In the United States presidential election, two political parties attempt to gain the top executive seat in the White House.
Among them, are several presidential candidates that promise "change." The repercussion of the September 11th attacks, the simultaneous occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the recessive condition of the American economy are among many topics candidates discuss. As if their answers will solve all dilemmas.
So who will the next president be? Will it be McCain? Or perhaps, the next Commander-and- Chief will be Clinton or Obama, the First Woman or African-American to be president? That is a change; at least it appears to be.
All candidates mentioned above have thrown the six-letter word around as if it is a new phenomenon. In fact, it is the centerpiece of most presidential campaigns in American history.
Change… Doesn't that word foster a warm, fuzzy feeling inside?
Let's embark upon "change" for a moment…
The happy days are near! Everyone will have money to spend; the unemployment rate will drop; war will be a thing of the past, and human rights violations will be nonexistent, at least not illuminated by the headlights of the American media machine.
Change encompasses optimistic imagery and acts as the sleeping pill necessary to stimulate the proverbial "American Dream," which may seem more attainable than before.
However, it is time to wake up. Hard facts are alarms clocks.
Since 1980, a Bush or Clinton has held an executive seat in the White House with another possible four years ahead. Does this embody or represent "change?" A position trade-off is a change of face, but not a change in underlying political ideologies.
Over a quarter of a century of executive leadership has been in the hands of only two families. Good ol' American democracy. You can't beat it.
Noticeably, Republicans invade countries while Democrats persuade Americans by obtaining fiscal equilibrium and projecting an illusion of world peace. Check it out for yourself.
Obama praised Regan's economic policies of the 80's and boldly admitted to having genetic ties with Vice-President Dick Cheany, while the Clintons secretly push for the legacy of NAFTA.
Senator McCain said that he would maintain the Iraqi war for another 100 years to obtain an undeterminable victory.
I agree with the political candidates; we need change. Change from within.
Eh, a few corrections:
From 1980 to 1988, Bush Sr was a Vice President. One can't realistically suggest that then Vice President Bush was the real leader of the country, ignoring President Reagan.
While, since 1988, A president has been a Bush or a Clinton, one can hardly suggest that the two of them were alike. As for the upcoming election, 2/3rds of the candidates from the 2 major parties are NOT a Bush or a Clinton. So the idea breaks down on the hind end of the comparison as well as the beginning of the comparison.
No, not really. I don't think that anyone could suggest that Carter, a Democrat, achieved equilibrium. Under him we had "Stagflation" as well as a gas shortage. Under clinton we DID have a balanced budget, but it was done despite Clinton, who was big on "Tax and spend" . . . it was the Republican congress that balanced the budget and created the surplus . . . both of which Clinton just took credit for. (and the media had no problem giving him credit.)
As for Republicans being warlike, Republicans have not STARTED a war. Yes, this includes BOTH Iraq Wars and even that in Afghanistan. In both Iraq Wars, we spent YEARS through the UN trying to get Saddam to play by the UNs rules. In Afghanistan, they were ruled by those that were behind 9/11 (Unless you happen to believe it was done by the Jews, or that Bush knew about it and it was a "Fire can't burn steel" inside job)
Carter had the Iranians take prisoners and botched the rescue, Clinton had multple embassy bombings take place and even a bombing of the USS Cole. He did nothing.
Do not confuse the inability to fight with being peaceful. Do not confuse the ability to fight with being warlike.
No, he really didn't. What he DID say was that we would have a presence there for as long as it takes to make the area fully stable. We're hoping for Iraq to be our presence there, so as to keep order in the Middle East and also stand as a base of operations if we need to fight in surrounding countries. What he described is akin to what we have in Germany and Japan. How long has world war 2 been over? We're still there.
This '100 years' has been twisted by the Democrats (Not suprisingly, they have no problem doing that, and have a long history of it) into what you suggest.
We do agree that we need change. This country needs to embrace personal responsibility, seek independence (as dependence upon the government is slavery) and move to the Right.
Let's be clear that it has been twisted by the uninformed Democrats, or the Democrats incapable of critical thinking, or by the the Democrats who wish to exploit the failings of the aforementioned groups. Let's also be very clear that they do not make up the entire Democratic party.
The same kind of people exist in the Republican party, and I think you would be unlikely to stand by and take a blanket statement about "The Republicans" without protest.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Well, it is being twisted by Hillary and Obama, the two Democrats that are up for the nomination for the Democrat Party, as well as by Howard Dean, the head of the Democrat Party.
While many of us common folk, many of whom are Democrat, may not make such a twisting of words, it is not out of place to suggest that the DNC does, as their two main reps and their leader do.
The question is, do you really want to be a part of a party that does what the DNC does? Between the racism, sexism and waffling of the DNC's major candidates, I don't understand why someone would want to be affiliated with them.
Good Point!
I can say that Bush has allowed most republicans ( and some dems ) do as they please. How many vetos did bush commit in the first six years?
But If a congressman or woman does not play politics well with a respective party (especially the Bush Rupublicans), the congressional member is ousted. Do you remember Cheny's fallacious comment, " You are with us or against us"?
We're hoping for Iraq to be our presence there, so as to keep order in the Middle East and also stand as a base of operations if we need to fight in surrounding countries. What he described is akin to what we have in Germany and Japan. How long has world war 2 been over? We're still there.
--Are you suggesting that the culture of today's Middle Eastern countries is comparable to that of western entities at the close of World War II?
--What do you know (that I don't) that suggests occupation of Arabs and Persians provides peace and stability?
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I am suggesting that many countries in the region have called for our deaths and for the deaths of Israel, our good ally. Having a military presence in the area can give us the ability to more quickly and more effectively respond to such threats, especially when there are attacks. We still have bases in Germany, Vietnam, Japan, etc. Having a presence in the middle east can provide an extra layer of security for us and our allies.
