Author Topic: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F  (Read 3531 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2012, 10:02:50 AM »
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT


Obama’s Third-Party History


By Stanley Kurtz

June 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.


 




On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
 
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
 
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
 
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
 

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
 
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.
 
Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
 
Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.
 
The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
 
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.
 
The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
 
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
 
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.
 
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”
 
This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.
 
In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.
 
In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.
 
At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.
 
Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.
 
The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
 
The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.
 
To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.
 
I have more to say on the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.
 
In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters  — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.
 
— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming June 25 issue of National Review.
 
Permalink
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2012, 10:17:18 AM »
 ???

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2012, 10:30:48 AM »
The Dark Art of 'BenSmithing' Helped Cover Up Obama's 'New Party' Membership
 
by John Nolte





In 2008, National Review's Stanley Kurtz got BenSmithed. He didn't just get BenSmithed, though, he got BenSmithed by the BenSmithiest BenSmither in the history of BenSmithing -- Ben Smith himself.

Oh, I remember it well. We were thisclose to election day, the wind was squarely at Barack Obama's back, the media was refusing to vet the history and background of anyone in Obama's past (besides, most every investigative reporter in the free world was in a place called Wasilla), and then along came the news that while in Chicago, as a grown man in his 30s, Barack Obama had joined something called The New Party -- a radical, socialist organization whose political endorsement he had sought.
 
The story threatened to become a late-October surprise, the kind of story that would not only once again prove Obama's disturbingly radical not-so-distant past, but also tie together just who this man really was (and is). It would also damage Obama's credibility, and prove that he had been covering up his radical associations, and worse, lying about it.

The corrupt media, naturally, was hoping to run out the clock and was therefore willfully ignoring the story. Online, however, things were heating up. Right-of-center blogs were pushing the story as much as they could and like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, it threatened to spill over into the mainstream media and damage--gasp--a Democrat.

Well, this is why The Media Devil invented Ben Smith and his dark art of BenSmithing.

Jumping into the line of fire to protect his Precious One, Smith wrote this:
 
Popping up in my inbox lately, and on some conservative blogs, is the allegation that Barack Obama was once a member of the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party, which is based (reasonably) on a New Party publication describing him in passing as a member.

When this first emerged, I called up the founder of the New Party, a University of Wisconsin professor named Joel Rogers, who objected both to the characterization of the party and Obama's relationship to it.

On the first point, the New Party was a attempt to build a model of political fusion. It dissolved after losing a Supreme Court ruling aimed at making fusion -- a system under which more than one party can run the same candidate, which exists in some states -- universal.
 
And blah, blah, blah.
 
This is classic BenSmithing -- in which he takes on a controversial subject that might damage Obama, pretends to play investigative journalist, assumes the role of the writer of a "definitive" piece that finally answers all the questions, and then sends the story to sleep with the fishes. 
 
The corrupt media, of course, loves this. Smith allows them to point to his work and rationalize to themselves that there's "nothing to see here" -- so let's move along and elect a man no one knows anything about.
 
Kurtz knew he had been BenSmithed and immediately responded with this piece, but to no avail. When you were BenSmithed in 2008, you stayed BenSmithed.

Truth has nothing to do with BenSmithing. Ben Smith knows this and so does the media that found him so useful. BenSmithing is a political tactic that disguises itself as journalism in order to protect Democrats, most specifically our failed president. The way it works is really quite simple:
 
1. Something happens or is discovered that might hurt Obama.

2. That something is discovered in the alternative media and uncovered.

3. Ben Smith (or the equally dishonest PolitiFact and Media Matters) pretend to investigate it, write something up disguised as "definitive," and then hand the complicit media an excuse to ignore it.

Though he's probably in the top ten-percent, Smith isn't the most dishonest journalist out there, he's just the smartest. I've been watching this guy and trying to sound the alarm about him for going on four years now. He's a Journalistic Super-Villain -- a genius who has done more to protect Barack Obama and assure the American people never learn the truth than any other individual reporter.

Here are some specific and notable examples:
 
In February of 2008, Smith wrote the "definitive "nothing-to-see-here" piece covering Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. The headline itself was a lie: "Obama once visited '60s radicals," and Smith even buried his own lead:
 
As Bloomberg News reported recently, Obama and Ayers have crossed paths repeatedly in the last decade. In 1997, Obama cited Ayers’ critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading. He and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years starting in 1999. In 2001, Ayers also gave $200 to Obama’s state Senate reelection campaign.

