Is "change" a good idea? Is Obama a good idea?

I'm absolutely stunned by how people will follow someone whose only project is "change".

Is "change" a good thing per se?

If things are bad, really bad, is "change" necessarily going to be for the better?

Czarist Russia was a horrible place - poverty was widespread, the society was completely static, there was virtually no social mobility and the regime was oppressive and violent.

Lenin brought "change" - for the worse, much, much worse: he murdered more people in 1 year than the Czars had killed in 200 years.

The bourgeoisie that used to represent 15% of the population was either killed or reduced to poverty while poor people were even worse off than before.

The ruling class was reduced from 5% to 1% and even most of them were not nearly as well off as the previous ruling class.

Everyone was worse off and the terror was totally blind. Anyone could become a random victim.

"Change" from a bad system had plunged them into an entirely new hell.

Unless you know exactly what change you will get, maintaining the status quo is by far the better option.

Obama said virtually nothing about his goals, but what we do know about him is abysmal:

He associated with the founder of the Communist Weathermen terrorist group who is a serial killer. He associated with an extreme hate-preacher, Wright, and gave him contributions for a total of $20'000. He accepted money from a notorious mob boss.

What kind of "change" can we expect from a man like this?

Is McCain a good choice?
No, absolutely not. He's abysmal. But he's by far the lesser evil.

Ron Paul would have been a great candidate and most likely, the Republicans would have carried the election with him.

But they'd rather lose the election than having Ron Paul as president. Why?

Because he consistently voted against every single tax increase and against every pork spending plan.

Politicians of both sides dread nothing more than such a president. He might cut them off from all their favorite pork programs.

So yes, we're stuck with a bad choice and an absolutely abysmal one - Obama.

Unfortunately, I have no choice but to recommend McCain, however grudgingly.

If things are bad enough people want change. I don't think it is ever possible to change a complex system like a whole society exactly you want it to be. But sometimes you just want something new.

As for not raising taxes being the most important issue: I kinda find it rather strange that people seem to have no problem at all to give their money to some jackass bankers in the form of mortgages or interest on credits. Money which is obviously spent on exorbitant boni and even more stupid things.
But at the same time the same people have a tremendous problem giving money to the government, which provides them with schools, streets, infrastructure, safety and much more (i'm not saying that some of the taxes are spent foolishly, but most istn't)

(i'm not saying that some of the taxes are spent foolishly, but most istn't)

What part of taxes is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan?

100% compulsory taxes are used wrongly and foolishly.

May be America needs a much bigger change than what you are looking for.

When you say people don't mind giving taxes, you generalize the people. You ignore those who Do mind their hard earned money being wasted the way it is done.

May be it is the time to end the RULE OF MAJORITY OVER MINORITY. Period
May be it is the point of time when the sovereignty of an Individual need to be safeguarded against the brutal rule of majority, it is the time when the liberty of the smallest minority, that is the Individual must be recognized and respected.

If people don't mind giving their hard earned money as taxes to be wasted by these socialist goons, why to force taxes then?
Let it be voluntary taxes, if people do like to give such useless taxes, if people like such useless bureaucratic systems totally denying freedom for the Individual citizen of a state, then let them decide to give monetary contribution according to their voluntary free-will. If people sincerely don't mind giving taxes, then they will keep giving on the charity to the server of the citizens (that is the government),
The system of compulsory taxation simple refutes your idea of people's choice of minding or not minding the taxes to be given.

I didn't say they don't mind giving taxes. In fact I wondered exactly about the contrary. I wondered why you prefer giving your money on your own free will to some idiots in banks and insurance companies, but have a huge problem giving it to the state.

And why shouldn't a majority rule over a minority? Is it better if it's vice versa? Or is it better when the bloke with the most money decides for everybody else? Or do you really think societies work better without an authority at all? If yes, please take a look at Somalia: AK47 rules. The price (and a bloody one it is) is paid by the weak: The women, the children, the poor.
So, to sum it up: There is always an individual or a group that will decide. And imho it is better when that group is as large as possible.

