Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dunenewt

Next US President?

If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?

    • John McCain
      8
    • Hillary Clinton
      2
    • Barrack Obama
      14
    • Some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning
      4
    • Some right-wing candidate with no chance of winning
      1


Recommended Posts

Clearly we need more abstinence lessons and fewer provocations like condoms and other forms of birth control. She's clearly a victim of socialist moral depravity. None are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''Heh, I wish I were a professional debater, but I'm not spontaneous enough - it usually takes me a few minutes to formulate a really good counter-argument. That's not a problem on a forum or anywhere that arguments are written down, but in a live debate it doesn't work so well.''

That is why I view online(or otherwise written)-forums as the ultimate means of debate. Such means are free of disadvantages like constraints,interruption, poor speech ability, physical charisma (I think people being swayed by charisma instead of logic is generally a bad thing).

In such situations where one has explored to great depths and duration all the aspects of an issue of complexity and all counter-arguments to any conclusions derivable from this issue (ie: thought about it to a great and perhaps complete extent) it is most unlikely that they will be able to communicate this in the usual debate-environment. In these case, only forums such as those on the internet could possibly suffice. Hence, it may be that for discussions pertaining to complex issues (does something easily solveable warrant discussion anyway?) the internetsimilar forum is the only way to reach a satisfactory conclusion that fully exhausts everything that all attendees have come up with. It seems then, that the internetdebate forum should then be the only worthwhile means of debate.

I may be wrong though. I don't really know anything about most means of debate and the procedures,e.t.c that accompany them.  :P ;D

Hmmm... people might not be swayed by debates because they rarely reach their conclusion. Some debated matters require much thought to be resolved. With that being the case, it is no surprise that a long debate is required by people to demonstrate their answer and logic. In some case, an answer is come up with that is logically infallible (at least within some conditions) for various reasons. However, the opposition will present various counter-arguments. If the presenter of this argument is good at communication and understands WHY his point is infallible, he will be able to dismiss all of these points eventually

It is akin to the construction of a scientific proof. In attempting to disprove the proof some will say that step A of the proof is wrong. If the proof is correct then another will have to explain why step A is actually fine to convince others of the correctness of the proof.

The case is the same with ideas debated here and scientific proofs in that regardless of correctness demonstrating this correctness may well take an enormous amount of time.

Hence, few stick around to do this and that is why most are not swayed. Another issue may that though someone might be able to demonstrate why A is correct while dismissing all counter-arguments (it is true that even if all current counter-arguments are dismissed showing the current theoretical perfection of the proof, that one day someone may spot some overlooked error that by chance had been missed [perhaps why contested proofs are deemed more convincing]. This is another reason why such things are a matter of ''convincingness'' as opposed to proof) that those who he communicates this to may be unable to understand the flaws in the counter-arguments and/or the argument in general and hence the ultimate correctness of the proof within it's constraints.

Of course, there may also be those who are simply too biased to ever see the error of their ways, and their may be matters that are simply subjective. Though what is often the case is that one can demonstrate how B must be considered true by all those who believe A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if she really is the mother, what does flying to some back-water village in Alaska when the hospitals of Texas (probably some high-class ones to cater to the rich) are so much nearer say about the logic skills of this person? Actually, what does it say about the SANITY of this person?

Her husband seems to suggest (fishpicker?) that they didn't want her to give birth in Texas.... so then why not go to one of the far nearer and better equipped hospitals in ANY OTHER STATE!?

Of course, other than the issue of not wanting their baby born in Texas specifically, there may be the issue of wanting the baby in her country of birth/significant place (which Alaska may have been). If that's the case, then why not the best hospital in Alaska (might not be saying much, but still). Also, did she have all her children in Alaska (if not because it was her place of birth but rather because of it having some significance, then from the time it bore said significance.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, the fun part is Palin supports abstinence only education. Looks like it did its job. Which apparently is to get their kids pregnant.

Although I would think that a kid from a wealthy, educated family would know more about the consequences of a baby. I also find it humourus that they are getting married. I'm sure they both came to the conclusion that they wanted to get married and it had nothing to do with politics.

Palin's stance on sex ed coming back to smack her

- When she ran for governor of Alaska in 2006, Sarah Palin was asked if she would support abstinence-before-marriage programs over sex education, school clinics and contraceptive distribution. She was firm in her answer: "Explicit sex ed programs will not find my support."

