StudentForPaul08
01-28-2009, 03:18 PM
On January 20th, our nation entered a new era. The first African-American president was sworn into office, an accomplishment that seemed to shake the stagnant social inequality that (sadly) race brings to the table. Barack Obama campaigned on the idea of “Change”, distancing himself from the previous eight years of George Bush. Millions of people without a doubt see Obama as a response to Bush, I see things differently.
During the eight years of Bush, I have probably been against every one of his decisions, or close to it. I don’t think that Bush was a true Republican. He involved us in two undeclared wars, created the biggest deficits, created the bloated “Department of Homeland Security”, passed legislation such as the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. He supported the socialist idea of welfare, nationalized banks, bailed out private companies, and worsened the state of the economy. Bush was no Republican, and no supporter of free-markets.
Obama, on the other hand championed his record of opposing the war in Iraq, even though he made sure it was funded. As with Bush, I cannot find other legislation or actions I admire of Obama. Obama also voted for the bailouts, FISA legislation, and the Patriot Act. Are these two people all that different? Obama is as socialist as Bush, if not more so. He advocates a nanny-state. Obama wants to increase our presence in Afghanistan and blindly support Israel, as if the state can do absolutely no wrong, even when obviously they have. Obama often provokes more violence in the Middle East, with the recent missile strike in Pakistan killing innocent people, and with his willingness to do what it takes to get Iran to do what we want.
Both Obama and Bush have very similar approaches to the world; intervene. They can never mind their own business, and by doing this they are stretching the American empire to thin, bringing us to our knees. Economically, free-markets should be harbored, and endorsed. Both men seem to be blaming the free-market for our current economic crisis, when that is far from the truth. (For those of you, who think free markets are at fault, research what the “Federal Reserve” does and what the “Fractional-Reserve Banking” is, I suggest Mises.org) Obama and Bush are using this economic crisis to gain more control and power, which is why they are blaming the free-market. Like every crisis, those in power use it to expand that power. Most people would argue that is what Bush did after 9/11, creating The Department of Homeland Security, getting the Patriot Act passed along with FISA legislation, and not to mention tons of new spending. Obama and Bush also are very similar on foreign policy. Yea, Obama may be willing to talk a little more to foreign leaders, but that means squat when you are saying one thing and your actions say another. Both men want to intervene, and drag into ethnic wars that have lasted hundreds, if not, thousands of years, and no Obama cannot make it all better by talking to people, nor by taking over their countries.
Even though January 20th was an historical day for many reasons, it seems that “Change” in policy, was not one of them. The next four years will be tough, and this economic depression will be dragged out like it was throughout the 30’s because the policies they enacted than are making a comeback, and they will have the same outcomes.
In Liberty,
Jon Lauro
From my blog (http://lauro4liberty.wordpress.com/)
Thoughts? ;):rolleyes::cool::eek:
During the eight years of Bush, I have probably been against every one of his decisions, or close to it. I don’t think that Bush was a true Republican. He involved us in two undeclared wars, created the biggest deficits, created the bloated “Department of Homeland Security”, passed legislation such as the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. He supported the socialist idea of welfare, nationalized banks, bailed out private companies, and worsened the state of the economy. Bush was no Republican, and no supporter of free-markets.
Obama, on the other hand championed his record of opposing the war in Iraq, even though he made sure it was funded. As with Bush, I cannot find other legislation or actions I admire of Obama. Obama also voted for the bailouts, FISA legislation, and the Patriot Act. Are these two people all that different? Obama is as socialist as Bush, if not more so. He advocates a nanny-state. Obama wants to increase our presence in Afghanistan and blindly support Israel, as if the state can do absolutely no wrong, even when obviously they have. Obama often provokes more violence in the Middle East, with the recent missile strike in Pakistan killing innocent people, and with his willingness to do what it takes to get Iran to do what we want.
Both Obama and Bush have very similar approaches to the world; intervene. They can never mind their own business, and by doing this they are stretching the American empire to thin, bringing us to our knees. Economically, free-markets should be harbored, and endorsed. Both men seem to be blaming the free-market for our current economic crisis, when that is far from the truth. (For those of you, who think free markets are at fault, research what the “Federal Reserve” does and what the “Fractional-Reserve Banking” is, I suggest Mises.org) Obama and Bush are using this economic crisis to gain more control and power, which is why they are blaming the free-market. Like every crisis, those in power use it to expand that power. Most people would argue that is what Bush did after 9/11, creating The Department of Homeland Security, getting the Patriot Act passed along with FISA legislation, and not to mention tons of new spending. Obama and Bush also are very similar on foreign policy. Yea, Obama may be willing to talk a little more to foreign leaders, but that means squat when you are saying one thing and your actions say another. Both men want to intervene, and drag into ethnic wars that have lasted hundreds, if not, thousands of years, and no Obama cannot make it all better by talking to people, nor by taking over their countries.
Even though January 20th was an historical day for many reasons, it seems that “Change” in policy, was not one of them. The next four years will be tough, and this economic depression will be dragged out like it was throughout the 30’s because the policies they enacted than are making a comeback, and they will have the same outcomes.
In Liberty,
Jon Lauro
From my blog (http://lauro4liberty.wordpress.com/)
Thoughts? ;):rolleyes::cool::eek: