It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Its not okay if Bush does it, but its ok if Obama does?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 

If you can let bush go, maybe you should let barack go. Eventually he too will be the past, don't you think?

If you're really serious about accountability, then you should hold them all accountable. If you let one guy go but not the other. Isn't that also hypocrisy?


Besides barack's followers are not going to accept you going after their guy when you let the previous dude go. It's that simple. Hence, barack shall be given a free pass as an equalizer for what dubya had done.

And people don't actually switch, it's different leader, different followers. At the time bush followers condemn the democrats as unpatriotic. Now the democrats are doing it, why the surprise? Conservatives are hypocrites, so do the liberals, again why the surprise?

Me too can't wait until Obama is out. See whether the same crowd that is going after obama now will go after the new republican president, if it's a democrat it doesn't count.
It has to be a republican, sorry, that's how it works with me.




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Completely agree with you this is a classic example of what is called the left/right illusion. The presidents are controlled by the extemely wealthy, and these people keep us happy by switching one ideology out with the other, so we think that some way this new person will finally start doing things right but really they all are following the agenda of these wealthy people. I for one see through the illusion and try to help others see through it as well.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by roly21
 


One thing i wanted to add is that i dont think it has always been this way. I think JFK was the last person not controlled by the wealthy and actually tried to do what was good for the country and the people. We all know what happend to him.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 


Obama was very up front about his desire to continue the Afghanistan war and attack Pakistan more before he was elected. Hell, he picked a VP that voted for the Iraq war resolution. These are the reasons I didn't vote for him.

I am not going to attack the man for this though. Obama, like most politicians, ignorantly fell for the Bush administration's foreign policy lies and has continued it like 99% of them would.

I want to see the original arsonist of the current foreign policy fire come to justice before anybody else goes that stupidly followed along with it. I don't excuse any President that follows Bush, but there are clearly defined people of a particular political ideology that got us into our current mess.

Once Obama starts another new war, then I'll be more vocal against him. Until then, I demand justice regarding the Bush admin and will continue to note that there was little to no dissent from the right through Bush's entire eight-year term in office. And even if Obama starts a new war, I will still note that the right was silent throughout the Bush era.


[edit on 3-4-2010 by Frith]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I was and am still bitching about how the government is screwing us up. It never has changed and neither has my argument.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 


Let's put some truth into this...


Obama increased the number of troops in afghanistan instead of sending our boys home, as he promised.


Obama never said he would stop the war, not as far as Afghanistan is concerned.


During the campaign, Obama was saying that he planned to send more troops to Afghanistan, and he was going to start bringing our troops home from Iraq.


The same policies that Bush pushed thru are still here even though Obama promised to get rid of them and stop the war.


Obama did stop one very important Bush policy, he ended the practice of torturing our POWs.



ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS

He wanted to close Gitmo in a year, but the problem arose where do you put all these people?

I agree that he should have never reinstated the patriot act.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by dizzie56
I seriously wish I had a "universal remote" like Adam Sandler did in Click. That way I could have the time to rewind this and call out all the people that were either for or against Bush but are now either for or against Obama and for the same exact reasons.


1) That is direct proof that you have some agenda at proving who was wrong in the past.

I don't care about that.



I dont have an agenda. I have a life. Shoulda been read as sarcasm. Im not going to out anybody, but the reason I created this thread is for people to start to realize their hypocricy. Bush and Obama dont matter in all honesty, its the policy that has been put forth and people complain against it, but then say its all cool after "their guy" gets into office. Thats what this thread is about and I would like to hear some peoples responses as to why they do so, not why people speculate other people do so.



2) I don't care how many of you supported Bush, now wear an Obama tee-shirt or how often you flip-flop or fence sit.

It is not important.


I am not talking about flip-flopping in choosing a guy, Im talking about people who complain about somebodys polices and then dont care that it keeps happening when their guy gets in to office. Please read the thread.



3) If you really want to "out those who have changed their minds or political stances based on events or opinions that have newly been presented", then enjoy that quest.

