The Late Gtreat United States of America RIP

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Was Bush a clever Democrat?

Someone who would ultimately get everyone to mock his fake phony Christianity and make Republican chances of winning a pathetic joke that who would ever try, would have an albatross on their neck so heavy they couldn't win no matter who they were. If Obama ran as a republican he would have lost. Bush like Arnold Schwarzenegger who is a middle of the road democrat are those Politicians living double lives as gay Atheists in the Republican Party. Abortion rights activists in the Republican party. How this is being done is all explained in one of Obama's favorite book Authored by one of his Mentors, Communist Saul Alinsky.

This is a step by step transformation he talks about and how to make Americans, unknowing conspirators, agents of change in a conspiracy to convert our Government to Communism

If you notice, our government has a policy of promoting borrowing over savings. For example, we permit our government to fully tax the savings that someone might make in order to pay for a home while allowing a person to deduct the interest costs of their home mortgage against their taxes; that is, through its tax policies, our government punishes savings and encourages home debt


To help encourage people to own their own homes, our government created two quazi-private monopolies we have all become unwilling investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


These government backed and endorsed monopolies buy mortgage debt, consolidating it, then reselling the debt as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market which in turn these secondary mortgage markets made it appear as though there was much more money out there to lend as credit for new home buyers. In 1977 and amended over the years, our government gave us the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA, which is a law that mandated banks to extend credit to high risk borrowers or those who otherwise would not be credit worthy.


If you need to borrow money for a home even though you can't afford to pay back your loan, the government will see to it that you get your money. If you build your house in a flood plain and the flood comes, the government will tax others so you can rebuild it. This is one reason I think it is best they condemn the entire city of New Orleans. The place is built on wet lands and the wet lands have got so totally fouled up as it is besides the place being below sea level. I think it is absolutely crazy to expect us all to buy everyone there a new house but that is what many there have expected.


WHY?

Because our Government has given the impression that is what they are there for.

Bush took this a step further putting us in an economic and political system where need is a blank check and risk is nationalized. He thought he could do this for one reason. He thought he could count on the democrats like Barney Frank and Barack Obama who voted against John McCain's bill to tighten up Fannie and Freddie. So saying Bush deregulated the banks is false. In fact Bush tried 17 times to do something about it and every time the Democrats said leave it alone.


Why? why would they do that?


Our system today favors the person who presses for political favors. After all, there was a reason why the most corrupt mortgage lenders were giving sweet deals on home loans to key democrats in Congress


What SHOULD have happened DIDN'T happen


What we should have done is let the businesses that failed fail, then liquidate all if any assets at their current market value removing once and for all remove our government from the business of creating perverse economic incentives.


In Other words, DISCONNECT from the federal reserve bank.

If any of you read Alan Greenspan's book that came out after he retired you read where he predicted the sub prime rates in addition to our tenuous dependence on oil would be the Achilles heel that would deliver a lethal blow to our system of Government and the perfect time to usher in a nationalized system economy that he felt he was largely to blame.

He spoke almost nostalgically of an America he wold always Remember as one of the few places on the planet where being successful even becoming rich was not just a dream but a very real possibility. When this book was written we were still in a strong economy but he predicted it would happen on the next Presidents watch. He was half right about all he said.

Those who have read Barack Obama's book or live in Illinois know he has a very keen interest in Democratic Socialism and he is a member of the Illinois Democrats for Socialism. Any one who has heard him and his wife's speeches and read Saul Alinsky's books KNOWS both he and she used quotes right out of that book like : "Economic Justice and Educational Justice, even the "Change" and "The one" we have all been waiting for.

To his pathetic, legacy President George W. Bush has added $700 billion debt to the already vulgar debt we owe to the Chinese.

The Bill (H.R. 1424) passed by a corrupted Congress on October 3

We were all told that if we didn't go along with it, things would be a lot worse but just what does that mean and for whom? We never got answers and out of the millions of emails Senators from all states got almost ALL of them were AGAINST the bailout but went unheeded and virtually ignored. What they did that day was quite literally SCREW ALL OF US by IGNORING the part of the Constitution which states that only the House can originate money or spending bills (Article I, Section 7). The Senate’s purpose, after all, is to PROTECT the principles of life, liberty, property and happiness that is ours endowed by our creator. DID YOU GET THAT LAST PART? OUR CREATOR? Now I know Atheists may cringe at that but their is a very good reason that statement is in there whether you believe in such an idea as a GOD or not, it places us beneath a HIGHER POWER and no matter who or what you think that is it is HIGHER than the Government.


