2008 election mirrors 1968
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
1968 came along, vietnam was in full force, the country was teetering on the brink of all out revolution, kids were dropping out etc...
And out of that came Mccarthy, 2 solidly antiwar candidates for Prez.
In 1972 the mood was the same and Mcgovern reared his head.
In 2007, we have a country that is very antiwar. Not even during the heydey of vietnam did 60-70 plus percent of the country oppose that war. At no time in the 60's and 70's did the vietnam war elicit as much popular opposition as the iraq war does now.
So now, in 2008 we elect a new president. Why no Mcgovern, or Mccarthy?
In 68 and 72 people embraced a radical candidate.
Why arent they doing so now?
And out of that came Mccarthy, 2 solidly antiwar candidates for Prez.
In 1972 the mood was the same and Mcgovern reared his head.
In 2007, we have a country that is very antiwar. Not even during the heydey of vietnam did 60-70 plus percent of the country oppose that war. At no time in the 60's and 70's did the vietnam war elicit as much popular opposition as the iraq war does now.
So now, in 2008 we elect a new president. Why no Mcgovern, or Mccarthy?
In 68 and 72 people embraced a radical candidate.
Why arent they doing so now?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
oh wait....
the closet we have seen to a real protest was the WTO protest in Seattle in '99 and look how the media portrayed.....
sad, really.
Well....
people might not be protesting in the streets.....but they're certainly learning how to caucus and vote.
Well....
maybe this time around, enough voters are getting fired up and ready to go.
Obama '08
That's bull shit. Ooh! Porn! Gotta Go.
I'm pissed off... and to prove it, I signed about a dozen internet petitions just last week...
What? did you say something? I was busy watching videos of kittens fighting on Youtube.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
They don't want a candidate saying, "We're going to get out immediately, the day after I'm inaugurated."
They want a more moderate candidate who says, "We're going to change course, find a way to win -- or at least achieve some modicum of stability -- before we get out."
I don't know that this is possible. But I think most of America wants to believe it is possible.
I think a lot of America recognizes that we can't just hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda. In my opinion, it's a big reason the Democrats have softened their anti-war rhetoric the past few months. They aren't criticizing the idea of the war as much anymore, but the way it was carried out.
for the least they could possibly do
:rolleyes:
I take it you don't believe America believes this way?
I'll admit, I don't have any scientific data to back it up. But I don't sense most folks are in favor of an immediate pullout regardless of the circumstances on the ground.
Do you?
for the least they could possibly do
Im Sorry, I don't believe being in Iraq has a damn thing to do with "Al Qaeda". The big boogie men in the night...
No. 1 -- I'm not talking about what you believe or what I believe. I'm talking about what the majority of Americans believe, in attempts to explain why we have the candidates talking like they are.
No. 2. -- Al Qaeda is there now. I don't see how that's even disputable.
And if we were to let them, they'd set up shop there, much as they did in Afghanistan. I don't see how that's disputable, either.
None of which is really central to my point, which is: I think the majority of Americans don't want us to leave Iraq in a mess, which is why it seems like the majority of Americans aren't as stridently anti-war as we've been led to believe.
I guess this point IS disputable, but I don't know.
for the least they could possibly do
It's the biggest lie ever told and sold...
This is why I love Pearl Jam fans,intelligent,insightful,understanding and non-judgemental as well as providing plenty of evidence to back up any points they make.Not vague and far-fetched like Michael Moore in the slightest.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
just like the gov't!
maybe there are just a lot of people their who don't like having their country destroyed and their families killed by an occupier.
maybe there are a bunch of "agent provocateurs" over there inciting violence to perpetuate the war for other reasons than "spreading democracy".
maybe there are a bunch of evil cave people that hate our freedoms that just want to kill us because they are evil.
I dont have time or desire to explain to people like you who trusts what the goverment tells them, that it's all bullshit. Wake the fuck up.
Don't have the intelligence you mean.Is it possible to be anti-war and not be a condescending asshole at the same time? If you were that informed about it you'd have the conviction to detail it no matter how long it took.
I accept that no government is entirely honest but you don't even present an argument,you just assume anyone who disagrees to any extent with what you think is ignorant.Please inform me of why the government is so evil and try not to sound like you're writing lyrics to a Rage Against The Machine song.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
Think of me what you will, I've made my mind up about you too.
Right.....only I don't care about that.I was asking for evidence that the government are evil,everyone in America is a moron and that a terror organisation which kills thousands annually is in fact fictional?
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
You're right, the government is to be trusted, the American people don't care more about celebrities than say an important issue like the economy, and the us government doesn't have move blood on thier hands than some terrorists.
You're right :rolleyes: