Obama is actually a Rockefeller Republican

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I have heard Bush called a Kennedy democrat - by Republicans - more than once for being strong on defense, but still a free spender. But until now, I've never seen obama called a Rockefeller - or any other kind of Republican. The idea is simply ludicrous. Sorry, but that's how I see this one.
edit on 7/19/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


I have never heard Bush called a Kennedy Democrat - by anyone - and I find the idea simply ludicrous.




posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I never expected much of Obama, and warned my friends not to be too disappointed when reality set in.

He's a skillful campaigner, mediocre manager, and poor leader. But what else did anyone have a right to expect? The Democrat/Republican thing is purely a good cop/bad cop scam in which they take turns. Both parties represent the same interests in the end.

Both are pretty far right, with some members who'd consider Genghis Khan a socialist. Sadly I think things are too far gone to retrieve already, no matter what policies they'll settle on, they'll be incompetently wrong.

I truly think the US is being set up for breakup like the USSR. Just think of the oodles of money to be made selling off a carrier or a few F-16s, not to mention opening the US National Parks to corporate looters.
edit on 19-7-2011 by apacheman because: sp



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by centurion1211
I have heard Bush called a Kennedy democrat - by Republicans - more than once for being strong on defense, but still a free spender. But until now, I've never seen obama called a Rockefeller - or any other kind of Republican. The idea is simply ludicrous. Sorry, but that's how I see this one.
edit on 7/19/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


I have never heard Bush called a Kennedy Democrat - by anyone - and I find the idea simply ludicrous.




You want a Kennedy - Bush philosophical connection?

source


Kennedy supported, in today's lexicon, a George W. Bush-like "belligerent" approach to fighting the Cold War, and told CBS' Walter Cronkite it would be "a great mistake" to withdraw the American presence from Vietnam. In his 1961 inaugural speech, Kennedy said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."


and ...


Kennedy believed in cutting taxes — deeply and dramatically. Before Kennedy's tax cuts, the top marginal tax rate stood at over 90 percent, and Kennedy — albeit after his assassination — got it reduced to 70 percent, a much greater percentage reduction than did Bush. Kennedy, in a 1962 speech before the Economic Club of New York said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus."


Unless your Google search is "broken", anyone can also find this stuff ...



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Maybe you cannot read?


Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by centurion1211
But until now, I've never seen obama called a Rockefeller - or any other kind of Republican. The idea is simply ludicrous.


I have never heard Bush called a Kennedy Democrat - by anyone - and I find the idea simply ludicrous.


Was your google broken there for a bit or is it possible that like you had never heard what you claim you never heard, I actually never heard what I claim I never heard either.

You acknowledge it being written down before you and still call it simply ludicrous. I did the same.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crapspackle
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Maybe you cannot read?


Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by centurion1211
But until now, I've never seen obama called a Rockefeller - or any other kind of Republican. The idea is simply ludicrous.


I have never heard Bush called a Kennedy Democrat - by anyone - and I find the idea simply ludicrous.


Was your google broken there for a bit or is it possible that like you had never heard what you claim you never heard, I actually never heard what I claim I never heard either.

You acknowledge it being written down before you and still call it simply ludicrous. I did the same.


I can read just fine.

You - incorrectly as it turns out - claimed the idea of Kennedy and Bush having similar philosophies on defense and fiscal policy was "ludicrous".

I simply showed you how simple it was to find out that is - in fact - quite true.

Hope you enjoy your experience here at ATS and continue to both learn and contribute.

edit on 7/19/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Kennedy could best be compared to Reagan. His ideology and policies were pretty much the same. The Democrats touted JFK as the shining example of what it means to be a Democrat and a Liberal for decades. Now though JFK would not be even remotely similar to the Democrats of today. JFK and his brother Robert were the antithesis of Teddy and his beliefs. They were the Democrats my Father loved and supported, while if he were alive today he would be sickened by what they have become.

Even so, Obama has the Democratic Machine behind him, even though he is far from being one of them and likely hates them, but does not mind using them. He is using the Democrats control of the illiterate and poor vote to his advantage. They don't ask questions, they just blindly vote for whoever has a "D" following their names.

Those paying attention can't possibly be oblivious to the fact he has two very distinct faces. One for the perceived stupid masses and another behind the scenes when speaking to other Progressives. He is clearly screaming to them, don't worry about what I say in public, because I'm really one of you and not one of them. No telling which face is the real one and I suspect the real Obama is hidden under many layers of sheepskin. We only get a glimpse by looking at those who he surrounded himself with; His Czar's.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I (alone?) can read just fine.


"Alone?"?


You - incorrectly as it turns out - claimed the idea of Kennedy and Bush having similar philosophies on defense and fiscal policy was "ludicrous".