What do you know (that I don't) that suggests that we have occupied the Arabs and Persians? We've gone into two countries, removed oppresive tyrants who wanted (and helped to coordinate and/or fund) terrorist actions against us and our allies (as well as tortured and killed many in their respective countries), then helped the people to set up their own government, not asking for anything but friendship in return.
We have not 'stolen oil' or 'set up puppet governments' or occupied any of that land. We have not engaged in imperialism, making either country a part of the united states. In fact, if one wanted to make an argument against the war, it should be that we are fighting for something that we're not even keeping!
If we are the evil imperialistic occupiers, we're doing a horrible job... we're not even stealing oil!
I am glad that you decided to critically read my blog entry. I will repond to your "corrections" in the order as it is presented.
First off: yes, Bush Sr. was only a vice-president from 1980-1988. Is the Vice- President not part of the executive branch? Just a question. I did not imply anything. I specifically stated an executive seat- nothing more, nothing less. I am not going to even entertain the notion of ignoring Regan.
Secondly, the ex-presidents both Democrat and Republican are alike in the sense that they are pro-imperialist, allowing corporations to take land and resources that is not theirs, amid collecting non-competitive government contracts. Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job or not, thousands of people died and We, the United States, have gained resources and strategic land.
Carter did project an image of peace even though his gas policies were not as sound as others, more than likely due to the Iranian Revolution. I guess it can be spun any way. It seems that you harbor the Carter conspiracy theory. I, on the other hand, just look at the facts. What do we know? We know that by the time Regan took office, the hostages were released. And we know now that Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, is actively campaining for peace.
Let's face it, how many wars have democrats declared since 1980? How many wars have Republicans declared (since 1980)? I can think of four off of the top of my head. I stated that Dems project the image of peace, PROJECT. It does not mean that they are peaceful. We do know that we were invloved in at least a couple of "peace-keeping" operations. I know, I was in one of them.
We all know that war has evolved since the 40's (WWII). Conventional armies that stand against us are few, and rebel armies are on the rise. Needless to say, we are adjusting to that. But we should examine the word stable. Stable for who?
This country needs to embrace and promote, embrace independence, denounce imperialism, and promote humanity.
Thank you for your knowledge and your response!
Yeah, but the statement you made was that we've been under a clinton or bush rule since 1980. The VP doesn't have nearly the power that one might suggest if they were to make a statement as you did. I would agree that power has been in the hands of a Clinton or Bush since 1988 (Technically January of 1989), but even then, REAL power in this country is in Congress, for they draft legislation and, with sufficient numbers, can even override a Presidential Veto.
Our country's government was designed to keep power away from one person.
If we are pro-imperialist, what land have we conquored and made a part of the united states? (which is what imperialism is, to take land from others and make it your country's land.) Seems to me in all the wars we've fought (both gulf wars, bosnia, afghansitan, etc), we've never actually taken any land (or payment at all) from any of the countries. That kind of makes us ANTI-Imperialistic. As for corporations that 'take land and resources that is not theirs", I'd have to know what you are talking about, so you'd have to provide examples.
All I can think you are talking about is either companies like Coke or GM that build plants in other countries, in which case the deals are worked out with those countries (in other words, we're not involved, so how can it be our government's fault?) or you're talking about private companies that support the US and Iraqi military over in Iraq (which is, again, a deal worked out with the Iraqi government and, again, not taking of any land, but providing services in the area at less of an expense than having a military do it.)
And yes, 9/11 did kill thousands, but there should be no 'maybe' involved. It was not an inside job. Once again, I'd like to know what land we gained post 9/11.
Yeah.... no. Carter wanted to project an image of peace, but when one side declares war and the other side says PEACE! it accomplishes nothing. Gas issues under Carter had nothing to do with the Iranian revolution. He set a 'price cap' for gas that only served to lower supply and cause great lines and shortages.
As for his 'peace efforts,' they are useless. He is an utter failure. It is no Conspiracy theory (and it is suprising that you would consider it such, given that you suggest that 9/11 'maybe' was an inside job). He tries to negotiate peace by condeming Israel and cozying up to terrorists and their supporters (who even THEY say that Carter is useless). That's not peace, that's sideing with Israel (and by extenion, OUR) enemy.
Well, I can only think of one war declared by republicans since 1980. That'd be the War on Terror, which was a response to decades of terrorist attacks by islamic terrorists, culminating in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in new york city. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are part of that War on Terror.
The first Persian Gulf war was not of the US design, but of the UN design. That's why we stopped when we reached baghdad and didn't take out saddam then.
President Clinton had our military bomb a yugo factor and a tylenol factory in a few countries, as well as having our military fight in Bosnia, then also launched missiles against Saddam. One could say that Clinton was more warlike than any Republican.
Remember, projecting "I don't want to fight!" is not projecting peace, but projecting weakness. Peace is being ABLE to fight, destroy and win.... but choosing not to. It isn't peace for the unequipped to not fight..... it is peace for the WELL equipped to not fight.
However, even then, peace is not always a virtue. Fighting oppression and tyranny (like Saddam's murdering of 100,000 Kurds, and YEARS of torture and death to people, for amusement, by him and his inner circle) is much more honorable and good than just sitting back and doing nothing in order to 'maintain the peace.'
Peace even if having to bury our head in the sand is not a virtue and War for the sake of defending the innocent is not a vice.
I agree, which is why (if you really feel that way) you should shrug off the anti-war stance and embrace the war on terror, which is to free the oppressed and fight those who would, by force and fear, spread their influence around the world and take freedom away from every man, woman and child.