It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

page: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:36 PM
Ok I am gonna play my favoriet game of devil's advocate.

First off, let me start by saying that I hope you enjoyed the fun side of DC. it is a great culture, and fabulous food. There are infinite things you can do. I also hope you got some site seeing in.
And I don't know exactly when you went but it is quite the heat sink, and the glaring miles of white marble give you a sunburn pretty quick.


As someone not too far from the political beltway, it is always interesting to hear views outside of beltway, because politics seeps into everything here.

First, let me tell you why so many people are lobbyists. It is not just the money, though it is a good start. Getting into politics the usual route is not easy to do. I know, I applied for an unpaid internship that was basically sharpening pencils for another unpaid intern at the DA and I never even got a response because 90,000 other college students wanted to sharpen pencils for free for the summer.It is highly competetive among the academics, and just not easy to go that route.

Lobbying provides experience and money. Many people then use the money to finally be able to campaign to be Congresspeople. And they make connections also. It is an "in". Those who don't get in manage to work for corporations. It is a tremendous experience.

When obama made a promise not to hire lobbyists. He wasn't guilty of breaking a rule he set, he was from outside the beltway, and didn't know that basically lobbying is the only way to get inside the beltway, so basicaly everyone is a lobbyist at some point.

yes there is a lot of lobbyists, but what people forget is they can't all win.
For every group of one interest, you have a group of an opposing interest. You have the pro choice battling the pro life, the oil vs. environment. The people who want to protect oysters in the ChespeakeBay and the people who want to protect the watermen.

So what you are witnessing is power play. All these lobbyists come from somewhere. And they are not all corportations.

Believe it or not, many do have decent interests. Even an entity like the red cross or WWF have pretty powerful lobbys.

This thread has lumped them all into one group. But it doesn't quite work that way.
While the person you spoke to says yes, they have power. What he didn't specifiy is that is it not all equal, all the time.

You could easily form your own. These days small business and small internet are almost interchangeable. You could easily get the funding and backup of many small businesses, then you can get some attention.

And lastly something that is just speculation but something to be considered none the less:

Big Government has been guilty of not quite understanding new technology. We have a lot of pre-technological boom people there. Some may even be afraid of it.

A big mistake I think McCAin made during the election was saying: I dont' know anything about computers. Well that alienated about 2 generations of people. yikes.

But I don't think among the old white guy club he is alone. is it that they are not taking small business seriously? Or that they don't know anything about technology, don't understand its power, or it is just not on their radar?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Most lobbyist are experienced people now a days

The corporate lobby has become more effective recently because it's hiring more experienced players, in effect creating a "revolving door" between Capitol Hill and K Street. In fact, 43 percent of the eligible Congressional members who departed government during that time have become lobbyists, while half of all eligible departing Senators have become lobbyists. Nearly 250 former members of Congress and federal agency chiefs have become lobbyists since 1998, while more than 2,200 former federal employees have registered as federal lobbyists.

Some of them may have some political agenda for their own but most fo them are just there for the money.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The Republicans Have Their Long-Knives Out: "Ever since the election, and for the foreseeable future, the Republicans only have one thing on their mind, screw Obama." He said nothing else matters to them, not voters, and certainly not getting anything done.

While that might be true, the Republican party has very little power at the moment. Democrats have the majority in both houses of Congress and could push though any piece of legislation that they want to. They had no issue seating Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice even after she publicly made racist comments. Pfft, who cares when you have the votes on your side.

111th Congress

House of Representatives
Democrats have 256 seats to the Republican 178.

Republicans have 40 seats. Not even enough to Filibuster.

What is stopping legislation from going through? Could it be the Democrats in name only (DINO) or is it possible that Obama and the Democratic party leaders are trying to push through crappy legislation? If Pres. Obama's agenda is to expand government more and more shouldn't we want him to fail? Or do you honestly believe that the government should have ownership and control over all the banks, the auto industry, and your health care?

The government was not intended to be the one to insert a pacifier into the mouth of everyone who doesn't feel they're being taken care of. That's your mother's job, but the President insists on leading the government down that road. The country doesn't look like the Republic that was founded by Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hancock. Instead of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", we are being force-fed a government that controls the people.

Should Obama fail? Of course when his success means the death of our freedoms. Have we forgotten Patrick Henry who so plainly stated that death and failure was preferred over corrupt representation and rule? What do you think "Give me Liberty, or give me death " implies? Patrick Henry is in no uncertain terms stating that death was preferred in the place of a corrupt controlling government . Is not death the ultimate failure in life?