Reading has nothing to do with my ability to have my own opinion. You said the idea of Obama being a Rockerfeller Republican was ludicrous, just after you acknowledged it.


I simply showed you how simple it was to find out that is - in fact - quite true.


What you showed me was that some other people have the same opinion as you which is one that I still say I find simply ludicrous. Why is it ok for you to think something is ludicrous but I cannot?


Hope you enjoy your experience here at ATS and continue to both learn and contribute.



Mainly all I see are ignorant blowhards pretending to have an argument all while spouting sourceless nonsense and arguing trivial crap like you can call an idea ludicrous but I cannot.




posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
...correct - "it" is a facade but the beginning was not 1985... i might concede to 1910 thru 1913 - but - that would just be a shut-up pill...

...everything about our electoral process and those who lead our government has been a facade from the beginning... with politicans, the label they ride for does not matter - never has... they are people with no integrity who are easily bought...



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Crapspackle
 


And in my second post on this thread I clearly said I have heard people compare the two presidents.

You said you had never heard of it.

Then I posted proof that others have in fact said that.

Case closed.

Are you done derailing the thread yet (sorry Misoir)?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Those paying attention can't possibly be oblivious to the fact he has two very distinct faces. One for the perceived stupid masses and another behind the scenes when speaking to other Progressives. He is clearly screaming to them, don't worry about what I say in public, because I'm really one of you and not one of them. No telling which face is the real one and I suspect the real Obama is hidden under many layers of sheepskin. We only get a glimpse by looking at those who he surrounded himself with; His Czar's.


My point exactly when I said that this current centrist "version" of obama is for election purposes and not based on his true philosophy. He has seen - or been advised - that Clinton was able to win by hiding behind a false centrist cloak, so obama is attempting to do the same.

Obama knows that no president has won reelection in modern times with economic numbers such as we are seeing now. Expect him to do and say whatever it takes and at all costs to try and get a 2nd term.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


So youre saying that its the Rockefellers who are the Fabian Socialist Marxists who want to redistribute wealth? Then who are the leftists? Hillary wanted socialist healthcare too but Bama beat her to the draw. Is Hills a rockefeller Repub too



While I do agree that the end result of the clash of conflicting and opposing ideas has resulted in something that resembles both parties and yet neithe(left-right Hegelian synthesis) Obama is still the most leftist Prez ever. But I will agree that the CFR operates on both sides of the aisle. Kerry and Bush both Bonesmen. What if we said, like Michael Savage, that Bush was really a fiscal socialist? Well that changes things a bit doesn't it.Regardless if OBama is a Rockefeller Repub or Bush was a Soros Democrat, all the CFR and the Elite are going for the same Totalitarian One World Govt Order with them in charge.
edit on 19-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Crapspackle
 


And in my second post on this thread I clearly said I have heard people compare the two presidents.


And then said it was ludicrous. AND THEN.


You said you had never heard of it.

Then I posted proof that others have in fact said that.

Case closed.


And I still find it ludicrous. What is your problem with my having my own opinion exactly?


Are you done derailing the thread yet (sorry Misoir)?


You should be sorry. I expressed my opinion like you did yours but apparently I am not allowed to have one. If having the last word is so important to you, then have it. I still find the comparison ludicrous, just like you claimed you still did AFTER you acknowledged it.

Jesus Christ are people not allowed to have a different opinion than someone else here or just you?






posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CREAM
 


And Obama viewed himself and ran on the platform to end both wars, repeal Bush's tax cuts. end Gitmo, Is starting a 3rd war in Libya count for anything? Polarize a nation, raise our debt more than any other President has ever done in 1 or 2 years.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by CREAM
 


And Obama viewed himself and ran on the platform to end both wars, repeal Bush's tax cuts. end Gitmo, Is starting a 3rd war in Libya count for anything? Polarize a nation, raise our debt more than any other President has ever done in 1 or 2 years.


Clinton had Kosovo, and FDR had WWII so wars dont mean a thing if you aint got that swing.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The biggest deterrent to having these kinds of conversations is that due to Partisanship (blind allegiance to a Party no matter what they do), Partisans seem to beat a dying horse even after it has drawn it's last breath. Then you have those incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake in supporting someone as they would rather continue on the wrong path than admit they are wrong.

Add that to the vote buying binge Obama has been on and Obama may win. Billions in Bribes to the Unions buys you a lot of votes. A few dollars a week in extra money to workers that pay zero income tax buys lots of illiterate votes. No Progressive could win any election without the lies and the bribes.

Tear society apart from within, control it through divisiveness and fear and you are using time tested methods to take down a free society and become it's leaders, without risking so much a paper cut in the process. No pain and all the marbles. Once the Baby Boomers are gone, this merry little group of Narcissists will drop the charade and begin the process of taking complete control of every aspect of our lives.

