Similarities Between Bush & Obama.

After reading many responses in this thread, I think it equally valid to point out the similarities between Bush & Obama supporters.

:shk:

Too damned funny.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


I'm not sure of the intent of your post, but it seems that you are defending ACORN. And you are implying that it is only Republicans accusing these poor, innocent community organizers.

WRONG.

A high-ranking official at the taxpayer-funded leftist group that conducts fraudulent voter registration drives has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for organizing a scheme that illegally paid workers to register new voters.
:
ACORN’s shady quota system is illegal in Nevada as well as most states and the Chicago-based community group with strong ties to President Obama faces criminal charges across the nation. As part of Edwards’ guilty plea, he is cooperating with authorities and will testify against several high-ranking ACORN regional officials.

www.judicialwatch.org...

ACORN has received more money from the stimulus package - which was designed to create jobs - than roads and bridges projects or small businesses in America.

goodsensepolitics.blogspot.com...

Payoff for helping him to win the election. The unions were also big backers, and big beneficiaries.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by jsobecky]

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

You know that I know this. I'm not claiming him to be a peach and I never have. I say when and why I disagree with him.

My point here is that I can compare Strom Thurmond and Martin Luther King Jr. and make a list of similarities. But unless I list favorable and unfavorable similarities, along with favorable and unfavorable differences, we don't get the whole picture of the measures of the men.

reply to post by loam


Yes, let's get personal. That always works toward better discussion and sharing of thoughts and ideas.

reply to post 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.

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.

Voters still do matter, regardless of the immense power of the lobbyists. There are documented wins in the past few years that have been won by the diligence of the electorate.

I realize that the lobbyists wield much power. But to use that as a reason to give up the fight for our freedom is not in *my* personal constitution. They are just another hurdle that we need to overcome. Just because they wield influence today does not mean that they will always have that power.

Unless we give up, that is.

Differences between the current puppet and the last one? Not a great deal, really... They'll both do as they're told by the interests, special or otherwise, that control them.

Money and influence speak, politicians who have any desire to remain in office will listen... Those who bow to the puppetmasters the best, become icons of the Washington scene.

Examine the financial records, donations for the most "powerful" of the movers and shakers, Presidents included. I think you'll find they're owned lock, stock, and barrel by the "interests"...

Attempt to define the "differences" all you want, in truth and reality, there are none.

Sorry.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by seagull]

Originally posted by jsobecky

But imo there is a stark difference here - the honesty of the two men.

Obama promised no lobbyists. He promised no earmarks. He promised a public review window for pending legislation.

He ran his campaign on these and other promises, which turned out to be lies. He lied to the American people in order to win the election.

He surrounds himself with people of dark character, when he said to "Judge me by the people whom I surround myself".

That transcends party lines.

So what you are implying is that atleast Bush was honest whenever he did all the horrible things he did? As if that makes it better? If i'm wrong on reading your statement correct me, that's just how it read to me. All the big politicians lie to win elections. Period.

To the OP:

The CZAR thing schocked me, i've seen that thrown around so much as if it were brand new.

I really don't know what's happened to this country, I see a revolution on the horizon. If only Ron Paul would have won.

But if we are going to discuss who was a worst president then I don't think that will get us far at all. But IMO Bush was, he led us to war on false premises that have led the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths and on top of that hundreds of billions of dollars. Obama isn't even through his first year and he is already becoming comparable to Bush though. It's crazy that 3 years ago I couldn't even imagine a trillion dollars and today it seems so insignificant. So watch out, it's getting scary.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, let's get personal. That always works toward better discussion and sharing of thoughts and ideas.

Check yourself.

My post explicitly comments upon a 'class' of people...."Bush & Obama supporters".

If you took that personally, then the problem lies with you and not because of anything I said.



There is nothing wrong with pointing out how PRECISELY similar the supporters are from both camps. Both exceedingly forgiving of weaknesses and outrageous mistakes and unacceptable intent from their leaders. Both riddled with mind numbing, unquestioning and undeserving hope and benefit-of-the-doubt.

In my opinion, we are a nation devolved into football teams...the masses fawning over their respective quarterbacks.

