The Scare Tactics of No Change

In all my posting I’ve found a like number of replies. They fall into separate groups.
In all my articles I try to cover all views with fact and their sources. The first group & the largest of the few negative ones where as follows.

Based on nothing more than old beliefs and fears of change that if we rock the boat the whole world will end as we know it. And our signal vote might be the one to tip the balance to saving it.

This is enforced to some extent to blind faith when your are following against all facts and events that are place in front of them. To have blind faith is a noble thing.

If it’s only you that is affected by the out come than blind faith knows no bounds. But if that blind faith extends toward others it has it limits.

Some believe that man can not control one’s destiny. I guess nothing can be a sure thing point of view that may be right.

But to a great extent you can tip the scale to an increase chance of positive out come you are wishing for.

Man has excelled at recording history but falls short from reviewing it and learning from it.

To explain where this is going every one has heard the theory about for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

To a large extent events in history follow this rule but the action is not always opposite or equal but more flowing.

So but tracing the events back one can find what cased the current event. Which brings us to the point of people being afraid of change?

The current administration can be traced back through any number of events to the end out come. The current effects we are now facing are the end result. Equipped with this knowledge.

We have to change course based on facts not blind faith.

The last point I would like to bring up is some things in our Declaration of Independence.

The Preamble of the Declaration is influenced by the spirit of republicanism, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”

Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption."

Which was used as the basic framework for liberty. In addition, it reflects the concepts of natural law, and self-determination. Ideas and even some of the phrasing were taken directly from the writings of English philosopher John Locke.

Thomas Paine's Common Sense had been widely read and provided a simple, clear case for independence that many found compelling.

According to Jefferson, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

Other point being. We hold these truths to be self-evident:
Meaning there are written to be self explaining not open for ones interpretation

“Is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof”
Proof “Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false and nothing else”

I bring this up for the soul reason of those applying interpretation of meaning to that which intent was to safe guard the rights and freedoms of all. Not beat them with it.

Such point is McCain’s interpretation of what is and not torture. Being he’s been subject to these abuses and so it seems we are lacking any data.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

I think a test would be in order being he has experience. To submit to this while asked questions such as do you not wear a dress and paint your nails. And agree to have the result published as to the results of the test.

My moneys on Mc Cain would state that it’s not true and only admitted under torture. Hummm

But I guess if you can not win the game, change the way the rules read than beat up the referee.