Many details of the 1995 meeting are shrouded by time and by Obama’s and Ayers’ refusals to discuss it.
 
Real journalists would follow that up, but until New Media came of age a couple of years later, there were no real journalists available.

There are more 2008 election-year examples, including, of course, the New Party cover up. But let's fast-forward to July of 2010. Ben Smith was no longer protecting a "historic" candidate, he was now protecting Power, with a "nothing to see here" piece about a scandal that threatened to swamp Obama's burgeoning presidency.
 
Eric Holder's Justice Department had just dropped a slam-dunk case involving the New Black Panther Party, whose members had been notoriously caught on video menacing voters during the 2008 election. There was even a whistleblower, J. Christian Adams, who had testified before Congress that the Justice Department was practicing racial bias.

To the rescue came Smith with this non-story. One conservative dismisses the charges, Smith blows it up into a major feature piece, and now the corrupt media has what they need to move along and pretend there is no story.

Which is exactly what the media did.

Earlier this year, Smith made the mistake of trying to BenSmith us. The day after Andrew Breitbart's funeral, we all woke up to discover that Smith (who had by then moved to BuzzFeed) had thought he scooped Breitbart News by releasing a 1991 video from Obama's days at Harvard. In order to control the explosion of this video, Smith spun it into a positive for Obama. Thankfully, because it's not 2008 anymore, this time his BenSmithing blew up in Ben Smith's face.

You can read the full story of that sorry episode here. 
 
If you read the examples linked above, what you'll discover is that Smith is only disguising himself as a reporter, but what he's really doing is killing stories and narratives potentially damaging to Barack Obama. If you read the stories, you'll see that he is either the most incurious reporter ever created or the most easily duped into believing anything.
 
Believe me, Smith is nobody's dupe. Because he's a left-wing operative disguised as a reporter, he simply writes on these subjects without ever doing what real reporters do: asking follow-up questions, raising questions, or demanding proof.   
 
But acting like a real reporter would give the story life, extend the narrative, and therefore hurt His Precious One -- something BenSmithing is designed to ensure never happens.

By the way, Ben Smith owes Stanley Kurtz an apology, but I suspect Smith has known that all along.

-----

"The nice thing about the new-media space is how quickly it self-corrects. Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." Smith added: "And for all the talk of the speed of the Internet, online, like offline, reporting is a long, endless game, and with fewer and fewer trusted institutions to dispense it at will, credibility is a scarce and extremely valuable commodity. - Ben Smith
 
 
 
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/07/Art-Bensmithing-Obama-New-Party





________________________ ________________________ ___________


So while Obama is making blowjob jokes about his wife at his gay fundraisers in Hollywood - just remember you idiots voted for a socialist marxist to be your leader.


Congrats lemmings.   

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25737
  • GETBIG3.COM!
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2012, 10:45:32 AM »
Why would Obama need an endorsement for State Senator when he was the ONLY PERSON ON THE FUCKING BALLOT!!!!! ::)
A

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2012, 10:47:22 AM »
Why would Obama need an endorsement for State Senator when he was the ONLY PERSON ON THE FUCKING BALLOT!!!!! ::)

WTF are you babbling about. 

1.  Obama is busted lying his ass off AGAIN.

2.  Obama is a socialist - PROVEN & FACT

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2012, 11:07:51 AM »
Barack Obama — portrait of a socialist as a not so very young man
 


Stanley Kurtz has an important and potentially consequential piece at NRO in which he demonstrates that, contrary to what the Obama campaign asserted in 2008, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. Obama did so in 1996.
 
Kurtz first raised Obama’s membership in the New Party in 2008. Team Obama denied the allegation, calling it a “crackpot smear.”
 
Now, however, Kurtz has obtained documents from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that conclusively establish Obama’s membership in the New Party. In fact, Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
 
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
 

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
 
Consistent with these minutes, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member. January 11, 1996 is indicated as the date he joined.
 
It is no accident that Kurtz found his evidence in Illinois ACORN’s records. The New Party was Illinois ACORN’s political arm. The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party. Accordingly, says Kurtz, documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
 
Is Obama’s membership in the New Party relevant to this election campaign? Voters will have to decide this for themselves, assuming that (against the odds) the MSM fails to cover up the underlying facts.

