Why do people think Obama is a socialist liberal

007 said:
Don't bullshit around.
Socialism is socialism.
Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, hitler, Mao, ho, Fidel, Idi Amin, pol pot, ghadaffi, Blair.
All socialists.
All their states failed.
Socialism always fails.
After years of surpression and murder.
Click to expand...

You're off your rocker.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_New_Party/Progressive_Chicago#Chicago_New_Party

note that the Democratic "Centralists" Party didn't make the list.....
Click to expand...


But six people involved in the New Party in the 1990s said Obama was never a member, and that his involvement with the group was minimal at best.
“Obama was never a member, never active in anything,” said Dan Swinney, a co-chair of the Party at the time and now the head of the Center for Labor and Community Research in Chicago, who was present at the 1996 meeting, according to the minutes. “I wish he was. He was obviously a progressive Democrat, but not a member of the New Party.”
“There was really no process” for becoming a member, Swinney said.
Swinney’s account echoes what New Party founder Joel Rogers told BuzzFeed last week.
“We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization,” Rogers said. He later clarified in an email, “The only time I talked to BHO about it, he made clear he didn’t want to work on it or join it or be identified with it.”
Others who were involved in the New Party’s brief existence don’t remember Obama being a part of it.
Amy Sherman was, according to the minutes, also present at the January 11 meeting where Obama, running for state Senate, requested the New Party’s endorsement.
“Barack Obama was not a member to my knowledge,” said Sherman, now an executive at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, an adult-education nonprofit in Chicago.
In fact, neither Swinney nor Sherman, the two mentioned in the minutes, remembered Obama’s presence, or the specific meeting at all, though neither disputed the possibility that they’d forgotten it.
Elaine Bernard, Harvard professor and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, was involved in the beginning of the New Party. She said she has no knowledge of Obama taking any real role in the party: “It’s news to me if he was involved.”
Barry Commoner, a longtime environmental activist and Queens College professor, now in his 90s, told BuzzFeed that his involvement with the New Party barely registers anymore.
“I don’t remember that specifically,” Commoner said. “I was involved in various things.”
For most of the people involved, the New Party was merely a blip, a third party with European-style “social Democratic” goals of higher taxes and a larger government role, as reflected in this 1996 document. But its methods were heavy on process: They had bet on the Supreme Court forcing states to allow “fusion” endorsements of a single candidate by multiple parties, and hoped to use the promise of a New Party endorsement to pull Democratic candidates to the left.
“The idea was that as a party you could cross-endorse and you could be an independent party, but as a party you could support a Democratic candidate or a Republican candidate,” Swinney said. “It lasted for about a year, I left it. It wasn’t a viable organization.”
“If one of our candidates won, Barack Obama, that doesn’t mean he was
a member of the New Party. He was a Democrat,” Swinney said.
Though the party’s national hopes were dashed by a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, some states allow fusion voting and some of the people involved in the New Party went on to create New York’s Working Families Party. That party was also founded by labor unions, the now-defunct ACORN, and other organizations of the left. Fusion is allowed in New York State, and the Working Families Party often cross-endorses liberal Democrats, though it also sometimes endorses Republicans and backed the moderate Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo.
But Chicago’s New Party didn’t have the same staying power.
“It was a relatively brief thing,” Swinney said. “Poorly organized.”
Click to expand...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/in-chicago-no-memory-of-new-party-membership

Obama's been suspected to have been briefly involved in progressive politics - we don't know 100%, and there's lots of reason for doubt. But that doesn't mean his policies as President have been those of a socialist.

It may also be good to point out that the left in this country has been notably opposed to this presidency.
 
Obama and socialism: I figure it's easier to fire up the base this way than if they were to attack Obama the Moderate.

Socialism and "failed states."
...China owns more of our debt than any other country.
...Cuba keeps on working in spite of being subjected to decades of absolute isolation at the hands of the neighborhood bully. AND they have universal health care!