And finally i wonder why Americans love to refer to their country as the land of freedom, or the bewarer of freedom, sometimes even as the inventor of freedom, when in fact you feel so suppressed by your government.

By the way: I'm not looking for a change. In fact, if America wouldn't mess with the rest of the world and get back to work together with other countries (but hey, i think you'll learning the hard way right now that doing it on your own wont work any longer) as it did for a short time i couldn't care less who's going to be elected.
The way it is, i prefer a guy who at least promises to listen to others to another guy who knows the world from a soldiers point of view. But my preference is of course utterly insignificant, since i can't vote ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

I didn't say they don't mind giving taxes. In fact I wondered exactly about the contrary. I wondered why you prefer giving your money on your own free will to some idiots in banks and insurance companies, but have a huge problem giving it to the state.

And why shouldn't a majority rule over a minority? Is it better if it's vice versa? Or is it better when the bloke with the most money decides for everybody else? Or do you really think societies work better without an authority at all? If yes, please take a look at Somalia: AK47 rules. The price (and a bloody one it is) is paid by the weak: The women, the children, the poor.
So, to sum it up: There is always an individual or a group that will decide. And imho it is better when that group is as large as possible.

And finally i wonder why Americans love to refer to their country as the land of freedom, or the bewarer of freedom, sometimes even as the inventor of freedom, when in fact you feel so suppressed by your government.

By the way: I'm not looking for a change. In fact, if America wouldn't mess with the rest of the world and get back to work together with other countries (but hey, i think you'll learning the hard way right now that doing it on your own wont work any longer) as it did for a short time i couldn't care less who's going to be elected.
The way it is, i prefer a guy who at least promises to listen to others to another guy who knows the world from a soldiers point of view. But my preference is of course utterly insignificant, since i can't vote ;)

---

The only reason the USA has Alienated most of the World, is do to the actions of our current Adm.
The Reality here is in 2000 when Bill Clinton left office, we had Allies and friends around the World
In 8 years in Office our Crrent President has managed to chase away and alienate most of our allies world wide and if not for the British, we would most likely not have 1 major allie on the planet
Change here involves far more the our need for alternative energy sources, we have Major Economic Issueswhich were trigger by the current Adm. we have health icost issues, the same our current President has more failed policies then any other President in US History, the whole list of faiures is far to long to list here

Voluntary taxes would quickly lead to a country being made bankrupt as no one would pay. In the same way no one would drive under the limit if there wasn't a law against it. People still avoid taxes even though it is compulsory to pay them (and enforceable by prison if you do not) in the same way they still drive too fast. Remove that compulsory element and a lot more would choose to not do these things and that would be universal chaos.


In an ideal world, you would not need laws to tell people how to behave. Unfortunately, ideals rarely enter the real world (though I really do wish they would sometimes).

The main problem with America from an outsider's perspective is the two party system. You do not have another choice, at least not one that can get a chance in hell of being elected. Unfortunately the UK system is heading the same way as our official third party has no chance of ever being in the serious running. There are also problems in the inherent bias in the election system which seems to limit the potential candidates to middle aged to elderly rich white men. Part of this is the age limit on presidential candidacy which is something which may need to be revised at some point. The rest seems to be due to the fact that it costs a lot to run a campaign and most of the rich in America are white men.

Maybe you should all vote to change the residency limit on candicacy and allow Arnie the chance to run? :)

I agree with the above poster... the current administration has done a lot of bad things for the PR of America. The country has gone from a respected world power that could mediate things like the Middle East peace talks to one hated by the majority of Middle East countries and considered insane by some of the others. Lack of concentration on domestic issues in favour of pursuiing a war purely to bolster opinion polls has led to the decline in the economy worldwide. From what I have seen, MCain intends to continue these same policies. In this case, is maintaining the status quo a good thing? I don't think so.

At the very least you need to show that you have no support for either candidate in some way. Is it true that in the American ballot you can have 'write in' candidates? Because here that counts as a spoiled paper and so discounted. If it is allowed, that is one way to show that you do not wish to elect either candidate.

