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.


Have you considered the Republicans threw the '08 election to save the country?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:52 AM
I've been told McCain was not a great choice for the Republicans. Yet they ran him with Sarah Palin against what looked to be a very strong Democrat choice in Obama/Biden. Why?

I think the Republicans saw that the hard Left Democrats were going to take advantage of the Black population, the other minorities, and the wasted youth generations by running the Black man on a platform of extreme change. The Republicans probably considered running a Black man, but also figured they would be seen as copycats and insincere for doing it. What happened is that the Democrats really did get the jump on the people and the Republic. The timing was just right. It was the perfect storm.

So I think the Republicans decided to win the country by losing the '08 election. I think they decided to throw the election in order to allow the chaos to manifest and to teach the public a lesson about making the wrong choices in life. The Democrats are really showing their true colors now. They are really pushing hard for the International Socialist/Communist agenda. Ultimately though I believe that Americans will see what has happened and will turn away from the Democrats and towards the Republican side. The way things are right now, the country is so strongly polarized that in order to win a party needs to convince the other side to not vote out of disgust. With Obama's record and his party getting smeared weekly in the scandal news it will be easy I think to convince the public that they made a wrong decision in '08 and maybe even switch sides. I even think Palin can draw in the strong female voter who sees that Obama and the Democrats really were just liars and corrupt Internationalists. This is why Palin is always adamantly pro-military and pro-American. The Republicans will appeal to the minds of the public instead of the emotions. And in doing so they will get the pendulum to swing back the other way.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:05 AM
IMO aside from congress, the presidential left vs right is a sham. This apears to happen every election (that ive been alive). The losing side always has a jackass as a candidate.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:05 AM
I've had the same thoughts once or twice.

Then I remember the Republicans are too stupid to pull off any type of organized plan like that.

Except of course when they're plotting to drag us into another war for drugs and oil. Even then, it's the architects of the New World Order pulling thier strings.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:12 AM
The "head honchos" aren't liberals OR republicans, think about that for a minute.

Different face, same a-hole, am i right?

These elections are made into left vs right brawls to convince us that we are still in charge, although nothing has really changed has it?

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:15 AM
Dream on. They are just profoundly dysfunctional.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Scarcer
IMO aside from congress, the presidential left vs right is a sham. This apears to happen every election (that ive been alive). The losing side always has a jackass as a candidate.

I don't agree with you, but thank you for bringing this up so I can explain something in this thread.

I believe the idea that the Left and Right are really on the same team is a scam. They are not on the same team. There is a very real battle taking place for the control of Earth via the strongest political, financial and military forces.

The idea that you don't have to vote, or that your vote doesn't count, or that the results are always the same is an attempt to grab hold of the public's apathy and to basically keep them out of the game. The perpetuation of the ''it is all rigged and a one team scam'' idea is being used to weaken the resolve of the public.

If you really think about it, there is a complex spectrum of ideas and beliefs presented to the public, and the public is often overwhelmed by these things. Sometimes the way forward is to simplify something, and maybe even present it with a bit of a lie, in order to get people to understand. That sounds hokey, sure. It is. However, the two sides are definitely not playing for the same end goal. They use the same tactics and they take sides on the day's topics, but they are ultimately working towards two very different end scenarios.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:39 AM
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

True, they seem to be going for different end scenarios, but take a step back. Look at the time line. Our country is getting worse, not better.

We are moving towards a fascist state, and it seems to be a common interest in both parties. Either that, or they're just playing games with us and putting on a show to convince both sides of the media fed people.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:08 AM
I think you are partially correct. Where I disagree with you is with the notion that "the Republicans were trying to teach people a lesson about making bad choices." LOL Also, I get the impression from your post that you think somehow Palin is a positive attribute to the Republican party. But I think you made a valid observation overall. . . mine just has a different angle.

This country was fed up with Republicans. I believe the powers that be had already honed in on Obama to be the next pres. because he offered something no one else could--the distraction of voters with the fuss over the history-making event found in electing our first black president. They probably had other reasons for wanting him, too...perhaps he was driven to succeed for self-serving reasons (notariety, wealth, etc.) and they believed him to be one who would compromise his principles if it would get him to the top. At any rate, in 2004, Obama stated emphatically that he had no desire to run for president because he didn't feel he had enough experience. What changed his mind? He had just barely acquired his senate seat and had very little else to offer that would warrant the belief he was fit to be president.

I don't know if McCain is on board with the guys at the top or not. At any rate, IMO the choice of Palin as a VP running mate was a political maneuver designed to sway any loyal Republican voters to Obama's camp, as they now would have to presume McCain was either senile or a lunatic. There were other indications that this was occurring, too, such as Colin Powell's jumping the party lines to endorse Obama, the very public endorsement of Obama by Warren Buffett, and the sudden Obama reconciliation with the wretched Clinton female despite their bitter campaign attacks against each other.