No control over the 'plays'. That's obviously done by someone else...

We have forsaken the principles of governance that protect against tyranny. And that seems ok to everyone.

We don't elected politicians anymore....we just elect saviors in hopes they will champion our own petty crusades to make everyone do just as we want.

Pathetic and sad, imo.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by loam]

reply to post by ofhumandescent


Excellent post! I'm sorry I did not read that earlier. The whitewashing of the acts of the criminal controllers you've mentioned is mind boggling. This is "not your father's high school history lesson".

I also agree with the points made in the Karlstrom piece you posted above this on the “Dynasty of Death". Even though we read these things and the light bulbs go on, we continue to think that there are scenarios that are beyond possibility and the influence of these evil men.

Obama and President Bush are 10th cousins, once removed, linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662. - Ewen MacAskill for guardian.co.uk

Obama and Bush - cousins?

Meanwhile, Obama is also related — even more closely — to Dick Cheney. They are eighth cousins, both descended from a French Huguenot named Mareen Duvall who settled in Maryland in the 17th century. - Nicholas D. Kristof for The New York Times

Obama and Bush are Cousins!

Now, though, a revelation that’s sure to hurt Obama with Democratic primary voters: He’s related to both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. - James Joyner for Outside The Beltway

Obama, Bush, and Cheney Cousins

You likely noticed the name Samuel Hinkley in the first quote. Hinkley ring a bell?

1. Son of John Warnock Hinkley of Vanderbilt Oil & World Vision

2. Great grandson of one of the founders & funders of the University of Chicago, Francis Edward Hinckley. The other founders were: JD Rockefeller, Marshall Fields, Frederick T. Gates, TW Goodspeed & Nelson Blake.

- Hannah Bell on Democratic underground.com

John Hinckley: Reagan's shooter, Bush's 7th cousin - but there's more!

"The family of the man charged with trying to assassinate President Reagan is acquainted with the family of Vice-President George Bush and had made large contributions to his political campaign ... Scott Hinckley, brother of John W. Hinckley Jr. was to have dined tonight in Denver at the home of Neil Bush, one of the Vice-President's sons ... The Houston Post said it was unable to reach Scott Hinckley, vice-president of his father's Denver-based firm, Vanderbilt Energy Corporation, for comment. Neil Bush lives in Denver, where he works for Standard Oil Company of Indiana. In 1978, Neil Bush served as campaign manager for his brother, George W. Bush, the Vice-President's eldest son, who made an unsuccessful bid for Congress. Neil lived in Lubbock, Texas, throughout much of 1978, where John Hinckley lived from 1974 through 1980." - the Associated Press on March 31st, 1981

Bush-Hinckley family connections

Republicans related to Democratic rivals. Republicans involved in assassinating Republicans. Presidents assassinating presidents. Even though Hinkley was unsuccessful, this was to my thinking evidence as to who was running the Reagan show. There are outsiders that are allowed to surface now and again so long as they play the game. Reagan thought for himself and promoted lower taxes and a smaller government. This was not to Bush Sr's and TPTB's liking. Like or dislike Reagan, he was likely an outsider/maverick that would not be controlled. I think like another posted earlier that JFK and Nixon were both mavericks in their own way and they were reigned in, one by actual assassination and the other by political assassination. Kennedy was highly controlled while running and thought he was beyond reach once elected president. Reagan on the other hand was just lucky. Just my opinion.

The point is we can not separate the wheat from the chaff as we have not been provided a scorecard. And we all know "You can't tell the players without a scorecard." There is much mystery surrounding Obama and so I consider that he and Georgie might stand side by side in the big picture.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Skeptic, on second and third read of your post, I'm not clear why you quoted me to make your very valid point. Your post seems to be completely off the point of what I was saying... Or even seems to agree with what I said to an extent... So, I'm a little confused Maybe I'm just in a defensive mood this morning. Sorry.

You may be right about us not making a difference. You probably are and I *think* you are. But it's not clear to me how the fact that we don't make a difference relates to a comparison between two people. Unless you're saying that this discussion is moot. If that's the case. I'd have to agree. It wouldn't matter if an angel sat in the Oval Office right now because they would have no power.

