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.

 

Most dangerous phrase: "We cannot win the future with a government of the past"

page: 1
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
During President Obama's State of the Union speech one sentence stood out to me and I wanted to be sure it wasn't just me that found something downright horrifying about it.

"We cannot win the future with a government of the past"

Okay so what does that mean? I happen to think our government was doing just fine before the whole infestation by internationalists and interventionists such as every President since FDR, except possibly JFK. So we must reject the government that the United States was founded upon, based on the principles of the Constitution, for a new government, one modeled after the aspirations and ideals of Obama and our current 'leaders'.

I happen to think our government of the past has done just fine actually, a lot better than any sick proposals you wish to make Mr. President. Maybe I am alone in thinking that our Constitutional government is good and worth keeping? Maybe I have taken his phrase out of context? Will someone just tell me?
edit on 1/30/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

I heard that one too. It is scary, and it is typical zionist obama speak. When they're done with barry, the same sentences will gush from mister lily white conservative, or drip from the lips of a drooling palin offering. The zionists know no bounds.

It is a sentence designed to beg several questions. For one, it is to persist with the illusion that the government is in control, when they cannot even control themselves. Then, it is another charge for us to go in to battle for yet another obama travesty. In the healthcare rout, barry and friends behaved as though we had a massive uphill battle at hand, and all of us had 'to join in and fight to get 'er done'. I suspect that tptb are very eager to cusp our wrists with the handcuffs of more technofascism. I tried to avoid the speech but there were others listening, so I heard this and that. It's all bad. Not sure what he meant, as of the moment, so thanks for mentioning it.

At the moment, despite that one would be laughed at 5-10 years ago for warning of nwo, the idea is now quite unpopular, as apparently everyone wishes to protect their sovereignty, their heritage, and their culture. However, with technology progressing in to being the placing of unheard of weapons in to the hands of hardened psychopaths, this too has changed. So, perhaps barry is trying to repackage the nwo with nifty, awesome (how many of you had to suffer while this word was used first to describe Michael Jordan, and then cellphones) technology? It can be done. Sell the 'aids scanners' to all airport terminals. Force them ALL to use it. They damn well have the means to 'win the future', however there is that terrible sticking point of nostalgia, nostalgia for what was never drafted to be one day out of style, that of the Constitution. I suspect that barry is trying to sell the antiquity aspect of these writs, the obsolescence, the need for, yes 'change'. Just a repackaging of the nwo.

The zionists want a world government, as we are aware, and need mouth pieces to deflect responsiblity and blame away from themselves. That's why they stage elections, you know?


edit on 30-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Well.. from that single line I could offer my own interpretation..

That is, things change. Circumstances change.

Blacks used to be slaves, women could not vote. Attributes of things past that changed in the government.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Barack Obama, like most socialists and "progressives" hate the concept of freedom and individual sovereignty.

They believe that the tenets and ideals within the constitution and the bill of rights are 1) flawed and 2) malleable.

Obama: "The constitution is flawed"

Of course, their beliefs about these things have at their heart a desire to capture the people of the world in a cryptofascist dictatorship in which there is an "elite" who rule the "unwashed masses."

Make no mistake about it: People like Obama HATE you and me and everything we stand for.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


That was the only part of his speech i heard. it got me too. the government gives us hints on everything.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
If there is a new way,
I'd be the first in Line.

What are we going to win? exactly? in the future?

A government with lobbyist and special interest will serve there clients, This is what we have now. Isn't it obvious?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Typical progressive thinking; always looking forward, never looking back at all those pedestrians you mowed down while driving like a maniac.


Looking to the past for guidance is anathema for progressives like Obama.


Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

George Santayana



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
As is the case of most elitist, they believe they know what is best for a free people and said free people should forfeit their rights to the whim of the elites. How quickly, or conveniently, they forget that they have the power to govern by the consent of the people, not the other way around! Just ask the Egyptians!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


When I heard the phrase "win the future" I came up with my own; We cannot win the future, looking towards the past because the present is lost....

But yes. I think the phrase does lead to some questions about what exactly does it mean? We know President Obama's vision and that is that everything good that has come about in the United States of America was because of Government, we need more government to make it better, and government will solve all your issues.

The persons that occupied the Government is what was wrong. Starting at the top, as you have pointed out Misoir. I would go back as far as Woodrow Wilson. Since then there has been a fundamental shift and ongoing battle to centralize and make our Federal system into a National system. Where all benefits of public service arises from the central government because of the inadequate knowledge the people hold. The people don't know what is best for them, so the central government will control and dictate life...

My ramblings are done.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
During President Obama's State of the Union speech one sentence stood out to me and I wanted to be sure it wasn't just me that found something downright horrifying about it.

"We cannot win the future with a government of the past"

Okay so what does that mean? I happen to think our government was doing just fine before the whole infestation by internationalists and interventionists such as every President since FDR, except possibly JFK.


The United states government before that got involved in both world wars and the Korean war, so I disagree that the government was even neutral prior to the 60's. Also lets not forget, taxes were more than double the rate they are today. The wealthy went through something on lines of a 70% tax during those times.


I happen to think our government of the past has done just fine actually, a lot better than any sick proposals you wish to make Mr. President. Maybe I am alone in thinking that our Constitutional government is good and worth keeping? Maybe I have taken his phrase out of context? Will someone just tell me?


I do agree with you on the idea that our interventionalist policy has landed us in deep deep debt. But lets not forget that the american people have supported this kind of policy for years. What's going on in Egypt only highlighted the fact we had contributed $30 billion in military aid over the years to a government that is seen by it's people to be fascist, undemocratic. Yet it was fine for us to pass on billions to our "war on terror coalition" buddies to liberate Iraq! Or to assist the war again Iran in the 80's. None of us spoke against the actions of the government then infact many citizens supported it and waved blindly their flags spouting "patriotism" or "support our troops", until we got a reality check in 2008 where we saw the consequences of our blind support.

