or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party - Page 6

post #201 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd love to MJ. I've been trying for the past several min. However since the " upgrade " of this site sometimes it won't let me post if I'm quoting the previous post.

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So do you think that if these allegations about Obama being tied to a socialist party are true would it be an awful thing and why?

 

Yes it probably is true. The only thing I find awful are what he's doing. Whatever it is that motivates that is probably irrelevant. Is he a "closet socialist?" Probably. Certainly his rhetoric appears to indicate this. As I said in the other thread, ultimately he's a statist who is primarily a political opportunist willing to use both socialist and fascist approaches to gain and retain his power to reshape the US in his own Utopian vision. Are there threads of communism and socialism, anti-capitalism (and fascism) in all of this? Yes. Of course.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also is this party still in operation?

 

I have no idea, nor do I care.

Wel what do you think took me so long so why roll your eyes?

 

Well I'm glad you answered. Thank you. I just don't think he's out to turn this country into a socialist state like some have said.

 

The reason I asked if it was still in operation was because didn't this happen 15 years ago? And was he a member for a long time or was it just a passing interest?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #202 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wel what do you think took me so long so why roll your eyes?

 

Posting other things.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I'm glad you answered. Thank you.

 

Of course. I answered a similar question for you in another (similar) thread. So...we haven't really gotten very far. I've given you my opinion about Obama. Whoop-di-do.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I just don't think he's out to turn this country into a socialist state like some have said.

 

I do. The evidence seems to be with me on this.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #203 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wel what do you think took me so long so why roll your eyes?

 

Posting other things.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I'm glad you answered. Thank you.

 

Of course. I answered a similar question for you in another (similar) thread. So...we haven't really gotten very far. I've given you my opinion about Obama. Whoop-di-do.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I just don't think he's out to turn this country into a socialist state like some have said.

 

I do. The evidence seems to be with me on this.

No really I'm serious I was having difficulty. What would it profit me to lie about this?

 

As to your opinion and mine I suppose that will never change. But hypothetically what if 4 years from now the country was doing great? Now this is just a question so you don't have to say " That'll never happen". It's just a question.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #204 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No really I'm serious I was having difficulty. What would it profit me to lie about this?

 

And, yet, there's probably a dozen posts you've made that seem to tell a different story.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As to your opinion and mine I suppose that will never change.

 

Mine will change if the facts warrant it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But hypothetically what if 4 years from now the country was doing great?

 

What about it? What if it is? In what way? By what measures? What is your implication? That everything that Obama has done in the last 3.5 caused that "doing great" condition?

 

Whatever state the country is in at any point in time, I will judge based on what actions I've seen, and what I discern the various causes and effects to be.

 

In the end, I believe Obama (and Bush before him) have done tremendous damage to the structural integrity of this country. Granted they both were building on the weakening that has occurred over decades...starting with the destruction that Hoover (big government Keynesian statist) and FDR (bigger government Keynesian statist, socialist and fascist) started. I don't hold much faith in Romney's ability to fix any of this. He's just another side of the same coin. He's basically a Keynesian statist of a slightly more conservative bent.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #205 of 208

What evidence do you have that says this?
 

post #206 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's just another case of you trying to cloud the issue SDW. You brought up 8 cents a gallon like that was their profit because of their tax. It sounds really small doesn't it?  But as we all know that's misleading as they have quite a large profit. You can go over this as many times as you want. But it's simply not going to change. I'll admit however given the way you tend to think perhaps that's the only way you can see it.

 

There you go again...inferring hidden meaning where none was intended.  You might have taken my post to mean that the oil companies only make 8 cents a gallon because of taxes.  But that was not my intended meaning.  I know that, because I didn't write "because of taxes." I merely was stating the widely reported number as COMPARED to taxes.  I also noted that I wasn't certain of the accuracy of said number, because the the data comes from the oil companies themselves.  I then followed up and said that even if the reported data point on profit was three times higher (24 cents a gallon), it would still be far less than the total federal and state taxes per gallon.  The reason I did this was to illustrate the absurdity of a government that profits more from private corporations (in taxes) than the companies who actually explore, extract, refine and transport said goods.  If there was anything implied, it was the question of whether or not you find that above morally acceptable.   So, how about it?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #207 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's just another case of you trying to cloud the issue SDW. You brought up 8 cents a gallon like that was their profit because of their tax. It sounds really small doesn't it?  But as we all know that's misleading as they have quite a large profit. You can go over this as many times as you want. But it's simply not going to change. I'll admit however given the way you tend to think perhaps that's the only way you can see it.

 

There you go again...inferring hidden meaning where none was intended.  You might have taken my post to mean that the oil companies only make 8 cents a gallon because of taxes.  But that was not my intended meaning.  I know that, because I didn't write "because of taxes." I merely was stating the widely reported number as COMPARED to taxes.  I also noted that I wasn't certain of the accuracy of said number, because the the data comes from the oil companies themselves.  I then followed up and said that even if the reported data point on profit was three times higher (24 cents a gallon), it would still be far less than the total federal and state taxes per gallon.  The reason I did this was to illustrate the absurdity of a government that profits more from private corporations (in taxes) than the companies who actually explore, extract, refine and transport said goods.  If there was anything implied, it was the question of whether or not you find that above morally acceptable.   So, how about it?  

I really don't think my eyes can roll back any farther. But thanks for the additional information.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #208 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I really don't think my eyes can roll back any farther. But thanks for the additional information.

 

That is your response?  LOL.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party