Youth Politics

Change, or some form of it, is one of the highlights of this campaign. Obama speaks of change. McCain speaks of reform. Both are vague because well, for one, what will Obama change? How much will he change it by? McCain will reform what exactly? And by how much?

Here’s what I’ve come to conclude about what each is trying to say by “change” and “reform”.

Barack Obama’s “Change”: The political system is absolutely broken and it needs to be completely redone. There needs to be a new way of thinking and a new direction for America. There will also be a change of policies that did not work in the past.

John McCain’s “Reform”: The political system has gone awry. We need to look at each part of government, remove the corruption, and fix up what’s left. The system can work if we remove what’s making it broken.

Both are essentially good things. Now I’ve heard that people don’t want change, or that change will be bad. To which I respond by staring blankly. I think what people really mean is that they want the America they’ve known in the past. It’s gone. Time moves only forward; you either fix what you’ve got or keep the mess. Right now, we’re moving deeper and deeper into a mess. We need reform and we need change. We can’t assume that just because America is great that America will continue to be great without some effort.

What do you all think? Am I missing something here? Which one do you prefer, reform or change? Feel free to leave comments below (If you’re on the front page, you’ll have to go to the blog to comment).

Before I begin this post, I’d like to thank Jolly Roger for having the most comments last week. Congratulations!

You should definitely check out his blog, as it contains some great information that’s way more likely to tick you off than this blog, and if it doesn’t then you’ve got another great read. If for some reason you do find his content pisses you off, then go ahead and leave some comments so that he may then prove you wrong.

I mostly kid, however here’s the blog from anyone who is interested: Reconstitution 2.0. If the name of the blog doesn’t pique your interest, I don’t know what will.

Anyway…

Some people are stupid. These people think stupidly, about things. This is a no-brainer.

I recently read that Obama’s campaign had left out the national anthem in order to have another speaker. I found the responses to this outrageous.

Here’s the post for anyone interested.

I seriously cannot believe that just because the national anthem wasn’t sung, that it makes Obama unpatriotic. Should everyone be squeezing in the national anthem to everything they do nowadays? If I sing the Star Spangled Banner more often, does that make me more patriotic? How about everyone just sing the song 10 times a day, every day to make up for it not being sung at Obama’s rally. I’ll sing it 11 times myself to make sure I’m more patriotic than everyone else.

There are people who will not vote for Obama SOLELY because his campaign left out the anthem. These comments are usually proceeded by random nonsense. I know these people are not using any sort of logical thinking at all. These people tend to be much older than me too…. coincidence?

Nope, issues don’t matter. If the national anthem isn’t sung, then the candidate is bad. Somehow not singing the national anthem ONCE is a shame… yet I bet these people go day after day without singing it, even though they have every opportunity to do so. In fact, why listen to any other songs at all?

Not surprisingly enough, these same types of people are the ones going around calling Obama a terrorist and a socialist. Let me make a list here:

1. Obama is NOT a terrorist.
2. Obama is NOT a socialist.
3. Obama is NOT a Muslim.
4. If Obama were Muslim, it DOESN’T MEAN HE WOULDN’T MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT.
5. If Obama were Muslim, it DOESN’T MEAN HE WOULDN’T MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT.

Yes, I stated number 4 twice.

Calling Obama a terrorist is one of the most blindly ignorant things I’ve ever heard. What act of terrorism is Obama even accused of? He’s a guy from Hawaii who went to law school and is running for president. What the hell are people talking about when they’re calling him out as a terrorist? I’d hate to think who else these people think are terrorists.

I don’t even think these people know what socialism is, either. Even my friend who IS a socialist doesn’t think anyone on the Democratic party is socialist. Barack Obama is far, far from being a socialist. In fact, both the Republican and Democratic parties are pretty near the center as far as the political spectrum is concerned.

Obama is a Christian, but who cares? In America everyone is free to practice their own religion, and if Obama had been a Muslim, it doesn’t change his policies or his stance. People who would not elect someone into office based solely upon their religion are BIGOTS, blinded by hate and ignorance. I’d bet a lot of money that these people don’t know that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.

So there’s my rant. The whole anthem thing is a non-issue. It’s just another stupid, unimportant angle from which to make a nonsensical attack on Obama. The “terrorist” and “socialist” remarks are dumbing at best. America is a great country, but not necessarily because of everyone living in it.

I’d add rants concerning ridiculous statements towards McCain, but I haven’t found an article that’s particularly maddening, although I am on the lookout for one. If anyone has one for me, please email me at Crowtche@juniorpolitics.com or drop a comment.

If you too are sickened by all this, by all means let me know. I appreciate all comments however, so even if you’re angered by my statements, at least tell me. Sheesh, I’ll take it like a man I promise.

Facts are facts. Period. What’s true is true. What’s false is false. In politics nothing is more revered than the truth. Facts are supposed to be that truth amongst the fibs and the lies that supposedly all politicians make. There’s nothing more crooked than a politician, isn’t that how the saying goes?

