Just what 'changes' are being proposed?

Posted by clyde on March 28, 2008 at 2:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They aren't going to tell you because "change", in their vernacular, is good, but the "change" that they want is anything but good. It is a smokescreen to get you to ignore the truth. They want your money, your freedom, your future and anything else they think is of value. "Change" just for the sake of "change" is window dressing. You are their chattel, their possessions, their slaves. They truly believe that they own you and everything you have. The King was less onerous than what we have now.

Posted by Earl on March 28, 2008 at 5:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the only change I want is a free oil change.

Posted by LetsThink on March 28, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What an excellent Letter.

Thank you Mr. Horton.

My fear is that the masses who want free 'handouts' will believe the empty promises by the Democratic candidates.

Notice how empty and vague are their promises. And, if implemented, will obviously lead increasingly towards socialism (the Govermnent will provide all our needs??).

People need to wake up, and demand proof for these claims.

And not just listen to the bashings by those who want back in power.

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee, Clyde, you are talking about "King George IV, Bush" - as he likes to regard himself - aren't you? Bust the Unions. Pay the lowest possible wages, with the highest possible prices for everything in the market place. Give the already rich everything they ask for, and more besides. Hobble, and cripple, the minds of youth with as much superstitious ignorance and damn foolish nonsense as the traffic will bear - and then some - all in the name of, "religion/morals/true-Americanism". Keep up a disasterous war - even expand it if at all possible - so that the people can be held in thrall to the potential dangers of some kind of invasion by evil forces. The conservative-Republicans have all that going for them already, and much more besides.

If that isn't a summary of the premise of "owning you, and everything you have" - as well as regarding others as "chattel, possessions, slaves", I'd sure like to know what is.

Wonderful projection there Clyde, finding the sins of one's own claque in others is a great conservative-Republican passtime.

Posted by huffdiver on March 28, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The "change" that Dems are talking about is the amount of "change" you will have left in your pocket after they spend all of your money on useless programs!

But, but, but, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Change a few words, here and there, and Old_Pouch’s argument is more in line with reality:

Gee, Old_Pouch, you are talking about "Their Highness, Billary Clinton" - as they like to regard themselves - aren't you? Bring in the unions. Pay the highest possible wages, with the resulting highest possible prices for everything in the market place. Give the already rich Billarys, Obamas and Fat Teddys everything they ask for, and more besides. Hobble, and cripple, the minds of youth with as much superstitious ignorance and damn foolish nonsense as the traffic will bear - and then some - all in the name of, "anti-religious/immoral un-Americanism". Keep up a disastrous war - even expand it if at all possible (like JFK and LBJ) - so that the people can be held in thrall to the potential dangers of some kind of invasion by evil forces. The “progressive” Dummycrats have all that going for them already, and much more besides.

If that isn't a summary of the premise of "owning you, and everything you have" - as well as regarding others as "chattel, possessions, slaves", I'd sure like to know what is.

Wonderful projection there Old_Pouch, finding the sins of one's own claque in others is a great “progressive” Dummycrat past time.

Posted by leftside on March 28, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill, how's this, we hope to change the leadership of this country from incompetent to competent and McCain's not what were looking for.

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimmyB,

Perhaps you are beginning to understand what is meant by "reality" in the first place. That it does not reside - nor is it to be found - in Party propaganda, of any kind; and, that every time one points a finger at another, there are some 3 fingers pointing back at the pointer.

Having read, heard, and otherwise participated in one or another form of politics for a goodly portion of some nearly 8 decades, I have learned to take political positions with increasing amounts of salt; yesterday's "grain" would, most probably, be today's "shovel full".

What makes this blog both interesting and fun, is the presence of fixations and fanaticisms on both sides, at the expense of one of the most essential parts of successful politics in reality: compromise - the art of achieving the best possible results under the circumstances, rather than the mere posturing of "my way or nothing" that marks so much of today's approach.

Humans really do not have - nor do they approach having - universal absolutes, especially in matters of governing nations. And, the attempt to pass off a single position as being a universal absolute is one that wastes time, energy, and effort, without achieving worthwhile results.