It is on par with the kid who screams "I told you so! I was right, I was right!".

Who cares?


Again, I dont want to "out" people. I would like people to come to this thread and realize their own hypocricy. Even if I did out the hypocirtes, I wouldnt be able to scream "I was right, you were wrong" now would I? I would just be able to scream that they are a hypocrite.



4) I am more concerned with the criminal activity of our country and the theft of a nation's wealth.


As am I. The only way, as I see it, is to stop it at its source. Get rid of the guy doing it now and then go after the guys that did it before.



Stop seeing this as two parties who are fighting each other for control.

That is a magic trick.

Because I am sick of people demanding a republican is worse then a demoncrat, and that both presidents had some sort of difference between them.




Again, please read the thread and comprehend what it is about before posting. I never said that a republican is any worse then a democrat. This is about POLICY and the simple fact that most of America doesnt like the POLICY. They just throw mudd at each other until their "side" is in power, as they perceive it. This mudd is negative comments towards the same POLICY that stays in place but yet they run out of mudd when its their "guy" in office.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Please point out where exactly I said that I wanted to let Bush go before saying that. I never said that. I said that Obama, since he is the man in charge and continuing a defunct policy that nobody likes should be removed first to stop said policy. Where did I say we would let Bush go?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


whats your thoughts on him and the TARP fund?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 



whats your thoughts on him and the TARP fund?


What do you mean the Troubled Asset Releif Program that Banks are actually paying back?

US banks pay back bail-out cash


US banks have started to pay back money borrowed through the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp).

Ten banks have collectively repaid $68bn(£41.5bn) out of the $700bn provided through taxpayer money.

Of these, JP Morgan repaid $25bn, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley each paid $10bn, US Bancorp paid $6.6bn and American Express returned $3.4bn.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The banks will eventually repay all the money.

I was against the bailouts too, but the bailout was passed, and the money was to be given out. My problem with it is, well, we as taxpayers have invested in these banks right? Where are our dividend checks from these banks?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Why even bother.

You think our banks and such actually paid the money back.


Boy oh boy. I guess the bankrupt Freddie and Fannie just got that way because of what? The banks behind the curtain did not just dump all their toxic assets off to Freddie, Fannie and the American people?

Do you even read any of the threads on the banking fiascoes? Or are you a Frank wannabe.

[fingers in ears]la la la la la...........everything will be fine if we just keep pushing it into the future and borrow money from ourselves. Just dumping Trillions into the market therefore devaluing the dollar.

Yes, awesome monetary shortsightedness.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I was asked a direct non trolling question endisnighe, so I answered to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know, banks have started paying the money back. Not all of it, but they have been paying.

I will be the first to admit, that monetary policy is not one of my strong suits. I have opinions. I try and back those with facts that I am able to obtain. I am no friend of the FED, and I would rather see them arrested and charged under RICO.

So please End, do us all a favor, and stop trying to instigate a flame war in every thread you see your personal enemies in.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 

It's pointless, the fact remains that's what happen, Bush walks free. The so called "intention" alone is not enough, since you have to actually prove this one. They (barack follower) are not going to accept that. Ergo, back to the bottom line again, will you do it or not? Otherwise it's meaningless to me.
If you're going after barack but not bush, or it doesn't show that you're going after bush, but only conveniently going only after barack, it's hypocrisy.

Since the beginning, I never believe it's about upholding the consitution and all of those fancy stuff, some people are definitely conveniently going after barack, again.. it is hypocrisy. I know why this happens to barack. There are two things. The first one, the more fundamental one, I rather not say.. it will only aggravate a lot of people. The second one.. it's because barack is biracial and looks african. Too obvious, if it's only about disagreeing to his policy, people won't call him names like Barack Osama, or emphasizing his middle name.

