Republicans have stolen the Democrats mantra

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
.............
.............


The Republicans have stolen the Democrats mantra : "Were going to Washington to shake things up". Who are they trying to kid? They are the McSame old thing, and the thing they are best at is puilling the wool over the eyes of those who are so easily led down the same rocky path.

So this "maverick" comes along who has never been very spiriitual except for his spirited cursing at others a la the F bomb given to Sen. John Cornyn
while debating immigration, and picks a "holy roller" to show how worthy he is of the Christian right votes.

But I see a very dangerous repeating pattern emerging once again. Wasn't this the same tack used by GW when he wined and dined the conservative right. And now the Democrats are in retreat because their candidate has forgotten so quickly about what this election is really about.

I would be shouting it down as many times as I can, by showing that John McCain is not the maverick agent of change he says he is. It will be the same, only worse, with millions of people going without healthcare, and government courting the big pharma lobbyist money, and millions of jobs going overseas while allowing our economy to falter from the billions spent on a war we didn't need to fight.

Going to Washington to shake things up?... Okay, will you just pull that wool shade down please, the light is too bright in here.




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Excellent! It's good to see that some can feel the wool being pulled over their eyes. Sadly, others cannot.

The McCain campaign, let by lobbyists and counseled by Karl Rove is hard at work, and they are doing a bang-up job! Helluva job, you might say. It's the politics of deception and distraction at its finest.

I don't think the Democrats are in retreat. Obama has had enough of these Swift-Boat politics.


It is a pattern. The same technique has been used for many years. It's about time the people OPEN THEIR EYES and see what's being put over on them! And refuse to believe it!



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Ialso would like to chime in and i have made observations too.

The Democrats- Want world domination!
The Democrats- will cause a police state!
All your worse fears will come true if they're elected!

Wait, werent we spineless tree huggers not too long ago? Left over hippies?
Without the knowledge of protecting our country if our lives depended on it?
Werent we against NEEDLESS WARS?????

What has happened? Now in numbers we are going to take over the world and ruin it?????

I know , i wish i could express myself as some of the other writers here but theres still that language gap that doesnt allow me to splain myself the way i would love to express myself. I added this in, because my thoughts seem simple, but they're really NOT. I can tell you this, this is also what they are saying about Communist Democrat Terrorists- which includes all of us who dont quite see things the Republican way.

We, if we become president, will surely ruin the world. NOT.

Its already ruined and if Obama has the terrible luck to become president, they will make his life miserable and soon after...he'll be stuttering too.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
As I have previously said, no one holds the exclusive copyrights for the word "Change". The real question is "Which party represents "Real Change?"

Does a candidate that selects a female VP in recognition of her achievements represent real change in Washington? I think so. The Democrats could have done the same with Hillary, but chose not to.



[edit on 10-9-2008 by LLoyd45]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The Republican have not stolen any mantra from the Democrats if you are referring to the "CHANGE" phrase. What the Republicans are doing if what they have succesfully done for the past 2 presidential election which is DIVIDE THE COUNTRY.

Remember George W. Bush : "I'm a uniter not a divider", and then went on to campaign portraying democrats as "gay lovers" that would allow gay marriage, would allow gays to have sex in public and on and on. Then he went on to say "Beware of the mushroom cloud" if the Democrats win. McCain is charging Obama of been sexist, of being against the rich, of being a baby killer and on and on. The fact is that so far is working for them so far so they are just going to keep at it, expanding the wealth gap, the gender gap, the cultural gap, the religious gap, is an attack on many fronts that has been succesful in the past for them.

Sen. Obama needs to remind people that this is the same old divisive tactics that the Republicans have done in the past, this is not "CHANGE", this is the same old shameless Karl Rove political tactics at work.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Excellent! It's good to see that some can feel the wool being pulled over their eyes. Sadly, others cannot.

The McCain campaign, let by lobbyists and counseled by Karl Rove is hard at work, and they are doing a bang-up job! Helluva job, you might say. It's the politics of deception and distraction at its finest.


It is a pattern. The same technique has been used for many years. It's about time the people OPEN THEIR EYES and see what's being put over on them! And refuse to believe it!


We of the true conservative right are not so easily fooled. Most of us are not for business as usual. But for all the good I think the democrats could do if they got in the highest office, I'm sure there will be quite a bit of bad as well. Thus it is with all politicians/affiliations and yes we will have to take the good with the bad. But I think Obama did make some very bad mistakes as discussed in Why has Obama lost his lead.

I now believe he probably should have picked Hillary to be his running mate.

Time will tell if Obama can pull ahead once again. I think he would do well to heed the strategy as posited by Dr. strangecraft in part 1 & 2.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Does a candidate that selects a female VP in recognition of her achievements represent real change in Washington? I think so.


LLoyd - This is a real question:

Upon what do you base your conclusion that Palin represents real change? I don't have the time to research her exhaustively, but from what I have found, she is a far-rightwing Republican and a host of unknowns:

Her foreign policy beliefs - unknown

Her fiscal policies do not, from what I've seen, indicate any great degree of restraint

Her honesty and honor are virtually unchanged from current national GOP types... she takes every personal advantage she can get (i.e. charging AK a per-diem when she was staying in her own house)

She is anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-environmental exploitation with few restrictions (opposed salmon protection efforts, for example)

She is quite cozy with Corporate America

She seems to be secretive and divisive


Now, we can argue all day whether these are good points or bad, but that is not my point. My point is, she seems to be in virtual lockstep with the Bush/Cheney philosophies and practices.

So my question to you (and anyone else that wants to answer it) is, beyond her gender which has nothing to do with issues or policies, what leads you to conclude she represents, or McCain by his choice of her represents, "real change"?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think it is a "use it or lose it" type of deal.

All throughout Lord Obama's campaign he has been screaming "Change", but has offered no specifics. Then in one of the strangest moves in recent Vice-Presidential history, he picks Joe Biden, that did nothing to solidify his empty change rhetoric.

McCain picked Sarah Palin, and with their talk off ending earmarks, they effectively took over the "change" mantra!

[Snip]

Mod edit: Really no need for that last line other than to bait.

Peace


[edit on 10-9-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Does a candidate that selects a female VP in recognition of her achievements represent real change in Washington?


Only a sex change. She's Cheney in a skirt. She represents the Bush term even more than McCain does. So, no. Selecting her doesn't represent real change at all.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3


The Republicans have stolen the Democrats mantra : "Were going to Washington to shake things up".



No, Obama relinquished the mantra willingly a couple of weeks ago when he picked lifelong Washington insider Joe Biden as his running mate. And before that when he voted for the FISA bill.

Put the blame where it belongs, which is squarely on Obama's shoulders.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Obama change at first meant something new and something different and people got inspired by it. He even had me going for awhile believing we were in for something unique and different.

That all changed drastically once he started the general election. He started wavering or walking on a fine line on just about every issue as he tried to move to the center to attract more voters. Suddenly, he was no longer Barrack Obama, the man for change. Now he was Barrack Obama, the politician.

In other words Obama represented himself as a change that was new and different but as time went on some people began to see that he was promising more than what he could deliver. What politician doesn't? And that is exactly my point. He is a politician and does things just like the rest of them. This hurt his ability to continue using change as he had during the primaries.

This gave McCain the opportunity to steal, as you op says, the word change and use it for his own purpose. Now change means reform. Whether he can really reform Washington as he says is highly debatable and a different topic. But he has been pretty successful in changing Obama's meaning of change into his own meaning.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Only a sex change. She's Cheney in a skirt. She represents the Bush term even more than McCain does. So, no. Selecting her doesn't represent real change at all.
Well, to be honest with you BH, They only change I've notice coming from Barack Obama, is the continuous changing of his stance on practically every issue since the primaries.

Let's also not forget all the change that Joe Biden brings to the White house with his 30+ year Washington tenure.

If you want to call that change, be my guest. I'm looking for something a little different myself.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
There is indeed a pattern here"

Hillary main nominee, she gets insulted, sexist comments are made her by the right, smears begin to circulate about her.

