Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Similarities Between Bush & Obama.

page: 5
81
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

So which side are you routing for?

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 



Which side of what?

I don't understand what you're asking.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

It means that you are playing partisan politics with how many people die in Afghanistan.

How do you sleep at night?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Fantastic thread AshleyD. Well researched, presented clearly and objectively.

While Bush and Obama are different in many ways, the people they surround themselves with and the policies they sell to the public are similar. And you are right that people from both sides are guilty of condemning the opposition whilst failing to acknowledge and condemn when it is done by the person they support.

The thing that makes Obama POTENTIALLY more dangerous imo is the differences between him and Bush. Obama is young, decent looking, intelligent and very talented at reciting speeches. Also, he just seems to relate to youths and minority groups.

Basically, Bush is a Wolf who looks like one. Obama is a Wolf that looks like a sheep.

[edit on 7/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I've stated this before on these boards, but as far as I am concerned, the power of the office of the presidency has been on the decline since Nixon. Kennedy and Nixon were the last two presidents to really "buck the system" (in different ways) and made a lot of powerful enemies. Result: they both lost their offices (in different ways). Since then, the role of the president has slowly diminished.

To my mind, indugemnce in presidential politcs has become an almost dangerous distraction from seeking the true "man behind the curtain" -- who is not a man, really, but a series of interlocking systems: the military-industrial complex, big pharma, big agribiz, big banking, and so on. These systems are difficult, but not impossible, to study. Its far easier to blame everything on a daddy-figure who sits increasingly symbolically and increasingly powerlessly in the oval office.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Ashley, the thing that surprises me most is that there continues to be those on "sides" in this. I came to the conclusion a few years back that there is only one party in this country that is of consequence. The "Money Party".

Some posting have a good part of the story in that the current suffering goes back to Bush Sr's term but they forget he was the VP under Reagan. ("On Oct 24, 1942 The U.S. Gov seized Nazi Assets Belonging to Prescott Bush, grandfather of President G.W.B. Jr." - libertyforlife.com) But the bilking of the United States has been in place longer than we like to imagine. There are folks on ATS that can trace this topic back to Jekyll Island and the creation of the Federal Reserve. (Not to mention Adam Weishaupt in 1776.)



In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, the USA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission. - John Pounders


Jeckyll Island and the Federal Reserve




The Primary Owners of the Federal Reserve Bank Are:
1. Rothschild's of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Lehman Brothers of New York
7. Goldman, Sachs of New York
8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York
- libertyforlife.com


Liberty For Life Association



"The world wars were artificially instigated by bankers. America’s greatest enemy is within it’s borders, the bankers who control the money supply, the politicians and our military, police and judiciary who violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America." - Clive Boustred


You've thoroughly researched and shown that there are only piddling differences between Bush and Obama. Our fixation on these trivialities is extremely useful to TPTB. They want us to believe these are major differences between parties and candidates. There are superficially only two parties and in reality only one. And third parties have all but been legislated out of competing for public office. They leave no stone unturned. They want us to believe that our votes can still change the direction of the country. We have been pacified by this belief for generations. If the bankers control who goes to war when and where, what does it matter what Bush or Obama said at a "national prayer breakfast"? What does it matter who was elected?

What has the last 9 months shown us? We are still in Iraq. We are more heavily into Afghanistan. Millions more are reliant on the government for every necessity. The deficit spending has expanded if not exploded. The more the government spends the greater indebted are our future generations. This is "hope and change"? No, this is "no dime left behind". This is everything we think we've been working toward in life has been diverted and corrupted. We've been left with crumbs from our labors. Yet, there is good in the world but we all can imagine "what if".

Bush and Obama were selected/elected before even they were aware. They were the chosen puppets. We have all been manipulated.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I hate to sound like an ass but I cant belive you had to post this, I mean dont we all already know that all politicians are crooks. It dosent take a conspiracy theorist to prove it, its common knowledge!

I will admit that your post is well put together and thoroughly covers most if not all of the big issues.

But I think we gotta move past the finger pointing and on to action, its easy to say "Look see! He's just as bad as the last guy" Instead why are we not forming new organizations that can work to eliminate and hold accountable corrupt officals.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Take a coin out of your pocket.
one side is the republicans, the other is the democrats...
now, you figure just how one side could go in one direction, while the other is heading in the opposite direction.
In my opinion, what you are seeing on tv and in the media is just a show, put on for our entertainment pleasure...both sides are heading in the same direction, they just don't want the people to realize just how unpleasant that direction will be for them, so well, here's your nice diversion this week!!!



