It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Obama Is Not Left

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:37 AM
reply to post by Kali74

No I was not for the bailouts but I was also scared of economic collapse

So you weren't for the baillouts but you were err sort of because everyone said it was needed to stop the collapse...yah I guess that sounds about right. The Elite puts us over a barrel don't they..

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:56 AM
Bill Ayers, Valerie Jarret, Reverend Wright, Cass Sunstein etc etc etc - they obviously think Obama is one of them - and that is all you need to know about Obama really - which is why you will never hear about it on MSM.

Don't necessarily be looking to what policies he implements to see what his agenda is - he is all about duplicity remember, pretending to be one thing whilst seeking another.

The only thing you can be certain of is that he wishes to see the US - reduced to the status and wealth of say Brazil or India - and certainly wants to see it humiliated and under the thumb of Russia and China.

What his real NWO puppet masters want is another thing entirely - then again what their puppet master wants is something else again.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

No I was not for the bailouts but I was also scared of economic collapse in the US. The stimulus package sounded good at the time, create jobs etc...but it turned out just as corrupt as anything else in government, with a bunch of already millionaires and billionaires walking away with more millions and billions. In other words the money went up.

Obamacare couldn't be more Corporatist. Who benefits the most from it? Health Insurance companies. Can you sight any other perceived Leftist Laws, Acts or EOs that Obama has incorpated into America? If he is so Left why does sign all the legislation that House puts forth? His power of Veto may not be enough to stop their Bills from becoming Law but if he opposes them he should veto them anyway, take a stance against them...he doesn't.

If he is so Left, why are all his Cabinet positions occupied by Capitalists? He may talk a good liberal game and pander to the left voters but that's where it ends. After all someone had to seduce the left into acceptance of Authoritian Corporatism.

So you're just going to ignore the rest of my post and not answer the questions I asked you?

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

Should it not be his policies that we judge his character on as opposed to his words or his loose association with Bill Ayers or his relationship with his former Reverend whom he has denounced? Cass Sunstein and Valerie Jarret are debatable as both seem perfectly comfortable in both Left and Right.

As for the rest of your insinuations...I base my opinion of the President on things he has actually done not paranoid drivel that amounts to nothing more than a section of people who ought to be very happy with the Presidents actions, but can't get past the (D) after his put it midly, throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

But yeah, okay let's judge him on rumor and propaganda that we can't fact check with honesty, as opposed to his policies, that we can.
edit on 27-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by Kali74

Well, I actually was trying to be nice to you, but alas I did not respond to you the way you wanted. If you were to truly understand the whole Hegelian thing, you would finally understand that both the left and the right use corporations to further their agendas. To assume that if Obama uses corporations that makes him a rightie, then you would be sadly mistaken. To be leftist means you want government control of corporations, to be right means you want private control.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:09 PM
In American politics, "left" is slightly right of center.

If you are now just realizing this...that isn't the fault of Obama...that is the fault of your own mis-informed beliefs.

I doubt there will every be a far left President in the United States anytime in the near future....we aren't going to have socialist in the White House...we aren't going to even have anyone slightly left of center any time in the near future.

"Liberals" and "The Left" in America is something quite different than European "Liberal" or "Left".

This is the state of reality in the United States.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I understood perfectly what you meant but tell me, when exactly has Obama ever even breathed a word about taking over Corporations, his DOJ won't even go after the major offenders who tanked the economy. He's keeping them propped up as is under private enterprise. Not verbally or in an EO or an ACT has so much as whispered anything about breaking any company or bank up or letting them fail or nationalizing them.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:40 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Keep your condescension. I never said I believed Obama to be 'far left' and am now disappointed. I don't even imply it. I did however believe he was more left than Bush, but have realized he's the same if not further right.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ANOK

I mostly agree, even in Europe they swung Right a while ago and are starting to swing back Left now. I don't think Obama is Liberal compared to Bush though...I think they're about on the same mark if not Obama being a little further right.

The Republican Crop we have had since the Civil Rights movement has claimed to embrace Conservatism but they have not at all. They have swung all the way up to Reactionism. Democrats who claim to be Liberal are more Conservative Liberals which is still on the Right of the spectrum but swing all the way up to Reactionists too.

