Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama is basically a socialist. Look at his record

Posted By: and plans. You want to live in Russia? nm on 2008-10-07
In Reply to: Yeah, the country thinks things are bad now? - Elect the radical Obama...see what happens.nm

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Obama's tax plan basically takes away any
nm
obama's voting record on taxes
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
Obama is superliberal by his voting record....
well documented.
Obama campaign sets record for democrat

ACTION ALWAYS SPEAK LOUDER THAT WORDS, and what transpired this June 30 for the Obama presidential campaign speak volumes for anyone who knows a mote about USA politics! Even though Obama has not and will not accept a single dime from any high-powerful, super rich and corrupting lobbyist; and even though his support base include many ordinary common people of all races and poor small contributors, still he managed to set an ALL TIME record for the most money that a democrat has ever raise in a six month period - not to mention that he is black, a person with Muslim roots, a upstart first term Senator, and an opposer to the Iraq war!
This indeed is phenomenal, and a sign that indeed Obama’s campaign is a force to be reckoned with. He said that he has the largest grassroots campaign in history and now, few can muster the courage to try to dispel or argue against his claim.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auUKomOV7RHs


Obama IS a socialist. And I think you know it.
nm
Not Obama. He is a socialist first.
Have you not read his books?
Obama is a socialist
Redistribution of wealth is a key characteristic of socialism. We already redistribute enough wealth, so why punish those who work hard to make a better life for their families by making more money? Take more taxes from them to give to the crackheads on the street who won't work? Also, remember, it is generally the wealthy people who create the most jobs.
None were As socialist as Obama...
he is eliminating the federal taxes of 10 million and making up the lost revenue by taxing the "rich" at a higher rate, while at the same time letting the bush tax cuts for those same people expire, which is not reflected in any of your charts.

answer: None of them were more socialist than Obama.

At least HE is honest about it.
OBAMA THE SOCIALIST

HE'S A SOCIALIST, MUSLIM; WE WILL HAVE SOCIAL MEDICINE, ALL THE CHURCHES WILL BE CLOSED AND ALL CHRISTIANS WILL BE PERSECUTED.  NO HOMESCHOOLING FOR SURE.  OUR BORDERS WILL BE OPEN.  YOU MUST HIRE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES.  REMEMBER WHAT HITLER DO, IT WILL BE MUCH, MUCH WORSE.  ******


**** Edited by Moderator:  No name-calling, please.***** 


Obama is a socialist and probably a closet...sm
communist, masquerading as the most liberal democrat in the Senate.

Democrats have this overwhelming desire to want to be taken care of from cradle to grave, and their leaders philosophy of, "let me take care of you forever" mentality is so scary. Not to mention the constant class envy and warfare on those that are successful in life.

Complete and total socialism, and communism.....Doesn't work, never has worked, won't work ever.




Oh yeah, and he and Michelle are racist. Certain comments, past and present, in or out of context, are racist and inflammatory..... let's call a spade, a spade, shall we?

And a spade? that's a playing card, not a black man in this context.

I'm also sick and tired of the so called political correctness in this country. If Obama can call McCain and "old white man" -- why the heck can't McCain call Obama a "young, black man."


Geez, is it November yet...please?


Flame on, I don't care anymore, and I'm out of here.
Obama IS a socialist. That is a fact.
nm
Obama is FAR from a socialist... ru crazy?
nm
McCain said that Obama was not a socialist - nm
x
McCain says Obama not a socialist
On Larry King last night.
Even McCain said Obama was not a socialist
on Larry King the other night when asked
even the socialists say Obama is not a socialist -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28645
Obama - more Marxist/Socialist/Communist

connections:


After Iowa

Happy New Year and congratulations on a job well done. These have been trying times when the hyenas of war have again been turned loose on humanity by a greedy ruling class.

