It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's wrong with change?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Anyone who's actually listened to Obama's speeches would know that he's very serious and that he actually has a plan to implement changes. All of those people who say that he stands for change and nothing but change just want to stay in the past. I think that Obama actually has a chance of returning our nation back to the powerful and glorious nation that it once was. Hillary may be okay too if she wins but just to say that Obama stands for change and nothing but is very immature. If a President is going to be in power obviously they are going to implement change. What's wrong with a President wanting to change things around a bit?




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Change for the good is wonderful.

Change for the bad is terrible.

Another Leader who tells us whatever we want to hear and never explains how they will accomplish their exaggerated promises is terrible.

Three bad choices for President is no choice at all. I may as well draw a name out of a hat.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Anyone who's actually listened to Obama's speeches would know that he's very serious and that he actually has a plan to implement changes. All of those people who say that he stands for change and nothing but change just want to stay in the past.


What are the three specific changes Obama is proposing that you fell will benefit the U.S. the most?

I'm just curious because most of the Obama supporters I've spoken with have a very difficult time expressing specifics about what changes Obama's proposing, especially in contrast to the policies Clinton is proposing.

In other words, why does Obama represent change, but Clinton doesn't?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Somehow the fear of Obama not following through on a promise of change is more frightening than the guarantee of McCain sticking to business as usual.

To me, both are pretty depressing. At least with Obama, there is the off chance that he isn't lying. I can't say I am excited about whichever of the two end up winning the election though.

I would rather we just push the reset button and try again.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Does change mean accepting donations from very powerful and rich organizations? Do you think that a man who gets a ton of money from Goldman Sachs and happens to belong to a party that accepts the most funding from the top 50 industries will actually change things?

www.opensecrets.org... e=2008
www.opensecrets.org...

No my friend Obama isn't for change, he just says things that people like to hear because he knows that anyone who calls him out will be labeled as a racist.

This is the same old politics at work with a touch of cultism.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wutone
 


So you don't want to be labeled a racist and then you turn around and allude to Obama supporters being a cult.



What happened to civility and decorum?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Haha you went right past the links I mentioned and straight to the path of least resistance that is called the race card.

That is an example of cult mentality.

You could have just refuted what I posted and educated me about how the Obama campaign is not a cult.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Communism fails when a dictator consolidates to much power on his own. It never fails, that Communism fails and ends up in a dicatorship with massive native human casualites.

Obama is already being given too much control and he isn't even the President. He is literally cheating his way into the nonimation with the help of senior DNC officials. It is because he pandars to them directly, much like a Communist dictator does to his faction.

Obama is selfish, it is all about him. I believe, he believes that he is owed the Presidency and thinks only he is right on everything. This my friends, is a dictatorial personality. A toxic controlling personality.

He and his campaign officials/advisers have obviously researched techniques for mass manipulation and mind control.

President Hu in China is doing the same thing. In schools, he is posting 3 or 4 'good' beliefs that all the kids read everyday outloud and when passing through the halls. Hu is consolidating more power in China now within the ruling Communist faction of the government. Other factions are complaining he is getting too much power.

The more you feed Obama's ego, the more full of himself he will become. You think he is acting like a spoiled kid now who is never wrong, wait untl if he wuld become President.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wutone
 


Give me a break. I didn't call you a racist. I called you out for calling supporters a cult and worrying about being a racist. You feel that you are somehow allowed to stereotype people, but no one can do it to you. It's called common courtesy, do unto others...etc.

I couldn't care less about what is in your links. I don't support Obama, I support ATS and I think that posts like yours lower the value of the board.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   


So you don't want to be labeled a racist and then you turn around and allude to Obama supporters being a cult


Karl, when I read this though, my take was that you were saying if Wutone doesn't want to be labled a racist, then why is he alluding to Obama supporters as being acult.

To me the quote implies that you have labeled Wutone a racist and is the "Pot calling the Kettle Black" by calling you a cultist.

I'm just being honest with the interpretation and do not believe it lowers the posting quality of ATS messages in any way.




[edit on 3-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Since you support ATS you should know that there are countless conspiracies whether real or imagined about groups that countless people belong to. I don't see why the Obama campaign somehow is immune from this especially on an ATS forum.

Besides it seems to be perfectly fine for Obama supporters to call Obama opponents racist so why the bother?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
Since you support ATS you should know that there are countless conspiracies whether real or imagined about groups that countless people belong to. I don't see why the Obama campaign somehow is immune from this especially on an ATS forum.

Besides it seems to be perfectly fine for Obama supporters to call Obama opponents racist so why the bother?


It's really about time somebody said this. Kudos.

I have never seen any group of people so consistently want people who disagree with them to just shut up and go away. To me, this is a direct reflection of Obama's own attitude that he shouldn't be criticized.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Does change mean accepting donations from very powerful and rich organizations? Do you think that a man who gets a ton of money from Goldman Sachs and happens to belong to a party that accepts the most funding from the top 50 industries will actually change things?

www.opensecrets.org... e=2008
www.opensecrets.org...


Unfortunately, until we have a public financing system, candidates will be forced to accept donations from corporations. Let's look at where Obama gets the vast majority of his money from:


Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in small contributions.

Compared to Clinton:


Hillary Rodham Clinton's figure is 30 percent,

And, my gosh, McCain:


Republican John McCain's is 23 percent.