My opinion is that if McCain would have won (in the event the voters' choices would have even mattered), we probably would have seen him experience one of those mysterious "heart attack" deaths, and the public would have been none the wiser since he was an old geezer to begin with. Then, dingbat would have been in charge.

Now that this woman has had her day in the political limelight, she somehow seems to think that her opinions in politics are important to us and that she actually can continue with this nonsense that she may someday see the White House from inside. I don't think this has been any coincidence either. We need to ignore this woman, she's gonna bring a dark cloud if she is not stonewalled by the voters now. Now I'm getting off topic, so . . . the end.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:25 AM
The game doesn't change, only the faces. At the end of the day the republicans and democrats are members of the TLC, CFR, BILDERBERGS, etc and/or answer to higher authorities. The agenda is the same on both sides, only one chooses to give the "war machine" sham while another runs the "economics" sham. It's all a scripted event, and, your vote doesn't count.

We are not in charge. We have no voice. We are slaves. We can't save the country. We will not win. We must accept these facts.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by EMPIRE

Well said, EMPIRE! I believe this has been described as an "Hegelian" strategy. Thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Playing two sides against each other is an old way to maintain control of the plebes.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:52 AM
reply to post by Nyrossius Maxim

That is exactly what it is, Hegelian Dialectic, but many people, not just on ATS, either know nothing of it, dismiss it as lunacy (due to not wanting their comfort zones and beliefs compromised) or don't know how to adapt.

And if anyone is in doubt all they need to do is strike up a conversation with a random American and ask them if they know about it. In fact, don't even ask them that, ask them what their top five priorities are and that should give you clear indication as it pertains to their knowledge of the world and where it's headed.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by EMPIRE]

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

Worst.. Post. Ever.

Selflessness the opposite of fiscal (and psychological) conservationism.

You think the Party of Dick Cheney is going to intentionally help anybody but themselves?

Give it a (delusional) rest.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:14 AM
Indeed. They definitely, intentionally, forfeited the election.

McCain, Great public servant that needs to retire yesterday, But what a weak candidate for president.

If you saw both the RNC & DNC debates it was obvious that there were stronger contenders on both sides.

Yes, they could have won it. But why? McCain didn't come across (late in the campaign) as even wanting to win... Again, Why would he even want to be president? LOL

I would also suggest that the Colt's, and Manning forfeited their chance to win the Super Bowl. He had no chance of completing a pass beyond 18 yards!
I told wifee that if he tries, he'll be intercepted... Mofo if he wasn't.

Yeah it was an exciting Super Bowl; and the 2008 election was 'charged full of engery'.

Both of the losers forfeited. It is obvious to me. No one wants to believe that. OMG , ONOZ that could never happen in a country full of lazy assed, apathetic... sheesh...

It's also obvious that Nyrossius Maxim & EMPIRE are of that type...

"whaaaa! nothing changes, we can't win, let's all crawl back under a rock and, just, cry, just cry for our poor preciouses. misery is all we knowes. Curse evil hobbitses; we will break it's filty neckes!"

Find a spine. Make things as they should (could) be.

Edit to add: Sorry about personal(ish) attack. You are obviously very analytical & cerebral. Talk about wasting time on a forum.
Just WOW.

[edit on 2·16·10 by DrMattMaddix]

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:45 AM
I believe the Republican party saw the global meltdown coming and let the democrats have the job if really messing things up.

The meltdown and the democrats planed push for health care. And ending the wars was so left field the republican knew it would kill the democrats plans to the point it would be many years before the public would ever trust them again.

I noted that the republicans never pressed Obama on what "change" entailed and what the democrats planed to change.

"change" was never spelled out by the democrats before the election.
and i could never understand why the republicans never pushed the democrats to explain "change".

Now looking back on it by never questioning Obama's change was show in that the republicans knew they could never win and now are letting the democrats self destruct.
But without being able to vote in any really bad laws.

I see the republicans being in control of both the house and senate with a new republican president in 4 years.
I also see a group of independents in both the house and senate that for the most part will work with the republicans to pass many new laws.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:02 AM
Anyone that thinks there is a bit of difference between the Democrats and Republicans are kidding themselves. Their strings are being pulled by the same people. Rogue elements of the CIA & and the military industrial complex.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by expat2368

This again?

So you still think Gore would've invaded Iraq?


People shouldn't say there's no difference if they think GORE WOULDN'T HAVE INVADED IRAQ.

Which I don't believe he would've.

So think about that the next time you claim they're both the same?

