There Is Literally No Difference Between Obama And The GOP When It Comes To The Big Issues

[TheSquealer]

"...what exactly is the difference between Obama's policies and those of moderate Republicans? We can get a better grasp on his Demopublican nature by asking a few key questions:

• How many bloated weapons systems has he cancelled? (Zero)
• How many overseas bases of the Empire has he closed? (none)
• Who runs his financial policies? Wall Street cronies.

I think you get the idea here: there is literally no difference between Obama and a moderate Republican when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire.

Obama's policies have all aided and abetted existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties.

President Obama can be charitably characterized as an ineffectual Demopublican. From those demanding more, then he can be accurately described as a well-meaning puppet of Wall Street and the rest of the Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms."

http://www.businessinsider.com/presi...ublican-2012-1

[BIGTYMER]

He's not getting my vote again.. Change my ass.

[chucklesnorris]

Obama does many of the things Bush did, Democrats praise it, Republicans outrage. Political hypocrisy on both sides. They both bailed out big business, both sent out stimulus, both expanded Government. Aside from some small nuances they're one in the same. No changes in foreign or monetary policy. All the so called changes Obama made are smoke and mirrors. Like the "end" of the Iraq war. We pull out troops and replace with military contractors who get paid more and then pretend like we're done with Iraq. Yeah, right.

RON PAUL 2012!

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by chucklesnorris

Obama does many of the things Bush did, Democrats praise it, Republicans outrage. Political hypocrisy on both sides. They both bailed out big business, both sent out stimulus, both expanded Government. Aside from some small nuances they're one in the same. No changes in foreign or monetary policy. All the so called changes Obama made are smoke and mirrors. Like the "end" of the Iraq war. We pull out troops and replace with military contractors who get paid more and then pretend like we're done with Iraq. Yeah, right.

RON PAUL 2012!

This is what politics is. Pretending to be different, pretending to be better, pretending to have a better plan, pretending to have all the answers... saying anything and everything to get elected only to find themselves in a system that by design, requires consensus and strongly resists change.

Obamas problem was that he was insanely naive. You can't change anything without both parties, the house and senate. He's learned the hard way that simply blaming the other guy is not leadership and its a story that grows tiresome quickly.

Voters problem... the same. Naive.

At the heart of American Politics are long term problems continually being tackled with short term solutions and in accordance with popular rhetoric during election cycles.

[BIGTYMER]

We need to get the money out of politics. We also need term limits. Being a politician shouldn't be a career choice.

I'd rather do away with the system and elect people much like jury duty.

[BlackCrayon]

because in reality both groups are pulled by the same strings.

[Shotsie]

The Republicans must be loving it right now. They're getting all of their ideas implemented without having to shoulder any of the blame. All of Boehner and the rest's political posturing is a charade, secretly they're hoping he gets re-elected because he's so tractable.

[Cherry7]

If you wear the cloak of the Emperor...

6000 people have more than $1,000,000,000 in wealth each, with wealth comes power, we live in a dictatorship of the extremely wealthy. If you want to change the situation and liberate the majority of mankind you need a revolution.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Cherry7

If you wear the cloak of the Emperor...

6000 people have more than $1,000,000,000 in wealth each, with wealth comes power, we live in a dictatorship of the extremely wealthy. If you want to change the situation and liberate the majority of mankind you need a revolution.

You could say this same thing in any culture, in any nation in any place in the world at any point in time in history. Its been said since the dawn of civilization. The wealthy are the economy. The wealthy are trade. The wealthy are jobs. I seriously doubt you can name a nation that was "liberated" from the wealthy that resulted in the long term prosperity that this nation has seen.

[porno jew]

who is behind business insider again?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by porno jew

who is behind business insider again?

How does that relate to the facts?

[GregE]

But... they do differ on the "small" issues

One man's small issue is another man's big issue.

Obama seems not to be especially worried about naughty pictures on the interweb.

Romney and his friends rather more so.

That's enough of a difference for me.

At least, that is, until a better Presidential alternative comes along.

[raymor]

Obamas problem was that he was insanely naive. You can't change anything without both parties, the house and senate. He's learned the hard way that simply blaming the other guy is not leadership and its a story that grows tiresome quickly.

His party (the democrats) did have complete control of the house, senate and white house for two years. They were running the whole show. They decided to not even pass a budget, so they could wait until after the election and blame the republicans.

Reagan got stuff done with the opposing party in control of both house and senate. Why Obama and his team wouldn't do anything when they had complete control I don't know. Obviously he's inexperienced and lacks leadership ability, but heck Pelosi has both. All Obama had to do was let Pelosi lead while he signed her bills.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by GregE

Obama seems not to be especially worried about naughty pictures on the interweb.

Romney and his friends rather more so.

On the other hand, who signed all the big censorship bills, COPA, CDA, CDA II? Do you think Bill was the prude in the White House, or do you think Hillary is more likely the prude who told him to sign those? When Clinton tries THREE times to enact censorship as the supreme court keeps striking them down, I'd rather get both Clintons out of Washington.

[INever]

One is always 1% better than the other but that's not fucking enough difference.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Obama has a very limited "Family Values" (read anti-porn) agenda. Regan, Clinton and GW Bush made this industry their political whipping boy.

Carter and Regan fed bin Laden, GW Bush paid lip service to him and Obama terminated him.

However, when it comes to large business and labor interests who regulates and who deregulates or claims to do so? Here, both aisles peddle influence and pander political donations they have this in common.

Choose the lesser of evils as usual.

[tony286]

Lets not rewrite history no obsenity prosecutions under clinton. Janet reno saw going after adult porn a waste of resources.if 911 didnt happen porn was going to be job one for ashcroft. If they had passed a law that to see porn you had to have a credit card to prove. i dont think that would have been the worst thing the world. where now we have free fest.

Also republicans did the most filerbusters in the last 50 yrs during the first two yrs of obama. Also he is republican lite and if people think he is loved by progressives they are kidding thems.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by tony286

Lets not rewrite history no obsenity prosecutions under clinton.

So the six cases Clinton's justice department prosecuted in 1997 never happened? How about the eight obscenity cases in 1998? In fact, under eight years of Bush there were 22 cases. Guess under which president there were more in just FOUR years. Let's let Eric Holder, the #2 in Clinton's justice department, explain it:

Originally Posted by Eric Holder, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, 1998

Priority should be given to cases involving large-scale distributors who realize substantial income from multistate operations (brazzers, twisty's) and cases in which there is evidence of organized crim involvement. However, prosecution of cases involving relatively small distributors can have a deterrent effect and would dispel an notion that obscenity distributors are insulated from prosecution their operations fail to exceed a predetermined size or if they fragment their business into small-scale operations. Therefore, prosecution of such distributors also may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

[Cherry7]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You could say this same thing in any culture, in any nation in any place in the world at any point in time in history. Its been said since the dawn of civilization. The wealthy are the economy. The wealthy are trade. The wealthy are jobs. I seriously doubt you can name a nation that was "liberated" from the wealthy that resulted in the long term prosperity that this nation has seen.

The French Revolution and Oliver Cromwell and the English revolution destroyed feudalism and laid the economic / political framework for Capitalism.

The Chinese revolution united the country, threw out the western colonists and started to rebuild the country.

The wealthy do what is good for them as a class not what is good for their nation. Look at the French ruling class support for the German Nazis during WW" , or the way US capitalists have move industry from the US to cheap labor economies.

[nation-x]

Here is a huge difference:

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins...214900881.html