Just look how far we've come as a nation, when it's citizens cry and beg for more and more government control. How could point fingers and accuse those who stand in freedom's way, given that those who protest have little say-so in what is actually happening in Congress?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Dobbs isn't defining what is a lobbyist. anybody campaigning briefly on behalf of a company could be considered a lobbyist. What I am referring to is the people who do it full time. What many of these people do is work for a company, get an elected position, and go back to do the same thing. Because post political career, you go back to doing what you do best. Nothing new there.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by dbates

The government already is manipulating from banks to the markets, car industry, housing you name it, the only thing that is making the majority in congress rethink what damage they are going to do next is the unwillingness of the people and the unforeseeable results of protest all over the nation.

Something that is on going and the media seems to turn a blind eye.

Is nothing more dangerous than an unhappy crowd of people.

The party in charge of the nation now knows that is running out of time and that a second term is very much unlikely.

So they are rushing to do what they has been waiting to do for the last 8 years.

Still I agree that the former party in power is doing all they can to take advantage of the disappointment and discontent of the citizens in the nation and they are doing a good job so far.

Divided we stand.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

The report on the lobbyist is actually taken from the The center for Public Intergrity, he is just using the numbers given by the site.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Great write up of your experience and I commend you on your courage to post what you have.

Like you, this account definitely trips me out as to how blatant things that used to be called conspiracy are now called business as usual in the open. Which makes me wonder, why do people still go along with these A-holes? Has the media induced brain washing really made the majority of Americans blood thirsty savages that only want to fight? I hope not, I hope it's more to do with the American people just being too damn naive for their own good.

That would seem to be the case to me, and doing what you guys do with ATS here does more good then casting a vote in an election sometimes. The more informed people get, the less & less their tactics will work, and things will have to be made more blatant which will only bring more opposition. This site does more then it's share to rise consciousness on all levels beyond the banter & bickering.

So once again, thank you for posting your 1st hand experience of what's going on in this country. I'm sure it will do much good in the end and your courage karmatically rewarded.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by dbates
House of Representatives
Democrats have 256 seats to the Republican 178.

Republicans have 40 seats. Not even enough to Filibuster.

What is stopping legislation from going through? Could it be the Democrats in name only (DINO) or is it possible that Obama and the Democratic party leaders are trying to push through crappy legislation?

Good question. If the Democratic party has the votes...why engage in political debate or public discourse? Could it be...just possibly...that President Obama was telling the truth when he said that he wanted a DISCUSSION about healthcare reform? Rather than bullying a bill through? Both between opposing parties and the public at large?

I know its seems an impossible motivation for some with a certain worldview...that a poltician might care about consensus...but it is possible given that we are entrenched in a bitter political war and public debate despite the Democrats being able to pass this bill at their liesure.

Just a thought..

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:09 PM
My only question: Why is everyone so upset NOW?

This country has been going down the tubes since 2000, and during that period the liberals/left were complaining and protesting, getting thown into mass detention centers in New York City (during the 2004 Republican Convention), etc.

What what was the conservative/right saying during that time?: "Support the troops!"

The left was like "WTF are you talking about? This President (Bush) is setting this country up for failure by taking us into this ridiculous war in Iraq and simultaneously cutting taxes! The lobbyists are ruining our country as well! We need to do something about health care too! The Corporations are corrupting Washingtion!"

The right was all "Support the troops!", buying up H2 SUV's, and so on.

Now that Obama is attempting to mop up the mess from the Bush years and change health care, within 7 months everyone on the right is up in arms against him. Acting as if he created the friggin' situation. SAY WHAT?

As a leftie myself all I can ask is: Where the hell were you guys the last 8 years? (I mean, besides just "supporting teh troops" and getting 17mpg.)

It's not as if these problems "snuck up" on us. This crap has been a growing problem for the last 20 years.

It seems as if the right doesn't care about problems with our Nation until they can blame a Democratic President. You might want to first start by acknowledging your 50% share of the blame. Don't try and pretend you and your man had nothing to do with this situation.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by harrytuttle]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:11 PM
I know this is late in the thread and will likely be buried...

But I think a new solution needs to be looked at.

I posted a rather detailed explanation of how the abundance paradigm could be (was) made manifest here:

Maybe this is the solution we all need...?

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Amaterasu]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Moshpet

So rather than a 'dictatorial' government (EG one person), we are looking at a 'stream' of dictators that will only hold power or office if they do nothing but toe the party line.


What motivation would they have then to even hold office, if they were forced to toe the party line?


The base effort needs to be REMOVE THE PROFIT FROM PUBLIC OFFICE.