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


It is called good cop bad cop, the Democrats are supposedly the good cops
Still laughing for the fact that American believe they are free lol



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
While Obama may or may not yet has sold his soul like most of our other politicians remains to be seen.

He has. It's obvious.


But Obama sure doesn't even come close to coming from the back ground that GWB came from, no comparison.

So what?


Barack never had a rich "sugar daddy" and had to earn every grade he got in school.

Bush got into college just fine because of grades.
Obama won't release his high school grades so we don't know if he got in due to grades or some other reason.
Michelle Obama got in to college on a quota. Affirmative Action.
Her racist 'thesis' reveals her severe lack of skills.


have any of you Bush supporters even bothered to read, "Dreams of my Father"?

HAVE YOU?? It exposes him for the racist that he is. He admits to struggling with (which means addiction to) drugs. His writings also expose his far left marxist leanings.


Bush could not open his mouth without being a world class joke.

And Obama can't give a speech without his teleprompter.
uh .. oh ... um ... um .... uh ... uh .... uh .... is all you get out of Obama
without his teleprompter. Well ... that and lies.

Edited to add ... Obama's teleprompter has it's own blog.

It's a hoot. site here


He came off as a smug, arrogant dumb jerk.

So does Obama. He is always looking down his nose.


Obama at least appears intellegent.

Maybe to you he does. But to a lot of us he 'appears' to be nothing more
than a severely inexperienced tool who can't speak correctly and who
lies and lies and lies ...


Let's see if our current president spends that much time away from The White House at the tax payers expense.

Obama is off to a good start in the 'vacation' department.
Have you been keeping track of his 'get away from the white house' time?
Oh .. and Bush was usually at the ranch in Crawford which was named
'the Western White House' because he was WORKING while he
was there. I highly doubt Obama is working when he takes wifey-poo for
three day trips on air force one to Chicago for Valentines Day or when
he's in seculusion just getting 'security briefings' on Marthas Vineyard, etc etc etc ....


THEY ARE MORE ALIKE THAN NOT




[edit on 9/7/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

Misinformation by not enough research and twisting the facts - a common Republican tactic.



1. ACORN claims it is bi-partisan organization. But endorsed Obama. TRUE and FALSE. True, in the sense that they claim the work they do is a bipartisan effort , and they have worked on both sides of the political aisle, considering John McCain a political ally until the past week or so - remember how he was a keynote speaker at a Florida ACORN rally back in 2006?

False that they never claimed not to endorse a candidate. Even though the work they do is politically neutral, they certainly are free to endorse the candidate who best represents the values of their group.

Here is ACORN's statement on their endorsement of Sen. Obama:

"Because of Obama's record of working for positive change that helps working families, ACORN Votes, a federal PAC made up of ACORN leaders, endorsed Obama's candidacy for President. However, ACORN's successful effort to help 1.3 million people apply to become registered voters was a non-partisan effort to engage underrepresented voters and bring them into our democracy. Our voter registration organizers don't campaign for anyone as we help them complete registration applications."

2. ACORN has received grants from “The Woods Fund” (Obama served on the Board of Directors of).

TRUE. But pretty moot, as this has no reflection on Obama or his campaign.

Let's be clear: First, there's a difference between "voter fraud" and voter REGISTRATION fraud" - the former affects the outcome of elections, the latter is a red tape mess that sways polls and creates headaches, but doesn't affect elections.

Second, please allow me to quote this news article to give you a description of the fraudulent activity being investigated:

"Despite what the McCain campaign and some television reporters are saying, ACORN has not engaged in vote fraud this year, either. Some of its employees seem to have engaged in voter registration fraud, but in this case ACORN is less the villain than the victim, if perhaps a careless victim. In fact, in five states over the last several years, ACORN employees have been found guilty of voter registration fraud. But According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, who prosecuted one of the cases, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of election.”

3. Obama represented ACORN in a suit against Illinois in 1995. TRUE. As ACORN's site describes:

"After law school Obama joined a civil rights law firm in Chicago and was one of the attorneys there who successfully represented a coalition of groups including ACORN in a legal case that won better enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act in Illinois."

4. ACORN has been accused of voter registration fraud...TRUE. By Republicans. Desperate to win an election. Being accused and being guilty are two very different things.

Again, they submitted knowingly false applications for registration (things like Bart Simpson and Harry Potter) because they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so, even in the face of money-grabby employees who tried to scam a quick buck off of ACORN. The problem is, once ACORN realized the employees were taking these names, it would've been fraudulent not to turn them in.

