What is this country coming to?

hrdman2luv · 07-04-08, 01:33 AM

It seems that for as long as I can remember elections, presidents and the two party system, nothing has really changed.

I have seem the two parties battling out on TV, radio and now the internet for what? To get control of the entire government to not only make things worse, but to do it in the name of things like religion, democracy and morality. What do we really get from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Has any party ever really brought us the prosperity we all work so hard for? The prosperity that our mother and father worked for?

Every two years, all we really get is a reason to vote for the other party. There is no need to go into the actual details of every adminstrations or congressional failures. We can all see them, feel them, and touch them at every turn. And in this election cycle, there isn't any difference than the last. No real change is being made. Only large campaign contributions. New fangled ways of making people believe in a candidate. And a steadly declining economy.

For example, I will use Obama's own words to show how he can make people believe something, without even saying it.
Take from his website: Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

In that one paragraph, it states that he will "remove our troops from Iraq". Then ending with "keeping troops in Iraq". Am I missing something here, or is this not the greatest mind game ever play on ones thought process?

And the only difference between McCain's and Obama's is just the way their rhetoric is spelled out. Neither one is actually planning on anything different than we already are against. They just won't commit to any real changes that Americans are begging for.

And when we get someone like Kusinich, Paul or Perot,who proposed real changes, they are banished from the political arena for being too "radical".

I, for one, don't see a complete withdrawl from Iraq as radical. I see staying in Iraq as being radical. Abolishing the income tax isn't radical. Making our employers act as IRS agents while funding an over bloated government who can't control it's spending is radical. Spying on Americans (both young and old) is radical. Taking people's guns and forcing them out of their homes (Katrina) is radical.
And supporting either side that supports these things is radical. Though it's portrayed as being "pro-american" to stand by a government thats doing these things to it's own people.

Our 2 party system is not only keeping this country divided. But it's keeping our consentration on things other than what's important. Like Liberty, prosperity and our moral "high ground" in the global community.

A third party may not be the answers we all seek. But, given that we know "nothing" is going to change within the 2 party system, I would say it's very well worth the shot.

Sergeant Stinger1 · 07-04-08, 02:17 AM

Its too long to read with that blue letters. Tell me what it says.

Summerwind · 07-04-08, 10:51 AM

Yeah, blue on blue kinda sucks, I've never understood some who need to fuss with the fonts, just makes them seem . . . fussy.

mikhail · 07-04-08, 12:26 PM

If you look at both Mccain and Obama the are both saying alot of things they dont really mean Obama is pretending to be less liberal than he is and Mccain is pretending to be more consevative than he is.

the things for many people pretending is good enough they just arent really listening its background noise they just get the odd word that makes them nod.

Dont underestimate the ignorance of some people a few months a spoke to some guy in a bar (in the UK) who didnt realise tony blair wasnt prime minister bout 7 or so months after he left.

If you want better leadership maybe there should be less encouragement of people to vote.

the makeout hobo · 07-04-08, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

It seems that for as long as I can remember elections, presidents and the two party system, nothing has really changed.

I have seem the two parties battling out on TV, radio and now the internet for what? To get control of the entire government to not only make things worse, but to do it in the name of things like religion, democracy and morality. What do we really get from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Has any party ever really brought us the prosperity we all work so hard for? The prosperity that our mother and father worked for?

Every two years, all we really get is a reason to vote for the other party. There is no need to go into the actual details of every adminstrations or congressional failures. We can all see them, feel them, and touch them at every turn. And in this election cycle, there isn't any difference than the last. No real change is being made. Only large campaign contributions. New fangled ways of making people believe in a candidate. And a steadly declining economy.

For example, I will use Obama's own words to show how he can make people believe something, without even saying it.
Take from his website: Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

In that one paragraph, it states that he will "remove our troops from Iraq". Then ending with "keeping troops in Iraq". Am I missing something here, or is this not the greatest mind game ever play on ones thought process?

And the only difference between McCain's and Obama's is just the way their rhetoric is spelled out. Neither one is actually planning on anything different than we already are against. They just won't commit to any real changes that Americans are begging for.

And when we get someone like Kusinich, Paul or Perot,who proposed real changes, they are banished from the political arena for being too "radical".

I, for one, don't see a complete withdrawl from Iraq as radical. I see staying in Iraq as being radical. Abolishing the income tax isn't radical. Making our employers act as IRS agents while funding an over bloated government who can't control it's spending is radical. Spying on Americans (both young and old) is radical. Taking people's guns and forcing them out of their homes (Katrina) is radical.
And supporting either side that supports these things is radical. Though it's portrayed as being "pro-american" to stand by a government thats doing these things to it's own people.

Our 2 party system is not only keeping this country divided. But it's keeping our consentration on things other than what's important. Like Liberty, prosperity and our moral "high ground" in the global community.

A third party may not be the answers we all seek. But, given that we know "nothing" is going to change within the 2 party system, I would say it's very well worth the shot.

Very well, lets elect Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, then. Its very well worth the shot, right?