Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Obama's "New World Order" is based on hope, change, & collaboration. Why are Bush conservatives so uneasy?

After reading what Obama wants for the US and its new "role"--I suspect that Obama wants to transform America's image from a militaristic--imperialistic--gambit to a more productive partnership; where the nations of the world can grow and benefit from this nation's new leadership.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599188951200

So why do Bush conservatives feel so threatened and uneasy about the whole idea?

They claim that Obama wants to change the US into a Marxist, "nanny-state"--but given what I've read online--I don't see any *hint* of that ever happening.

There's no proof or evidence that Obama is turning into a socialist either--not from the way he is behaving.

The man is leading by EXAMPLE and getting kudos from every corner of the globe. He is proving himself to be a capable leader--despite his gaffes and common mistakes.

Obama is showing the world why he was elected President of the United States.

What's so threatening about that?

Bush never had that kind of quality or leadership capability. He was arrogant, ignorant, and often belittled or threatened our own allies into submission.

He showed the world just how little he thought of them--believing in a "one-nation" hemogeny that was built up out of a Cold War wet dream of military might and supremacy.

He never showed one ounce of humility or humanity--for that matter.

Bush was simply one of the "old" Republicans whom dreamed of past victories and glories not fit for the new millenium.

So what is left for the Old Guard Republican Party and their supporters--whom are still entrenched in past ideals and fixations that don't hold sway in this new 21st century?

What can they do to derail Obama's successes abroad as our President? How can they prove that they are better than him?

Update:

Wow. I guess some posters can't answer the question without falling into the same old "Chicken Little"-mentality.

When did *change* become the new definition of "slavery" anyways?

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    First off, I reject that Bush was ever president. He made have held the office, but it's apparent to anyone with their eyes and ears open, Cheney was the commander in chief.

    The politics of the GOP are hopefully dead. As much as they themselves say we are a global society, they still want to be protectionists along with being capitalists. The sad part, they only want to protect those with real wealth, not the rest of us and that is exactly what is being exposed about their party. We need a global effort of cooperation and since the republicans in general can't see past their own capitalistic views no matter how flawed, tough for them. Things are changing better for the masses, how can you expect republicans to accept that fact?

    Their beloved free market system has been bastardized by taxpayers dollars and their ideas are old and stale...and they can't stand being the minority party.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    What is a "Bush Conservative"? That's an oxymoron.

    There was nothing at all conservative about the Bush administration.

    And if you hate Bush so much, and love Obama so much, maybe the questions you SHOULD be asking are...

    Why is Obama continuing to carry out (and even accelerate) all of the Bush administration (CFR) policies?

    Why will there still be 50,000 troops in Iraq in 2012? Why are the ones who thought they would be coming home going to be shipped off to Afghanistan instead?

    Why did Gates remain? Why are CIA "renditions" (abductions) and torture still A-OK?

    Why is Obama protecting the Bush administration from investigation and indictment?

    Why does the Council on Foreign Relations hold so much influence within BOTH political parties?

    Why are the Clinton and Bush families so deeply intertwined? I.E. Bill Clinton trafficked drugs for Daddy Bush when he was CIA director. Look it up.

    Why are so many figures from the Clinton administration resurfacing in Obama's cabinet?

    Why was Tim Geithner appointed as Sec of Treasury? If Obama is so upset by the misuse of the TARP funds (from the "bailout bill" that he fought for, and voted for, back in October) that Geithner mostly oversaw the distribution of (as president of the NY Federal Reserve), then why appoint and endorse Geithner?

    WHY DOES THE FEDERAL RESERVE REFUSE TO TELL CONGRESS WHERE 2.2 TRILLION DOLLARS WENT?

    Can't you see what's going on? The only thing that "CHANGED" was the RHETORIC.

    The DUDE is right.

    BUSH AND OBAMA ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME INTERESTS.

    Globalists, and Central Bankers, secretly (or, not so secretly) run our entire government. BOTH PARTIES!!!

    WAKE UP!!!!

    Source(s): EDIT: btw, you're right. It's not socialism. Technically, it's fascism.
  • DAR
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I'm not a Bush conservative, I wrote in Ron Paul. I'm for a noninterventionist foreign policy, and certainly not arrogant. However, the individual can best exert pressure on the most local possible level and the further government decisions are removed, even to the national, much less global level, the less say an individual has. That is why our Constitution limits what the federal government can do and does not in any manner authorize global delegation of power.

    And working for the IMF to call global drawing rights off of OUR central bank is absolutely slavery.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20...

  • 1 decade ago

    "Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves."

    Marcuse, Herbert

    The greatest tragedy we face here as a nation is that there are still so many of you that still cannot recognize that Bush, Obama, Democrat, Republican, are all ornaments on the same tree. In a football game both teams have contrasting styles and a different base of fans. Both teams are trying to win, in this case election, and employ standard rallying the mob tactics to get support for its players. When the game is over, the winning team celebrates, the fans go home, and most importantly, the league gets to cash in on the spectacle. The US system of representation is a farse. The owners are and have been the same for nearly the last 100 years...they are the people who manufacture and control our currency and their elite corporate allies.

    Now this is no conspiracy theory, it is a documented fact and reality. My opinion is that I do not sponsor any Government that agrees to give up its economic and national sovereignty to a collection of Big Banks and multi-national corporations. Obama is now the face of this movement that has been blackmailing, racketeering, and monopolizing our nation. Everything has been set up for this multi-ethnic guy to come in with his rhetoric and sweep the masses into a frenzy while we abandon everything the founding fathers fought for in the first place.