...—registering phony Democrats to undermine this election and currently under investigation. FALSE. Undermine the election? Hardly. They were making an attempt to get more people registered. They were working within the government's guidelines for doing so, and are receiving all this flack because of it. Yes they're under investigation, because Republicans are crying foul. I can also launch an investigation to claim that Sen. McCain took bribes from a "Club a Baby Seal for Jesus" group, and that doesn't mean it's true.

See, here's the problem: Traditionally (and most political analysts on both sides will agree with me here), the more people that vote, the more votes Democrats get. So it's been a regular game every election season: Democrats try to get more voters, Republicans try to suppress voters. The logic, is of course, that a lot of urban lower-income voters (many with lower educations) don't come out to vote. But if they did, they'd vote Democrat. Hence our problem of voter generation vs. suppression.

By the way, Republicans are also under investigation for attempts to suppress voters already this election.

www.freep.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



5. ACORN provides its own oversight and investigations and says it has found itself to be clean. NO ANSWER. Mainly because I don't know what ACORN claims about its own oversight. Did some light digging and didn't find anything. ACORN does provide some oversight for itself, as does the federal government. If anything elicit HAS been going on, then certainly oversight from both ACORN and the government needs to be stepped up.



6. Obama has said once, "I’ve been fighting along side ACORN on issues you care about my entire career…”

TRUE. This quote is accurately attributed to Sen. Obama. As this website (of Obama affiliation) notes:

"In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995."



7. Obama has taught classes for ACORN. TRUE. Although the phrasing here is thick with implications, it's not as nefarious as it sounds. As ACORN's website describes:

"In the early 1990's, Obama accepted two invitations to be an unpaid guest speaker at trainings for volunteer community leaders organized by Chicago ACORN. He never worked for ACORN."

8. Obama campaign funded ACORN with $800K this season. FALSE. Technically, by the letter of the law.

The $800,000 in question was paid to a group called Citizen Services Inc. They are affiliated with ACORN among other groups. As this USA Today article notes:

"Obama's campaign paid Citizens Services Inc., an ACORN affiliate, $832,000 this year for help identifying voters in the Democratic primaries, according to campaign-finance records complied by the non-partisan CQ MoneyLine. ACORN and CSI have gotten more than $375,000 this year from Democratic candidates and liberal political groups, including $200,000 from the Fund for America, founded by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta.

It is not uncommon for campaigns to pay outside groups to help register voters."

9. The 1st Bail-Out bill proposed by Congress and rejected by the Senate included money for ACORN. FALSE. Here's an article everyone should really read describing what happened:


wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...

Don't feel like clicking the link? I'll give you the gist: The money in question was funding for "a provision stating that 20% of the government’s profits from the sale of a troubled asset be deposited, with 65% of the deposit directed to the Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Trust Fund is a federal housing program that provides “funds to state governments for the purpose of building and rehabilitating homes for the very lowest income people in the United States."

As the article above describes:

"...conservatives are completely mischaracterizing this part of the bill. Directing funds to the Housing Trust Fund does not mean that money is being given to ACORN. In fact, state and local governments - not the federal government - choose which organizations receive money from the fund.

Although ACORN could have feasibly received some of those funds, if states had chosen to give it to them, this was not really an ACORN issue. It was a damn shame that this funding was removed. It hurt the lower income people of our country, and we should be ashamed.

10. ACORN claims it has 350K members in 850 neighborhoods, and 100 cities in US and some foreign countries. FALSE. You're off by just a little.

According to its own website: "ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country....Each of the 1,200 local ACORN neighborhood chapters in 110 cities and 40 states brings neighbors together to work for stronger, safer and more just communities."



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
The American people were not only abused, they were MURDERED, by the 1000's, in order to forwad the Bush-Cheney agenda, already tucked in Cheney's briefcase even while they were awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.

Yes, MURDERED.


Sorry, I dont subscribe to wahabist/jihadist hate-propaganda masking as "conspiracy-theories".

I would have prefered no war, but to go as far as calling those with a different opinion/view (namely the view of the necessity for defense) "murderers" is extremist.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

I've been lost inside my head
Echoes fall on me
I took the priceless night for complicated mess
Persuading things I didn't mean and don't believe

Believe in me
Believe in nothing
Corner me
And make me something
I've become the hollow man, I
I've become the hollow man I see

Oh, I see this echoing
You have placed your trust in me
I went upside down
I emptied up the room
Thirty seconds left
I can't believe you held your ground

Believe in me
Believe in nothing

Corner me
And make me something
I've become the hollow man, I
I've become the hollow man I see

I'm overwhelmed
I'm on repeat
I'm emptied out
I'm incomplete
You trusted me
I want to show you
I don't want to be the hollow man

Believe in me
Believe in nothing
Corner me
And make me something
I've become the hollow man, I
I've become the hollow man I see
I see


Lyrics from Hollow Man by REM

Replace the picture with any president of your choosing.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


So to be fair and symmetrical are you gonna talk about differences? Or is there a political agenda to this?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The thing that makes Obama POTENTIALLY more dangerous imo is the differences between him and Bush.


