What is CHANGE?

[Malice]

Every few elections you get the posters from election commitees for a nominee that says, "Vote for me, and you will get CHANGE."

The funny part is, all the candidates are for change, the question is, to what degree. A Democrat might want to socialize health care, a Rep may want to abolish the IRS. It doesn't matter, ALL candidates are for Change.

Noone ever got in the record books by saying "Everything is great, lets stay exactly where and how we are. We dont need to change a damn thing."

I just want you all, dont be fooled by slogans. No mater the damn slogan, they all want to CHANGE the government and the way you and I think, to what they want. Dont fall into the "ooooo...he wants change....he might be a nice candidate..."

Just remember, anything different from the status quo, IS CHANGE.

(note, this is not specifically geared towards Obama, its for all candidates, since they use the CHANGE word so easilly and its such a nice word to hear)

[November Rain]

change is a buzz word to rally up votes from those people who generally wouldn't but have not liked the way certain things has been done in the previous government.

[Matt]

I'll post my rant from last night:


The only real candidate for "change" in this election is Ron Paul and he is utterly unelectable. Not to mention, quite a bit of his change is...well..."out there" is putting it nicely.

I am honestly beginning to believe...as outrageous as it sounds...the first major political candidate to drop the F-Bomb during a debate will bring on change. I mean, like the first person to pull a Robin Williams in Man of the Year. You know why? Because then you can know that he or she is not a total drone of their party. I think a candidate who flips out during a debate, refuses to abide by the debate rules and lays it all on the table ("Our country is going down the ****ter, I'm not going to abide by these stupid rules and answer these soft ball questions...I'm just gonna tell it like it is!") and pretty much rants as to what is wrong with our country and how he or she will fix it until the other candidates become flustered and just walk off stage...I think you would see a resounding show of support from the American people for a candidate like that, because that is what they are sick of. Insider politics. Obama has proven he is not a candidate of change. He is as big of a puppet as Clinton. Skin color does not equate to change.

*end rant*

[eXperiment]

"Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful, it is threatening because things may get worse. To the hopeful, it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better."

-Albert Einstein

[The Senator]

Change doesn't happen until a leader is elected.

[SuBe]

Change is enivitable in any political race where you don't have an imcumbant. It is not surprising that it is this season's motto.

[rdh007]

Change, to me, means not going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush(Jeb)-Clinton(Chelsea)-Bush(The Twins) and then trying to call this country a democracy. Why don't we just call it a day, rename these two the Lancasters and the Yorks, and not have to worry about thinking when it comes to this office? Or, if those two aren't enough, one would have to prove bloodlines tied to a former president to qualify. Perhaps we could even have infighting and incest to decide our leaders?

[SuBe]

Change, to me, means not going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush(Jeb)-Clinton(Chelsea)-Bush(The Twins) and then trying to call this country a democracy. Why don't we just call it a day, rename these two the Lancasters and the Yorks, and not have to worry about thinking when it comes to this office? Or, if those two aren't enough, one would have to prove bloodlines tied to a former president to qualify. Perhaps we could even have infighting and incest to decide our leaders?We are a Republic with Democratic tendancies. Not a true Democracy.

[The Senator]

Change, to me, means not going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush(Jeb)-Clinton(Chelsea)-Bush(The Twins) and then trying to call this country a democracy. Why don't we just call it a day, rename these two the Lancasters and the Yorks, and not have to worry about thinking when it comes to this office? Or, if those two aren't enough, one would have to prove bloodlines tied to a former president to qualify. Perhaps we could even have infighting and incest to decide our leaders?

Our country is a Democracy. We elect thirty years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; no one else does. If the American people are so fed up with these "dynasties," then they'll vote them out of office. If not, oh well, people will just have to get over it.

[bell110]

Every few elections you get the posters from election commitees for a nominee that says, "Vote for me, and you will get CHANGE."