Hillary looses the nomination, all of sudden McCain praises Hillary.

Obama pushes for change,

McCain pushes for change,

Obama makes history and becomes the first black nominee,

McCain makes history of his own and puts the first women on a republican ticket,

Barack Obamas main arguement, withdraw troops from Iraq. McCain and Bush administration, "not an option"

Bush signs withdrawal deal with Iraqi prime minister.

Obama says he will put more troops and focus into Iraq,

Bush puts in more troops and more focus onto Iraq.

There is a pattern alright, and who would have throught the Republicans would actually listen.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Any takers on this question?

What about Palin signifies change?

Doesn't seem that complicated. If Palin's selection by itself signifies a change more relevant than a different gender, what is it?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic


Upon what do you base your conclusion that Palin represents real change? I don't have the time to research her exhaustively, but from what I have found, she is a far-rightwing Republican and a host of unknowns:

I Like her myself, and think she's just what the country needs.


Her foreign policy beliefs - unknown
You got me there, I don't know. LOL


Her fiscal policies do not, from what I've seen, indicate any great degree of restraint
She seems pretty practical to me. She could have kept the Jet the former Governor bought, but she didn't. Her state's budget is balanced, and even had funds to give $1,200 to each resident of the state. How many states do you know that can do that?


Her honesty and honor are virtually unchanged from current national GOP types... she takes every personal advantage she can get (i.e. charging AK a per-diem when she was staying in her own house)

Her honesty and integrity seem quite sound to me. She straightforward when she's asked a question, and she doesn't speak in vagueries like some candidates do. As for the per diem issue, if you're entitled to one, you should take it. It's as simple as that. That not dishonest by any means.


She is anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-environmental exploitation with few restrictions (opposed salmon protection efforts, for example)


She doesn't approve of homosexuality, but she doesn't discriminate against them or permit it. Being Pro Gun is a big positive for me (I thought you said you liked guns too?),She not for exploitation of the environment just because she supports drilling in ANWR. Alaska is probably one of the cleanest most beautiful states in the country.


She is quite cozy with Corporate America
I'm not aware of the ties.. Do you have a link? I'd like to read them.


She seems to be secretive and divisive
How is she secretive? We have learned more about her life and that of her family in the last two weeks, than we have about Barack Obama in 18 months. She's presently under a microscope right now with thirty head hunters trying to dig up dirt on her. Now if they would only give Barack the same scrutiny.


Now, we can argue all day whether these are good points or bad, but that is not my point. My point is, she seems to be in virtual lockstep with the Bush/Cheney philosophies and practices.
I don't see that honestly, and the lockstep analogy sounds like you're trying to portray her as a Nazi. We all know how offensive these type of associations can be.


So my question to you (and anyone else that wants to answer it) is, beyond her gender which has nothing to do with issues or policies, what leads you to conclude she represents, or McCain by his choice of her represents, "real change"?
She's a breathe of fresh air in Washington, and not part of the old crew that's brought our country to it's current state of affairs. She's a new face with new ideas that she's not afraid to put on the table.

Governor Palin is a reformer, and has fought tax cuts and the elimination of wasteful spending like the bridge to nowhere in her own state ( Barack and Biden both voted twice for), she staunchly defends the second amendment, she has a Pro Life stance, and advocates drilling in ANWR to help our country out with the energy crisis.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by LLoyd45]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Doesn't seem that complicated. If Palin's selection by itself signifies a change more relevant than a different gender, what is it?


Palin is the first VP in my lifetime that was almost totally unknown to the country, isn't from a key swing state, and doesn't have entrenched relationships with Washington D.C. insiders.

Now more to the point, it is Obama who has been clamoring about change, and he selected Biden as his running mate. When somebody tries to claim they are the personification of change, and then votes for the FISA bill and selects Biden as a running mate, they've voluntarily given up being the "change" candidate.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Thanks, LLoyd, I appreciate your answer.


Originally posted by LLoyd45
Her honesty and integrity seem quite sound to me. She straightforward when she's asked a question, and she doesn't speak in vagueries like some candidates do. As for the per diem issue, if you're entitled to one, you should take it. It's as simple as that. That not dishonest by any means.


