Definition - #301 – #56 - McCain's “change” or Obama’s “change”

Well, which do you want?

After all, the candidates talk about their “change”. “Change” of what?....How do you “change”?… How much does “it” cost?.... Who does it benefit?....etc.
“Change” is a word that is bandied about. It is without specifics. It is the basis of the election.
Who cannot be for “change”?

Osama’s “change” or Obama’s “change”?

Is “change” without specifics, without definition, to be the basis of a candidates choice?
Poor America! It is running around blind! It is without thought! It is without reason!

Forget about “whose” change!
“Change” is supposed to have a meaning, a definition!
America (including the media and the pundits) has adopted this word without a “mutual meaning”. Each person has his own “definition”…. Isn’t that one of the jobs of the “contenders”?

An individual who is advocating “change” has an obligation to define what he means. To advocate a foreign policy that needs “more foreign policy advocates” means that you are aware of the strides that are taking place, (the present program that the operating Administration has ongoing), and this is what you feel is inadequate, the need to “change”.. How exactly would you “change” it? ….(Or do you just want to “change” the foreign policy of the U.S.?)


Osama’s “change” or Obama’s “change”?

Any individual who wants “change” must be aware and state what are the present actions being taken and what they are going to do to make the “change”. Anything else will lead us to obscurity!

Do you want the election based on a misunderstanding, or worse, no understanding at all?