The funny part is, all the candidates are for change, the question is, to what degree. A Democrat might want to socialize health care, a Rep may want to abolish the IRS. It doesn't matter, ALL candidates are for Change.

Noone ever got in the record books by saying "Everything is great, lets stay exactly where and how we are. We dont need to change a damn thing."

I just want you all, dont be fooled by slogans. No mater the damn slogan, they all want to CHANGE the government and the way you and I think, to what they want. Dont fall into the "ooooo...he wants change....he might be a nice candidate..."

Just remember, anything different from the status quo, IS CHANGE.

(note, this is not specifically geared towards Obama, its for all candidates, since they use the CHANGE word so easilly and its such a nice word to hear)

I think the people who post on this board are too smart to fall for the "change" rhetoric. Unfortunately, most of America isn't, that why bush got elected twice.

The only real candidate for "change" in this election is Ron Paul and he is utterly unelectable. Not to mention, quite a bit of his change is...well..."out there" is putting it nicely.

I am honestly beginning to believe...as outrageous as it sounds...the first major political candidate to drop the F-Bomb during a debate will bring on change. I mean, like the first person to pull a Robin Williams in Man of the Year. You know why? Because then you can know that he or she is not a total drone of their party. I think a candidate who flips out during a debate, refuses to abide by the debate rules and lays it all on the table ("Our country is going down the ****ter, I'm not going to abide by these stupid rules and answer these soft ball questions...I'm just gonna tell it like it is!") and pretty much rants as to what is wrong with our country and how he or she will fix it until the other candidates become flustered and just walk off stage...I think you would see a resounding show of support from the American people for a candidate like that, because that is what they are sick of. Insider politics. Obama has proven he is not a candidate of change. He is as big of a puppet as Clinton. Skin color does not equate to change.

*end rant*

As much as I would love seeing a candidate flip out during a debate, I don't think it would sit well with average Americans. Remember Howard Dean and his "scream"? It was really nothing, but was blown out of proportion to make it seem like he was a nutcase, and "do we want a nutcase with his finger on the button"?

But, if you want someone that speaks the truth: Ron Paul. That's what first caught my attention. Not only was he one of, like, three representitives to have enough forethought to vote no to giving Bush the ok to go into Iraq, when the subject of terrorist came up, he basically said, "You want to know why they want to kill us, here's why...". But the truth hurts, he got booed, and Gulliani went on his, "I was there on 9/11, that make me a bigger patriot, and I'll never forget, so I'd be a better president" rant.

His ideas may seem out there, but I believe he is a smart man, and that his ideas, while seemingly radical, may be a good and well thought out idea.

Also, speaking of politicians flipping out, I loved when Zell Miller challenged some guy to a duel.

[The Senator]

he one of, like, three representitives to have enough forethought to vote no to giving Bush the ok to go into Iraq


Actually, Ron Paul was one of 133 representatives to vote against the war, though he was only one of six Republicans to vote against it.

[EdRyder]

I can do without the snapping.
Howard Deans 'beyahh" was mentioned.Dont forget Ted Stevens bridge to NO!where..And there was Billy Tozans "You think you love your mother more than I do?" ....Is Tozan even Itallian? wtf

[The Senator]

I can do without the snapping.
Howard Deans 'beyahh" was mentioned.Dont forget Ted Stevens bridge to NO!where..And there was Billy Tozans "You think you love your mother more than I do?" ....Is Tozan even Itallian? wtf

......?

[bell110]

Actually, Ron Paul was one of 133 representatives to vote against the war, though he was only one of six Republicans to vote against it.

You're right, my mistake :)

[teseract]

We are a Republic with Democratic tendancies. Not a true Democracy.
*sigh* A Republic and a Democracy are one and the same.

Republic from res publica (latin)= The matter of the people

Democracy from demos-kratia (greek)= A community run by all its members

Since the Romans were totally greekophile and organized their culture pretty much around greek principles, it is very obvious that the meaning of res publica and demos-kratia don't differ.