It is incumbent on the Senate to protect us by KILLING bills which violate our rights or populist legislation passed by the House.


The only one who DID try and lucky for us he did, was John McCain who caught the pork barrel addendum added to the bailout bill placed in there by our new President Elect Barack Obama. Obama earmarked 20% of the 700 billion to Acorn. That Bill was killed and McCain was blamed for causing roadblocks. That is the second part of this political betrayal is the Media!


I am not here to argue whose ads were lies and whose ads were negative but there is no doubt that Television was so pathetically in favor of Obama that it makes Politics a Career that requires Youth, Good Looks and even Abe Lincoln would have never been President by today's standards. The MSN is another that deserves nothing but REBUKE for their Bias and blatant one sided editorials.


You Young people that have voted for Obama do not know the way things used to be when the NEWS Reported facts only, they reported the news and NOT their damn Opinions like the hyperbole newspapers and all broadcast networks piped down our throats with threats of economic peril in addition of but not limited to Congressional inaction, making IMPERATIVE the bailout bill as a practical solution, blaming Wall Street, capitalism, and corporate greed. Nancy Pelosi, someone so obviously hungry for power should be slapped silly for her comments blaming Bush and McCain for the economy while Barney Frank will not be subjected to scrutiny and accountability. The representative from Massachusetts was the champion of the Saul Alinsky-inspired Community Reinvestment Act.


It was Barney Frank whose assertions that Fannie and Freddie were in fine financial shape, and led the fight to oppose Bush’s scrutiny of their operations and bookkeeping fraud. I suppose it would be hard to take Bush serious however when he is complicit in so much fraud of his own. The worst thing we could have done, happened and at a time when the best profile person to assuage the worst possible scenario was elected President. Barack Obama worked in concert with Barney Frank and BOTH followed the rules laid down in Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals, not on just a national scale but a global one.

Obama = Change we can all believe in and just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.


This readers, is the epitome of "The Perfect Storm"


This was the part of the crash Greenspan never anticipated. More than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both subscribers to alinsky's methods, Barney Frank used EVERY tactic where Community Organizers like Obama who worked in Illinois where Illinois was the "Community", Frank used alinsky's methods in such a way the community was the UNITED STATES


What we did on the second of October was one of the worst historical events in history second only to the election of Barack Obama because on October third articles of the bailout bill that focus on how the government will own billions in worthless mortgages and lines of credit under the complete and utter joke of American taxpayers being "shareholders" like we have seen the Soviet citizens who once "owned" the government’s assets and bureaucracies and like the Soviets who expanded the KGB's scope to spy on those who would cheat, the bill our Bailout uses are articles that have expanded the powers of the IRS to "police" individual and corporate tax returns and especially its power to run entrapment sting operations to detect noncompliance and evasion.


Having said that Obama, McCain, Frank, Paulson, Bernanke, and Pelosi all claimed to be advocates of the middle class when such a thing has never existed in a nationalized economy where all people are equal, dependant on a government so out of touch with what WE want, we rarely will get what we need much less what we want. Where the elderly become a liability and the religious become the butt of jokes in a Government with no checks and balances like out filibuster proof senate is now, Someone like Obama may just skip the last installment of full blown socialism and expedite the emergence of Communism.


We are certainly ready for it and have a man at the helm who is so far to the left if we moved the left any further he would make patent the axiom only those who go too far, know how far they can go.


We then will know what it means to have the wealth redistributed by our Government and we like anyone else who has been to a country run like ours will be, will finally know what it is like to be treated equal under the law. We will euthanize the elderly under the guise of statism and the rights to end ones own life. The religious will most likely be so marginalized Atheists will finally get that nasty word GOD removed from the English language. It takes a heart like Obama's to hold life that expendable.


Last night he was being interviewed and they asked him what he hates and he said "Cruelty" I found that very curious coming from a man that fought so hard to create a Government mandate where people are systematically in a state of full amnesia having no memory at all where you won't even recognise your own mother but for the sound of her voice. This bill, is nothing less than the systematic genocide of specific Americans selected out of happenstance and according to a specified age where the window of opportunity to execute them is taken full advantage of after they are in this state of full amnesia.