I consider Kurtz’s evidence clearly relevant. One of Mitt Romney’s central campaign themes is that Obama wants to move the United States steadily closer to the European “social democracy” model. Obama, though, does not admit this. Evidence that, just 16 years ago, Obama joined a political party with precisely that goal tends to confirm Romney’s view.

Obama supporters will claim that, as president, their man has not attempted to move the U.S. towards European socialism. I disagree, but that can be debated without reference to the president’s prior political affiliation.

However, as Obama has said when he thought the microphone was turned off, he will have considerably more flexibility in a second term than he does now. Thus, even if Obama thus far has been a cautious socialist, or no socialist at all, evidence about his sympathies is relevant to discerning what he will attempt in a second term. Kurtz has found important additional evidence about what those sympathies were in 1996. Until Obama tells us when and why his ultra-leftist views changed, we should assume that they haven’t.
 
Obama supporters may also claim that the issue of the New Party was “litigated” during the 2008. To make that claim would require considerable nerve. When Kurtz attempted to litigate the issue, Team Obama responded with the campaign equivalent of perjury (to use the litigation analogy). The dishonesty of the 2008 Obama campaign, and of Obama himself on the topic of ACORN (which Kurtz also discusses), is itself a legitimate side issue in 2012, in my opinion.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/barack-obama-portrait-of-a-socialist-as-a-not-so-very-young-man.php

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59661
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2012, 11:20:52 AM »
I read this last night when I couldn't sleep. The most lying deceptive president in history. Right up there with the worst.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2012, 11:31:02 AM »
I read this last night when I couldn't sleep. The most lying deceptive president in history. Right up there with the worst.


This is another thing everyone has jumped on me about - calling obama a socialist. 

Well now we know that Obama is in fact a socialist. 



240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2012, 11:41:32 AM »
commmie, capitalist, socialist and marxist = the exact same things.

getbig has made this clear to me.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2012, 11:43:47 AM »
commmie, capitalist, socialist and marxist = the exact same things.

getbig has made this clear to me.


Hey idiot - you melted down about Todd Palin flirting w a third party yet you think its nothing about obama bering party of a socialist third party? 



Figures coming from you.     

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2012, 01:52:36 PM »
33, which is obama?

commmie, capitalist, socialist and marxist

?

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59661
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 02:43:51 PM »
33, which is obama?

commmie, capitalist, socialist and marxist

?

100% not a capitalist...so what's left?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2012, 02:55:34 PM »
100% not a capitalist...so what's left?

palin said the only people making $ under obama are those on wall street.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2012, 03:00:59 PM »
How can people still support this liar? 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2012, 06:12:28 AM »
bump

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2012, 01:39:54 PM »
bump

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2012, 01:46:33 PM »
dump

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2012, 01:50:34 PM »

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2012, 02:07:00 PM »
come on, we all know every candidate is shit.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2012, 03:14:47 PM »
come on, we all know every candidate is shit.

Like I said, we all know what you are, a liar and a snake.   You are full on Obama and you know it.

DKlent

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2012, 04:22:06 PM »
Obama 2012

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2012, 07:41:55 PM »
Obama 2012


That is the best. You can do when being provided proof that Obama is a socialist?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2012, 07:56:46 PM »

That is the best. You can do when being provided proof that Obama is a socialist?

one could argue mitt is a socialist too.  Well, he was.

He supported an assault weapons ban - signed it - because he believed keeping rilfes out of the hands of americans was 'good for all of us'.

he also signed obamacare and said in his own words that anyone who could afford healthcare - that CHOSE not to buy it - should be TAXED.


So really, choose which socialist you want. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39459
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is a Socialist - P R O O F
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2012, 07:59:39 PM »
one could argue mitt is a socialist too.  Well, he was.

He supported an assault weapons ban - signed it - because he believed keeping rilfes out of the hands of americans was 'good for all of us'.

he also signed obamacare and said in his own words that anyone who could afford healthcare - that CHOSE not to buy it - should be TAXED.


So really, choose which socialist you want. 


STFU about myth!   this is ABout Obama, not bush,  palin, mittens, etc. 

you are already in the tank for. Obama just fucking admit amd stop the bullshit already.