And the same with Intrepid's post:

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Agreed. I made a thread about this very point. I Know How You Feel

I apologize to both of you for getting somewhat defensive.

My point in THIS thread is that a valid comparison cannot be made and valid conclusions cannot be drawn by selecting such a small and biased sampling of data to use in the comparison. Especially when Obama is working with the absolute mess that Bush left behind. It's not like their presidencies started on equal ground...

Ashley, unless the similarities AND the differences are made by someone who is truly unbiased, it's pretty meaningless.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sorry I just noticed this after it was quoted in another post but I want to address this:

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 take offense to that. The thread is not intended to make Obama look just as bad as Bush or vice versa. It's to show their similarities in attempt to get people thinking about:

1). Not automatically jumping on the defense/criticism bandwagon.
2). The possibility of it's not the president who runs things but groups of corporations, lobbyists, and possible unknown powers.

In some cases in the thread I defend Obama. Such as the czar issue. There is a lot of controversy about his appointment of czars but was trying to calm that down a bit by showing how the appointment of czars by American presidents has been happening for decades and even Bush had them. The point of that was that if we want to 'vet' the czars in our discussions to by all means to do but it is silly to criticize him for doing something that is actually pretty standard. If we want to criticize, do it on a case by case basis- not the fact that he makes appointments in general when Bush did the same thing.

and it's made by someone who is known not to be unbiased in politics

Yes, let's get personal. That always works toward better discussion and sharing of thoughts and ideas.

I should probably hold my tongue instead of making pot/kettle remarks but, yes, I am a conservative. Is there something wrong with that? However, I do at least try to look at both sides which is why I'm not a support-republicans-at-all-costs type poster or a We-have-to-get-democrats-at-all-costs type poster either. I stay away from terms like 'Obamabots,' 'Bushbots,' or other derogatory terms that don't help the discussion in any way and have admitted to my disenchantment with the republic party on numerous occasions because I can see that the neoconservatives have taken over the party.

I no longer vote along party lines (EXAMPLE), support issues just because it's from 'my side,' I try to think along the lines of logic and not emotion (EXAMPLE), I defend Obama if the facts support him (EXAMPLE), defend Obama supporters when they were treated unfairly (EXAMPLE), criticize Obama supporters when necessary (EXAMPLE), play no favorites in moderating (EXAMPLE), support universal health care (not exactly something conservatives are known for) (EXAMPLE), I despise both liberal and conservative media bias (EXAMPLE), etc.

I'm sure looking through my posting history you could also find some posts of mine that are biased as heck. I'm human and have my moments but I do try to not let it get the better of me. Yes, I lean to the right but my feet aren't cemented there come hell or high water.

I guess more than anything I'm amused by the irony. I make a thread as unbiased as possible showing how similar the administrations are yet get accused of bias because I'm not favoring one or the other but treating them equally. I even took a swing at evangelical Christians (what I am) for blindly following Bush instead of knowing the facts (which I once did). Oh well.

It's sad that unless 'our guy' is painted as a beautiful portrait then it must be a 'political agenda.'

[edit on 9/7/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My point in THIS thread is that a valid comparison cannot be made and valid conclusions cannot be drawn by selecting such a small and biased sampling of data to use in the comparison. Especially when Obama is working with the absolute mess that Bush left behind. It's not like their presidencies started on equal ground...

The only similarity that anyone need recognize is the fact that both are/were President of the United States.

Differences will simply be lost in contrived pointless political debate.

A suggestion for you, because I know you are an awesome thread starter.

Why not create a new thread with your own opening post (Differences Between Bush & Obama.)?

Just an idea.

I'd like to see how that one would go.

reply to post by seagull

Differences between the current puppet and the last one? Not a great deal, really... They'll both do as they're told by the interests, special or otherwise, that control them.

Money and influence speak, politicians who have any desire to remain in office will listen... Those who bow to the puppetmasters the best, become icons of the Washington scene.

Examine the financial records, donations for the most "powerful" of the movers and shakers, Presidents included. I think you'll find they're owned lock, stock, and barrel by the "interests"...

Attempt to define the "differences" all you want, in truth and reality, there are none.