These are the changes we need as a Country, the United States

1. We need an Energy Policy that acutaly works and ends our Dependeancy on Oil

2. We need a Health Care System that not olny works but is affordable to both thosr who make over $250, 00 a year as well as for those who make under $25,00 a year

3. We need to stop ginig Tax Breaks to Major OIl Companiees who Profits exceed $40 Billoin per quarter

4. WE have to have more oversight and control over our Financial Institutions, we lend a Larger Broker like AIG Million upob Milloin to bail them out, only to find out days later that while the avoided Bankrupcy, the also spend $425,00 of a company "Retreat" or their CEO's and Executives who helped create this mess recieeeved Golden Unbella's for Retirment Packages, only our Nation can have a Major Bank or Coporation go Bankrpt then at the same time "Reward" there eexcutives with a $25 Million Dollar retirement packe after WE the Tax Payer Bailed them out


5. We need to regain the Allies we had in the Wrold that we lost do to Terrible Forien POlicies that did not work and once again become a World Leader and Not an World Alienater

6. We need to stop "Policing" thewrold and forcing our way on other Nations or Countries

7. We have to improve our Education system, set Higher Standards and Recuit more Qualified Teachers

8. Whether we like it or not, we have to sit down as you somtimes do , even with your Wnemies and Negotiate rather then just send Tropps into a Sovereign Nation, because hefelt we had to or vased on decison on "Faulty Inteligence"

9. Before we start a War we need to look at EVEY alternate even if it means negotiating things with Leaders not Troops

10. We as a Nation have to stop Rewarding the Rich, while basicly ignoring the Middle Class

11. We as a Nation have to realize understand and Accept the Fact that we live on this Planet, we do not control it our Own it (howwould you like your neighbor telling you daily how lto liveyour life ect) we need to do what is in the best Intrerest of All Americans and not just selelc few wealthiest
Asan American who earns under $25,000 a year, I should be treated the same way as that person who make over $100,000 a years I should have thesame opporunities, the same privledges ( tax breaks, afforable health care ect) as those who make over $100,000 a year and that $100,000 figure is only and example of yearly income

You can have more over sight without more control

John McCain Supports most of Bush's Poicies I view Obamamas the JFK of this centruy and Generation, no he may not be thebest choice to lead out Nation but after 8 years of falied policies in geneneral do we take achance on Obama who brings new idea ins, or do we continue down the same road we are on now with McCain??

Am I better of then 4 years ago or even 8 yearsago,... Not achance in the world

Obama may be viewed by many as not the change we need, McCain has shown we remain on the same path as we are now, I wouls rather take a chance on a new person, then go with someone who supports policies that ave not worked for this Great Nation of ours

JFK was cllled to Inexperienced and a Roman Cathlic to boot, which at that time was unthinablwe for the White House, history speaks for itself on that
And lastly forhere anyway, th Alakan Trubne Alaska version of the LA TImes, Washinton Post ect even endorsed Obamam overtheir Sister Gonernor saying "She is just tok risky to take achance on" so ewven Palins our nation newpapaer isn't backing her

And the Chicago Tribune has NEVER EVER endorsed a Democrat for President until this year when the endorsed Obamam and the Chicago Tribune si oneof the most Conservative Papers in the nation

Even Christopher Buckley (Son of the Late Columnist and know ultra conservative William F Buckely Jr) has endorsed Obama, then he resigned as Editor And Chief of the Nation Review, the Conservative "Right Wing" Publication his Father started

I'm going to use the KISS rule.


Is Obama a good idea? No.