If you can't get rid of the corrupt politicians, and you can't get rid of the lobbyists, then all you can do is withhold your wealth from the corporations they both work for.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by dbates

Should Obama fail? Of course when his success means the death of our freedoms. Have we forgotten Patrick Henry who so plainly stated that death and failure was preferred over corrupt representation and rule? What do you think "Give me Liberty, or give me death " implies? Patrick Henry is in no uncertain terms stating that death was preferred in the place of a corrupt controlling government . Is not death the ultimate failure in life?

I have to state the obvious.

Those who support certain policies or initiatives of President Obama, many who are highly politically literate and intelligent analysts as well as passionate patriots and yes even NOT believe that his success equates to the "death of our freedoms".

Do you believe that those that support the President are interested in achieving the "death of our freedoms"?

Do you believe that those who might support the President are interested in "corrupt representation and rule"?

Or do you believe them to be simple pattsies who are unable to evaluate a given issue independantly and objectively? Eager to parrot propaganda?

Binary thinking. Good and Evil. Black or white. I have seen you post often, you are a bright person and better than this kind of partisan rhetoric. Just my 2 cents.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

They don't think about our souls, acknowlege our souls, or want to drink our souls. They scarely even acknowledge our humanity much less our souls, and I doubt if they even think about their own. All they want us to do is shut the hell up and quietly give them our money. It can't even really be about money anymore. Seriously, how much money does one truely need? When pharm companies are clearing in profit 6 billion a year? Profit. After they've paid the researchers and manufactured the drugs. How many Bentley's does one need? How many houses in how many foreign lands?

What is the hidden agenda? Simply greed? Power? Does it go beyond that?

And if the republicans have out the "big knives", what is it they are so afraid of? Why do they fear the President so much? He ran for office on change, was elected for that, and now he is trying to implement such, but faces calumnious charges on every count.

More than ever, the good republican citizens need to be asking themselves why, and begin investingating the actions and exploring the motivations of their own party. Perhaps it's not what they thought.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Really now people; who's fault is this?

It is OUR fault; yours and mine...

I wholeheartedly disagree, my good friend, it is some American's fault.

Not mine, I did not vote for this idiot.

Nor the last idiot to reside in the Oblong Office (not the sarcasm, square peg and round hole).

I do believe Obama inherited his Presidential problems thanks to Bush, and I believe the whole thing was done on purpose as well, just to screw Americans.

Lobbiests have power because they pull the strings of the politicians and convince them that if they don't support their cause, they will not be reelected.. It is up to us to show the politicians that they will not be reelected if they do not represent us.. Plain and simple...

The plain and simple answer, is to form many thousands of non-profits, think-tanks, and lobbying firms, and get our own people elected, by legally overthrowing, without violence I might add, the Government in office.

There is nothing illegal about forming a non-profit, a think-tank, or lobbying firm.

Washington D.C. does it, so take from their weapons, and weapons are tools, and do unto others...

The problem goes way further than any of you are looking at..

It started when being a politician became a profession...


Yep, I could not agree more with that statement, semperfortis.

Politically speaking being a politician, is a business, and you are in business to guarantee you remain in business.

I have written threads about overthrowing the Government, legally, and without violence, but because so many other people would rather whine, complain, and cry about the changes they want to happen, and because there is no guns, C-4, or hanging of the current politicians, they want nothing to do with it.

This is frustrating to say the least, because to beat a politician, you have to take away their office, by running against them and winning, not whining.

Are ATS'ers are a bunch of whining and complaining cry-babies?

I do not know. I would think that if someone pointed out to you that there is a clear-cut, concise, and certified way of throwing a politician out on their keisters, someone might take it, but I sure as Hell guess not.

Do not blame me for Obama getting into office, and as well as that do not blame me for getting Bush into office before him, I voted for neither man.

I'm a registered Independent, and I voted black and orange, because as far as I am concerned the system itself is broken and rigged in favor of whoever the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones wants in office.

Those three groups, as well as the Seven World Bankers are who control who is cast as our President, not the election process whatsoever, it's big-money and big-business, not the idealistic people like John Q Voter and Jane O Public who elect our elected representatives.

Bill's visit to Washington D.C. only proves it all the more, the politicians do not give a fuzzy rats behind about the American people, so why the Hell should we care about them being in office to begin with?

I say beat them at their own game, and win their elected seats, by forming non-profits, think-tanks, and lobbying groups, who represent the people of America.

Washington D.C. does not care about our privacy, because information gathering and data-mining industry is big business.

Vote Garfield for President 2012

To me, there is no "lesser of two evils" when it comes to politics, it's who's closest to actually telling the truth.