Perhaps not dishonest, no. But in my humble opinion, dishonorable. The intent of the per diem is to defray costs for an elected person when they are on the road. Being at home, while technically "on the road" from Juneau does not incur any expense for her. So while she is probably within her legal right to charge it, I do not consider that honorable (and we may of course disagree on the point). "Honor", as archaic an idea as it may be, is one thing that has been sadly lacking in the Fed. Gov't. these last 8 years.



She doesn't approve of homosexuality, but she doesn't discriminate against or permit it.


Yeah, and that is one thing she has done that I applaud.



Being Pro Gun is a big positive for me


Me too. But that is not the question I asked. More on this in a bit.



She not for exploitation of the environment just because she supports drilling in ANWR.


There is more to her environmental record than ANWR. Not good, IMO.



Alaska is probably one of the cleanest most beautiful states in the country.


Agreed. Wouldn't it be cool to keep it that way?



I'm not aware of the ties.. Do you have a link? I'd like to read them.


I'll see if I can find them again, intertubes willing...



Now if they would only give Barack the same scrutiny.


Perhaps I should have just said 'divisive'. And you are kidding about Barack getting the same, right?





I don't see that honestly, and the lockstep analogy sounds like you're trying to portray her as a Nazi.


I said lockstep (defn #2) not goose-step. Nothing Nazi-ish about it.



she staunchly defends the second amendment, she has a Pro Life stance, and advocates drilling in ANWR to help our country out with the energy crisis.


Now we come back to the question I asked. Yes, she is all the things you mention here. What is new, or a change with it?

I appreciate you answering this. And we already know we disagree on some issues, you and I. So I'm not asking about what she stands for.

I understand you like her, and think she is what we need (there's one we disagree on!
).

I am asking what signifies the change you see, in relation to the current administration?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 






Excellent! It's good to see that some can feel the wool being pulled over their eyes. Sadly, others cannot.


My thoughts exactly.

When I read a post written by an ex-Obama supporter, or even someone who is still supporting Obama but isn't so blinded by him that they are willing to admit that he has his faults and he is less than perfect, it restores my faith in the ability for people to use their brains rather than just regurgitate what they are spoon-fed.

Now that there is an effective speaker involved in the McCain campaign(Palin), people are actually waking up and listening to BOTH sides so that they can they make an informed decision on who the best candidate is.

I believe the Republicans have every right to use the word 'change' and I believe that it is an accurate way to describe what McCain/Palin will bring to Washington.

The way Obama is campaigning is not the 'change' that he promised. He's just as down and dirty as every other Politician out there ... maybe even more so.

When Obama chose Biden as a running mate, he could no longer use "change" with any credibility.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Democrats.. Republicans.. what's the difference?

They are funded by the same people, listen to the same pressuregroups, have the same interests and basically will be a carbon-copy of their 'adversary' if elected.

If you truly want change, y'all should vote for an outsider, like Ron Paul.

And even then it's hard to imagine he's truly independant.. and if he is, and would get elected, it's hard to imagine him not experiencing a 'Kennedy'



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison


When Obama chose Biden as a running mate, he could no longer use "change" with any credibility.

Jemison



Why not? He would still be the president, and have the veto power. He needs to say that he chose Biden because he wanted someone with his record and understanding of government stedfastly behind him. Isn't that why he really chose him in the first place? It is good to bring in tenured experience for your right hand man.

Palin on the other hand, is more than a pretty face with no experience. She is in a position that really doesn't dictate decisions in the government, but she helps to offset Mccains bad record toward the Christian right, who ALWAYS vote for the lesser of two evils. Plus she's young, thereby putting to rest the people concerned about McCains age.

McCain can and will push her around I think, but would it really make a difference if he couldn't?

McCain is telling the voters, see I can pick who I want and it may shock some in my own ranks, but I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks, it's my way or the highway, and you can call me by my naval pilot sign... **Maverick**.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by TH3ON3]



new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 7 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live - SE4 EP5

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def