He may not be a good idea, but McCain has supported for 7 years 95% of Bushes Failed Policies, when Bush took over was gas $over $4.00 a galon butnow closer the $2.50 NO, was oil $65-$145 a barlle, NO,
I am not saying that Obamam is theb est choice, what i am saying is Bush has us going into the ewrong direction, McCain suports most of Bush's Policy which have failed, forthis reason McCain is not a good replacment, it would be another 4 years or 12 totoal of Bush Policies this Nation can't affird 4 more eyars of Bush Policies and they will have the with McCain, and I certainly feeel more comfortable with Joe Binden as 2nd in command then i do Sara Palin, who Imight add was not even endorsed by her own newpaper, The Alaks Tribune, they said "She will be a hearbeat away from a 72 year old Prseident and she is simply to risky to support"

The Chicago Tribune has endosred only 1 Democratic it's it's long hisyoty of Publishing, the only Democratic it has even endorsed for Prseident was Barack Obama

We will all see what happens next Tuesday, and I also feel next Tuesday the American Peoiple will be passing a rsinig their voice up loud and clear that after 8 years of Bush we want a change
My guess is there are alot of House Members and sEntors up for relelction, that support Bush who will wake up Wednesday morinnig and findthey are out of a job,
Lindsey Graham, said he could very well oooseo utro n his relelcrion Bid, Mitc Connell said the the same they know voters are angry, and if Obamam does win, it is a very good possibility that Obama did NOT win, but Bush & McCain lost, plus choosing Sara Palin as a VP runnig mate may not have been McCain's best selection
let's see whathappenes next, if we madea mistake as a Union, we get t correct that mistake in 2012

Only time will tell now

Obama may not a any better then Bush has been, but we DO KNOW that McCAin will be thes ame, his voting records shows his allience to Bush & his Policies he voted for them 95% of the time

Change is always a constant in any society, organization, etc ... some are imperceptible while some are poignant.

The realisation and appreciation of evolving paradigms are the challenges, specifically for the United States -- the focus of this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Obama may not a any better then Bush has been, but we DO KNOW that McCAin will be thes ame, his voting records shows his allience to Bush & his Policies he voted for them 95% of the time

---

That is a bunch of BS.

We DON'T KNOW that McCain will be the same. His voting records that were taken, I highly doubt that was based over all of the topics and polices of Bush. Stats are taken and manipulated to be used as "the truth" and taken "true parts" but not paired up right, therefore they are lies.

Obama's campaign people are PROS at doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hopperboo

That is a bunch of BS.

We DON'T KNOW that McCain will be the same. His voting records that were taken, I highly doubt that was based over all of the topics and polices of Bush. Stats are taken and manipulated to be used as "the truth" and taken "true parts" but not paired up right, therefore they are lies.

Obama's campaign people are PROS at doing this.

---

Why is the bunch off bull, looking at McCains voting record it is public record, he has voted in support of Bush's Policies 95% of the time check his voting record that will show itself

he is only now bshing Bush (Mccian) because e us trailing in the Polls, not to mention how scary it is know Sarah Palin could end up as Pres. if McCain wins and has health issues

btw this is also public record, her own paper the Alaska Tribune Alaska's largest newapaper, on par with the size and circulation of the Chicao Tribune, Washington Post ect this last Sunday even endorsed Obama say she is to risky to take a chance on, i even posted his endorsment in the forums as amatter of record prr googe it to verify it.

Christopher Buckley the son of the Late Right Wing Columnist Willism F. Buckley Jr, Saturday also endorsed Obama, he then resigned his postion with the National Review overthe endorsement, Colin Powell endorsed Obama samereason, to may concenrs over Palins ability he father must be turinig in his grave and the Chicago Tribune one of te most conservative Papers in America endorsed Obamam, this is th first time in it's history that thery have endorsed a Democratic Nominee for President

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hopperboo

That is a bunch of BS.

We DON'T KNOW that McCain will be the same. His voting records that were taken, I highly doubt that was based over all of the topics and polices of Bush. Stats are taken and manipulated to be used as "the truth" and taken "true parts" but not paired up right, therefore they are lies.

Obama's campaign people are PROS at doing this.

---

June 13, 2008
Q: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?
The Obama campaign keeps claiming McCain has voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Is this true? Is this significant?
A: Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.
Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:

Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.