You wouldn't be able to talk because of the state of amnesia you are in, every word would be on the tip of your tongue but never expressed but you will scream and you will cry out as you discover you also no longer have full control of your limbs or muscle control and so weak that even petite, small framed females, will over power you as they take you to the final place of your execution.

You will be placed in a cold dark room unable to move speak and no one will know who you are, nor will anyone care.

You will be locked in this room without food, without water, till you expire and die.


This is the only man in the senate to fight for such a heartless method of capital punishment for Americans who are only guilty of surviving an abortion.



Yes they are babies hence the amnesia and lack of muscle control and recognizing the mothers voice but expressed this way so you may better identify with the horror that this man can ignore with a cold heart. I don't care what Obama has done, after hearing about this reading about it and researching it, I seriously have to question not what he knows but how much he cares as the saying goes, I don't care how much you know till i know how much you care.



This man shocked me to the center of my bones and I don't know many who are from Illinois that have researched his back round as much as I have but if you think you have, then I question why if you did, why, why, why, did you vote for such a ruthless individual.



What we did Nov 4th was the last installment to the conversion of our form of Government and the final installment to a new one.


One where we will all be equal, We will all be equally poor


in money and morality




[edit on 7-11-2008 by MAINTAL]




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I agree - I voted for Bush and feel betrayed. I still would take him over Barry any day. I'm in the age group that "overwhelmingly" voted for O. Proud to say I wasn't part of that majority.

Obama's partial birth stance in Illinois, even if it was the only issue, was enough to steer me WAY clear of this left-wingnut:

Verbatim Obama- Page 2 of link:



As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead,


???????????????????????????

NRO

Also - we are WAY screwed as far as SCOTUS appointments are concerned. Barry thinks it is best to appoint Justices that have "empathy" for particular groups:

WSJ

Hmmmm, let me think. What does "Lady Justice" with the scales have wrapped around her head?? Oh, a blindfold. Think about the symbolism of that for a moment. If you don't understand what that means, then you don't understand the rule of law. O doesn't respect the fundamental rule of law - and the oath SCOTUS appointees must take.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by ACEMANN]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


I think you are exaggerating your position to death. America nor any other developed country will ever develop communism. Communism has been tried and failed much like ultra-capitalism under Bush and Cheney.

Taking an extreme position on the political spectrum is bad because it only targets a specific group of people while ignoring or harming the rest. Do I need to give examples? I won't!

What we need is an all-encompassing and all-caring government that takes care of the less fortunate but at the same time rewards achievers. In europe and canada this is already the case although I will agree with you that in most cases the taxation is excessive.

We don't need to raise the tax rates on the rich, we need to lower them AND COLLECT FOR REAL. At the same time we need to start cutting down on the loopholes, increase budget efficiency by doing away with unnecessary beurocracy, lower military spending, make the black budget a white budget, give welfare only to those that deserve it, etc. There are ways to cut down on spending and still provide for basic humanitarian services.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


I think you are exaggerating your position to death. America nor any other developed country will ever develop communism. Communism has been tried and failed much like ultra-capitalism under Bush and Cheney.

Taking an extreme position on the political spectrum is bad because it only targets a specific group of people while ignoring or harming the rest. Do I need to give examples? I won't!

What we need is an all-encompassing and all-caring government that takes care of the less fortunate but at the same time rewards achievers. In europe and canada this is already the case although I will agree with you that in most cases the taxation is excessive.

We don't need to raise the tax rates on the rich, we need to lower them AND COLLECT FOR REAL. At the same time we need to start cutting down on the loopholes, increase budget efficiency by doing away with unnecessary beurocracy, lower military spending, make the black budget a white budget, give welfare only to those that deserve it, etc. There are ways to cut down on spending and still provide for basic humanitarian services.



If I am exaggerating than why did you agree with most everything I said?

Must I explain? I WONT!

Read my post you OBVIOUSLY missed most of it

[edit on 7-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Great post. I think you have summed up how many former Bush supporters, including myself, feel about GWB. Unfortunately, it makes to much sense and is far to rational for those who cannot see beyond the tree line.
This should be an interesting four years.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
To take it a step forward I disrespect people who say I am a conservative or I am a liberal. Adhering to a strict party line limits your focus on "reality" and makes everything black or white. The world is not black or white. It is usually something in between.