It is very common for people to 'forgive' their chosen one but not the other guy. So what you're seing is not people actually flip floping in that sense, but more like seing their true color, they simply like their preferred leader and give him/her the benefit of the doubt/the free pass. The ones who forgive obama but not bush, simply prefer obama as a leader, the ones who forgive bush not obama, prefer bush as a leader. And all of them have their own reason why they do that.

As for barack, why he continues or seemingly to continue the previous administration policy, he has a good excuse for doing that. But his excuse will only last for so long. If he can't prove that his real intent is to stop the neocon policy, eventually people will turn on him, too.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
We can all agree, Bush started the bailouts, but Obama sure as hell didnt give any money back or not put his hands in the matter. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a big-to-do over only allowing Bush to spend the first half of it cause Obama wanted to make sure that he spent the other half.
www.huffingtonpost.com...


You know, it's interesting how you completely forget about the money Obama gave the American taxpayer after he got elected. As whatukno already mentioned, the money being paid back as we speak as well. Selective memory or just not paying attention?


Obama increased the number of troops in afghanistan instead of sending our boys home, as he promised.
edition.cnn.com...


Did you forget why we went to Afghanistan? Al'Qaida being shielded by the Taliban. Why didn't we finish the job? Iraq. Why did we go to Iraq? We thought Saddam was going to give WMD's to Al'Qaida...turns out, he wasn't going to do that.

So now, instead of focusing on terrorism and building an ally in Afghanistan, like we should've been doing the whole time, we focused on rebuilding Iraq after we destroyed it.

Obama pledged to pull out of Iraq, because it was a mistake, and go back to Afghanistan.


He didnt get rid of the patiot act, he reauthorized it.
www.sfexaminer.com...


Quit throwing that around like it matters, it's three provisions of it. Three. Not the whole thing. Here they are:


Lone wolf: Allows the government to track a target without any discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision applies only to non-U.S. persons. The government has never used it.

Business records: Allows investigators to compel third parties, including financial services and travel and telephone companies, to provide access to a suspect’s records without the suspect’s knowledge.

Roving wiretaps: Allows the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using, regardless of whether others who are not suspects also regularly use them. The government must provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court with specific information suggesting a suspect is purposely switching means of communication to evade detection.


Emphasis mine. Source.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
its because obama is black, if we criticize him, then its a hate crime



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
reply to post by dizzie56
 



Since the beginning, I never believe it's about upholding the consitution and all of those fancy stuff, some people are definitely conveniently going after barack, again.. it is hypocrisy. I know why this happens to barack. There are two things. The first one, the more fundamental one, I rather not say.. it will only aggravate a lot of people. The second one.. it's because barack is biracial and looks african. Too obvious, if it's only about disagreeing to his policy, people won't call him names like Barack Osama, or emphasizing his middle name.


I would like to know the first one, please. Also, your saying that because he is biracial that is why people make fun of his name? The guy is named BARACK HUSEIN OBAMA. It doesnt take much of a leap, whether the guy is black or white, to make fun of it given what happened with 9/11. When I first actually heard of him, just before the runnings started, I said the guy had no chance just because of his name...didnt even look at what he had for policy, didnt see a picture of him, just figured that the rest of America would make the same leap as I did. Calling people racists because they make fun of a presidents name is rediculous and you know it. This country was founded partly because the colonials wanted to satirize the king and werent allowed to do so without threat of jail. Go back and read history, anything and everything, including names are an area where you can satirize. Drop the "its because he is black" crap please. Really shouldnt even be involved in this discussion of why he is continuing the failed policies of bush and the people that had a problem with the policies before really dont have a problem with it now.



As for barack, why he continues or seemingly to continue the previous administration policy, he has a good excuse for doing that. But his excuse will only last for so long. If he can't prove that his real intent is to stop the neocon policy, eventually people will turn on him, too.


To me, if he continues a failed policy that he campaigned against, and is still doing so, then he is no better then the guy that started the policy in the first place.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
Also, your saying that because he is biracial that is why people make fun of his name? The guy is named BARACK HUSEIN OBAMA. It doesnt take much of a leap, whether the guy is black or white, to make fun of it given what happened with 9/11.