Sorry but I can't agree Bush is more liberal than Obama, I mean he just claimed his support for Gay marriage, could you imagine Bush doing that? Nah Bush is from the oil industry, a capitalist, pretty sure he would have supported Franco over the workers eh? Obama though, I mean he used to hang out with Marxist, supposedly, so if he did he knows what the true left is. Even though he is no position to act on it, or change anything, because the presidency doesn't have the power, those at the top of the economic pyramid do. It would take more than the vote to get a revolutionary government in power.

Worker ownership spreads the wealth around more evenly, so one group of private individuals cannot become so financially powerful that they can control the state to their benefit. The government we have is the result of the economic system we have. Capitalism empowers the government and state, and politics are manipulated for capitalists interests, not the interests of you and me.

edit on 5/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I understood perfectly what you meant but tell me, when exactly has Obama ever even breathed a word about taking over Corporations, his DOJ won't even go after the major offenders who tanked the economy. He's keeping them propped up as is under private enterprise. Not verbally or in an EO or an ACT has so much as whispered anything about breaking any company or bank up or letting them fail or nationalizing them.

Where have you been the last 3 years?

The U.S. still owns a 26% stake in GM, after selling-off a larger stake at a loss.
Obama forced the ouster of its leadership,and owns its former finance arm GMAC (now, the failing Ally Bank).
The Treasury and Federal Reserve have guaranteed the "toxic assets" and/or pension funds of many other comapanies, including JP Morgan, Chrysler and Goldman Sachs. These "investments" come with strings that effectively cede corpporate governance to the Dept. of Treasury..
Have you forgotten our "investments" in Solyndra, A123, First Solar and Fisher?

We own 70% of AIG, and only recently sold our stakes in CITI and BofA, but still have stakes tied to their assets.

All of the foregoing have been the subjects of one or more ATS threads; did youthink to try the "Search" feature before this glaring oversight, or is it a sign of unspoken devotion that you "forgot?"

Characterization of "Left" or "Right" do not serve to define anything about Barack Obama, as some of his policies are cleary bordering upon fascism, while others are clearly socialist.

Most outside observers would agree that the best characterization of Obama's policies is "Socialist." His current platform is an almost identical match for that of the French Socialist, Hollande.

... French socialist Francois Hollande’s and Obama’s platforms are virtual carbon copies, and Hollande is quite open about and proud of being a socialist.

Democrat strategists know that the American electorate reacts strongly negative to “socialism” and are doing their best to discredit any and all who call Obama a socialist. There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. In France, Obama would be the candidate of the French socialist party. In Spain, he would be at home in the Socialist Worker’s Party. In Germany, Obama would be torn between the Social Democrats and Die Linke.

Is Obama A Socialist?

Why is this so obvious to so many?

It is because of the driving force behind most of Obama's policies and platform: a deep distrust of free enterprise and an overriding faith in the concept that more government intervention can solve most problems.

Conservatives (the "Right?"), on the other handpossess an abiding faith in private enterprise and a distrust of government intervention.

Call it Left or Right, if you want; but Barack Obama is a socialist, with fascist policies to accomplish important parts of his overriding agenda that government seizure of private property (taxation) can lead to solutions for the Nation's problems.


edit on 28-5-2012 by jdub297 because: url

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by Kali74

This, exactly, everything. It was the same transformation for me. Well said. Tell your story, sister.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by Kali74

What is the Left equivalent of a RINO anyway? Zebra, mule?

It's a DINO! And Obama definitely is a DINO. I'm positive I'm not the only one who has known that Obama wasn't a "lefty". It was obvious before he was elected the first time. BTW, he said he was going to increase efforts in Afghanistan. It was a campaign promise.

Either way as I have said repeatedly, none of our elected or appointed officials seem to have any loyalty to any ideology anymore.

I kind of like this. We need to be more open, not locked down to an ideology. The whole idea of the Left/Right paradigm sets us up for an us/them mentality. That's no way to run a country. I think a lot of reason Obama isn't a "loyal leftist" is because he doesn't like the separation any more than I do. (He's Mr. Compromise, you know?) This country needs leadership for today. The left/right thing only causes what we have today: Gridlock in Congress and hatred between the "parties" like I've never seen before. It's a battle that no one can win. We need something new. Something different.

Very good thread!

edit on 5/28/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:00 PM
I just finished watching this great Documentary on Obama and the failure of capitalist democracy. It kind of puts a period on my statement and I feel like it focuses the truth like a laser beam.

Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy

This film explores the historical role of the Democratic Party as the "graveyard of social movements", the massive influence of corporate finance in elections, the absurd disparities of wealth in the United States, the continuity and escalation of neocon policies under Obama, the insufficiency of mere voting as a path to reform, and differing conceptions of democracy itself.

Original interview footage derives from Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Michael Albert, John Stauber (PR Watch), Sharon Smith (Historian), William I. Robinson (Editor, Critical Globalization Studies), Morris Berman (Author, Dark Ages America), and famed black panther Larry Pinkney.

Non-original interviews/lectures include Michael Hudson, Paul Craig Roberts, Ted Rall, Richard Wolff, Glen Ford, Lewis Black, Glenn Greenwald, George Carlin, Gerald Cliente, Chris Hedges, John Pilger, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Wollin and Martin Luther King.

Films for Action
You can watch it on the linked page or on Vimeo or Youtube...I've embedded the first segment.

ETA I should warn that there's a clip of George Carlin that contains vulgar language as well as some graphic war images including images of children that have been killed, in the Documentary.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:53 PM
I think it's quite hilarious that the most extreme leftist Prez in American history is being called either a centrist or a rightie by those on the left. It boggles the mind how they refuse to see their own policies and ideology in action.
It was so obvious the minute Obama said "spread the wealth". You guys just thought he'd spread it to the little people and he gave it to the Intl Socialist Elites in power.
It is a fact that Lenin stated that there would necessarily be a ruling elite in the Communist State to run things, that is, till the State finally withers away(which it never does because marxism and communism is Statism). Marx just didn't see the logical fallacy in his own thought.

People on the left consistently deny Obama's extreme leftist ideals, even the very things that come out of his mouth that indicate his ideology.
When did you ever hear a conservative suggest we have to give up our pie so others could have "more" ?(That was Michelle but you know they have the same ideals).

How would you guys explain the whole Rev Wright episode and the Marxist Liberation Theology and the connection to Marxist James Cone?
How would you explain Obama's pledge to "not weaponize space"? That whole rant was entirely leftist. How do you explain some of his actions, like sitting back while Iranian get beat to death by the Iranian govt and yet in Libya he gets involved in NATO bombing them to save the people? How do you explain his willingness to support the overthrow of a pro-Western leader (Mubarak) in Egypt while helping to prop up the Muslim Brotherhood(decidedly anti Western)?
I wish there would be a little more honesty in assessing these actions from the left. Maybe the left mistakenly thinks that their communist and socialist leadership really don't want war and all these awful things you think you have distanced yourself from but history reveals that communist and socialist

How can anyone deny that the Prez is on the same track as DSA member Maxine Watters and that this is a goal of socialism being carried out by DSA in the Democrat Congress

I am sure I can find plenty of material to show that it isn't just talk with Obama, it's his actions too. For instance, perhaps part of the plan to nationalize oil was to use the BP Oil spill to first denigrate the oil industry(thus taking care of his leftist environmentalist base), stop the offshore drilling in the US and institute more regulations, and then turn around and give US tax dollars to a Nationalized oil business in Brazil( a place where Marxism has taken deep root).
How would you explain Obama's friendship with leftist leaders like Chavez(socialist and has nationalized oil industry), and his connections to leftist billionaire Soros and the Unions(Trumpka goes to the WH a lot and took credit for involvement of Unions in the stirring up of Egypt Spring).

How do you explain his support of OWS with all it's various leftist components and his administration's denigration of the Tea Party?

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Kali74

Why do you keep insisting that OBama is on the right? The Shadow Govt is both left and right so why would it make Obama be on the right? Does it make you mad that he caters to corporate interests? If you would read the works of Antony Sutton like I suggested, you would see that this is exactly what leftists do, they use corporate interests to further their agenda and corporatists make money off it. Obama has just started nationalizing the entire health sector, and still you must be mad that he hasn't disbanded private corporations which produce bandages and medical equipment. Are you expecting him to already turn it over to the proletariat in one fell swoop? Do you get that Obama uses Fabian style socialism to achieve leftist goals? That is, he uses incrementalism. But he also used revolutionary style anarchy but he manages to keep his hands clean.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

He doesn't want gridlock in Congress because he would rather Congress just do what he tells them.