For example if I were to vote it would be a tough choice for me. Not only because of the corruption factor, which is really a no-brainer, but because some of my beliefs are conservative while others are liberal. For example:
Pro-abortion with limitations; pro-gun control; pro-religion; a limited but strong military; against gay marriage and gays adopting children; pro-small families(people having more than 3 children should be burdened with higher taxes); pro-high corporate taxation but tax breaks/incentitives to small bussiness; fix social security, medicare and medicaid, fix public schools; a healthy public transportaion system; strict government regulation on monopolies and most importantly preventing artificial monopolies from developing; a national healthcare system that works; etc.......

Do you see how difficult it becomes in aligning yourself with a major party? I guess I am a mild liberal overall but as they say "the devil is in the details". Neither party really addresses all the issues thoroughly.

I think we should do away with this antiquated two-party system in favor of a "protestant" politcal system where smaller and lesser known parties become the norm. These parties can then ally with each other to form a central government. No one party would need to have a strong majority in this system.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
Was Bush a clever Democrat?

Someone who would ultimately get everyone to mock his fake phony Christianity and make Republican chances of winning a pathetic joke that who would ever try, would have an albatross on their neck so heavy they couldn't win no matter who they were. If Obama ran as a republican he would have lost. Bush like Arnold Schwarzenegger who is a middle of the road democrat are those Politicians living double lives as gay Atheists in the Republican Party. Abortion rights activists in the Republican party. How this is being done is all explained in one of Obama's favorite book Authored by one of his Mentors, Communist Saul Alinsky.

This is a step by step transformation he talks about and how to make Americans, unknowing conspirators, agents of change in a conspiracy to convert our Government to Communism.
[edit on 7-11-2008 by MAINTAL]


First of all you should write smaller posts to make it easier on the reader. If you need to address multiple topics it is better to make seperate posts on each topic and then discuss each topic in detail rather than write everything at once.

Second you seem to be a traditional conservative. I am a mild liberal!

Third you accuse Bush and Cheney of being secret democrats. That makes zero sense because they were ultra-capitalist, neo-conservatives. Do you know what a neo-conservative is? I doubt it!

Just because we happen to agree on certain issues and dislike Bush/Cheney does not mean we have the same views. In fact, I have read a lot of your posts and for the most part we disagree.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
To take it a step forward I disrespect people who say I am a conservative or I am a liberal. Adhering to a strict party line limits your focus on "reality" and makes everything black or white. The world is not black or white. It is usually something in between.

For example if I were to vote it would be a tough choice for me. Not only because of the corruption factor, which is really a no-brainer, but because some of my beliefs are conservative while others are liberal. For example:
Pro-abortion with limitations; pro-gun control; pro-religion; a limited but strong military; against gay marriage and gays adopting children; pro-small families(people having more than 3 children should be burdened with higher taxes); pro-high corporate taxation but tax breaks/incentitives to small bussiness; fix social security, medicare and medicaid, fix public schools; a healthy public transportaion system; strict government regulation on monopolies and most importantly preventing artificial monopolies from developing; a national healthcare system that works; etc.......

Do you see how difficult it becomes in aligning yourself with a major party? I guess I am a mild liberal overall but as they say "the devil is in the details". Neither party really addresses all the issues thoroughly.

I think we should do away with this antiquated two-party system in favor of a "protestant" politcal system where smaller and lesser known parties become the norm. These parties can then ally with each other to form a central government. No one party would need to have a strong majority in this system.


Well after reading your post, again I have to say you and I are thinking more alike with every post. I was thinking of a similar Idea of working as cross trained represenatives where you could switch party based on your support or non support of a bill. This could really make for some interesting debates and perhaps be like the reality show survivor where everyone is creating alliances and you never know who is going to throw you under the bus. Not sure it is feasible but,, i'm working on it.

Good Post



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MAINTAL
Was Bush a clever Democrat?

Someone who would ultimately get everyone to mock his fake phony Christianity and make Republican chances of winning a pathetic joke that who would ever try, would have an albatross on their neck so heavy they couldn't win no matter who they were. If Obama ran as a republican he would have lost. Bush like Arnold Schwarzenegger who is a middle of the road democrat are those Politicians living double lives as gay Atheists in the Republican Party. Abortion rights activists in the Republican party. How this is being done is all explained in one of Obama's favorite book Authored by one of his Mentors, Communist Saul Alinsky.