Now, beyond all the optimism I was capable of mustering, Mr. Obama won Iowa! He won in a political arena 95 percent white. It was a resounding defeat for the manipulations of the ultra-right and their right-liberal fellow travelers. Also it was a hard lesson for liberals who underestimated the political fury of the masses in these troubled times.

Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole,” not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.

The old pattern of politics as usual has been broken. It may not have happened as we expected it to happen but what matters is that it happened. The message is clear: we can and must defeat the ultra-right, by uniting the broadest possible coalition that will represent an overwhelming majority of the people in a new political dynamic. We must quickly shed yesterday’s political perspective and get in step with the march of events.

Frank Chapman  (letter to Communist Party newspaper People’s Weekly World.)
Via e-mail


 


 


Calling Obama a socialist is dragging him through the mud??
nm
Obama Linked to Socialist Party
Not that this comes as any surprise to me, but some here just can't accept it for some reason:

Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
Obama's campaign had earlier denied the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.

But past copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, have been found and they show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him. Read the latest now on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945


WorldNetDaily
http://wnd.com


OBAMA is a socialist! Go read the definition
nm
Uhhh.. Obama IS a socialist and has ties to a
nm
Obama slam dunks socialist slur at
in news conference Q&A after the event.  Turns lemons into lemonade on Joe the Plumber and Biden's alleged gaffes.  Looking more and more presidential with each passing moment.  Wait.  What's that I hear?  Must be the sound of the helium leak seeping out of McCain's deflating hot air balloon.   
Doesn't change the fact....Obama is a socialist....
and you are condoning trampling all over someone's civil rights because they asked a question and Obama answered it honestly. Why would that upset you so much? Ohhbaamaaa is socialist, he said he was in his answer, explained it very clearly. So you should just embrace his socialism and stop shooting the messenger, right?

Slurs? Unfounded accusations? You mean like doing a law enforcement background check on someone for asking a question?

That is HONEST?? pUleezzeee.
A socialist country doesn't seem like such a bad thing?!? Then vote for Batista Obama.
xx
Basically,

Get off my back is about as simple as I can put it.  I never said Laura Bush was drunk, so I don't see why you keep responding to my posts asking me to post a credible link to prove this.


There are "internet rumors" about her being drunk, mostly on liberal sites. 


The link I posted in this thread is for liberal entertainment a "what if it was Hillary idea" so to speak.  What I find ironic and even hypocritical is how you boast on the "TRUTH" in the "you probably are a liberal if..." article on the neocon board, but then come over here and throw your weight around about my post (the thread we're in now - let's not get it confused).


Hope you can understand this better, or even better you are staying on the conservative board so you will not get this response.  Geez Louise.


You basically got that right.nm
x
Okay, so basically what you are saying is that

in a nutshell...  


I think we need change and I'm sure Obama will make mistakes, but McCain might as well said "I totally disrespect women."  By picking Palin with no experience tells me he doesn't really care.  JMO.


Protestwarrior.com is basically pro-war.
Read their website. Many of the conservatives are members on the conservative board.
Basically, that is what I am digging for...what you just said...
I am a registered Independent as well. I am a conservative, registered as an independent, and towing party lines for the sake of doing so is not for me either. When I said the "far left wing of the Democratic party"....I meant within that party are so-called far left wing, moderate Democrats and Conservative Democrats...according to the Democrats I have spoken with. And, as you say...it is the same with Republicans. Not all Republicans are conservative...Guiliani isn't. Thank you for your honest answers. Just trying to learn. Whatever we call ourselves politically, we are all Americans...just wanting to understand individuals and what they believe. Thank you again.
So basically anyone who does not agree...
with Mr. Obama is talking garbage....how open-minded of you. If Obama stood up and said "destroy all who disagree with me" would you be the first one to go after your shovel to storm the castle? LOL. Geeezzzzz. lol.
Basically what that means is (sm)
that the Dems have a majority so the Repubs can fillibuster all they want to, but when it comes to the final vote, if every Dem votes yes and every Repub votes no, the yes vote goes through because there would be more yes votes. It's just that there are more Dems than Repubs - they have the majority vote, just not enough to stop a fillibuster.
That's basically it in a nutshell. - sm
It truly doesn't matter. None of it. We citizens lose, no matter what happens.
Basically we do only have 2 choices s/m
Our whole election process needs to be revamped.  To start with how about doing away with the electoral college?  The popular vote should do just fine.  Then there was the matter of redistricting under Clinton?  Bush Sr?  Junior?  Bush Sr, I think, since the redistricting made it easier for the Republicans to win the electoral college vote.  Our government corruption, I believe, begins with the election process.
So basically we are screwed either