And these differences, along with others that have been mentioned, also make him POTENTIALLY more beneficial to the nation and the world. But that's not as much fun.

We can't possibly know yet. (although some of the more arrogant among us claim to know the future and the mind and intent of Obama...)

The problem with comparing Bush and Obama at this stage is that we have 8 years of Bush presidency - which is over, so we're looking at it in its entirety - and we're comparing that to 7 MONTHS of Obama's presidency - which has over 3/4 of it remaining, at least. What kind of a fair comparison is that?

The other problem is that the comparison is obviously made with the clear purpose of making Obama look "as bad as Bush" and it's made by someone who is known not to be unbiased in politics. Because none of the important differences are stated. This IS just another bash the president thread. It's just done with a bit of refinement. The political agenda is clear.

I can't believe so many people who profess to be critical thinkers are taking this as a reasonable comparison... It's apples to oranges at this point.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



So to be fair and symmetrical are you gonna talk about differences? Or is there a political agenda to this?


I'm strongly considering this. It took me about 2 days to research the material in this OP so I could spend a couple doing differences for those of you who have asked. A friendly warning, though: It's not going to be pretty.


While making this thread, I noticed some scary differences between both presidents as well, neither looking that much better than the other.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



The problem with comparing Bush and Obama at this stage is that we have 8 years of Bush presidency - which is over, so we're looking at it in its entirety - and we're comparing that to 7 MONTHS of Obama's presidency - which has over 3/4 of it remaining, at least. What kind of a fair comparison is that?


And isn't it amazing how in those seven short months he has done so much similar to Bush?


Although I can understand your point and agree to an extent that we should wait and see where he goes (especially with as much as politicians are known to flip flop- what Obama does today does not mean he will be doing it tomorrow), I still felt this would be an interesting thread to help others check their intentions before automatically defending/criticizing both leaders.


 


The reason I initially focused on comparisons instead of differences is to show that when you have such similarities on such controversial and important issues/actions, it should be a a pretty revealing piece of the puzzle that whatever label is in the white house, there's something deeper going on.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't believe so many people who profess to be critical thinkers are taking this as a reasonable comparison... It's apples to oranges at this point.

What causes my continued disappointment with the knee-jerk conditioned automatons that are the American public (and to an increasingly sad extent, growing segments of ATS membership) is that anyone could cling to the belief that we "the voters" or the "the people" matter any more... and by extension, that our "elected" politicians may ever make any difference.

The massive amounts of cash controlled by lobbyists is what matters and guides the system... not us, not our votes, not our letters to representatives. This comes from those insiders who are exerting the control.

The primary difference we, "the people," can discren between Obama and Bush is their names and distracting speeches... after that, the entrenched republic of lobbyists dictates what actually happens.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The other problem is that the comparison is obviously made with the clear purpose of making Obama look "as bad as Bush" and it's made by someone who is known not to be unbiased in politics. Because none of the important differences are stated. This IS just another bash the president thread. It's just done with a bit of refinement. The political agenda is clear.

I can't believe so many people who profess to be critical thinkers are taking this as a reasonable comparison... It's apples to oranges at this point.


Which means it's business as usual. Just the name has changed. Take a trip in time back a year or two and a Bush supporter would have been saying the same thing in defense of him. The manipulators win again.


Btw, critical thinking goes both ways. Obama isn't a total peach either. Just like some thought of Bush during his reign.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
What causes my continued disappointment with the knee-jerk conditioned automatons that are the American public (and to an increasingly sad extent, growing segments of ATS membership) is that anyone could cling to the belief that we "the voters" or the "the people" matter any more... and by extension, that our "elected" politicians may ever make any difference.


I don't have the opinion that we (the voters) can make a difference at this point. But I don't see giving someone a chance and being patient to see what DOES happen, as a "knee-jerk" reaction.

I think people don't want to be "fooled" and so try to expect the worst, so anything better than that will be a comparatively good outcome. But if we expect the worst and get the worst, then we can say, "I knew it. I wasn't a fool." That's what I think is happening here. We don't want our hearts broken again. We have become cynical to the extreme.



The primary difference we, "the people," can discren between Obama and Bush is their names and distracting speeches... after that, the entrenched republic of lobbyists dictates what actually happens.


I guess we will see. Or do you think it's a fact already? Do you not hold any hope at all for a better future? Is all lost?





new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join