Community | April 05, 2011 | 16 comments

10 Reasons Obama is Just As Bad or Worse Than Bush

source: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/04/10-reasons-obama-is-just-as-bad-or.html

Image
GLOBALPOLITICAL
George W. Bush was clearly a mentally-challenged puppet of the military/banking/oil elite. The policies put it in place at breakneck speed after 9/11 were provably predetermined by think tanks well in advance. Not that other presidents were any less controlled by this hidden agenda, but there was a noticeable in-your-face quickening of corporate-government tyranny under Bush.

These policies like wars of aggression, illegal surveillance of Americans, torture of detainees indefinitely held without formal charges, unfair "free trade" agreements, and bank bailouts rightfully enraged many progressives during the Bush years. Yet, not only have these policies accelerated under Obama, even more of the draconian playbook is unfolding.After 8 years of Bush's reign that ended with a record low presidential approval rating in the low 20s, Obama's promise of hope and change inspired many beyond mainline progressives. His campaign speeches were so powerful that they landed him the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything for world peace except to offer the idea in order to get elected. As a Constitutional law professor and attorney, Obama appeared to have a greater understanding of rights and the balance of power than did flunky Bush.

Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/04/10-reasons-obama-is-just-as...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Random,   Health,   22 more
  2. tags:
    Bush,  Torture,  Obama Administration,  Free Speech,  5 more
  3.     
    |

16 comments // 10 Reasons Obama is Just As Bad or Worse Than Bush

  • crystalman
  • coolplanet
  • corderodedios
    • +1
      corderodedios  

    • Good point about the Nobel awarded on the basis of Obama's "promises."

      I just read in another post here the the White House budget proposal includes making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.

      Some say the Roman Empire was made vulnerable because of the lead in their drinking water, carried in lead pipes. The wealthy who could afford tap water got lead poisoning, affecting their brains, and they got real strange. Might something like this be what's going on with our ruling elite?

      The money's gone, and it was stolen by the wealthy since Reagan. So where do you go when the money's gone and you need more? Do you go to where the money is, i.e. the wealthy? Noooooo..... you go to the poor and slash Social Security, get rid of Medicaid, fire teachers from public schools, end food assistance for the needy, etc., etc.!!!

      It reminds me of back in school when I still smoked cigarettes. Being a starving student, I would grub under the sofa cushions, behind the car seats, through my dresser drawers for lost change to go and buy a pack of smokes.

      That's exactly what the Neocons - Bush AND Obama AND their people - are doing to try to save the economy. It's hopeless. Our leaders are somehow demented. Seriously. When you need money you go to where it is and get it. Obviously. And, yes, I think someone who makes a million bucks a year ought to be able to get by on, say, two hundred thousand. Will they complain? So what? Lots of folks are taking hits nowadays. Not to mention the folks who make tens or hundreds of millions a year - and, believe it or not, some folks make, themselves, over a billion dollars a year. Obama's WAY worse than Bush.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
    • +2
      SFirman  
    • corderodedios:

      There is no mention of making Bush tax cuts permanent from either side . They are still arguing about this years budget. Paul Ryan wants to make Bush tax cuts permanent in budget for 2012, along with cutting Medicare.That means the rich stay rich on the backs of seniors.

    • 1 year ago
  • corderodedios
  • corderodedios
  • PressCore
  • crystalman
  • crystalman
  • crystalman
  • AJILIVIZION
    • +2
      AJILIVIZION  
    • crystalman:

      Yet, you suggest Sarah Palin would be better. Do you not realize that she would be much worse than George W. Bush? She would hand over the government to the corporate monsters that use her to spout nonsense like death-panels and Obama is a Socialist. You must realize I am not defending President Obama, though I did vote for him. I am simply trying to address the fact that Neo-Conservatives are conveying a message of "limited government" while at the same time, pursuing a corporate authoritarian agenda. I would love to have the government be made smaller, get out of the way of the private sector, stay out of our personal lives, and stop wasting taxes. Sarah Palin and the majority of the Tea Party leaders say those are the principles they stand for, however, the disconnect happens when they support tax breaks for the richest of the population, tax exemptions for the most profitable corporations, attempting to dismantle government agencies that seek to protect citizens and the environment from corporate fraud and pollution, and mandating what women can do with their bodies. Its hypocritical to say that a person supports limited government principles and yet expands government powers to pursue such a destructive agenda. Maybe there is something I'm not understanding. Please crystalman, help me get it.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • crystalman
    • -3
      crystalman  
    • AJILIVIZION:

      The basic issue here is that you are demonising corporations...especially profitable and successful ones. I don't. I have no problem with wealth generation, prosperity, success, industriousness. Times have changed anyway...CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is now a key concept in business and is becoming a matter of course. You are locked into a Marxist mindeset, a hardcore socialist paradigm that prevents you from adjusting your perception of what is. Your value judgements are anachronistic and are rooted in envy.

    • 1 year ago
  • corderodedios
    • +1
      corderodedios  
    • crystalman:

      There's nothing wrong with wealth generation per se, of course. The problem is maldistribution. If you've ever played the board game Monopoly, you'll understand that once you gain sufficient wealth, you win - cool in a board game, but in real life here on Earth, the winners have a habit of dispossessing the losers in a manner that ends up killing them off. And after all, the "losers" are only such because they believe in a system mediated other than by greed - that is, other than a system that predictably leads to war, and lately, environmental calamity. The system your folks set up and made up the rules for, a primitive, violent, and dead-end system. Sooner or later the sheeple wake up and you folks end up with your heads on pikes.

    • 1 year ago
  • dwb2585
more from Community:
from the community

top videos