way this plays out?  My biggest fear is having democrats in total control of everything.  I don't like idea at all.  I know a lot of people are just wanting to get republicans out of the way since they blame Bush for everything. 


The big picture is that government as a whole (all parties) were involved in this crisis and it really is going to take all parties to pull us out.  We need a split to keep things under control.  Our country cannot afford to let everything go extreme left like it appears to be doing.  We need some contrast and balance.  If Obama were more middle of the road and not so extreme left.....I might consider voting for him.  But he is way too extreme left for me.  As a conservative.....I don't like that at all. 


So, you would basically destroy the US, (sm)

I think splitting the country up like that would do much more harm than good.  We would wind up in the same situation as in the middle east....just a bunch of small factions (if you will) and total loss of control.  Not one of these individual factions would be able to fend off foreign threats, much less threats from other factions.  Individual factions would not be able to compete in a global economy.  We have gained the power that we currently have by being a united country, and that would be totally lost.  This would put us back to civil war days and in my opinion would not serve any real purpose other than to appease those who encourage separation of the country now.


Basically, you do have to be compensated......... sm
but if you want to keep your land because, for example, it is family land or your source of income, etc., you would lose it anyway.

Eminent domain
What you just said is basically racist.
nm
They e basically being saying the same thing for days, that is why I am...
.
So basically the poorer I stay
the more I get?

Talk about your backwards logic!


Here is a whole list that basically fits

antichrist which some believe it could be the O.  I had a study if this in the Book of Daniel, not only in Revelations.  No matter who it is, better be ready.  Some state middle age, 40's and 50's. 


http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html


Basically, it is the Democrats' fault...
if they would stop with the "gimme" programs and attach all of it to the public works that Obama is concerned about, make them accept a little responsibility with the free health care, foodstamps, and welfare checks...in hopes of getting them OFF those things...THEN Democrats would be doing something GOOD for people. Try lifting them OUT of poverty and teach them to work for what they get instead of REWARDING them for staying in poverty?? Hellooooo???
Basically it is the dems fault.
They are the ones who pushed the bailout of Wall Street. They are the ones who is giving more towards the bailout. They are the ones who made up this whole stimulus package that they are trying to push through by FRIDAY.. tomorrow. They promised O that this will pass with or without pub support. So, who's fault is it? The independent party?
Ogden basically feels that

censorship is unconstitutional.  That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools.  However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up.  If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see.  Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models.  Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do.  Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts. 


I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography. 


Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults.  Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.


This is not a personal attack on Obama.  I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography.  I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub.  I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.


So basically we shouldn't capture

anyone for fear of picking up an innocent person.  Kind of hard to do that since most of these terrorists blend right in with civilians and have no problem using civilians as human shields. 


You still have not answered my question about how many in Gitmo were "tortured." 


So there are no innocent people in our local prisons?  I'm sure there are some but the majority of them are guilty.......just like Gitmo.


What was done was done in an attempt to protect Americans whether you want to believe that or not.  Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention.  How fast we forget the horrible things that were done to use by terrorists.  We weren't waterboarded or electrocuted.  We were either beheaded or just simply blown up.  Which would you prefer? 