People
Lenin was a Communist and not a socialist.
Stalin was a tyrant and would have been a monster under any economic system. BUT, he and his countrymen did manage to defeat Nazi Germany at a greater cost to themselves than any of the other allies.

Did I miss anyone? Probably, but nobody's perfect.

Obama = moderate. I WISH he were more progressive and more liberal. Maybe if he was we would have a single payer universal HC system.
 
Rose Captain said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/in-chicago-no-memory-of-new-party-membership

Obama's been suspected to have been briefly involved in progressive politics - we don't know 100%, and there's lots of reason for doubt. But that doesn't mean his policies as President have been those of a socialist.

It may also be good to point out that the left in this country has been notably opposed to this presidency.
Click to expand...
They're using "socialist" as a right wing code word. Replace "Socialist" with "niger" and you'll know what they really mean.
 
Red Mule said:
Obama and socialism: I figure it's easier to fire up the base this way than if they were to attack Obama the Moderate.

Socialism and "failed states."
...China owns more of our debt than any other country.
...Cuba keeps on working in spite of being subjected to decades of absolute isolation at the hands of the neighborhood bully. AND they have universal health care!

People
Lenin was a Communist and not a socialist.
Stalin was a tyrant and would have been a monster under any economic system. BUT, he and his countrymen did manage to defeat Nazi Germany at a greater cost to themselves than any of the other allies.

Did I miss anyone? Probably, but nobody's perfect.

Obama = moderate. I WISH he were more progressive and more liberal. Maybe if he was we would have a single payer universal HC system.
Click to expand...
I've been stating for quite a while now the fact that Obama get's attacked from the far left about as often as from the far right is pretty solid evidence for his street cred as a moderate/centrist.
 
Rose Captain said:
"Socialist" has just become a buzz word for Obama's opponents - it's not even meaningful to use anymore.

Socialism just means the application of democracy to the MOP. Obama hasn't done this. He hasn't even tried, or said he would. It's also an extension of liberalism - historically, the liberals and the socialists were political opponents.
Click to expand...
Butt Obama is commonly referred to and will always be known as the "Food Stamp" President. Libs are tricky with their strategery, just like your reply here, we all know that Obama is a Socialist, so wake up and smell the coffee, buzz word my lilly white culo.
 
maineman said:
The fucking BBC must have covered them up!
Click to expand...
Blair's government jailed people who disagreed with his socialist dogma.

The metric martyrs for example.

The Kriss Donald case is another example of failed leftist policy.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Butt Obama is commonly referred to and will always be known as the "Food Stamp" President. Libs are tricky with their strategery, just like your reply here, we all know that Obama is a Socialist, so wake up and smell the coffee, buzz word my lilly white culo.
Click to expand...

If you want to be taken seriously, write up a brief, but full, comparison of Obama's policies and those of your standard socialist.
 
Rose Captain said:
Define socialist.
Click to expand...

do you think Obama would qualify under this definition?

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.
Click to expand...
 
tekkychick said:
oh ahem -MM has a good point -

How many times has this happened?

never mind, never mind, I must sharpen my sword, get a new outfit, get my nails done, put an out of office msg on my email... I have a LOT of repubs in my county, if we're going to start killing them I just won't have time to work!

oh my.... oh my... so much time and so little to do! no wait, strike that - reverse!
Click to expand...

Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Ireland.....with the central government of the EU headed that way.....
 
007 said:
Blair's government jailed people who disagreed with his socialist dogma.

The metric martyrs for example.

The Kriss Donald case is another example of failed leftist policy.
Click to expand...

Where are the mass murders you said happened every time? I ask again.... Did Tony murder masses of people and the BBC just covered it up?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you think Obama would qualify under this definition?
Click to expand...

No.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor,
- He's never taken any steps against the profit model, or top down structure. He's also supported private firms in their current state.

race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction,
- Most liberals and conservatives (and capitalists in general) would identify with this.

and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
- He's an avid supporter and profiteer of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning
- We have a non-democratic government, and private industry. There's really very little democratic planning going on in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top