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]

Originally Posted by 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?

We are a Republic with Democratic tendancies. Not a true Democracy.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

Originally Posted by Matt

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]

Originally Posted by bell110

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]

Originally Posted by 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

......?

[bell110]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

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]

Originally Posted by SupermanBeyond

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]

Originally Posted by teseract

*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

[teseract]

Originally Posted by Malice

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

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]

Originally Posted by teseract

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.

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

A republic is a state or country that is not led by an hereditary monarch,[1][2] where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people)[3] have impact on its government,[4] and that is usually indicated as a republic.[5]
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 appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organisations in 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 and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority". 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] Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.
Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient India, Europe and North and South America [2] but modern conceptions are significantly different. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[3] 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, 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]

Originally Posted by teseract

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]

Originally Posted by Arkady Rossovich

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

[Malice]

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

[Memphis Slim]

What is change????????























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

[Darkly Dexter]

Originally Posted by rdh007

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