High school civics students and aficionados of “Schoolhouse Rock!” can be forgiven if they are bewildered by what took place in the U.S. Senate last week. It was Barack “We Can’t Wait” Obama’s new process of turning a bill into a law — not by duly passing it in both houses of Congress, but by issuing bureaucratic dictates and counting on Senate Democrats to block any effort to stop them.

The particulars this time were especially egregious. The Senate, before the 2010 landslide when it still had a 60-vote Democratic majority, rejected the ridiculously named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — both its first version that eliminated private ballot union elections entirely, and its revised version that retained private ballots but allowed union organizers to catch businesses off-guard with surprise “ambush elections.”

Obama, intent on rewriting the labor laws with or without Congress, nominated a radical union lawyer, Craig Becker, to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Becker had written extensively on how the NLRB could rewrite the labor laws to favor union bosses, making it entirely foreseeable that he would use a seat on the NLRB to sidestep Congress and push forward with the provisions of the failed EFCA bill. The Senate therefore rejected his nomination on a bipartisan vote.
Sidestepping Congress, Obama recess-appointed Becker and he led a string of extreme anti-business actions last year that went well beyond the NLRB’s legitimate authority. One such action, a rule requiring businesses to put up posters touting the benefits of unionization, was struck down in court

Read more:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:26 PM
One way to view the way the Hegelian thing works is to look at Bush on the Right and Kerry on the Left. Both are members of Skull and Bones secret Society from Yale. Both have the same ambitions to become President and in 04 we had a chance to see first hand how they get their people into office and even pit them against each other.
Would you ever say that Kerry is on the right? No, it would be patently ridiculous. Why would you then say Obama is really a rightist?

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:32 PM
If you think Obama is not left, at least recognize what he is doing to destroy our sovereignty

hmmm deleted the link due to an odd pic of the Prez.

Ok here's a blog with fewer pics

There are five dangerous treaties Obama and his administration are subjecting America to or are considering subjecting America to. Every American needs to know about these. Remember in 2008, during his Berlin speech, Obama said that not only is he a citizen of the United States but a ‘citizen of the world.’

the five treaties are Rights of the Child, International Criminal Court, The Law of The Sea Treaty, Small Arms Control(way to disarm the people in the States and keep them from fighting the NWO), and outer space code of conduct(is this why Obama dismantled NASA and making us hitch rides with the Soviets? I've even seen movies where US and Russia jointly do space missions. Somehow Hollowood always leaks this stuff first).

edit on 28-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If you think Obama is not left, at least recognize what he is doing to destroy our sovereignty -the-u-s-constitution/

Just because we know he isn't 'left' doesn't mean he isn't destroying our sovereignty.

Being left, in it's true sense, is not a bad thing. Being 'right' in it's true sense most definitely is.

The extreme of the left is Anarchism, a form of socialism (worker ownership) that gives people ultimate liberty.
The extreme of the right is fascism, I don't think I need to explain what that is.

I wish we could stop falling for the pseudo left of government. All governments, by definition, are right wing...

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

The left have always been the anti-statists, socialists, anarchists, the right is the establishment, state and government, capitalist.

This is why America is so politically bankrupt, everything has been twisted in order to confuse. You have been told that the left means Russia or China, Cuba, North Korea etc., but they're not left-wing at all. They may be 'communist' by name, but that is not a description of their economy, and communism is an economic system not a political system. Again there is no such thing as left-wing government, it's an oxymoron. The only time any of the left supported government was the Marxists, Leninists ect., who wanted a political path to communism, but they wanted a revolutionary government of the workers in order to change from capitalism to communism. Once communism was achieved government would dissolve.

The goal of all left-wing ideologies is free association, the difference is in the path to get there.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

edit on 5/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

5 Star responses on the subject

Excellent summary of the Obama version of the revised Marxist / Corporatist agenda.


Hopefully, Obama "will not be left" in Washington next January !!

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by MrSpad
Obama is what every elected President becomes a pragmatist. Ideals go by the way side when reality is shoved in your face. Even what you thought was a simple issue to support pre-election now takes on a complextity many times greater and with more variables than most people can imagine. Once you become President you are no longer are leading a party, cause or campaign. You are running the richest most powerful nation in all history, simple ideology has to be tossed aside.

WOW! A realist.

Don't see many of those these days.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in