I don't think I can help you anymore there. We just have to end it here.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by dizzie56
We can all agree, Bush started the bailouts, but Obama sure as hell didnt give any money back or not put his hands in the matter. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a big-to-do over only allowing Bush to spend the first half of it cause Obama wanted to make sure that he spent the other half.
www.huffingtonpost.com...


You know, it's interesting how you completely forget about the money Obama gave the American taxpayer after he got elected. As whatukno already mentioned, the money being paid back as we speak as well. Selective memory or just not paying attention?


What, the "tax break" i got...its was litteraly $2 extra a week. Thanks, try again. It was too little to even mention. Great policy there.

Also, the money being payed back by banks is crap compared to the amount lent out. Also, apparently they have to win approval before they do so.
money.cnn.com...

They cant just say, hey, I want to pay you guys back, they have to be approved to do so. Look at Bank of America. They didnt need any TARP money in the first place. They were doing fine. Then the government "asked" them to take of Merrill Lynch because they were "too big to fail". BOA said they would if the gov backed the loan. BOA wanted to pay back at least part but were told no. Now, why is that? Why would an admin say no to paying any of the TARP money back? Simple, it wants control and they have it.

www.nytimes.com...





Obama increased the number of troops in afghanistan instead of sending our boys home, as he promised.
edition.cnn.com...


Did you forget why we went to Afghanistan? Al'Qaida being shielded by the Taliban. Why didn't we finish the job? Iraq. Why did we go to Iraq? We thought Saddam was going to give WMD's to Al'Qaida...turns out, he wasn't going to do that.

So now, instead of focusing on terrorism and building an ally in Afghanistan, like we should've been doing the whole time, we focused on rebuilding Iraq after we destroyed it.

Obama pledged to pull out of Iraq, because it was a mistake, and go back to Afghanistan.


I never forgot why we went there in the first place...not one bit. Never like it that bush destroyed Iraq either. Yeah, Saddam needed to go, I trully believe that one, hell ask the Iraqi's families that he has killed over the years in his wannnabe stalinesque fashion, but how we did it was a giant mistake. But one question to you, do you think we should just entirely pull out of Iraq before we helped rebiuld it and leave a vacuum of power in the midst along with a whole nation even more pissed off at us cause they couldnt get basic needs like water and food after what we did?




He didnt get rid of the patiot act, he reauthorized it.
www.sfexaminer.com...


Quit throwing that around like it matters, it's three provisions of it. Three. Not the whole thing. Here they are:


Lone wolf: Allows the government to track a target without any discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision applies only to non-U.S. persons. The government has never used it.

Business records: Allows investigators to compel third parties, including financial services and travel and telephone companies, to provide access to a suspect’s records without the suspect’s knowledge.

Roving wiretaps: Allows the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using, regardless of whether others who are not suspects also regularly use them. The government must provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court with specific information suggesting a suspect is purposely switching means of communication to evade detection.


Emphasis mine. Source.


Im sorry if you dont mind roving wiretaps based on a suspission of being a terrorist. Yeah yeah, the old "Well, if you arent doing anything then you shouldnt have a problem with it" arguement is played out. I want my privacy. How bout that? I dont do anything, but I dont want to have to be monitored cause I type up a "red flag", which the definition of which can, does, and will change from administration to administration.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
It is called hypocrisy and is strongly embraced by the liberals! They fail to understand the whole left/right paradigm is exactly that, a paradigm, and that both aprties are simply different sides of the same coin. The coin, by the way, is made of tin and not worth a damn!



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Im sorry you feel like you have to leave the conversation for some reason but I emplore you to go back and read why this country was actually started in the first place. Satire is ok, trust me. If not, then we should go back and prosecute every person that made fun of every previous president for any reason. We should halt the political satire cartoons that appear in the newspapers as well. Of course, this would go completely against the first amendment and one of the main reasons why the country was started in the first place.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join