If facts are facts, then how come political facts spark so much anger and, more surprisingly, debate? How can there exist a debate about facts? That’s like arguing that two plus two equals four, isn’t it? It’s like arguing that the Earth is not physically round. It’s like arguing that…. well, you get the picture.

The reason political facts are so often debated is that they tend to tell half truths. Now, some so-called “facts” are outright lies, but I’m talking about the facts that really are true. If we use the two plus two equals four example, it’s pretty clear that it’s a fact and agreed upon by most of the population. Now, what if I were to tell you that two plus two equals a number? That would be a perfectly true statement. However, it does not tell the specific truth. I suppose this is what we could call a half truth. Tells the story, but it does not tell the complete story.

Half truths are like telling everyone that you know exactly how to end world hunger. What you don’t tell everyone is that it involves killing off over half of the world’s population.

I see people present facts all of the time. I see people present these facts usually from media sources, or usually from websites with agendas. The main problem with a lot of these facts is that they paint an incomplete picture of whatever situation the facts describe. I see Democrats bring up a list of facts, and the first thing I notice is that they picked websites that lean Democrat. Same is true on the Republican side of things. Yes they are facts (well, a lot of the time they are anyway), but they do not usually give the complete facts. It’s part of the reason the American people sometimes just cannot come up with a decision these days; they aren’t being given the full picture.

I almost never give out facts. I give out opinions. Why? Because I hate giving out incomplete information. It bothers me. I try to use as many sources as possible that have as many different viewpoints as possible because then people can make better decisions with more complete information.

Politicians are fantastic at not portraying all of the facts. And yet, some people blindly listen to them. If politicians are so crooked as many might say, then why should anyone take any of their words for granted?

Wednesday’s debate was the most entertaining on the part of Senator McCain. He finally has started to attack Obama on a variety of issues, from Ayers to ACORN to his policies themselves. He has also finally stated that he is NOT president Bush. I get to finally commend McCain for his efforts because for once he has fought back at the debate and he fought back hard.

That’s not to say that Obama did not stand his ground. Not once did Obama falter. McCain however was blinking like a madman! I didn’t even notice until my friend told me, but once he did I got to counting and wow… that distracted me for the longest time. Obama tried to distance himself from all the attacks and stay focused on the issues, but McCain just kept delivering the punches. Honestly I think it worked. McCain really hit the nail hard and pushed for the character issues that he so desperately needed earlier in the election season.

Will this final debate turn the tides of the election? Has McCain finally done what he needs to put himself back over the top of Obama? I honestly don’t think so. The thing is, it’s already too late. The economy is tanking, and usually Americans punish the party in power (the Republicans, for those who REALLY didn’t know). If McCain had come out this strong on the first debate, he probably would have crushed Obama. I mean, the debate was on foreign policy, something McCain should have crushed Obama on anyhow.

McCain really needed to go on the offensive here, and it became necessary for not just the obvious reason of striking hard at Obama and his character, but to also cover up his inherent weakness when it comes to the economy. I’m sorry, but McCain himself said he did not know much about the economy. I don’t expect any president to be an absolute expert, that’s what a cabinet is for, and that’s what advisers are for. However, the president needs to have a fundamental grasp of the economy, and I don’t personally think McCain has that, and well, if these are going to be Republican advisers….

In any case, I’m finally glad that Obama has clearly given his connections to Ayers and ACORN. I thought it was about time that all of the ridiculousness surrounding those claims came to an end, because it’s common sense people. Put yourselves in Obama’s shoes. You get a non-profit organization to register voters, and then THEY commit fraud. Guilty by association? I think not. They were legitimate up to that point, so the finger pointing at Obama really needs to be stopped. I always thought the Ayers thing was ridiculous, and I still do. It’s like saying McCain supports killing Obama because one of his supporters wants to. Just plain dumb.

In the end, if you missed the debate, you didn’t miss much. Every debate has practically been about the economy, and obviously this one was no different. If you didn’t already know where the candidates stood, then this was obviously an important debate to watch. Otherwise, well, your mind should pretty much already be made up.

It was shocking to hear this on TV:

“My name is Bob Barr and I approve this message.”

It’s the first time I’ve seen any other party’s campaign ad on TV in this election.

Their point was short and simple as it had to be due to their lack of money, but I have to admire the effort, especially since it aired while I was watching House (and LOTS of people watch House, by the way).

Is it going to persuade anyone to vote for them? Probably not, not at this stage in the game. People’s emotions have been manipulated enough to the point where really only 8 percent of the population can still be persuaded, and NOT to one of the third parties.

Has anyone even CONSIDERED Bob Barr when looking at the candidates that are running?

By the way, if you haven’t signed up for my feed to get updates delivered to you, you should. It’s like having the newspaper delivered to you daily except it costs you nothing.