Sadly, these points that you and SO made are very true. Washington is owned lock stock and barrel by the lobbyists.

If there is a bright side to this, it is the fact that your posts may awaken more people to this reality, which *may* lead to a different landscape in the future.

reply to post by jsobecky


We can certainly work to make that so, Jso. Not "hope", because that implys you, or I, are willing to let "someone" else do the work...and that's what got us into this mess in the first place.

The responsibility for fixing the issues belongs to us.

I have a whole long rant about that, but my last sentence before this one covers it all...

Problem: Us.

Solution: Us, if we care to take up the task.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Bush got into college just fine because of grades.

Wrong, Bush was below Yale standards - his father bought him a studentship.

Obama earned his.

Research

reply to post by Skyfloating
bs there is no comparison.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I am a conservative. Is there something wrong with that?

Absolutely not. That's not my point at all. I wouldn't attempt to make a comparisons thread about the two men because I know I am biased as well. That's why I don't volunteer to make a "differences" thread. Sorry, Walks - It wouldn't be fair. Bush would come out looking like the piece of crap that I think he is.

Besides, my point is that a valid comparison cannot be made at this point in time. Obama has been handed a nation in turmoil and 7 months is too short a time to see what he's going to do with it. Making ANY comparison now is not meaningful.

Ashley, your description of how you look at politics is very close to how I see them. I try to look at both sides and have several views that are normally attributed to the conservative mindset. I don't have an issue with conservatives AT ALL. It's my opinion that it's really, really hard for a person who leans to one side (like me) to make a fair comparison. That's all.

I'm sure looking through my posting history you could also find some posts of mine that are biased as heck. I'm human and have my moments but I do try to not let it get the better of me. Yes, I lean to the right but my feet aren't cemented there come hell or high water.

Same here. I'm the same as you, Ashley, except I lean the other way. And I don't think I could make a valid comparison between these two men if I were paid to do so.

I didn't intend to insult you. You make some good points. I intended to say that the comparison isn't the whole picture and is made by someone who does have a bias. If I had made this thread, I would be pulverized into dust by now.

reply to post by jsobecky

So what? His daddy was a drunken whoremonger that deserted his family. Is that Bush's fault?

"Dreams of my father"? How the hell would he know?

It's evident you are shooting your mouth off without the benefit of research. Obama's father was smart and well educated.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936 − 24 November 1982) was a Kenyan senior governmental economist, and father of the President of the United States, Barack Obama. He is a central subject in his son's memoir, Dreams from My Father.

Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District on the shores of Lake Victoria just outside Kendu Bay, Kenya, at the time a colony of the British Empire, and raised in the village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Nyanza Province.

His family are members of the Luo ethnic group. He was the son of Onyango Obama (c. 1895-1979) who had at least three wives; Barack Obama Sr. was the son of Habiba Akumu Nyanjango of Karabondi, Kenya, the second wife. However, he was raised by Onyango's third wife, Sarah Ogwel of Kogelo, after Akumu left her family and separated from her husband in 1945.

Before working as a cook for missionaries in Nairobi, Onyango had travelled widely, enlisting in the British colonial forces and visiting Europe, India, and Zanzibar, where he converted from Roman Catholicism to Islam and took the name Hussein Onyango Obama. Hussein Onyango was jailed by the British for two years in 1949 due to his involvement in the Kenyan independence movement. According to Sarah Onyango Obama, Onyango was subjected to brutal torture.

Although Obama Sr. was born into a Muslim family, he was an atheist before he came to the United States.

Obama Sr. was married in 1954 at the age of eighteen, in a tribal ceremony to Kezia Aoko, with whom he had four children.

While still living near Kendu Bay, Obama Sr. went to Gendia Primary School and shifted to Ng’iya Intermediate School once his family relocated to Siaya District. From 1950 to 1953, he studied at Maseno National School, an exclusive Christian boarding school in Maseno that is run by the Anglican Church of Kenya. (Dreams from my Father, 2004 edition, p. 418). The head teacher, B.L. Bowers, described Obama Sr. in his records as "very keen, steady, trustworthy and friendly. Concentrates, reliable and out-going."

Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya. The program offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students.

