New Documents reveal Baraka was a card carrying member of the Socialist New Party

[86Dùde]

As in "right-wing",not as in being correct.

Idiot. Too bad you weren't an adult in the 1950's or we could have put you on a list too, just like your precious president. He loves lists. All commie scum love lists, just like all commie scum deserve to die. Do you want to be on a list Teller?

[Powerboss]

Yes. Give me examples or I'll have to assume you have nothing.

OK. We'll startup a thread.

One that doesn't lie or blindly repeat other lies. I know that's so very difficult and tedious for conservatives, but do try.

ROFL. This is the problem. You leftists cry foul no matter what the source is. You won't specify what is an acceptable source but will always cry foul when the source has information you don't like.

I'm glad you agree that you're a hypocrite, as I've proven on many occasions.

I don't recall agreeing with you. And don't flatter yourself sport, you've proven nothing.

I'm not entirely sure, since reputable news sources haven't yet touched the story. For all I know he never joined it and there is no document.

But we don't know what a "reputable" news source is. You're apparently too big a coward to actually answer what a reputable news source is.

In any case, you've yet to establish how the New Party is socialist.

Did you not see Acorns 1997 report to the Catholic Bishops?

"“To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People’s Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party.”…1997 report to the Catholic Bishops"


By the way, if this is such a non story, why did Obama say it wasn't true and say it was just a smear?

[Guido]

It doesn't matter what Obama once was. The only thing that matters is what he is now.

Once upon a time, he may have been a real man with balls and a curious open mind, real convictions, with compassion in his heart and a genuine concern for others.

Then he became an ambitious, successful politician, i.e., a whore.

I recently read this:

Later biographies of Obama, published after he became president, have complicated the picture of him as the possessor of diversely sourced identities (Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, Harvard). David Maraniss's new biography shows that at college the bright student from Hawaii's closest friends were Pakistanis, and he carried around a dog-eared copy of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man.

But Obama also began early, as one girlfriend of his reported to her diary, to "strike out," "shedding encumbrances, old images." "Do you think I will be president of the United States?" he asked a slightly bemused Pakistani friend, who then witnessed "Obama slowly but carefully distancing himself from the Pakistanis as a necessary step in establishing his political identity."

"For years," Maraniss writes, "Obama seemed to share their attitudes as sophisticated outsiders who looked at politics from an international perspective. But to get to where he wanted … he had to change." Obama's Pakistani friend recalls: "The first shift I saw him undertaking was to view himself as an American in a much more fundamental way."

In an incorrigibly right-wing political culture, this obliged Obama to always appear tougher than his white opponents. During his 2008 presidential debates with John McCain, Obama often startled many of us with his threats to expand the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan. More disquietingly, he claimed the imprimatur of Henry Kissinger, who partnered Richard Nixon in the ravaging of Cambodia, paving the way for Pol Pot, while still devastating Vietnam.

.............

Obama was quick to say sorry to Poland last week for saying "Polish death camps" rather than "death camps in Poland" in a speech. But he refuses to apologize for the American air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November last year. Widespread public anger has forced Pakistan's government to block NATO's supply routes to Afghanistan; any hint of infirmity on the sensitive issue of sovereignty is likely to strengthen some of the country's nastiest extremists. Thus, the few possibilities of political stability in a battered country are now hostage to Obama's pre-election punitiveness.

Certainly, Obama's political and personal journey now evokes less uplifting literary comparisons. For, nearly four years after his ecstatically hailed ascension to the White House, Obama resembles Baldwin much less than he does Kipling and other uncertain children of empire who, as Ashis Nandy writes in The Intimate Enemy, replaced their early identifications with the weak with "an unending search for masculinity and status." These men saw both their victims and compatriots "as gullible children who must be impressed with conspicuous machismo;" and who suppressed their plural selves "for the sake of an imposed imperial identity – inauthentic and killing in its grandiosity.".

"We're killin' 'em! We're killin' 'em all!" Bush exulted, according to Bob Woodward, during his last months in office. And now another man sits in the White House, surveying his own kill lists and plotting re-election, after having already pulled off the cruelest political hoax of our times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...political-hoax

[86Dùde]

Like Lincoln, he is intimately involved in the war, in this case the "kill lists". He kills whatever he wants, and soon his drones will turn domestic. None of that will change even if the filthy mormon is in charge.

[Šñøü†ê®]

My guess is the only reason the lobby groups deciding the election put the Mormon dude up is to consider how the sheeple will react to his increase in the neocon war on the world. The question being if OBama's drones kill a tax evader in Maine or somewhere, how will the sheeple react vs if the Mormon does it.