[Malice]

*sigh* A Republic and a Democracy are one and the same.

Republic from res publica (latin)= The matter of the people

Democracy from demos-kratia (greek)= A community run by all its members

Since the Romans were totally greekophile and organized their culture pretty much around greek principles, it is very obvious that the meaning of res publica and demos-kratia don't differ.

The United States is what is labeled as a "Representative Democracy"
Where the governement is run by representatives that are elected by the people. So in essence, its a government run by the people THRU the representatives.

if you want to know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, this site has a good explanation from what I have read
LINK (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html)

[teseract]

The United States is what is labeled as a "Representative Democracy"
Where the governement is run by representatives that are elected by the people. So in essence, its a government run by the people THRU the representatives.

if you want to know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, this site has a good explanation from what I have read
LINK (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html)
Then the site is simply put WRONG! There is no difference between a Republic and a Democracy, a representative Republic is the same as a representative Democracy no matter how much "language bending" our "modern times" like to do.

[Arkady Rossovich]

There is no such thing as TRUE change. Obama,Clinton,McCain..they all have to basically have some view of the people even if that's wrong. So if one really wanted to do something else,they can't. Not unless they want to lose the vote of the people. The last time there was true change was President Kennedy.

[SuBe]

Then the site is simply put WRONG! There is no difference between a Republic and a Democracy, a representative Republic is the same as a representative Democracy no matter how much "language bending" our "modern times" like to do.
:whatever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic is a state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) or country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country) that is not led by an hereditary monarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#_note-Machiavelli) where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#_note-1) have impact on its government,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#_note-2) and that is usually indicated as a republic.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#_note-3)
The detailed organization of republics' governments can vary widely. The first section of this article gives an overview of the distinctions that characterise different types of non-fictional republics. The second section of the article gives short profiles of some of the most influential republics, by way of illustration. A more comprehensive list of republics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_republics) appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organisations in political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science): in political theory and people governed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government) and also a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy). A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections). Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), freedom of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), and some degree of rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law). Civilian control of the military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military) is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship) and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
Majority rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule) is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) is more common than direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy), and minority rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_rights) are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)". Popular sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty) is common but not universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy.
No universally accepted definition of 'democracy' exists, especially with regard to the elements in a society which are required for it.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#_note-0) Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy), which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law), the right to petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition) elected officials for redress of grievances, due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process), civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties), human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights), and elements of civil society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society) outside the government. In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty) (though in practice judicial independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence) is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy).
Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), the principles are also applicable to private organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) and other groups. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece), Ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome), Ancient India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_India), Europe and North and South America [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#_note-isbn0-449-90496-2) but modern conceptions are significantly different. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#_note-1) Suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage) has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard disputed territories, areas with significant immigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration), and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.






The SupermanBeyond Definition:

Republic: A Government Run by Elected People
Democracy: Majority Rule, like in the case of 2 hungry wolves, 1 plump Sheep.

[Malice]

Then the site is simply put WRONG! There is no difference between a Republic and a Democracy, a representative Republic is the same as a representative Democracy no matter how much "language bending" our "modern times" like to do.

Unfortunately kind sir.....you are incorrect...
They are different....

granted implimentation of each may vary....but the true case of each is a little different.

[bell110]

We are a Democratic Republic.

[cyborg ninja 14]

There is no such thing as TRUE change.
The last time there was true change was President Kennedy.

