Thursday, February 7, 2008

Change?

When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is 
still an evil.
-max lerner

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may
cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
-john quincy adams


This will anger a lot of very happy people, but I can't say that I
care. Its not in my nature, as you probably well know.

This is a bubble popping. Just because there's hope we "can believe
in", doesn't mean its hope we "should believe in". Bear in mind, the
general public doing the believing is the same general public that
beleived a third world county(iraq) was a threat to the U.S. National
security, the strongest military superpower in the history of the
world.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have campaigned tirelessly on the
concept of a change of direction in Washington; however they have not
voted in such a way while in office. This is wicked demagoguery of the
highest order. Barack Obama may have spoken out against the Iraq War in
public life, he certainly voted to fund it in every opportunity he has
been given. Congress has the power to deny funding to any military action
at any time, and he, like many of the demogoguecrats, chose to prioritize
attatching pork barrel projects to the military budgets to increase
their electability at home over defunding a wicked and deadly war. This
political expediency has a clear and defined body count of thousands of
americans and millions of arabs.

Furthermore, he voted YES on reauthorizing the wicked Patriot Act, which
overturns the constitutional protections of illegal search and seizure,
and has not signed up to co-sponser the reauthorize the constitution act,
which would undo the really heinous portions of the Military Commissions Act
which defacto authorizes torture.

These Bush-friendly votes are hardly evidence of a commitment to change;
rather they are proof of false rhetoric. Barack Obama is not antiwar.
Barack Obama voted to fund the Iraq War. Barack Obama would not rule
out a nuclear first strike against the weak third world nations of Iran
and Pakistan.
This foreign policy of nuke first and ask questions later
was indicated in his responses to questions in recent debates.

Barack Obama's claims to be standing up for the poor and little guy in
our country are as empty as the echos of his false antiwar rhetoric.
Judicialwatch.org rates him in the top 10 most corrupt politicians for
pushing for biotech legislation that benefitted his personal stock
portfolio. His campaign coffers are loaded with huge money granted by
various corporations who will want the favors back in time.

There's still time, let it be known that before the general election, it
is wise to vote based on issues and your conscious, not rhetoric. And
by issues, I don't mean campaign platforms, I mean by their voting
records. These are easily available online. There's no excuse to not
check the information out and make an informed decision.

Voting reflexively based on party lines, or voting for people you
perceive as a possible "winner" is unacceptable. This isn't Las Vegas,
betting on a sure win does not make you rich, it makes you a sheep to
corporatism.

While the middle class is whittled away by the stock market, the people
remain fooled that a vote for a republican is for the benefit of the
rich, and a vote for a democrat is for the benefit of the poor.

A vote for obama, clinton, mccain, romney, huckabee is a vote for
corporations and globalism... No matter what party they belong to.

Sadly, I feel it may be too late to turn our course. We are a declining
imperial power.

If the people are to believe that someone who voted for all the Bush
garbage everyone hates is our best hope for "change", then bring on the
decline. We deserve it. At least the Caligula period will have some
sweet orgies.

3 comments:

Jason said...

"Bear in mind, the
general public doing the believing is the same general public that
believed a third world county (Iraq) was a threat to the U.S. National
security, the strongest military superpower in the history of the
world."

Yeah, how impossible it is for people in a third world country to organize and pull off a truly heinous attack. Oh, wait. That's exactly what happened on 9/11. Almost forgot about that...?

Anonymous said...

9/11 was not a military attack by a third world country. it was a criminal act by saudi arabian terrorists(a financial superpower)

no third world country as weak as Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 nor was ever impolicated in these attacks.

Jason said...

"9/11 was not a military attack by a third world country."

Yeah, it was just a paramilitary force funded by the government directly who then claimed responsibility for such actions. I can't see how you'd find a group funded by the government under the auspices of military action to be any different then the military. That's like claiming Blackwater isn't participating in military action.

"it was a criminal act by saudi arabian terrorists(a financial superpower)"

So the argument is that there isn't enough money in Iraq to pull something off? As you pointed out in the very same statement there wasn't in Afghanistan either. Saudis helped fund it.

"no third world country as weak as Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 nor was ever implicated in these attacks."

So, Afghanistan was stronger then Iraq? Seriously?