[GanjaFreebird]

Idiot. Too bad you weren't an adult in the 1950's or we could have put you on a list too, just like your precious president.

I know, it sucks that those "evil n!ggers" have equal rights because of those commie liberals, we should kill them for that, HELL YEAH!

All commie scum love lists, just like all commie scum deserve to die.

So African American and White American liberals deserve to die, while Muslim terrorists can just do whatever they want and we shouldn't touch them, right.

[GanjaFreebird]

"Obama slowly but carefully distancing himself from the Pakistanis as a necessary step in establishing his political identity."

Well, the savages have been hiding Bin Laden and lying to us about it, I mean, WTF do you want?

Obama's Pakistani friend recalls: "The first shift I saw him undertaking was to view himself as an American in a much more fundamental way."

Good, because he IS an American, dumbass!

In an incorrigibly right-wing political culture, this obliged Obama to always appear tougher than his white opponents.

Damn right he's tougher than those stupid white boys!!

During his 2008 presidential debates with John McCain, Obama often startled many of us with his threats to expand the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan.

And when he realized that Bin Laden and other terrorists were hiding there, he acted on his promise!

But he refuses to apologize for the American air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November last year.

Good.

[GanjaFreebird]

Like Lincoln, he is intimately involved in the war, in this case the "kill lists". He kills whatever he wants, and soon his drones will turn domestic. None of that will change even if the filthy mormon is in charge.

Lincoln was right when he did it then and Obama is right when he's doing it now! God bless America!

[Powerboss]

To re-address the charge of proving the New Party is socialist now that I have a few free minutes of time. Besides what I posted earlier here we can draw the link to socialism.

First, we go the the New Party Website and read their philosophy. By any measure, any intelligent person can read what this is......socialism. Apparently the only proof Archaix will apparently accept is them proclaiming "We're socialists", obviously a dirty word, for obvious reasons, that many won't outright admit. Instead we have new words like social democrats, progressive, etc, etc.

http://web.archive.org/web/200304262...y.org/bnm.html

Anyways, take note of this:

We've already said that we see the NP as an explicitly progressive and democratic organization. This would give it an ideology not unlike that of European social democratic parties, or the New Democratic Party of Canada.

They state they want to be like Canada's NDP or the European Social Democrats.


Next, we to to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociali...racy_in_Canada and read about socialism in Canada. Take note:

In 1961, the CCF joined with the Canadian Labour Congress to form the New Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP is more moderate and social-democratic than its predecessor, the CCF. The Regina Manifesto of the CCF called for abolishing capitalism, while the NDP merely wants to reform capitalism.

Calling a turd a turd here. Clearly we know what this is about. Archaix is playing stupid and is being completely dishonest.


Now, regarding Media Matters which Archaix is apparently a big fan of and believes it's a credible, journalistic organization fighting for truth, justice, and everything great.

They are smear merchants funded by a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator, George Soros.
It's Overseen by a delusional kook. Apparently these are Archaixs' type of people.
Anyways, A few examples on how they smear people.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/1...ument-exposed/

http://mmfafactcheck.blogspot.com/20...h-vicious.html

http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/2006/04/



Anything else Archaix or are you going to keep pumping out your stupidity at ginormous levels for all of us to see?


Oh, and by the way, here are the original documents about Obama/New Party.

http://www.scribd.com/rosie_gray/d/9...utes-1-11-1996

One last thing since I've already asked twice and you've been too much of a gutless coward to answer I'll ask one last time: Why did Obama deny his involvement with the New Party and call it a right wing smear back in 2008 if it isn't potentially damaging?

[Guido]

Lincoln was right when he did it then and Obama is right when he's doing it now! God bless America!

You're an embarrassment and you lack sufficient self-awareness to realize this fact and restrain yourself when appropriate. You're like an unruly 5-year old child who shows his peepee at his parents' dinner party.

[86Dùde]

I know, it sucks that those "evil n!ggers" have equal rights because of those commie liberals, we should kill them for that, HELL YEAH!



So African American and White American liberals deserve to die, while Muslim terrorists can just do whatever they want and we shouldn't touch them, right.

Typical race bait attempt to divert the topic.

[Powerboss]

You're an embarrassment and you lack sufficient self-awareness to realize this fact and restrain yourself when appropriate. You're like an unruly 5-year old child who shows his peepee at his parents' dinner party.

Studies say that heavy pot use can stunt mental and cognitive development. Not only have we identified his behavior I think we now know the why for his behavior

[GanjaFreebird]

You're an embarrassment and you lack sufficient self-awareness to realize this fact and restrain yourself when appropriate. You're like an unruly 5-year old child who shows his peepee at his parents' dinner party.

