig for McCain.

I missed most of this thread, but 101 also makes great points about the structure of our government as implemented by our founding fathers.

They would be ashamed of this government today.

[Wild Cobra]

They hate him so much they nominated him as the GOP presidential candidate??
Conservatives didn't vote for McCain in the primaries.

Remember too, the early primaries were open primaries. The way I see it, the bigoted democrats that wouldn't vote for a black, or a woman, preferred the most liberal republican candidate. I am a firm believer that if the primaries were limited to within party lines, either Romney or Huckabee would be the republican nominee. At least mot McCain. He was never selected in past primaries when prominent white males ran in the democrat primaries.

[SnakeBoy]

Didn't McCain just propose buying up every single bad mortgage in the country?


Actually that's not his proposal. He wants to purchase the mortgages of people who were credit worthy, had down payments, but got caught up in the sub prime mess. Then restructure the loans under a fixed rate.

That's not buying up every bad loan.

[byrontx]

National ownership of the interstate highways is socialist. You have a problem with that?

Socialist is a term, like boogey-bear, it depends on what you mean by it. Every society implements policies that are to some degree socialist, its called government. Right now is not a good time to be crowing about the wonders of unregulated free markets. If government for the rich and trinkle-down economics were so great Mexico would be an economic powerhouse but the inconvenient truth is that not so much trinkles down. Extreme capitalism like that advocated by the current crop of neo-cons would result in no environmental laws, no protections for the poor; well, I could go on and on but now that I have debtor prisons in mind, it would look very much like Dicken's English society in Oliver Twist. I think that is the Republican ideal.

[rascal]

Not true. And is this savage neocon capitalism working? Have you read the news lately?

The best system is probably a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Greed kills complete capitalism.

[Kamnik]

I FIND IT SOOOOO FUNNY when people speak of socialism like some evil.

A good measure of socialism is a good thing for a country.

Pure capitalism/democracy have so many faults it is saddening. Not saying other systems were any better....

[peewee's lovechild]

This whole thread is stupid.

Yoni calling Obama a socialist is being very quiet about McCain's proposal to buy everyone a house. You can't get anymore socialist than that.

How are Yoni and his clan going to defend that?

I can just hear it, "He's being a true Maverick . . . reaching across the aisle" . . . it would be a pathetic attempt at backpeddling, but I'm expecting that.

The truth is, using Yoni's rationale, McCain is a SOCIALIST!!

I guess they're going to have to back up Bob Barr now.

[fyatuk]

This whole thread is stupid.

Yoni calling Obama a socialist is being very quiet about McCain's proposal to buy everyone a house. You can't get anymore socialist than that.

How are Yoni and his clan going to defend that?

I can just hear it, "He's being a true Maverick . . . reaching across the aisle" . . . it would be a pathetic attempt at backpeddling, but I'm expecting that.

The truth is, using Yoni's rationale, McCain is a SOCIALIST!!

I guess they're going to have to back up Bob Barr now.

Isn't McCain's proposal to buy and renengotiate mortgages of people who got screwed by the subprime crisis? While that certainly entails the government butting into the private market, it could hardly be classified as "buy everyone a house".

But no one in their right might ever considered McCain to be a true fiscal conservative (or social conservative either really), so a few socialist ideas aren't surprising. It's one of the reason the conservative base needed Palin (or some other heavily conservative person) on board to get motivated.

[peewee's lovechild]

Isn't McCain's proposal to buy and renengotiate mortgages of people who got screwed by the subprime crisis? While that certainly entails the government butting into the private market, it could hardly be classified as "buy everyone a house".

But no one in their right might ever considered McCain to be a true fiscal conservative (or social conservative either really), so a few socialist ideas aren't surprising. It's one of the reason the conservative base needed Palin (or some other heavily conservative person) on board to get motivated.

So, you're not considered a socialist if you only have "a few socialist ideas"?

No, no, no.

You can't have it both ways.

[fyatuk]

So, you're not considered a socialist if you only have "a few socialist ideas"?

No, no, no.

You can't have it both ways.

LOL. What the hell did that have to do with my post?

I never declared McCain not a socialist, I only said it wasn't unexpected.

You were asking how conservatives could stand McCain the socialist, and I answered (they already knew he was). Of course, he still less of a socialist than Obama, so he'd still be the fiscal conservatives choice of the two most likely (at least based on issue stances only and not taking into account relevant personal information like personality, etc).

[peewee's lovechild]

LOL. What the hell did that have to do with my post?

I never declared McCain not a socialist, I only said it wasn't unexpected.

You were asking how conservatives could stand McCain the socialist, and I answered (they already knew he was). Of course, he still less of a socialist than Obama, so he'd still be the fiscal conservatives choice of the two most likely (at least based on issue stances only and not taking into account relevant personal information like personality, etc).

Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

You can't call out Obama for being a socialist when you're candidate also shares some socialist ideas.

It's extremely childish to say, "well, my candidate is a little socialist, your's is a big socialist."

How insane is that?

[fyatuk]

Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

You can't call out Obama for being a socialist when you're candidate also shares some socialist ideas.

It's extremely childish to say, "well, my candidate is a little socialist, your's is a big socialist."

How insane is that?

You really believe that? What is childish about complaining about someone being heavily socialist (as the claim goes) and favoring the candidate that is significant less socialist. That's extremely consistent.

Refusing to acknowledge McCain has any socialist tendencies is childish, certainly, but your argument is just completely absurd and seems to be a very immature black/white view of things.

[peewee's lovechild]

You really believe that? What is childish about complaining about someone being heavily socialist (as the claim goes) and favoring the candidate that is significant less socialist. That's extremely consistent.

Refusing to acknowledge McCain has any socialist tendencies is childish, certainly, but your argument is just completely absurd and seems to be a very immature black/white view of things.

It is extremely insane to complain about someone's socialist leanings, no matter how big or small, when your candidate also has socialist leanings, no matter how big or small.

It's absurd that you don't understand that.

[fyatuk]

It is extremely insane to complain about someone's socialist leanings, no matter how big or small, when your candidate also has socialist leanings, no matter how big or small.

It's absurd that you don't understand that.

That's just utter BS. But have fun with that view.