It has been a long time since the average citizen had the financial pull that big business and big donors enjoy.

If anything, I would argue McCain and Clinton are more indebted to large corporations and the individual donations by their board members and CEO's.

Follow the money.

Source: ap.google.com...

[edit on 3-6-2008 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Nice response unfortunately I am not a McCain or Hillary supporter.

The source information for the article you provided is compelling and says not only a lot about the three front-runners but of the whole political scene.

www.cfinst.org...

By your reasoning, Ron Paul has a much higher percentage of contributions from smaller donors and less of a percentage from the big boys. Therefore, by his contributor numbers, Ron Paul would be way less indebted to large interests than Obama. The other good guy, Tom Tancredo has more telling numbers, unfortunately he is of less of a factor as Paul.

When compared to such people as Tancredo, Paul or even Kucinich, Obama still is an elitist and will still work for his handlers.

Obama might not get as much as a percentage from the big boys as McCain, but he still gets 100% more in total. It is well known in politics that a politician will listen more to 10 people that give $2000 than 1000 people who give $20 especially when those 10 people control media and banking.

Additionally, how much of the smaller contributions were influenced by the favorable media? Much of the media is viewing Obama as the second coming, it can be argued that much funding came from this perspective. There are a lot of factors to this part of the argument which are hard to analyze, but media favor does play a huge part.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wutone
 


Big business places their bets on candidates who receive the most votes in an attempt to influence a candidates platform. Paul, Kucinich, Tancredo and others did not receive enough delegates to warrant attention from big business. If Paul had received more delegates, your point about him having less big donors would likely be moot. An argument can be made either way whether he would still have a larger portion of donations from individuals or businesses if he were a front place runner. But both arguments for or against would be based on pure speculation and nothing more.

Ron Paul has an impressive fund raising base and very dedicated supporters. He is clearly being blacklisted by his party due to his beliefs and I think the very fact that he has such strong support underlines the need for his views to be heard. They currently are not. Even though I disagree with many of his policies, I have a great deal of respect for his principles.

Supporters of Ron Paul and Obama are not much different in their passion to see the country turn to a positive course and I find it refreshing that people seem to finally feel like they have some say in the process. That is why you are seeing so many donations from average American families.

I hope your candidate gets his day in court. We'll see if that happens in Minneapolis.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I still don't see how people can think that Obama doesn't have a plan.

I believe Obama has a very good plan for foreign policy. Check this speech out.

blogs.suntimes.com...

Obama also has a good plan for health care (that is if he follows through). In one of his speeches he promised that we would all get a health care plan as good as his.

Also, while Hillary has been attacking Obama and has been revealing her health care policy Obama has had to deflect a lot of the false criticism raised by the media and the Hillary Clinton camp. Hillary seems like she knows what she is talking about because she doesn't have to battle with criticism all the time. She's the one doing it. Plus, Obama isn't immune to criticism or conspiracy theories. In fact he's proven himself by being able to deflect all that media garbage about Rev. Right and still come out okay.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka


Big business places their bets on candidates who receive the most votes in an attempt to influence a candidates platform. Paul, Kucinich, Tancredo and others did not receive enough delegates to warrant attention from big business. If Paul had received more delegates, your point about him having less big donors would likely be moot. An argument can be made either way whether he would still have a larger portion of donations from individuals or businesses if he were a front place runner. But both arguments for or against would be based on pure speculation and nothing more.



But what makes the speculation more appealing is an example of speculation.

www.bloggingstocks.com... at-130-partly-due-to-goldman-sachs-betting-on-200-oil/


But Masters also argues that traditional speculators -- which include The Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) whose oil analyst forecasts $200 a barrel oil -- are able to take advantage of a loophole in regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) which permits unlimited speculation.


As I have stated above, Goldman Sachs gave Obama 600k.

Funny how Obama takes money from an oil speculator than diverts the blame to the oil companies....


Barack Obama today "blamed high gasoline prices on Washington and a political establishment that he says hasn't stood up to oil companies, his two rivals for the presidency included," the Associated Press reports.

blogs.usatoday.com...

But no matter how much one can argue about big business donors, high energy prices would give Goldman Sachs a huge return on their investment. I wonder how much of Obama's proposed energy policy was influenced by Goldman Sachs?

Slick political shell games are not the changes that will benefit the American people



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I just think that Obama will be smart with the Presidency. He may make some mistakes but hey we're not all perfect. It is clear that he isn't stupid. I just think that it's wrong to attack a candidate as much as Hillary did just because they are for changing the nation.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Ultimately, its a question of whether or not you believe that Barack Obama's brand of change is a good thing or not. Generally speaking, I believe that it is not.

I'm against his healthcare proposal, against his plans to slash Nasa's budget, against his 2nd amendment stance, against his Global Poverty tax, against his plans to slash military R&D as well as unilateral nuclear stockpile cuts, against his plan in Iraq (though it needs to end), against most of his foreign policy with regards to dictatorships...

Should I go on? I'm against probably 90% of his platform. If a person believes that most of his platform will harm the country rather than help, why should I vote for his type of change? As I've said before, IMO, he looks like a typical Democrat from the left-wing of the party. I want no part of it.




top topics



 
0

log in

join