This is a step by step transformation he talks about and how to make Americans, unknowing conspirators, agents of change in a conspiracy to convert our Government to Communism.
[edit on 7-11-2008 by MAINTAL]


First of all you should write smaller posts to make it easier on the reader. If you need to address multiple topics it is better to make seperate posts on each topic and then discuss each topic in detail rather than write everything at once.

Second you seem to be a traditional conservative. I am a mild liberal!

Third you accuse Bush and Cheney of being secret democrats. That makes zero sense because they were ultra-capitalist, neo-conservatives. Do you know what a neo-conservative is? I doubt it!

Just because we happen to agree on certain issues and dislike Bush/Cheney does not mean we have the same views. In fact, I have read a lot of your posts and for the most part we disagree.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by EarthCitizen07]


First, YOU should quit "shoulding" on people.
Second YOU should check out the length of a post before you decide it is my fault you are too lazy to read it. I don't write posts when I create a thread, I write essays. Essays are short stories and most of us who enjoy writing and write well, usually get an applause for the content and quality that goes into them.

I appreciate semperfortis for his diligence and professionalism as a moderator in addition to his knowing a good post when he reads one.

Thank you for the applause semperfortis



Second you seem to be a traditional conservative. I am a mild liberal!


How nice for you



Third you accuse Bush and Cheney of being secret democrats. That makes zero sense because they were ultra-capitalist, neo-conservatives. Do you know what a neo-conservative is? I doubt it!


Well, I know what people think they are and I have often heard the term "Neo Conservative" and I really don't care whether it makes sense or not when I am hearing it from someone who obviously didn't read my post. In the first sentence I leave a question mark wondering myself if Bush is a true Republican just as many wondered that about McCain. If you ever served in the military, as I have, spent as much time around the world as I have, you would understand that things aren't alway's as they seem and Bush who cared nothing about fiscal conservatism OR smaller Government, expanding Government and spending like we had an endless reserve of cash.

The only difference was, Bush is a Borrow and spend Neo Conservative, rather than a "tax and spend" liberal". But I don't care HOW you take my money when it is THAT you take it, at all, especially when it under duress.

I never mentioned Cheney, and I have no problem with Capitalism, I have a problem with people who vilify the rich thinking they know a damn thing about capitalism when they don't and if you think what we have now is capitalism, then I know you don't.



Just because we happen to agree on certain issues and dislike Bush/Cheney does not mean we have the same views. In fact, I have read a lot of your posts and for the most part we disagree.


You talk as if my OP was written just for you.
how vain you are and another thing I am sure you'll disagree with






[edit on 7-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
You said was Bush a clever democrat?
Now I'm wondering if Obama is a clever Neocon?
Either way the US is in serious trouble
I'm disgusted.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis
You said was Bush a clever democrat?
Now I'm wondering if Obama is a clever Neocon?
Either way the US is in serious trouble
I'm disgusted.


Obama is neither, Obama as everyone that has looked into his past, read his book in addition to the many mentors he has had that are communists, knows, Obama is a closet Commie. He knows better than to bring that up so he stays as close to the far left margin between liberalism and socialism. He and his wife shared common interests like that. Their are many here that would love to see a new reformed type of socialism.

I have studied most forms of Government and like our forefathers believe that if it were possible to have a Government of socialsim in a capitalist society where there were two conflicting forces to keep us in between fascism and communism and ride that fine line, we would have started something they called "The American Experiment"

Now however the conflicting forces and their respective ideologies have muddied the waters and have polluted each with versions of both.

I believe it is beyond repair now but am thankful the founders were wise enough to make our constitution with a failsafe that I have read by some here who understand the Constitution. People like Ron Paul and several on these boards who subscribe to purging the entire incumbency clean and I mean all of it, no matter who they are or how well they have served their constituents. Making it known that if any of them screw up then it is ALL of them that go. Can you imagine the scrutiny they would place on each other? This would put the power back in the voters hands and the people taking it away from lobbyists.

If only we did that it would be rough but it would eventually fix itself and our grand kids grand kids may not have to pay for all the mistakes WE have made by NOT fixing it oursleves. When the machine breaks down as bad as the machine is now,,

WE have to fix it because they won't





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join