Can you guess who I voted for this last election?

I will give you a few clues.

He's orange, cartoon, feline, loves lasagna, kicks Odie, tortures Nermal, irritates Jon Arbuckle just because it's fun, and rarely gets out of the recliner.

You see, to me, if a politician is not going to do anything for anyone else, is going to abuse and torture the people watching him, as well as the people he or she is responsible for, and does it all for cheap laughs, well, I want that to be someone who at least is more real than 99% of the politicians on Capitol Hill.

Read about my fight against stalkers here, since I was six years old.

Left-Wing, Right-Wing, This Turkey, Knows How To Soar Like An Eagle

Become a member of the Bully Pulpit, so you can debate me politically, if you do not choose membership in the Bully Pulpit, you can only read, and not post replies.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by MemoryShock

The competition between the parties seems to have taken precedence over the good will of the nation.

QFT MemoryShock.

This is exactly the reason why "Obama must fail". To the republicans, he must fail because he is a Democrat. It doesn't matter what his intentions are, his goals, or his presidency. I recall reading the same thing on how Bush must fail during his presidency too.

Lets be honest here, both sides have blood on their hands. Kerry ran on the platform of "I hate Bush, vote for me". This is nothing new, it has simply escalated to the point where it's at now -- an all out partisan war on BOTH sides of the isle.

Those same lobbyists might very well say that the Democrats must make the Republicans fail in order so that they cannot take back power. This is not to say that Lobbyists are not a major problem of our government, but there is a chain of loyalty's in which the people are at the bottom of the list. Party first, lobbyists second, the people third.

There are a plethora of other examples on the state level experiencing the same thing right now that has nothing to do with Obama. One example is the complete deadlock of New York's legislature in which the state is paralyzed down evenly split party lines and passing 100+ bills instantly when someone crosses the Isle to go get a cup of coffee thinking they have the majority.

As long as political parties of (D) and (R) whom have long since rigged the game so they all remain in power, you will have the partisan war. The rigging could not be more evident in the California legislature in which Karen Bass (D) said that we were terrorizing Republicans and their careers by threatening and mobilizing recalls of Republicans who voted for the largest tax increase in the nations history. They are all on the same team when it comes to power and status quo.

So that leaves us with a partisan war that will either be a cold war as it was in the 80's and 90's, or one thats heated up to the point it is now. It is all variations of a theme, which has gone on for quite some time. Both parties are now more prone to showing their real hands than ever before.

In 2012 if a (R) is voted president, it too will continue in which that President Must fail as well. And if it's an (I), then Both parties will make him/her fail because it threatens their own power structure. In any of the above circumstances, the people lose.

The first logical step for the people to regain power is to abolish the party system, flush the cesspool of congress, activist judges on the supreme court, and the presidency on the federal side, and do the same for state levels with the governor instead of the president, and then we can work on abolishing the lobbyists.

It's a pipe dream though, it will never happen. Voters are too concerned about if the person has a (D) or (R) next to their name on the voting card regardless of the issues. In order to fix the system, the system has to fundamentally change. It's an uphill battle on both sides. The people who could change it won't -- because they like the D/R by peoples names and vote exclusively off those two letters of the alphabet, and the people in power are not going to vote themselves off the island.

Without fundamental change (and not the kind Obama promised) we're doomed as a nation and that upside down flag is entirely appropriate. It's just a matter of how we will fall, and when it will happen. Will it be the bond market, the people, an outside source?

The real question should be -- do you want it now, or do you want it later?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:57 PM
You know the first time I looked under the hood of a car, I was overwhelmed by the complexity of the engine and tried to imagine how a simple piston rotating around a shaft can get so complicated. Surely there is no need for this thinga-ma-bob, and what the hell is that thing for? I soon found out that all that other stuff is also needed in order for the motor to keep running.

I believe that Washington has reached the point of obsolescence just like the internal combustion engine should have been, but meanwhile all the complexity that goes along with it is a normal function of the most powerful government in the world.

I agree with some of you that in order to fix the government lobby reform is probably the most import element needed, but it will not happen. It is too late and now we are all witnessing a struggle of two forces bigger than ourselves. One is the larger Global New World Order(Dems) and the other is the local Military Industrial Complex (Reps). Both are extremely powerful and both want control.

It will continue and only get worse until one thing happens. That is when one side or the other wins the war and eliminates the opposition. I have my own predictions on which side will win and how it will reshape this country. My point is, either way this country is going through some growing pains and we will witness what happens, but I think individually there is probably not a damn thing we can do about it. Any revolution will be snuffed out, and even individual politicians cannot change what is happening.