The was posted on the Annenberg potical web site, a PRO Busg web site i just goggled it it is called The Annenberg Fast Track, as Conservative think tank,
so my post is fact based on public voting record and not number manipulation record not on just what Obama is claiminig

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...oted_with.html - 15k -

more conservative who u pto thid election NEVER voted Democratic who are now

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...lly-conse.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-ad..._b_137749.html

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341

i will be hppyto post many more of these sites where conservatives republican who voted 2x for Bush will not support McCain

I have also heard that some are prediting a Political "Sunami" effect against Republicans on Nov 4th , this meaning nation wide there will be a HUGE change in Congress after the election, alot of Senators and Representatives who have served long terms that support Bush may be looking for new jobs come next wedneday morinig (Nov 5th) only time will tell on this
Among those who said they are concenred about loosing their current seats, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel ect everyone will simply have to wait see what American Voters say and do on Nov 4th, nobody real knows right now everything is purely speculation, but the American Electorate is expected to speak up loud and clear Nov 4th

You have all put out good points. But the fact is that people want change. While Obama is not the pick of the litter he was the first to speak of change. McCain tried the experience ticket, and changed to change when he saw experience was not working. Then he names a political new comer who has NO inner Beltline connections to be his VP and she is going rouge. Obama has run a good campaign and shown that he is someone who listens to people and his camapaign techniqe has imporved dramatically. ( see Wolf Blitzers interview) while McCain keeps spitting out the same old Negative Campaign slogans ect. I agree with MKEMSE, there is going to be a Massive Sunami in the House, Senate and in big business that hopefully will put this country back on track that Bush de-railed us off of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

You have all put out good points. But the fact is that people want change. While Obama is not the pick of the litter he was the first to speak of change. McCain tried the experience ticket, and changed to change when he saw experience was not working. Then he names a political new comer who has NO inner Beltline connections to be his VP and she is going rouge. Obama has run a good campaign and shown that he is someone who listens to people and his camapaign techniqe has imporved dramatically. ( see Wolf Blitzers interview) while McCain keeps spitting out the same old Negative Campaign slogans ect. I agree with MKEMSE, there is going to be a Massive Sunami in the House, Senate and in big business that hopefully will put this country back on track that Bush de-railed us off of.

---

Thank you, they did a poll the other days and alot of people felt that McCain's ads not only were too negative (and he wanted away from that at the start) he also does not seem to have covered except on occasions as to what he plans to do,where he stands on alot of issues, he has mentioned from time to time, and even if you do not care for Obama, has at the least told the American People what his plans are

Somemay agree with him other may not, but for the most part he has at least stated his potion on issues
Come Tuesday, as they said today (Sunday Nov 2,2008) the American people in general, are angry, frustrated, ect .ect and are demanding a change,

If the Democrats do end up with both a Veto & Filibuster Proof House and Senate, the Voters of this Country will have issued a CLEAR Mandate to Washington Clean Up, Straigihten Up or Losee your job in 2 years, to the New President and New Congress
Simple put With this Mandate the Voters of Thuis Country will have clearly stated "Fish or Cut Bait"

Only Tuesday will tell for sure
JFK was New, Inexperienced, Roman Catholic ect and everyone said he would never do as a President or be elected becauseo f this
American's will speak their minds loud and clear Tuesday and if mistakes are made which can happen, therewill be another Election in 2 years for the House
I might also add, and it was mentioned on TV today, that for thefirsttime in many, many years our current President is NOT out campaigining for or with ANYONE, as if all Republicans up for relelction are trying to distance themselves from him.

He realy has not even been on the road much if at all with McCain, just a intresting thought

Yes, and yes.

Any by the way, for people who don't like the idea of change and want McCain for that reason - look at Sarah Palin and ask if you'd like to change to HER if McCain, who at 71 is older than Reagan was in his first term, ran into any, um, difficulties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rachel06

Yes, and yes.

Any by the way, for people who don't like the idea of change and want McCain for that reason - look at Sarah Palin and ask if you'd like to change to HER if McCain, who at 71 is older than Reagan was in his first term, ran into any, um, difficulties.

---

I have heard some say that Palin is 1 reason they would not vote for McCain, they may have been suporting him before, but not after he choose her
There ae also some anylsists, that have said if McCain looses Tursday, don't blame Bush, blame McCain for his VP choice