    Think about it, both candidates McCain and Obama have been under the banner of the globalist, free trade, open border agenda. Everything that is destroying America. Now you may think this is the future and old ideas of protectionism are dead. I beg to differ and here is why.

    For as long as there has been nation states that engage in trade, they have all realized that protectionist measures are needed when confronted by bigger and greater industrialized nations. Without these measures, the local market gets dumped with goods made by the greater power and leads the currency of that importing nation to take a dive as it moves greater and greater into fiscal trade deficits. We are now the importing country. No great economic nation has ever remained great when it imported more than it exported and had a ballooning trade debt. None.

    What has America gotten from this 'free' trade philosophy? A nation of consumers addicted to cheap foreign goods lead by 'representatives' addicted to the printing press of a fiat currency they do not even control. The US is now a net importer of food. Our top selling car is a Toyota.

    Protectionism is what kept young America afloat when Britain was trying to make up for its loss of the colonies by dumping its goods on us. Protectionism is what keeps Japan, France, Germany, and every other industrial nation keep its workers working. Even China is protectionist and imposes tariffs on imports, and they are the ones with over a trillion in dollar reserves. Protectionism is what is going to keep Americans working and economically sovereign.

    Borrowing money and inflating the money supply is only going to bring our sovereignty down faster. You may think this is a good thing. Why do we need countries. We can all have a global economy where we all compete with each other in harmony. Wake up please. If you and I get squeezed by the corporate elites now in the closed system you think we are in, how do you expect we will do when we have to compete with every third world worker in a completely global system. Guess who will profit today while selling you your hope for tomorrow: the same scum who are pillaging our livelyhoods now.

    Taking us from a feudal system with one lord to a global system with many is not exactly the change people should appreciate. It is exactly what they are going to get. The hope that people have in thinking they one day will become the lords themselves is what has kept generations enslaved.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Oh, wow, I just slipped into the twilight zone. Bush Conservatives? LOL! You honestly think trashing our sovereignty in the name of security is just dandy, don't you? Bush was pushing the NWO agenda just as hard as Obummer, homie. True Conservatives did NOT like Bush. I only figured out two years ago what was REALLY going on in Washington, and then I realized it was world-wide. I have friends all over the world. You ought to see what Paris looks like, and then come back and tell me how nice it'll be when the US is standing in France's shoes. I have a British friend who refer to his own countrymen as "Dead from the neck up." and a former British Special Forces operator who left Great Britain the moment his service was up, only to come to the Land of Liberty and find out that it was happening here, too. Nice, huh? I'm sure his wife would thank you for that, she just got the surgery done that she waited a year for in England, because she wasn't "in immediate need". Good job, way to stick up for your country...just stick up for the president and f--- the country, huh?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I have a newsflash for you

    bush & obama were/are under the control of the same special interest (bankers & military industrial complex)

    the people, in THEIR view, are meaningless

    the republican and democratic parties are now two cheeks of the same buttocks...so they're full of crap

  • 1 decade ago

    You see folks, this is what happens when the Pro-Collectivists realize that their ideology is losing ground, and that simply calling us anti-collectivists "crazy" isn't working anymore. They reverse gears, and try a new strategy.

    What Sky is attempting to do here is link the LIBERTY MOVEMENT (anti-NWO movement) with Bush and the Neo Conservatives. What he fails to mention and is probably fully aware of is that the Liberty Movement spoke out against Bush just as much as they spoke out against Obama. We have NO AFFILIATION WITH ANY MAJOR PARTY. In fact, many of us, including myself, were Democrats before we realized that both parties are controlled by the same Globalist Interests.

    The plan for the NWO has been around since at least the beginning of the 1900's, starting with the formation of the private Federal Reserve in 1913. Long before Obama. And people like us have been fighting it every step of the way.

    Why? Because centralization of power into the hands of only a few men who are unelected and unaccountable is what they call FASCISM!

    Maybe you've heard of it, Sky. As I write this the G20 has announced Global control of all freemarkets by the IMF. Soon, this will morph into regulation of law by the UN. They are admitting this openly.

    Obama lies every time he opens his mouth. Just check every single one of his campaign promises against what he has actually done, including filling his administration with Lobbyists, which he claimed to despise during his campaign.

    Just to let you know sky, the NWO isn't going to happen, so don't get your hopes up. I won't allow it, and there are millions out there like me. We demand a free and sovereign nation, and we will fight and die to keep it. There will be no collectivist society, certainly not a NWO.

    "The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

    - Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, quote from “Tragedy and Hope”, 1966

    "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." --Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama's Foreign Policy Adviser)

  • babbie
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    "World Order" is a phrase that means all nations under one umbrella. That's what it has always meant, that's what it will always mean. That's the definition of "World Order". It's the first buzz word to proceed an attempt at global tion.

    It's sad that in an age of mass communication, there are still people as naive as you. God help you.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well done....gave you a star bub.

    The hard line "Right" fear any change to government that will clip their ability to gouge others & limit obscene profits .

    Been around a while & it is the 1st time I can recall a presidend calling

    for "change " to break the culture of greed that has gottemn us where we are.

    Ike came close when he warned us "to beware the military industrial complex".

    Gone way beyond that.

    Obama has come right out & said it.

    Not a diehard Dem, but I think BHO is showing some stones to go after the corporate giants that have been mugging us for a long time .

    This guy has brains & a sense of history to boot.

    Have high hopes.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This is totally amazing the same crowd who labeled the "tin foil group" and "conspiracy theorists" now comes out in open support of the NWO

    who would have guessed?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.