I believe that it refers to the work ethic basically...
not everyone is born rich, and we all have choices in life. We can "pull ourselves up with our bootstraps," work hard and try to get head, and it has worked for generation after generation of Americans. It worked for Barack Obama. He is someone who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, came from a very middle class family, worked through school, worked for scholarships, borrowed money, got an education and he is running for President of the United States.

Sarah Palin grew up as a child of two teachers in Alaska. She worked her way up, eventually worked as a sportscaster, then decided to work in public service because she wanted to serve. She started as a community advisor (same way Obama did), moved up to City council, to Mayor, then to governor, and now she is running for Vice President of the United States.

That is pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and succeeding, working hard for everything you got and not expecting someone to hand it to you.

That is what bootstrapping means to me.


So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
Just for the record
I felt the same way about the war before he was killed. It is wrong, its based on lies, and its immoral. So okay to lie about reasons for going to war, not okay to lie about sex, okay to let the perps of 09/11 go free, not okay to try the perps of the first World Trade bombing and let em rot in jail after a trial as that is not tough enuf on terror, okay to spy without warrants on Americans..okay to sit and eat cake and play guitar while New Orleans drowns, Then tell Brownie heckuva job while people die in the Superdome...I mean whats it gonna take?

And yes, I did rather explode at the Xmas isnt treating me nice comment..that hit a nerve bigtime for me.

And also for the record, I would be just as upset were Bush a dem or green or libertarian..this administration has done more damage to this country than I thought was possible. This isnt about political parties,this is about America and our constitution, our ideals and everything this country is built on.
For the record, neither am I....
Just an American married to an Iranian refugee who fled political persecution under the current regime. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.

This post is not "news" but rather a brief yet accurate description of the complex nature of Iranian politics. No sources you can try to attack. Sorry about that.
Not quite sure what you mean when you say you "know" politics every which way and that you "kick butt at it."

It comes as no surprise that you would not be interested in any viable information on this subject, since you seem to be perfectly comfortable in characterizing US-Iranian diplomatic initiatives as dealing with madmen who hate America for its freedoms (gag me). Sounds like sound byte mentality to me...again nothing new under heaven, coming from an Ann Coulter wannabe who thinks that former POW patriots are automatically qualified to be president.

By the way, throwing around a bit of sarcasm about radical Islam and infidels does not exactly qualify as a total butt kick. So I'm like you...not interested in futher pursuit of this nonsense.
Thank you so much...I will...and for the record....
I don't care what you think, nor do I care if anybody cares what I think. The babies need a voice. And why that irritates all of you so much....hmmmm.
For the record -

While I am a supporter of Obama, I want to emphasize that I am not a coldhearted murderer, that I do not advocate watching babies die, that I do not go out and actively support abortions of any kind (early or late). 


I also do not feel that Obama is sitting there right now saying to himself, I wonder how many babies I can let die today.  I think that the relationship he has with God is worked out between him and God and if he has worked this issue out in his own mind and feels comfortable with his decision, then that is his personal decision.  I do not think that he is the be all and end all in the decision making process for the rest of us.  I think that he has just decided that it should be an individual choice for a woman to decide what to do with her own body...


I do not want to see abortions once again be illegal in the United States.  How many young, naive, and stupid girls (children mostly) died when they chose to have an illegal abortion rather than go to their families and admit that they had made mistakes and ask for help?  How many women died or were permanently mutilated and could never have children again because after they were raped and became pregnant, they could not face having that child, and they chose to have an illegal abortion?


I don't believe in abortion, I didn't choose to have an abortion when I got pregnant at 15, but I do believe that every woman should have the right to choose what she does with her own body - if she does not want to carry a child, then she should not be forced to by the government. 


Now, I think we can go on and on about this forever, and we will never agree, or we can remember that abortion will not be outlawed by any president that is elected, and go on to argue the issues that will be on the front burner for the next couple of years and decide who will serve us best there.