Lincoln did it and now Black people are no longer slaves. I think that's a good thing, don't you? Now, if Obama "illegally" kills a bunch of terrorists and that ends up saving American lives, don't you think that would be a good thing as well?

[GanjaFreebird]

Typical race bait attempt to divert the topic.

Not true, I mentioned Black and White American liberals, since you don't racially discriminate when it comes to killing liberals!

[GanjaFreebird]

Studies say that heavy pot use can stunt mental and cognitive development.

I didn't know you smoked a lot of pot, but either way, I'm sorry about your mental problems.

[Powerboss]

I didn't know you smoked a lot of pot, but either way, I'm sorry about your mental problems.

Oh, I'm sorry. It must be the effects of your heavy drug use. I was referring to you. I thought that was pretty clear. I went back and re-read what I posted and it seems very clear. Seek help, that noise is your brain frying.

[Archaix]

ROFL. This is the problem. You leftists cry foul no matter what the source is. You won't specify what is an acceptable source but will always cry foul when the source has information you don't like.

Nice deflection, but you dislike Media Matters (see below) and Politifact because of some imagined inaccuracy you can't prove.

I don't recall agreeing with you. And don't flatter yourself sport, you've proven nothing.

Oh, you spout hypocrisy all the time. My favourite examples are this and this -although you outdid yourself with the ”personal attack” slip in the Chavez thread.

But we don't know what a "reputable" news source is. You're apparently too big a coward to actually answer what a reputable news source is.

One that doesn't lie or repeat unsubstantiated rumours from far-right fringe sites. A responsible news outlet isn't too much to ask for -I don't care about bias. I'd trust the Times and the Telegraph papers over the Guardian and the Mirror, because they're trustworthy.

Anyway, why am I explaining the merits of honesty to you? Are you that much of an idiot?

Did you not see Acorns 1997 report to the Catholic Bishops?

"“To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People’s Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party.”…1997 report to the Catholic Bishops"

That it has 'socialist' personnel from a previous union doesn't mean the part is socialist. The British Labour Party merged with the ILP and the SDP merged with the Liberal Party, after all. The key is in the manifesto, which you quote below and without much conviction.

To re-address the charge of proving the New Party is socialist now that I have a few free minutes of time. Besides what I posted earlier here we can draw the link to socialism.

First, we go the the New Party Website and read their philosophy. By any measure, any intelligent person can read what this is......socialism. Apparently the only proof Archaix will apparently accept is them proclaiming "We're socialists", obviously a dirty word, for obvious reasons, that many won't outright admit. Instead we have new words like social democrats, progressive, etc, etc.

http://web.archive.org/web/200304262...y.org/bnm.html

They don't mention any kind of indicative/central planning policy or partial/full nationalisation programme, which kind of makes them social democrats/liberals rather than socialists. You obviously don't know what 'progressive' means, either, so I advise you to stop using it like you do. Also (just so you know), putting words in my mouth is exactly the same as lying. Don't do it again.

Anyways, take note of this:

We've already said that we see the NP as an explicitly progressive and democratic organization. This would give it an ideology not unlike that of European social democratic parties, or the New Democratic Party of Canada.
They state they want to be like Canada's NDP or the European Social Democrats.


Next, we to to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociali...racy_in_Canada and read about socialism in Canada. Take note:

In 1961, the CCF joined with the Canadian Labour Congress to form the New Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP is more moderate and social-democratic than its predecessor, the CCF. The Regina Manifesto of the CCF called for abolishing capitalism, while the NDP merely wants to reform capitalism.

Calling a turd a turd here. Clearly we know what this is about. Archaix is playing stupid and is being completely dishonest.

So the NP wanted to emulate (in an undefined way) 'European social democrats' and a social democratic Canadian party with socialist roots? That's your evidence?

[Media Matters] are smear merchants funded by a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator, George Soros.

Do you want to substantiate that claim?

Now, regarding Media Matters which Archaix is apparently a big fan of and believes it's a credible, journalistic organization fighting for truth, justice, and everything great … Anyways, A few examples on how they smear people.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/1...ument-exposed/

http://mmfafactcheck.blogspot.com/20...h-vicious.html

[url=http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/2006/04/[/url]

Anything else Archaix or are you going to keep pumping out your stupidity at ginormous levels for all of us to see?

How about you give me an example of Media Matters caught in a barefaced lie, instead of what you actually provided me with: the MMFA catching Glenn Beck making a false claim; a blog post criticising the MMFA for not using their partisan sources rather than more objective ones, which it repulsively insists “raped [the non-partisan CBPP] in the ass and vagina”; and a tedious claim about Hillary Clinton which stretches the truth.