:huh:

[Malice]

Change is the same each presidency...what change that happens is the key

[Memphis Slim]

What is change???????? :huh:





















http://h2otown.info/sites/default/files/images/pennies_0.JPG

It's pretty much all I'll have left after Obama taxes me to death. :csad:

[Darkly Dexter]

Change, to me, means not going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush(Jeb)-Clinton(Chelsea)-Bush(The Twins)


:woot:

[Matt]

I'll tell you what change isn't Malice...and then you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World. :csad:

[Matt]

What is change???????? :huh:

















http://h2otown.info/sites/default/files/images/pennies_0.JPG

It's pretty much all I'll have left after Obama taxes me to death. :csad:

You are not clever in the least :o

[Memphis Slim]

You are not clever in the least :o


Strange that you had to comment anyway.....:hehe:

[souvlaki]

What is change???????? :huh:


















http://h2otown.info/sites/default/files/images/pennies_0.JPG

It's pretty much all I'll have left after Obama taxes me to death. :csad:

Judging by your previous posts on here, somehow I'm doubting you are old enough to file taxes anyhow.

[Memphis Slim]

Judging by your previous posts on here, somehow I'm doubting you are old enough to file taxes anyhow.

:applaud Bravo!

[souvlaki]

Change within the context of this election means a change from the way things have been done the last eight years with George Bush in the White House. It's a different approach to the way health care is handled in the US. It's a different approach to how we are handling the war in Iraq, and foreign policy in general. A different approach to how our country spends it's money. A different approach to how our government solves our economic crisis. And whether you believe Obama or not, he also says he wants to change the partisan politics that are so prevalent in congress and the senate. Working with Republicans to get things done for the good of the nation. Whether or not you believe Obama will follow through in his desire for "change", to say it's an empty phrase, and that the way Obama wants to do things is not a change from the way things have been done the last eight years is naive. Whether or not he actually will dramatically change the landscape of American politics remains to be seen, but of all the candidates out there he seems the most likely in my opinion to do so.

[Malice]

Honestly...he is presenting it to the people as change...what he wants is something different than change...he wants a combination of Reform and Socialism

I just hate the word CHANGE now

[Gamma Ray]

"Change" is the only word B. Hussein Obama has in his arsenal.

[The Senator]

"Change" is the only word B. Hussein Obama has in his arsenal.

Gah! Not the middle name! :eek:


(runs away to avoid page-long discussion on why Gamma Ray is fear mongering)

[Arc-Light]

"Change" is the only word B. Hussein Obama has in his arsenal.

Wahhhhhh Hussein is his middle name nooooo that wont stand, having Obama was bad enough...thanks Gamma Ray you have opened my eyes i shan't vote for that man with that name.

[souvlaki]

Gah! Not the middle name! :eek:


(runs away to avoid page-long discussion on why Gamma Ray is fear mongering)

Come on, even you can not be so Hillary-biased as to see omitting his first name and using his middle name instead is not an obvious ploy to get a reaction. Seriously though, this is getting to be really lame. Who the hell cares that his middle name is Hussein other than a few right wing nut jobs? It's obvious that Gamma Ray cares enough, otherwise he would call Barack Obama "Barack Obama" like 99.9% of the rest of the world.

[bell110]

"Change" is the only word B. Hussein Obama has in his arsenal.

He's better than G. Walker Bush :o

[amazingfantasy15]

I can do without the snapping.
Howard Deans 'beyahh" was mentioned.Dont forget Ted Stevens bridge to NO!where..And there was Billy Tozans "You think you love your mother more than I do?" ....Is Tozan even Itallian? wtf

I loved the Howard Dean "beyahh" thing, pissed me off that he got destroyed by the media for it, finally someone who shows emotion and the media makes him seem like he needs to be in a nuthouse. It's the main reason why we've had George Bush for the last eight years because the democratic candidates showed no emotion, they could've been robots for all we knew, that's the big reason Clinton and Bush were elected, they connected with people. The message is always the same it's the personality that gets people elected these days.

[The Senator]

Come on, even you can not be so Hillary-biased as to see omitting his first name and using his middle name instead is not an obvious ploy to get a reaction. Seriously though, this is getting to be really lame. Who the hell cares that his middle name is Hussein other than a few right wing nut jobs? It's obvious that Gamma Ray cares enough, otherwise he would call Barack Obama "Barack Obama" like 99.9% of the rest of the world.