Most use 1984 as example of what could be, I see it more like the movie "Brazil" where a bunch of mindless, brainwashed, loyal little slaves spend their lives bowing to the wishes of the self-proclaimed elite.

This is far more complex and sinister than people are willing to represent it as being. There are a few voices out there, but they are being drowned out by Partisans from both sides. While people are wasting their time worrying about what constitutes a Liberal or Conservative, these folks will quietly take over.

Don't forget this weeks talking point. We voters are incapable of understanding the important issues of the day and only the elite progressives are capable of understanding and should make our decisions for us. Without them telling us what to do, we don't stand a chance.
I will sleep better tonight knowing I no longer need to pay attention as long as I vote for Obama as he will do all my thinking for me. Thanks so much Mr. Obama.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
...Uh Oh... Sorry ...I thought you said Obama was a Rockefeller Reptilian LOL!!

Subliminals...I guess...



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



So youre saying that its the Rockefellers who are the Fabian Socialist Marxists who want to redistribute wealth? Then who are the leftists? Hillary wanted socialist healthcare too but Bama beat her to the draw. Is Hills a rockefeller Repub too


To attempt to draw any correlations between the Rockefellers and the "Fabian Socialist Marxists" is absolutely ludicrous. One look at the actions of the Rockefeller family members and one will know that their actions are far from any perceived socialist agenda. Globalists, yes. But globalization is not the 'one world government' that is often spoke of in conspiracy circles; it is the process of economic globalization, the withering of the nation-state in the face of international free trade and foreign investment. In other words, capitalism in its ultimate, post-Keynesian form. Progressive philanthropists, yes again. But you must understand that the ultimate goal of the foundation network (the Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundations, and Open Society Institutes) is to cushion the blows of free market economics for poor population, and install stability in society where strife could blossom into more radical, revolutionary action (minority rights women's rights, etc). I would recommend to you Joan Roelof's work Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, and the two following articles by Michael Barker:

Pacifying Civil Society: The Uses and Abuses of 'Charity'

Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?

I would also like to see evidence of any true link between the Rockefellers and the Fabians, who, I might add, disavowed the idea of the proletarian revolution (this means, quite frankly, that they rejected one of the central tenets of Marxism). I do know that the Rockefeller Foundation provided funding to the London School of Economics, which was founded by members of the Fabian Society. However, this pretty much doesn't mean anything - the London School of Economics became one of the global centers of Austrian School economic theory, i.e free market ideology. F.A. Hayek's rise to fame and influence would occur when he taught at the school. It would be mighty strange for socialists to be involved in funding ideas that run in the complete opposite direction of their goals. I also might add that true Marxists, such as Trotsky, dismissed the Fabians as counterrevolutionary bourgeois manipulators, obstructing the goals of the proletariat:


These pompous authorities, pedants and haughty, high-falutin'cowards are systematically poisoning the labour movement, clouding the consciousness of the proletariat and paralysing its will. It is only thanks to them that Toryism, Liberalism, the Church, the monarchy, the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie continue to survive and even suppose themselves to be firmly in the saddle. The Fabians, the ILPers and the conservative trade union bureaucrats today represent the most counterrevolutionary force in Great Britain, and possibly in the present stage of development, in the whole world. Overthrowing the Fabians means liberating the revolutionary energy of the British proletariat, winning the British stronghold of reaction for socialism, liberating India and Egypt, and giving a powerful impetus to the movement and development of the peoples of the East.


Leon Trotsky: the Fabian 'theory' of socialism

Sorry for the off topic post, OP. What you've written is great, and provides an excellent framework for understanding the confusing mess that is the true nature of our president. Have you thought about writing a book?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


No worries your post was not off-topic you made a good argument as to why that poster was wrong and I agree with you. As for writing a book, no I have not considered and still do not. I understand enough at this moment to squeak out 20 pages at best and just do not have the motivation to write a book on the true political orientation of the President, it is not my number one topic of choice. But thank you.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Jesus Christ are people not allowed to have a different opinion than someone else here or just you?



You may rise.


Attempts at such flattery - even referring to me as a deity - will alas, gain you nothing. However, building a temple would be another matter.



Carry on ...




posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Partly the reason I know people who call him a Socialist and Liberal either aren't paying attention or are dumb. Obama hasn't done ONE socialist or liberal thing! The OBAMAcare most of you are crying about was created by Republicans!

Obama is a brilliant weapon that has been utilized by the Right, he was the Trojan Horse sent to capture all the black votes and many of the white. He is the opposite of what you would expect.

Pay no attention to what he say, pay attention to what he has done! Everything he has done is REPUBLICAN!

All of this shows me that his opposers are either dumb or they are racist. You have Republicans on here cursing Obama when he has handled his position in a Republican manner. If you need any proof just observe Wall Street and how they love him!





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join