We need to withdraw troops from all corners of the world and we need to cut any military aid to other nations.
edit on 30-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I was just and i mean just saying that to my 15 year old the day of the speech. It is true. What the past has represented has been utter hogwash, a complete failure. I would love to discuss more on my views but just checking in for a minute.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Wow! The first time agree with everything you wrote. Perhaps we do have some common ground after all.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I watched the speech and I don't remember word for word most of what he said, because to me it was the same exact things he stated at his last speech. However, when he stated that we can't move forward with a goverment of the past (or whatever was said), I was thinking NWO talk. Most of what he said was NWO talk.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
To such I quote, as a response and stand by my signature, unchanged since 2003.



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Declaration of Independence


*emphasis added by me



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
For context Presidential quotes regarding 'change.'

"Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, 'Vote for me. I'm an agent of change.' In 2004, I said, 'I'm not interested in change --I want to continue as president.' Every candidate has got to say 'change.' That's what the American people expect." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008

"If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again." - Ronald Reagan

"Our nation is the enduring dream of every immigrant who ever set foot on these shores, and the millions still struggling to be free. This nation, this idea called America, was and always will be a new world -- our new world."
- GEORGE H.W. BUSH, State of the Union Address, Jan. 31, 1990

I think that you are having knee-jerk reaction to that phrase. I take it to mean that old solutions won't solve today's problems. Like the definition of insanity, repeating the same steps hoping for a different outcome.

By the way, when folks start longing for "the good old days" I love to dust off this little puppy to illustrate that times change and the technology and mindset of the past are relics. How would you like your next surgery performed using this baby?



All the neocons seem to abhor the current bloated government and now that President Obama is suggesting a new leaner more efficient one he gets lambasted? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :shk:


edit on 30-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

All the neocons seem to abhor the current bloated government and now that President Obama is suggesting a new leaner more efficient one he gets lambasted? Damned if you do, damned if yo don't. :shk:



If you are suggesting, in anyway, that I am a Neoconservative then you are far more intellectually challenged then I had previously assumed. Your generalizations about all those who happen to not be liberal is tiresome. Accusations launched towards others who are not liberals is also, tiresome. For Neoconservatism, if you have ever taken the time to study, is in clear opposition to true Conservative ideology and was born from the Marxist thinkers and Trotskyites of the 1930's in the United States, they belonged to and were involved in, the Socialist Party of America until the 1960's.

In the event that this was taken out of context I apologize.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Yes I agree, some are put off by the term neocon. I meant it in the context of extreme conservative. Perhaps I should have phrased it "those on the extreme right." Regardless, I believe you are attributing a more sinister connotation to the phrase in OP.

While I appreciate your apology, I reject the sentiment you (and your ilk - whatever the appropriate term) apparently subscribe to as evidenced by your signature; soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. A rose by any other name........... (John Birch Society.....I mean really)
I should have said paleoconservative then.

Sorry if my posts cause you exhaustion, Please feel free to ignore them.

edit on 30-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
For context Presidential quotes regarding 'change.'

"Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, 'Vote for me. I'm an agent of change.' In 2004, I said, 'I'm not interested in change --I want to continue as president.' Every candidate has got to say 'change.' That's what the American people expect." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008

"If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again." - Ronald Reagan

"Our nation is the enduring dream of every immigrant who ever set foot on these shores, and the millions still struggling to be free. This nation, this idea called America, was and always will be a new world -- our new world."
- GEORGE H.W. BUSH, State of the Union Address, Jan. 31, 1990

I think that you are having knee-jerk reaction to that phrase. I take it to mean that old solutions won't solve today's problems. Like the definition of insanity, repeating the same steps hoping for a different outcome.

By the way, when folks start longing for "the good old days" I love to dust off this little puppy to illustrate that times change and the technology and mindset of the past are relics. How would you like your next surgery performed using this baby?




I'm Sorry "kurious" this example of a torturous looking 1800's medical device in no way is a metaphor for the strengths of the core ideas of individual sovereignty inherent in the constitution. As for the"holdouts" we will not got quietly into your progressive "utopia".

Originally posted by kinda kurious
All the neocons seem to abhor the current bloated government and now that President Obama is suggesting a new leaner more efficient one he gets lambasted? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :shk:

"Leaner/more efficient one"? You know what he and Sunstein and Pivens mean when they talk of "progress".They get to tell everybody else exactly how to live; because they are smart and we are "stupid".




edit on 30-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think it has something to do with another suspect Obama utterance:

"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Misoir
 


Yes I agree, some are put off by the term neocon. I meant it in the context of extreme conservative.


Next time you could use the term as explained with its definition.


Perhaps I should have phrased it "those on the extreme right." Regardless, I believe you are attributing a more sinister connotation to the phrase in OP.


I took a sinister connotation because I presume his plans for America are sinister.


While I appreciate your apology, I reject the sentiment you (and your ilk - whatever the appropriate term) apparently subscribe to as evidenced by your signature; soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.


Nice term to describe those in opposition to yourself, shows your maturity. And yes my signature is something I stand by and take pride in.


A rose by any other name........... (John Birch Society.....I mean really)
I should have said paleoconservative then.


The founder of John Birch Society pointed to our future in 1958 and was dead right on his prediction also I stand in defense of American ideals in opposition to any form of Socialism/Communism as espoused by Liberals and Neoconservatives alike.

Yes Paleoconservative is definitely the term to use because that is what I am and proud to be.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join