Yes, it’s that season again...
No, not hunting season... not anti-Muslim/fear mongering terroristic event season again.. Hell its not even anti-bush hysteria season..
Yes, its elections.
That time of year again where the politicians concede to baby kissing, releasing unrealistic policies, even down right bribery as to convince you they
are the best man for the job.
So, being patriotic Americans, you will hit the polls. Not voting for whom you believe to be the best, but for whom you believe to be the
At least that’s how it used to be.
At the turn of the millennia, we as members of the free west noticed a change in American voting. Your vote didn’t seem to matter any more, infact
it appeared as if the presidential candidates were no longer selected through primaries but through the thumbs up of those pesky, fancy, dancy
So in opening the paper today, during my lunch break I read an article on Obama, and realised.. The turn of election methods at 2000 have come a long
way. Things have changed dramatically.
The candidates are no longer lobbying for your vote, they are driving the election bus towards the neo'cons.. Hoping for their green light
Point in note, Obama's comments on Pakistan
There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to
fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qa'eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist
targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"
That’s pretty tough talk, especially when you’re trying to convince the war-weary American public you’re the right man for the job, to end the
So, what does he say about Iran?
Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.
The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said.
American public opinion polls show that vast majority of the American public DO NOT Support military action against Iran.
So it beggars belief as to why he'd take this path, knowing his public support would drop due to it?
So what about Hillary?
Surely a lady, a woman, a bringer of life would hold some compassion and integrity when dealing with the lives of another human being?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at
the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.
I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations,"
NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton
said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat
told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Crap, she's even more of a war mongerer then her running foe....
I mean after all, she has been dubbed:
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess
She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran
I am at a loss..
Why rally for public votes, when you’re preaching acts the public clearly don’t want?
They arent debating for you, they are debating for the neo'cons thumbs up.
""Who's more insane, with more brains than bush and capable of convincing the public into following us into our for-told endeavour through the
oilfields of the Middle East?"" they must be asking...
Surely Clinton and Obama know the reality behind the government selection process.... this would explain the offensive election techniques.
Why rally your public for support, by promoting WAR?
McCain lost all his credibility '' bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Errran ''
It was just too obvious.....
Who's got more credibility in the public’s eye?
A women baring the name of one of the greatest presidents, who's been dubbed
Or a nice, grassroots Black man, who preaches his civilian qualities and his -in touch- with the people perspective
Who do the neo-cons believe would best suit their interests out of these two people. Both clearly are debating action is needed, the public dont want
action, the neo-cons do.
Sorry America, your destiny has been written. voting, is useless.. 8yrs went by and not one serious accusation was publically aired about President
bush being handed an election he lost.
Its paved the way for the president to be appointed and not selected.
Mein Fuhrer, cominzee here!
[edit on 3-8-2007 by Agit8dChop]
[edit on 3-8-2007 by Agit8dChop]