Here’s the thing. A CHANGE of the policies of the current adminstration is, oddly enough, a CHANGE.
Weird how that works out.
I’m just curious as to why you think CHANGING policies, including the ones I’ve mentioned and a myriad of other ones, is not CHANGE. Seems a tad bit… confusing… to me.
OK so Obama is doing all the work for his campaign, right? And McCain too…lol. Such crap. It takes many hundreds/thousands of people to do a lot of work and spend alot of money to get a candidate elected. Out of all those people and all that money everyone is benevolent and doing all this out of the goodness of their hearts…I wasn’t born yesterday.
Well sure… they are a change to the current administration… but change for the sake of change isn’t comforting… there is ALOT I don’t agree with in the current administration… but in my day to day life, believe it or not, I have been more successful and prosperous under this administration… so in order to give some of that comfort (in terms of my family’s success and well being), I’m going to have to see some real new ideas and proposals instead of the same stuff in a new wrapper…
Oh… now I see… You want the democratic nominee for President to be … not a democrat. Then you might really, seriously, I mean it this time, maybe vote for him.
I really can’t argue with that.
Well if the Democratic nominee bounces around on the theme of “Change!” and “I am different!” and tries to evoke comparison to MLK and JFK… he oughta be… ya know… different and present change… not just the same shit I didn’t believe in four years ago…
Like I said, by CHANGE you didn’t mean an actual CHANGES in policies, how things are done, and in campaigning, you actually meant a different change, a change to make him more Republican.
Like I said, I can’t argue with that.
Dude, that doesn’t even apply.
Well, conservatism really does seem to have come down to that, hasn’t it? “We’ve fucked up this country and a couple of others during the past seven years, and we have no ideas but to double down on what we’ve been doing during that time. But if we can continue to piss off the liberals, it’s all good.”
You know, if this were a reality show, there would be nothing wrong with that attitude: it would be great entertainment. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who’ve died to entertain you.
So fuck you with a hot poker in every orifice you’ve already got, plus a few we’d be delighted to create.
<scans posts> Nope, can’t find where I ever said that… thanks for misquoting, misinterpreting or being disingenuous.
I am saying is that what the Democratic nominee is offering is not what he is selling. He is Kerry '08. That’s not exactly what I would call different.
Where have you got that from? I haven’t disagreed with you at all so far in this thread. I’m simply asking how it is that you can understand the positions of those behind Obama fully, know they exist, the extent of their control over him and in comparison to McCain, and further the method behind their plans, without knowing who they are?
I make no claims whatsoever that politics is all goodness and light. Quite the contrary; we’re in agreement that a campaign requires considerable work behind the scenes, many hundreds and thousands of people, and i’m certain that many if not most of them are cynical bastards. I’m simply asking how it is you’re able to have considerably knowledge without actually knowing the people concerned - I don’t see how you can tell, and it’s certainly an ability i’d like to add to my arsenal.
Not even close. I’m trying to get you to understand that the word, CHANGE means… and try to stay with me here… CHANGE. CHANGE from the current administration’s policies, how it does business and campaigning. YOU want to pretend the word CHANGE only means CHANGE (from the other democrats who I would never vote for).
There seems to be a simple way to sort out this problem to me - you’re both going on whether Obama will keep the “change” he promises, while you both have different ideas of that change. Surely either of you can find a cite from the guy himself that says what that change entails? I’m guessing he doesn’t just randomly shout “change!” in the middle of speeches, though that would be fun. Does he promise change in terms of Democratic history, or change in terms from the current administration?
Stay with me here… cuz if what you are saying is true, then for EVERY election the non-incumbent offers CHANGE… Kerry was CHANGE in '04… Gore was CHANGE in '00… W was CHANGE in '96… etc., etc.
That’s NOT what Obama is selling in this election… he is selling a TOTALLY different kind of politics and thinking… he is selling that he is not a Washington good ol’ boy… he is selling that he has some real new ideas for the vision of America… he is selling himself as a change to the politics that Americans are sick of…
What he is offering is NOT that… what he is offering is a change to the current administration with the same tired bullshit that the Democratic party has been selling for years…
Sorry… no matter how you try to spin it… thats not change… there is nothing new about the Democratic nominee. It’s the same ol’, same ol’. At least, I’m not Bush.
Ah fuck it… I knew that didn’t look right… replace
with
W was CHANGE in '00… Dole was CHANGE in '96
Umm I don’t find the death of hundreds of thousands of anything to be entertaining, dickhead. And leave it to a liberal democrat to threathen someone with violence.
It’s an educated-guess.
Rather than actually, you know, shoot them?
Look, candidates are going to be one-liners for ever and ever. It’s the nature of
privately funded politics and the 24-hour news cycle.
Bush: “No new taxes”
Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
GWB, the first time: “I’ll overturn Roe v. Wade”
GWB, the second time: “I’ll protect 'merica from the terrorists”, “that guy’s a flip-flopper”, etc.
Obama: “Change!”
McCain: “Hanoi!”
You know, now that I look at that list, it occurs to me that there’s only one candidate in that list who actually delivered on the focus of his campaign message.
Well, that’s a relief. Now kindly stop talking about this election as if it’s about talking points and shit.
“Help, help, I’m being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!”
Back here in the real world, “Fuck you” is not generally construed as a threat to fuck someone. Sorry to piss all over your victim card, but.
No, the weapon inspection teams would have sufficed, however, after being told by the US intelligence where Saddam was hidding WMDs they found large stockpiles of diddly-squat. At that point, someone with the critical thinking capabilities of a cambric jellyfish should have stoped for a second to reevaluate the quality of the intelligence available.
Then of course you have the whole “fixing the facts around the policy” thing.
Well, you’ve managed to get quite a huge amount of information for a guess, and you certainly didn’t seem to be stating it in possible terms before. What education would you say is necessary to be able to make such a detailed guess with such certainty?