Perhaps you could resort to sources that don't humorously advocate rape.

Oh, and by the way, here are the original documents about Obama/New Party.

http://www.scribd.com/rosie_gray/d/9...utes-1-11-1996

I have no idea whether those are genuine, since it comes from a network of fringe conservative outlets that have been known to lie.

One last thing since I've already asked twice and you've been too much of a gutless coward to answer I'll ask one last time: Why did Obama deny his involvement with the New Party and call it a right wing smear back in 2008 if it isn't potentially damaging?

Because a lie can be damaging, as the Birther debate showed.

[Powerboss]

Nice deflection, but you dislike Media Matters (see below) and Politifact because of some imagined inaccuracy you can't prove.

Evidence has already been provided that discredits both organizations. You may not like and and can, and no doubt will continue to, stomp your feet like some infant but these are facts you cannot change.

Oh, you spout hypocrisy all the time. My favourite examples are this and this -although you outdid yourself with the ”personal attack” slip in the Chavez thread.

You obviously are ignorant of my posting style, rookie.

One that doesn't lie or repeat unsubstantiated rumours from far-right fringe sites. A responsible news outlet isn't too much to ask for -I don't care about bias. I'd trust the Times and the Telegraph papers over the Guardian and the Mirror, because they're trustworthy.

Anyway, why am I explaining the merits of honesty to you? Are you that much of an idiot?

So you won't specify which sources are acceptable. Anything coming from the right is not trustworthy and anything coming from the left, including the kook, fringe, Media Matters which everyone knows is a dishonest smear campaign, is credible. ROFL. This just exposes your extremism, really.

That it has 'socialist' personnel from a previous union doesn't mean the part is socialist. The British Labour Party merged with the ILP and the SDP merged with the Liberal Party, after all. The key is in the manifesto, which you quote below and without much conviction.


They don't mention any kind of indicative/central planning policy or partial/full nationalisation programme, which kind of makes them social democrats/liberals rather than socialists. You obviously don't know what 'progressive' means, either, so I advise you to stop using it like you do. Also (just so you know), putting words in my mouth is exactly the same as lying. Don't do it again.

Stop hiding behind your radicalism. You're a radical, just be open about it and you may get some respect...well, not from me. As I correctly stated no amount of proof outside of them proclaiming they are outright socialists will work for you. It doesn't matter how much supporting evidence exists, you'll just continue to stomp your feet like the angry child that you are.

So the NP wanted to emulate (in an undefined way) 'European social democrats' and a social democratic Canadian party with socialist roots? That's your evidence?

You cannot be this stupid but apparently you are. I've built a case which clearly shows that socialism is indeed what the New Party is all about.

Do you want to substantiate that claim?

Why? You'll just dismiss it like you do with everything else that doesn't comport with your small and narrow views. It's well documented. Go ahead and look it up for yourself using a source that will suffice for you.

How about you give me an example of Media Matters caught in a barefaced lie, instead of what you actually provided me with: the MMFA catching Glenn Beck making a false claim; a blog post criticising the MMFA for not using their partisan sources rather than more objective ones, which it repulsively insists “raped [the non-partisan CBPP] in the ass and vagina”; and a tedious claim about Hillary Clinton which stretches the truth.

Perhaps you could resort to sources that don't humorously advocate rape.

See. This is what you do. It's an old tactic and typical of leftists who don't want to confront reality and have no substantial rebuttal. When you cannot discredit the facts, discredit the source. How very pathetic of you.

I have no idea whether those are genuine, since it comes from a network of fringe conservative outlets that have been known to lie.

Yawn. See Above.

Because a lie can be damaging, as the Birther debate showed.

That doesn't answer the question. He said it was all lies and just a smear. Evidence now exists showing otherwise. Why do you think he lied when he said it was all lies?

[Archaix]

Evidence has already been provided that discredits both organizations. You may not like and and can, and no doubt will continue to, stomp your feet like some infant but these are facts you cannot change.

I ask you again: what evidence? Your 'evidence' for Media Matters was complete crap -as I just proved and which you conveniently ignored.

You obviously are ignorant of my posting style, rookie.

No, I know your 'posting style' all to well. You always resort to personal attacks, you never check whether your comments could be applied to yourself, and you needlessly make sweeping and unsupported accusations against what you perceive to be 'the left'.