Posted by AngelontheSidelines on March 28, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no changing anything whilst the mice keep electing the cats.

The war party, consisting of two wings cares not for American's health, well being, or liberty. The Demican/Republicrats have Americans at each other's throats to distract us from the truth that we are all Americans and cannot be defeated, our destruction happens when we do it to ourselves.

Posted by Tbone on March 28, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's one change I can think of. Since the nixon admin, cheney and rumsfeld have been screwing things up.

Obama will at least bring a new generation of people in to screw things up.

I'm tired of old white dudes screwing everything up, ala cheney/rumsfeld/mcSame. How about some less old possibly non-white dudes?

Its time for a new generation.

Posted by Fred on March 28, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tbone,
That is a flat out racist statement. You own it and should be shunned for it.
Your opinions have as much worth as the rest of the racists.

Posted by Acemon on March 28, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

According to writer Bill Horton, Christianity is "good" and atheism is "evil." Kinda like that hyper-Christian kid who shot people at the church. Yeah, he was good. The Christians who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Yeah, they're good, too. All those Christians in Belfast killing each other, Sure, they're good people. No doubt.

Hey Bill! This is reality calling! Show me one instance of an atheist killing another atheist, or even a Christian. Good luck on your search, 'cause atheists don't kill and the figures don't lie.

Posted by Blair on March 28, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Acemon,
I do not see where Bill equated "good" or "evil" to Christianity or atheism. I do agree with his request for the candidates to define their use of the word "change". Have not the Democrats had control of the House and Senate for something like 2 years? All I have seen is their continual battles with Bush and they have accomplished little to nothing. Is this what they are going to change? So, again, what are they going to change and how?

Posted by Tbone on March 28, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What are you talking about Fred? Was that a shot at sarcasm? If so, my hat's off.

If not, then you're a honkey cracker.

Posted by titancain on March 28, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blair, two years? Idiot.

Posted by Blair on March 28, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Titancain,
Do you have anything to offer other than name calling. I offered an approximation of time and you offer nothing. And you call me an idiot! If you wish to correct me, do so in something other than an idiotic and condesending rendition of your lack of intelligence.

Posted by Uno on March 28, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Acemon, “Show me one instance of an atheist killing another atheist, or even a Christian.”

OK how about Stalin, and I quote “Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed.”

China, North Korea and plenty of other places have both “atheist killing another atheist, or even a Christian.”

I’m not sure if ever at any place in history there was no killing for one reason or another, may be the South Pole. But I’m sure that by far most of the killings in the 20th century was not done by devout Christians.

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Acemon,

I have to say that Uno has answered your proposition concerning athiests not killing rather well. The record of the Soviet "League of the Militant Godless", which included nearly all the major apartchicks in the Communist Party, does serve to show that athiests kill just as freely, readily, and indiscriminately as any one else.

Uno,

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by your use of the words, "devout Christians". The Italian massacres of Ethiopians, among other incidents of the WW2 era, were "Christian" - in the broadest sense of those self-defining their beliefs anyway. The Nazi party, and Adolph Hitler, came to power through the establishment of a Concordat with the Vatican - effected by Eugenio Pacelli (later Pius XII), acting as Papal Legate/Nuncio at the time - which Concordat broke up the Christian Democratic Party - mostly made up of Roman Catholics - and forbade it to function in the elections that led to Hitler's becoming Chancellor. Romans always insist that they ARE Christian; and usually that they are the ONLY CHRISTIANS around. And then, there was the Austrian Anschluss. So Forth. I really don't thing the modifier, "devout", has much impact on the reality of who was responsible for "most of the killings in the 20th Century".

Posted by GetReal on March 28, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama offers the Wright kind of change.

Posted by Uno on March 29, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Old Grouch, the difference between those who claim to be one and those who are one by their own actions.
I don’t think walking into a church to shoot people is a generally advocated Christian thing to do, at least not to my knowledge. Neither is bombing clinics. Last time someone was killed related to abortion clinics was Dr Slepian in 1998. To put this into perspective (not trying to excuse the act) about another 150,000 people was killed in the last 10 years, mostly gang related. I don’t think those gangs closely following the 10 commandments.