Global Public Articles

How many times during elections of all kinds do Americans have to listen to and watch political opponents point fingers at each other and make claims about their opponents that may or may not even be true? Americans are sick and tired of all of the back biting and slanderous tactics that politicians use to throw at each other in order to gain ground in there personal campaign no matter what office they are running for.

Although this presidential campaign has not appeared to be as heavily laden with slanderous advertisements from one candidate to the other, there have still been some. Voters do want to know the bad judgment calls that politicians who are continuing the pursuit of their current office or are seeking a new office have made in the past, but what voters want to know now more than ever is what are their plans for the future if they are elected and how are those plans going to benefit us.

For too long we have been aware of how many politicians that we elect to an office of one kind or another end up using that office as a vantage point for themselves and their rich friends. We absolutely know how when once elected these politicians use lobbyists and ties to big companies to further themselves and those close to them. Being elected as a political official is a job these politicians already get paid to do by us and we expect them to be doing what benefits us as American citizens overall, not just themselves. If they are not going into office to help us, why are we putting them there?

There is hopefully going to be a new standard for politicians to have to live up to from now on. We want to know exactly what their plans are and we want to be able to see clearly the results of their actions in Washington and in small towns all across the country. Americans are going to have to be more serious about the people we are allowing to get into office from now on and it is up to us to make sure they do their job correctly once they get there. We have to stop electing politicians because they sound like they will do a good job and then when they get that job they forget all about why they were elected in the first place.

The only way we can make sure this happens is to demand that people who are seeking an office have clear and precise plans that we can all understand and not accept them just because they can give flowery speeches that sound good or because they brought out enough bad points concerning their opponents. We want them to tell us what they are going to do and then we want it backed up by real results that we can see and use in our lives.

Aydan Corkern is a writer of many topics, visit some of her sites, like
denver water damage restoration and new york water damage restoration.

Well, we all were wondering when the presidential candidates would begin slinging out the negative advertisements against each other. Would it not be so nice just to have one election of any kind to get to the finish line without having to hear the competitors slinging trash at one another? Is it not much more important for us to hear what things they are planning to do to help this country and the poor pitiful state that it is in?

It never fails that when the finish line draws close, candidates can not seem to help themselves when it comes to dredging up any past scandal their candidate might have been even remotely connected to even if they were not directly involved in any way. When the advertising campaigns use some twisted up version of what the truth is to sling mud at their opponent, is this tactic not just as dishonest and deceitful as anything else? When they only tell a half truth or distort the truth to make a situation appear to be what it really was not, does this not prove that the candidate slinging the half true or untruthful mud untrustworthy themselves?

It is really sad when we the American people are being fed tabloid type stories as the material to base our votes on. The presidential election in our country is one of the most important elections in the world. In recent years it is almost like we have to rely on the rag tag tabloid type magazines where we always have to read between the lines and really dig to find out what the truth really is. It also makes you wonder whether there should be some law passed prohibiting candidates to say anything about the other. Maybe they should be made to just stick to talking about themselves and not be able to trash the other opponent since this seems to be what they do the best.

It is true that we have freedom of speech and should be allowed to say pretty much what ever we want to, but when it comes to politics it seems to have gotten out of control. Maybe when one politician slings a negative accusation against the other one they should also have to explicitly name their source of that information and be made to absolutely without a shadow of a doubt be able to prove that what they are implying is true. As American voters we do not want to hear half truths and exaggerated stories that do not turn out to be exactly what they are implied to be. We want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is what we want our voting choice to be based on. The truth and nothing but.

Aydan Corkern is a writer of many topics, visit some of her sites, like
denver water damage restoration and new york water damage restoration.

You hear the words liberals and conservatives all the time when politics are discussed, but what do they really mean? And, is it really bad to be one or the other? Unfortunately, these labels fit into the usual stereotype traps by encompassing a whole world of meanings that don’t necessarily match the people who wear those labels. Similar examples would illustrate that not all red heads have bad tempers and not all blonde females are dumb.

Liberal by definition means a lot of things, such as: “lacking moral restraint,” and “not literal or strict,” or even “Not bound by authoritarianism.” It’s easy to say that someone who is considered as this liberal label is not someone who believes in the traditional beliefs. While conservative on the other hand is “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions,” or “cautious.” Or, put quite simply, they stick to the traditional beliefs. From the definitions you can tell these are two opposite approaches to politics.

So what is it that liberals think of as the truth and what defines their beliefs? Liberals believe that all knowledge is obtained from individual humans rather than one thing being true for all people. They also believe that a person should do things that will be good for all of society. As far as economics are concerned, liberals stand by the belief that wealth should be distributed evenly among society, one person should not be richer then the next because that is unethical. And they believe that we cannot control everything that happens in the world.

On the other hand, the following paragraph includes a few beliefs that drive conservatives to think and act the way they do. First, God is the one from whom we obtain knowledge because he created humans and all rules and standards apply equally to all people. As independent people, individuals need to look out for themselves not for society but understand that their actions will also affect society. People need to work for their earnings and should not receive more or less of what they have earned. And finally, humans control everything. Or, in other words, there is nothing that will happen that they cannot control.

As you can see liberals and conservatives are polar opposites in beliefs and what drives their style of leadership. On the conservative side everything is possibly reduced to a few choices, while a liberal says you have no control in what will happen.

In politics it seems that the majority of the times Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative. This is where all the negative campaigns come into affect. For example, when a politician believes in a few of the liberal or conservative beliefs, they are often aligned with all the beliefs and perceived as something different than what they actually may be.

Either way you look at politics, neither side is bad; it’s just a difference of opinion. And fortunately, in the United States we are allowed to have our own beliefs even if everyone does not agree with our way of thinking. So next time you are thinking “oh, he’s bad because he’s a conservative” or “all liberals are evil,” think again.

American Political Commentary (http://americanpoliticalcommentary.com/) is one place where voters can read a conservative political blog. Whether you favor this view or simply want to stay abreast on their arguments, you can learn a lot at this site. The author, Art Gib, is a freelance writer.

For the second time since 2006, Arizonans will be asked to change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Prop 102, a citizen’s initiative on the November 2008 ballot, attempts to block any efforts to allow homosexuals to marry in Arizona. This article will debunk the myths surrounding the ballot measure and give you five reasons to vote NO on Prop 102.

Members of Arizona Together, the coalition that formed two years ago to defeat (successfully) the so-called “Protect Marriage Amendment,” have reorganized to deploy an aggressive “No on Prop 102″ campaign, yet another so-called “Marriage Amendment.” The issue is now being supported by a handful of legislators who seek to cancel the votes of the majority of 1.5 million Arizona voters who demonstrated their views in 2006 when they voted NO on the marriage amendment.
The myths that surround Proposition 102 are plentiful, yet easily disproved. Here are just two of the myths about Prop 102:

MYTH: The only reason this same ballot measure didn’t pass in 2006 is because straight people would have been negatively affected.

FACT: Not True. Arizona Together spent $35,000 in voter research after the election to help us understand why we won and to prepare us for the very fight we face today. More than 90% of voters believed they were voting on amending the constitution to ban same sex marriage. That is the same issue we face today.

MYTH: The majority of voters in Arizona support the so-called Marriage Amendment.
FACT: No, they aren’t. A majority of Arizona voters support defining marriage as a union one man and one woman. However, only 48% support amending the constitution to add this definition today (August 2008). In 2006, 57% supported amending the constitution in August but only 48% supported it by November.

Still need more? Here are five reasons to Vote NO on Prop 102:

Voting NO on Prop 102 keeps politicians out of marriage. Arizona has a budget deficit and schools across the state need help. But what do politicians spend their time debating? Marriage - even though it’s already defined (in state law) as between a man and a woman. Plus, we already voted on it two years ago!

Voting NO on Prop 102 tells the politicians that we aren’t dumb. Why won’t politicians listen to us? Do they think that we’re dumb? In 2006 we voted NO. Now they are back at it, putting divisive issues on the ballot. We must stop them from forcing us into spending time and funds on debating the definition of marriage.

Voting NO on Prop 102 tells politicians to get to work on real issues that matter to Arizona families. Voting on the marriage issue isn’t important to people; we must focus on more important issues like health care, immigration, the energy policy and our economy.

Voting NO on Prop 102 leaves marriage alone. In the State of Arizona, marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman. There’s no reason to change the Constitution.

Voting NO on Prop 102 sends a message that we trust the people. Voters made their views known on the issue of marriage two years ago by defeating the so-called “Protect Marriage Amendment.” Forty nine legislators should not be allowed to overturn the voters on this issue.

Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) is co-chair of the human interest group, Arizona Together Opposed to Proposition 102. Visit our site and make a secure contribution that will help us spread our message: Vote NO on Proposition 102.

Proposition 102 is a ballot measure directed toward changing the Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. But the State of Arizona already passed a law in 1996 banning same-sex marriage! This article will expose the truth about Arizona Proposition 102. Vote NO on Prop 102 - again.

For the second time since 2006, Arizonans will be asked to change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Proposition 102, a citizen’s initiative on the November ballot, attempts to block any efforts that would allow homosexuals to marry in Arizona.

This ballot measure was defeated two years ago. Why is the definition of marriage on the ballot again? Here’s the truth about Arizona Proposition 102:

Since 1996, Arizona has had a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, banning same-sex marriage. In 2003, a homosexual couple challenged the law as unconstitutional before the Arizona Court of Appeals. They lost their case, and in 2004, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to review the matter, which closed the issue on same-sex marriage in Arizona.

Then, in 2006, Arizona voters rejected Prop 107 - a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, barring government recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships. That vote gave Arizona the distinction of being the only state in the nation to reject a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Now, in 2008, it’s called Prop 102, a measure that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage. This brings about questions like: How many times do they people have to vote to get the message across? How did this happen a second time?

Senator Tim Bee, a 2008 Republican candidate for U.S. Representative from Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, filed the amendment proposal on Feb. 11. In the beginning, it seemed that the initiative would be on the fall ballot due to support in both the state House and Senate. But it stalled in the Senate for months as the state budget crisis grew.

So, f acing a $3 billion dollar budget deficit, the Arizona Republican leadership prioritized the issue of defining marriage, violated legislative ethics rules and failed to adequately address vital issues such as the economy, health care and education. In a session held on Friday, June 27, Senate President Bee reached out to Democrats to get the budget passed. Bee was one of only four Republican senators who voted in favor of what was considered the Democrats’ state budget.

In the waning hours of the session, Bee allowed the marriage amendment to move forward. Democratic opponents staged a filibuster to delay the vote. During the filibuster, session chairman Sen. Jack Harper, of Surprise, broke Senate rules by turning off the microphone of Tucson Sen. Paula Aboud and ending the filibuster.

Proposition 107 is being forced by a handful of legislators who should not be allowed to cancel the votes of the majority of 1.5 million Arizona voters who demonstrated their views in 2006 when they voted NO on the marriage amendment.

Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) is co-chair of the human interest group, Arizona Together Opposed to Proposition 102. Visit our site and make a secure contribution that will help us spread our message: Vote NO on Proposition 102.