Different slices of the same same crap cake maybe, but they are different and votes do matter, even just a little...

All you 9/11 Fathers prolly wouldn't even exist if Gore had been in power.

(No Iraq invasion = many fewer people calling it a false flag excuse for Iraq.)

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:03 AM
You might also want to consider the "religious" angle. The black hebrew (see groups like the 12 tribes of israel church) movement, believes that they are the true israelites and are coordinated with muslim groups on the issues related to the current occupants of israel, control of world banks by jewish people who they believe are "fake jews" and so on.

they believe that the white people of the world will be and need to be genocided in a bloody revolution as an act of retribution against the crimes of the white man since the dawn of civilization. they believe the white people must pay for the "sins of their fathers" -- an act of God to cleanse the land, the end of the "time of the gentiles." they are also drawing in other groups who don't like "the white man" for whatever reason, to assist them in fulfilling their version of the biblical prophecies. for this to happen, they need to villify the "white man" as much as possible in the political arena, which is most readily seen in the guise of socialistic agenda, where every other sentence equals "bad white man".

Because they share several political and global issues in common with islam, they form a powerful coordinated front. socialism offers the easiest way to wrench control of the non-white peoples from the western white man's grip.

the socialists don't want to go down with the ship, so they are trying to manipulate it in such a way that they will escape the genocide, by claiming they are real white jews, descended from accepted black israelite families who had sojourned, following the flood, into the lands of russia, and that the other white people are the real problem (it's always the other guy's fault). to do this, they have supported the advance of socialism within our borders by befriending all minority groups and continually denigrating the "white man", blaming it on the white man, etc.

in addition, the socialists have convinced the white western man, that he needs to curtail his population growth within his communities for the sake of the environment, meanwhile the groups the socialists are supporting and protecting are polygamist societies, cranking out babies left and right.

the repubs have the appearance of trying to rescue the sinking ship. they are saying "We have been grafted in to the house of israel, via the covenant with Yeshua (Jesus)". and the black israelite movement and socialists are saying "yeshua was a black man and you are an evil white man so you cannot be grafted in" or "no you were not grafted in because yeshua never existed" or "no you were not grafted in because yeshua was just a prophet not God". in essence removing the religious foundation and therefore "protection" from western civilization, specifically, white people.

on a planet where most of its members feel a kinship to God or the Gods at some level, this is their way of saying white people don't belong on the planet, God(s) do not love white people and therefore, white people need to be exterminated. but the socialists are not finishing the sentence cause that'd give away the real agenda. black israelites are ignoring the implication of the socialists, because of that old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

in essence, they are playing a dangerous game of chess with each other, using one another for their personal end goals. but as you have seen, it's very easy to convince new generations of children, that the old folks are crazy, and that's all it will take to finish the job.

with western civ, capitalism, protestanism, most of the white christian church, and millions and millions of innocent people out of the way, it will be incredibly easy to convince the new kids on the block that the previous genocides were monstrous religious lunacy, and when the dust clears, the planet will be reborn as a socialistic version of pharaonic egypt.

ya see, that's one thing the black israelites don't include in their theories: that the text says the "true christians" (which they believe they are), are gonna be hunted down and exterminated by the antichrist. if they are still here and in control, the story isn't finished. and more than one group is using the biblical end time prophecies as a play book: even the guys who don't believe any of it is true!

[edit on 16-2-2010 by undo]

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:51 AM
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

They are really pushing hard for the International Socialist/Communist agenda. Ultimately though I believe that Americans will see what has happened and will turn away from the Democrats and towards the Republican side.

Can anyone tell me what evil socialist/communist legislation has been passed and signed into law by this "evil commie pinko," Obama?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

Has anything been signed by this president that has torn this country asunder?

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by EMPIRE
The agenda is the same on both sides, only one chooses to give the "war machine" sham while another runs the "economics" sham. It's all a scripted event, and, your vote doesn't count.
We are not in charge. We have no voice. We are slaves. We can't save the country. We will not win. We must accept these facts.

Okay, your choice is to just give up, surrender.
The OP is correct: in the past year, there have been some dramatically opposite proposals and policy positions put forward. I do not recall when choices were so dramatically different from one another. If you think not, you haven't being paying attention. Those who have acted to forcefully express their opinions to their reps may be staving off the worst for now. It's not over 'till it's over.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by whatukno

nope, not that i can tell. we are already pretty socialistic. we just have a few holdouts, such as health care. he's just maintaining the status quo, from what i can tell. but i do believe he has tried to advance more socialism but the other fellas said no or something to that effect. i guess it's gonna take more poverty to convince people that they need the gov to think for them, feed them, and take care of them. then it'll be a choice of starving to death or going along with the agenda.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in