Some may think the government is a monster that will implode and devour itself, or it will get even bigger and enslave us all or kill us, but like that thinga-ma-bob that seems to serve no purpose, the government needs us more than we need them.

On a lighter note, one thing that does offer some hope of a brighter future than the one we now share is that we elected the first black president in the last election, and however you want to take that, it tells me that "we the people" do still have some control, because I always thought there was no way in hell he would get elected or live to see inauguration day. I still fear a tragedy may ensue, but I think we may not be as powerless as we thought.

Sweet dreams.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:01 PM
Neither of parties matter. Even a monkey with electrodes attached to his butt would learn more about responsibility than those in the white house. you must make a mechanism how to make a responsibility tangible and measurable, so that those in charge would feel accountable. Otherwise even revolutions don`t matter. Revolutions create chaaos, but, once the old sharks get replaced, the new ones start to feel the taste of blood pretty soon. revolutions don`t decrease 12 trillion external debts. Revolutions don`t decrease 800 billion negative trade balances. Revolutions don`t add skills to manufacturing. You must understand the simple principle why the banks rule US. Once you have lost ability to create competetive products( trains, bikes, electronics, etc,) you must import them. Once ypou import more than you export, you create trade disbalance, which must be serviced by borrowing money. That logically happens through banks. That `s why in order to sustain the economy barely alive, US must resort to borrowing( selling worthless government bonds). Guys ,there are 2 options. either you stop byuing import cars, Nintendos and sonys, and consume only what your country manufactures herself( pretty much close to zilch), or ypou must export item of lesses added value ( chewing gum, films, shawing foam, corn) in gazillions of tons in order to counterbalance those imports. You must not ask, why we have such a debt. You must ask- why can`t we compete with imports? Once you realize that the backbone of each country is added value industries, once you start respecting people who create Hubble telescopes, independent suspensions, VTEC engines and Oled screens, and not football stars or britneys boobjob, you will realize ,how a rich country is sustained. From Latvia, Hi!

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by nixie_nox

When obama made a promise not to hire lobbyists. He wasn't guilty of breaking a rule he set, he was from outside the beltway, and didn't know that basically lobbying is the only way to get inside the beltway, so basicaly everyone is a lobbyist at some point.

"When Obama made a promise not to hire lobbyists", he was a sitting Senator and fully aware what that meant. He lied.

I wonder what the spin is for him using the CEO of GE who just happens to control NBC? He also said no special interests. GE is the antithesis of everything the DNC claims to stand for.

You have the art of "Spin" mastered

Since the real money is in the private sector, only those who value power over money would go the government route. It defines them from day one.

If you mean Obama is not qualified for his job, I agree

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

On March 28, 1861 the United States Congress adjourned sine die (without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing, for an indefinite period to adjourn an assembly sine die). In other words Congress went home at the start of the Civil War with no intention on returning. To call the Congress back into session De jure (concerning law and principal) would have required the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate to set the date at a later time. This never ever happened. Let me repeat there has been no legally sat Congress or Senate per the United States Constitution since March 28, 1861. The Congress was called back into session de facto (concerning fact and in practice) by President Abraham Lincoln who had not the Constitutional Authority or Power to do so.

That is, in fact, very true. This is another of those dirty little secrets that have been hidden under the floorboards of American History, out of view of the average American. After a period of time, I suspect that it would have been too embarrassing AND detrimental to the peace and welfare of the American nation, to admit that such a thing happened.
I believe that this is similar to the way that Obama's true birthplace is being hidden and denied. At this point, it would be too detrimental to the US to declare his Presidency null and void, and so we continue to make believe that it never happened.
Other facts that have been ignored or minimized were the near-overthrow of the United States government by Industrialists in the 1930's, and the cooperation of major US corporations like IBM with Hitler and the Nazis DURING WWII.
Additional "forgotten" history includes the hundreds of harmful experiments conducted on unknowing citizens during the last 70 years.
If the truths were known, history books would read more like a Stephen King novel, rather than the fairy tales that are told in today's history books.
It is sad but true.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:10 PM
I should have written myself a letter before the election and sent it to myself to prove I predicted this happening. I told my husband back in the primaries, that I worried that if Obama won, it would be Clinton all over again.

Clinton wasn't a 'beltway boy', he was an outsider and he didn't play the game. And we suffered through 8 years of a concerted effort to bring him down, that interfered with the real job of government.

This 'football' team mentality has got to stop.

And we need to get the money factor out of government; the all mighty dollar shouldn't decide what is right or wrong, or what is best.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in