So you won't specify which sources are acceptable. Anything coming from the right is not trustworthy and anything coming from the left, including the kook, fringe, Media Matters which everyone knows is a dishonest smear campaign, is credible. ROFL. This just exposes your extremism, really.

The Times and the Telegraph are right-wing newspapers, you inutterable fool! Talk about missing the point.

Stop hiding behind your radicalism. You're a radical, just be open about it and you may get some respect...well, not from me. As I correctly stated no amount of proof outside of them proclaiming they are outright socialists will work for you. It doesn't matter how much supporting evidence exists, you'll just continue to stomp your feet like the angry child that you are.

I don't use the term 'radical' because it's pretty vague, even more so than the term 'progressive'. You can be right-wing and radical, after all.

And no, they haven't said they're outright socialists. Keep digging.

You cannot be this stupid but apparently you are. I've built a case which clearly shows that socialism is indeed what the New Party is all about.

Really? Because all you've done is shown that they want to be like more progressive parties that have in the past flirted with democratic socialism. I've still not heard anything from you about their actual policies, which is obviously more central and important than associations. Do you think you're capable of even that simple little task, Powerboss? Or should I go and ask some AS Level politics students?

Why? You'll just dismiss it like you do with everything else that doesn't comport with your small and narrow views. It's well documented. Go ahead and look it up for yourself using a source that will suffice for you.

No, how about you tell me exactly how Soros is a Nazi sympathiser, instead of creeping around the subject like a coward?

See. This is what you do. It's an old tactic and typical of leftists who don't want to confront reality and have no substantial rebuttal. When you cannot discredit the facts, discredit the source. How very pathetic of you.

You tried to discredit Media Matters -how is that any different? And you failed in that task -as evident by your utter refusal to discuss my demolishing of your claims of inaccuracy.

It's been proved that your source has spread unsubstantiated rumours in the past. Your story about the New Party has circled all the usual liars and rumour-peddlers, so I'm not going to believe it until someone credible and accurate has examined them. And, even then, that would be evidence not of Obama being a socialist, but of Obama lying about joining a progressive party in the 90s. Yawn indeed.

[Powerboss]

I ask you again: what evidence? Your 'evidence' for Media Matters was complete crap -as I just proved and which you conveniently ignored.

I've already provided the evidence. The fact you don't like it is irrelevant. You don't get to determine what is and what isn't credible.

No, I know your 'posting style' all to well. You always resort to personal attacks, you never check whether your comments could be applied to yourself, and you needlessly make sweeping and unsupported accusations against what you perceive to be 'the left'.

Stop projecting.

The Times and the Telegraph are right-wing newspapers, you inutterable fool! Talk about missing the point.

I've asked you to cite what are acceptable sources a few times now. You have not provided any such list, moron.

I don't use the term 'radical' because it's pretty vague, even more so than the term 'progressive'. You can be right-wing and radical, after all.

Yes, but we all know that you are a left wing radical.

And no, they haven't said they're outright socialists. Keep digging.

I already said that. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote and this time pay closer attention.

Really? Because all you've done is shown that they want to be like more progressive parties that have in the past flirted with democratic socialism. I've still not heard anything from you about their actual policies, which is obviously more central and important than associations. Do you think you're capable of even that simple little task, Powerboss? Or should I go and ask some AS Level politics students?

I've already provided enough evidence that demonstrates their affinity for socialism and agreement with socialist policies. You may not like it but you can't change this no matter how much you assert otherwise.

No, how about you tell me exactly how Soros is a Nazi sympathiser, instead of creeping around the subject like a coward?

It's well documented. He actually enjoyed his activities working for the Nazi's. I find it hard to believe that you know nothing about this. Is that your position?

You tried to discredit Media Matters -how is that any different? And you failed in that task -as evident by your utter refusal to discuss my demolishing of your claims of inaccuracy.

No, I DID discredit Media Matters. I'm simply applying and using YOUR standards. Why are you whining about it?

It's been proved that your source has spread unsubstantiated rumours in the past. Your story about the New Party has circled all the usual liars and rumour-peddlers, so I'm not going to believe it until someone credible and accurate has examined them. And, even then, that would be evidence not of Obama being a socialist, but of Obama lying about joining a progressive party in the 90s. Yawn indeed.

Feel free to keep your head in the sand. Obviously you are a denier. ROFL.
I'll ask you again, who is this magical "someone credible" that you will accept it?

What you seem to miss is that this newest evidence all fits a pattern, you do know what a pattern is don't you? That pattern indicates the obvious for the critical thinkers among us. Sorry you're not one of us.



PS Why do you keep dodging my question in why Obama lied when he said it was all lies and just a right wing smear if this is all fiction?