Change vs. Change
Find a Conversation
Change vs. Change
| Mon, 09-22-2008 - 7:56am |
If Barack Obama is elected, I do believe change will come. If he does what he says he will do and there is nothing to indicate that he will not, I believe we will begin to see a foreign policy change that emphasizes diplomacy over bombing everything in sight.
I believe that Obama will try to turn the economy around and to establish affordable health care.
Obama truly respresented a change in the status quo.
The only change I believe that will happen under John McCain is nickles and dimes in my pocket that used to be dollar bills.
McCain embraces and endorces everything that George W. Bush has done over the past eight years and plans more of the same. That is just more of the same. Change means something different. If McCain truly is a maverick who advocates change, then why does he not criticize any of Bush’s policies? Why? Because they are exactly the same!
I believe that Obama will try to turn the economy around and to establish affordable health care.
Obama truly respresented a change in the status quo.
The only change I believe that will happen under John McCain is nickles and dimes in my pocket that used to be dollar bills.
McCain embraces and endorces everything that George W. Bush has done over the past eight years and plans more of the same. That is just more of the same. Change means something different. If McCain truly is a maverick who advocates change, then why does he not criticize any of Bush’s policies? Why? Because they are exactly the same!

Pages
you're right - they all make promises they can't keep.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
Same question, though: McCain and Palin are now campaigning on "REAL change."
John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican convention was "Change Is Coming."
Please detail for us what specific changes from the Bush regime John McCain will be providing, and - more importantly - how he will ACHIEVE those changes (and, of course, where applicable, why we should BELIEVE that McCain is for change, if the position he's advocating today is one he's recently flip-flopped on, such as immigration....the Bush tax cuts....offshore drilling.....etc, etc, etc....)
Thanks in advance.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
edited to say -- I made the following post thinking I was in on a diff board/in a different thread ... so I now know it was
Goodness! My mistake - I assumed that a thread entitled "change vs. change" might be a spirited examination of BOTH candidates' claim to be intending to "bring change to Washington." I also assumed that - within TOS - any poster is free to respond in any way they see fit - or not to respond - to any post.
So I did.
I figured if you were keen to know from Obama supporters how they really thought Obama would be specifically accomplishing change, then you'd be the last one to object to others asking you or other McCain folks the same questions.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
oops my bad .... I thought i was in a different thread, lol.
100% my mistake.
I could be wrong (usually give it a mere glance since my kids have insurance) but I think here the insurance offered was only for accidents and not illnesses, through the school.
and to you find it contradictory that he says 'require parents have their kids insured' yet make medicaid more available?
Pages