President Obama said of his father's scholarship, "The Kennedys decided: 'We're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is. This young man named Barack Obama [Sr.] got one of those tickets and came over to this country.'

"An article by Michael Dobbs in The Washington Post, however, states that the Kennedy family did not become associated with the educational airlift until 1960, a year after Obama Sr. was studying in the United States. Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Jackie Robinson, and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Sr.'s early years in the United States, according to the Tom Mboya archives at Stanford University.

At the age of 23, Obama Sr. enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, leaving behind a pregnant Kezia and their infant son. He had turned away from Islam and become an atheist by the time he moved to the United States.[6] On 2 February 1961, Obama Sr. married fellow student Ann Dunham in Maui, Hawaii[20] though she would not find out that her new husband was already married until much later.

Obama Sr.'s and Dunham's son, Barack Obama II, was born on August 4, 1961. Dunham left school to care for the baby, while Obama Sr. completed his degree. He graduated from the University of Hawaii in June 1962 (and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa), leaving shortly thereafter to travel to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he would begin graduate study at Harvard University in the fall.

Later that summer, Dunham and the year-old baby Barack stopped to visit her friends in Mercer Island, Washington, the Seattle suburb where she had grown up, before joining Obama Sr. in Cambridge. However, mother and son soon returned to Seattle, where she enrolled at the University of Washington. Dunham, missing her family, then moved back to Hawaii and filed for divorce in Honolulu in January 1964. Obama Sr. did not contest, and the divorce was granted on March 20, 1964.

He visited his son only once, in 1971, when Barack was 10 years old.

While at Harvard, Obama Sr. met an American-born teacher named Ruth Nidesand. She followed him to Kenya when he returned there after he received a master's degree (AM) in economics from Harvard in 1965.

Nidesand eventually became his third wife and had two children with him before they divorced.

On his return to Kenya in 1965, Obama Sr. was hired by an oil company and then served as an economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Transport and later became senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance.

In 1959 a monograph written by him had been published by the Kenyan Department of Education, entitled Otieno jarieko. Kitabu mar ariyo. 2: Yore mabeyo mag puro puothe. (English: Otieno, the wise man. Book 2: Wise ways of farming.)

In 1965 Obama Sr. published a paper entitled "Problems Facing Our Socialism" in the East Africa Journal, harshly criticizing the blueprint for national planning, "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya", which had been produced by Tom Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. The article was signed "Barak H. Obama." As his son described it in his memoir, Obama Sr.'s conflict with President Kenyatta destroyed his career. (Dreams from my Father, pp. 214-216.) The decline began after Tom Mboya's assassination in 1969. Obama Sr. was fired from his job by Jomo Kenyatta, was blacklisted in Kenya, began to drink, had a serious car accident, spent almost a year in the hospital, and by the time he visited his son in Hawaii in late 1971, he already had a bad leg. (Dreams from My Father, pp. 64-71, 212-219). Obama Sr.'s life fell into drinking and poverty, from which he never recovered. His friend, the Kenyan journalist Philip Ochieng, has described Obama Sr.'s difficult personality and drinking problems in the Kenya newspaper The Daily Nation.

Obama Sr. later lost both legs in an automobile collision, and subsequently lost his job. He died in 1982, at the age of 46, in another car crash in Nairobi.

Obama Sr. is buried in at the village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya. His funeral was attended by ministers Robert Ouko, Oloo Aringo and other prominent political figures.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Besides, my point is that a valid comparison cannot be made at this point in time. Obama has been handed a nation in turmoil and 7 months is too short a time to see what he's going to do with it. Making ANY comparison now is not meaningful.

Wasn't Bush handed a "nation in turmoil" on nearly as many months?

I suppose one valid distinction between the two men would be that Bush's lunacy was concocted in part on the fly in reaction to very terrible events. Obama knowingly walks into his.

But that get's off the main point...

I wonder if any employer would say they could not assess your performance after seven months on the job.



Are you serious?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by loam]

reply to post by seagull

I have a whole long rant about that, but my last sentence before this one covers it all...

Agreed..it's up to us.

Would love to have you create a thread on the topic. It would be most interesting to discuss.