Tuesday, September 30, 2008

One More Choice Than Communist China

Jesse Ventura pointed out that the two-party system is like having one more choice than Communist China. Yet, to say that is to assume there is some real difference in your two options to begin with. So, I'm gonna try to break this down and find out what really seperates the two major candidates and, well...what doesn't.

First of all I have to point out the inevitable problem with the two party system, is that one party only has to be slightly more appealing to a majority of the country than the other in order to win the election. Over time, in an effort to pick up more of the "swing votes" their platforms begin to merge; leaving few distinguishable policies between the two parties.

(not an endorsement for Ralph Nader)

The biggest difference right now is that the Democrats are slightly more opposed to the war than the Republicans. Likewise, the Republicans are slightly more opposed to higher taxes than the Democrats (as long as it doesn't cut into their budget).

That's it.

Think about it: we have a "Republican" President right now. This is the man who passed "No Child Left Behind", The "Patriot Act", invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our country, did nothing to haste illegal immigration (or the free health-care and education they receive once they get here), nothing to repeal Roe vs. Wade, nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and other resources, has increased the national debt more than any other President in history, and is
now trying to pass an outrageous bailout bill that gives practically unlimited spending power to an unelected official (I can't name all the liberal things he's done, but that's a good start). I guess this is where the term "neo-conservative" comes from.

The term "Conservative" used to have something to do with...well, being conservative.
Apparently small government is now defined as more government, but with a slightly lower tax rate than the Democrats propose. It means increasing our debt at record pace, so we can continue to spread our empire around the world. My generation wasn't around for it, but it wasn't long ago that this was the policy of the Democratic Party (It was a Democratic administration that led us into the Vietnam War by the way). However, at this point I'm not even sure talking about anything other than the war issue matters with Republicans. That's obviously the only issue they're concerned with. How else would Joe Lieberman, one of the most liberal senators in Washington, get a speaking role at the Republican convention? Oh yeah...he supports the war.

The Democrats on the other hand say, they...kind of think we should get out of Iraq...sometime in the next four years. Blah, blah, blah...health care...blah, blah, blah...empty promises...blah, blah, blah. It all just feels like a high school student council election to me sometimes. They promise new Coke machines in the cafeteria and a student break room, knowing all along they won't have the ability nor the finances to get all of the things they promise.

To sum it up: Obama is the candidate slightly more opposed to the war, slightly more in favor of the current bailout bill, and just wants to raise taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the country. McCain is obviously more in favor of the war, has a few problems with the bailout bill, and says...he wants to keep taxes where they are.


Talk about "change". These candidates are just full of original ideas aren't they.

Does all of this seem nitpicky to anybody else?
I mean, where is the real debate?

Has anyone talked about ending the Federal Reserve, and going back to the gold standard to stop inflation and runaway government spending? How about withdrawing all of our troops from overseas; not just from Iraq, but the other hundred and thirty countries we currently occupy. So that Maybe, just maybe...the rest of the world won't despise us and feel threatened to the point where they attack innocent civilians in this country ever again. Or how about defending THIS country, instead of someone elses; so that when we are attacked, maybe we can do something about it. How about we stop paying for illegals hospital bills and education, and instead put that money towards supporting those who rely on a bankrupt social security administration. And here's one more...how about allowing states to make and enforce their own drug laws. Hell if your that concerned you can spend those leftover billions on setting up rehab centers and counseling for families rather than ruining lives by locking people away for a personal choice. I don't know though...it's just a thought.

No comments: