Tweet
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SARGSYAN AND OBAMA
JAMES HAKOBYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25576.html
Published: 14:43:25 - 26/03/2012
When Serzh Sargsyan presented the slogan "Trust to Change" and
the Republicans set on the quest for the public justification of
this slogan, they also had to face the necessity to find another
explanation.
The point is that the society noticed the similarity of the slogans
of Serzh Sargsyan and Barack Obama. In his election campaign, the U.S.
President adopted the slogan change we can believe in.
The Republicans responded to public remarks on plagiarism that it is
logical when the slogans and leaders outline changes if the country
needs them, regardless the country.
In fact, Obama's slogan is logical, whereas Serzh Sargsyan's slogan is
not. Logic is not based on the qualities, characteristics, credibility
of a person and other circumstances but first of all the status.
Barack Obama declared his slogan on change when he was just going to
be a president. Moreover, his party was not majority then. He came to
replace the Republican administration. And since the country was facing
a devastating financial crisis with systemic risks, as Obama was headed
for the White House, he declared the slogan a change we can believe in.
And now if Barack Obama declares such a slogan ahead of his second
term, the Americans will at least ask him Mr. President what were
you doing in the past four years if now you assure us that you can
change or we can change.
Serzh Sargsyan was the president of Armenia for four years, earlier
he was the prime minister of Armenia for a year and the leader of the
parliamentary majority. In other words, it's been 5-6 years since
Serzh Sargsyan is the key personality of the government, and the
Republican Party he leads for over 10 years is the ruling party.
Hence, the slogan believe to change is illogical because if Serzh
Sargsyan and the Republicans were capable of change, in the past 6,
5 or 4 years, the society would have seen and felt change, essential
change or a real process of change, and there would be no need for
a slogan because the society would have seen the actions and would
have believed in the ability of this force to change the country.
The force or activist can declare slogans on trust and change which
has never been in power and has not been part of one systemic process
of another, who is a new personality, a discovery for the society.
Since there are no new personalities in the coalition parties, the
usage of "trust" in the slogans of parties is absolutely unnecessary
and ungrounded.
From: Baghdasarian
JAMES HAKOBYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25576.html
Published: 14:43:25 - 26/03/2012
When Serzh Sargsyan presented the slogan "Trust to Change" and
the Republicans set on the quest for the public justification of
this slogan, they also had to face the necessity to find another
explanation.
The point is that the society noticed the similarity of the slogans
of Serzh Sargsyan and Barack Obama. In his election campaign, the U.S.
President adopted the slogan change we can believe in.
The Republicans responded to public remarks on plagiarism that it is
logical when the slogans and leaders outline changes if the country
needs them, regardless the country.
In fact, Obama's slogan is logical, whereas Serzh Sargsyan's slogan is
not. Logic is not based on the qualities, characteristics, credibility
of a person and other circumstances but first of all the status.
Barack Obama declared his slogan on change when he was just going to
be a president. Moreover, his party was not majority then. He came to
replace the Republican administration. And since the country was facing
a devastating financial crisis with systemic risks, as Obama was headed
for the White House, he declared the slogan a change we can believe in.
And now if Barack Obama declares such a slogan ahead of his second
term, the Americans will at least ask him Mr. President what were
you doing in the past four years if now you assure us that you can
change or we can change.
Serzh Sargsyan was the president of Armenia for four years, earlier
he was the prime minister of Armenia for a year and the leader of the
parliamentary majority. In other words, it's been 5-6 years since
Serzh Sargsyan is the key personality of the government, and the
Republican Party he leads for over 10 years is the ruling party.
Hence, the slogan believe to change is illogical because if Serzh
Sargsyan and the Republicans were capable of change, in the past 6,
5 or 4 years, the society would have seen and felt change, essential
change or a real process of change, and there would be no need for
a slogan because the society would have seen the actions and would
have believed in the ability of this force to change the country.
The force or activist can declare slogans on trust and change which
has never been in power and has not been part of one systemic process
of another, who is a new personality, a discovery for the society.
Since there are no new personalities in the coalition parties, the
usage of "trust" in the slogans of parties is absolutely unnecessary
and ungrounded.
From: Baghdasarian