It's such a non-issue though. I just can't believe how cuckoo his supporters go whenever his middle name is used... but we've already had this debate :whatever:

[UltimateJustin]

Change is when something goes from one thing to another thing. Think of it as having a Pokemon that you have trained for years. Eventually due to the passing of time and the gaining of new experience/knowledge, it is necessary and natural for that Pokemon to "evolve" or change into something new. Barrack Obama is just that change for America and its his time. We CAN change. We CAN evolve. OK?

[kronos251]

Change is when something goes from one thing to another thing. Think of it as having a Pokemon that you have trained for years. Eventually due to the passing of time and the gaining of new experience/knowledge, it is necessary and natural for that Pokemon to "evolve" or change into something new. Barrack Obama is just that change for America and its his time. We CAN change. We CAN evolve. OK?
So! According to that analogy, Barack Obama's ..... a Pokemon.



I have never heard of him being compared to a Pokemon before... Milli Vanilli sure, but a Pokemon.....


That's quite something










Which one - pikachu ?

[SuBe]

Where do I sign up for a Poke Ball?

[YsoSerious]

Actually george Bush gave us change.:csad:

[SuBe]

Actually george Bush gave us change.:csad:
DANG it! Screwed again...:csad:

[The Senator]

Change is when something goes from one thing to another thing.

Like when a train goes from Washington to Philly? :huh:


Think of it as having a Pokemon that you have trained for years.

If people who like Pokemon are supporting Barack Obama, I want nothing to do with him. Support American animation, dammit!

[Genesis 1.0]

Like when a train goes from Washington to Philly? :huh:



If people who like Pokemon are supporting Barack Obama, I want nothing to do with him. Support American animation, dammit!

Blasphemy!

*Makes the sign against Evil*

[kronos251]

Just thought this thread should be brought up again, now that Barack Obama is president.

I'll be looking forward to what he'll do in the next 4 years, if ever this 'change' will be realized.

[danoyse]

Just as long as no one starts with the Pokemon comparisons again.

[The Senator]

This thread is home to some of my favorite banned posters... :heart:

[Backdrifter]

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc31/brendeng7/South-Park-tv-b77.jpg

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Change is a third Clinton term.

And you know what? That sounds like heaven to me after 8 years of hell.

I still think Obama will run things differently, but since people keep hitting him with 'getting Clinton isn't change?!", The above is my response to that.

[The Senator]

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc31/brendeng7/South-Park-tv-b77.jpg

I'm glad we waited nine months for that.


:dry:

[a cupcake mess]

I'll be happy he's in charge as long as Hillary's on board.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You should wait and see the part where he gets drunk and calls his boss a dick.

Clearly, to him that's what Change means. Being able to tell your boss off.

[Backdrifter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBqiee2RM60

[Matt]

According to Barack Obama...Change is appointing party insiders to various posts instead of the best candidate for the job.

[Excel]

Maybe Obama thinks Hillary is more qualified?

[Backdrifter]

You mean he was just playing the political game the WHOLE time?

Well, gull darn. He sure had me fooled!

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think Hilliary is qualified.

Yeah, right...like I'm the only one who thinks so.

[Matt]

She is just barely qualified. Qualified, yes? But no one can really argue that her resume for the job is anything but paper thin. Especially when in the light of candidates like Bill Richardson and John Kerry

[Backdrifter]

Just curious. What makes a person qualified to be Secretary of State?

[Matt]

Oh lord, I'm not getting into this discussion. I've had far too many like this over whether Obama is qualified to hold the presidency, and in the end, no matter how much objective criteria for judgement of experience and qualifications is put out there...certain posters (not saying you backdrifter, but certain posters) will just brush it off and say something along the lines of "Well ______ has good judgement!" or "_______ can inspire people and thats more important!"

If you really want to see the difference, read an article on Bill Richardson's vast accomplishments and compare it to one on Hillary Clinton and you will see the difference.