Anyone find it odd that there are two "surprise" pregnancies in the family in such a short time frame?

Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s

blogger exposes conspiracy to edit timeframes for palin family pictures

Seems to be a hardcore anti palin person.

Also no record of the baby on the hospital website

Palin Hires Lawyer for Trooper-Gate Investigation

That's all for tonight.

EDIT:

I lied!

Palin pregnant pic

Looks pregnant there.

But one month earlier does not look pregnant here.

Myspace pics that were put up with the baby are now taken down but not before people saved them :P

September2 EDIT:

Palin thinks Pledge written by Founding Fathers

      11.  Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the oft-mentioned near religious level of following of the founding fathers and their ways. I wonder if she really cares about what was ''good enough for the founding fathers'' and what not or if it is all just propaganda.

What was good enough for people about a century ago is generally not good enough for people today. Most expect progress.

I noticed on the link given that many of the people there were treating this like some ridiculous conspiracy theory. To me it at least seems that the evidence given thus far in support of this in fact being her daughters baby is at least sufficient as to be worthy of a label superior to that of conspiracy theory. Judging from the date of the posts and the info/blog/whatever it seems that they were given all the supporting evidence as well. Maybe there's something absent-minded me hasn't noticed but it seems far more probable that this is just an example of bias, close-mindedness and general stupidity.

Btw, is falsifying information about someones parents even legal? I guess if the info about the true parents is kept as classified info by the govt though it should be no big deal... as a matter of fact it's probably no big deal in general... UNLESS of course it comes to matters like this one where such info pertains to serious political matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Bristol Palin was taken out of school because she had mono which lasted for 5 months which occurred during in the last trimester. It is weird that Palin returned to work 3 days after giving birth.

So many coincidences.

LOL CBC news is running the story with all the "rumours" after the first 6 minutes of newscast.

Palin is either hiding something, or extremely bad luck.

Also Palin was pregnant with her first child before being married. That's not very conservative.

McCain said he was aware of Bristols pregnancy before choosing Palin as a running mate. I doubt this is true.

Intrade market sees 12 pct chance Palin withdrawn

Pic of city of wasilla website now

Pic of city of wasilla website in February 2008

At least the cities marketers are on the ball.

Palin On Abortion: I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped

There is no way she's gonna stay. Great for fundies, bad for womens rights.

Even Fox news Bil O'Reilly would blame Sarah Palin for her kid getting pregnant. At least that's what he did when britney spears 16 year old sister got knocked up. link

Levi Johnston to join Palin family at convention

In case you didn't know he is the father of the baby. Aww how cute. I'm sure he wants to do this.

"Absolutely not," Sherry Johnston told reporters outside the family's Wasilla home. Johnston said the two teens already had plans to marry before they knew she was pregnant.

So I guess it is normal to get married when your 18/17 and in high school in Alaska?

Also everyone was saying that the family kids should be left out of the politics, yet they decide to bring the mystery father down to the convention where there are reporters and cameras? I think that does the opposite.

Then there's the pics of Bristol with alcohol. Also not very conservative (maybe the cause for down syndrome?). Conservatives can preach all they want, but if they can't raise their own children to their so called standards, how can anyone expect them to run a country?

I feel so sorry for the family getting involved into this. Should have stayed away.

EDIT:

ctv news picked up the story as well:

Interestingly Palin is no where to be seen at the convention except for one picture.

Fathers myspace said at one point he was a self described "redneck" and "I don't want kids".

It's like a train wreck and can't look away from it :(

Oh well next week the media will be back to saying Obama is a muslim and that his middle name is Hussein.

EDIT:

MORE MORE MORE!!!!

Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

RNC official at convention refers to Sarah Palin as "Sarah Pawlenty"

Hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be enjoying this Andrew.  :) ;D.

Can't say I'm averse to seeing hypocritical corrupt ridiculous fools who are likely to run a country into the ground (or deeper into the ground) being seen as such myself.

Is it too late for Mc Cain to choose a new running partner... I strongly doubt he desires to keep Sarah. (though you never know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of Sarah Palin talking to her church about our divine mission to invade Iraq, the need for Jesus, the gift of prophecy

3 months ago.

She says that invading Iraq is Gods plan. So I guess it was Gods plan to kill 100,000 Iraqis?

Palin said war in Iraq, gas pipeline are God’s will

Palin: average isn't good enough. She's not qualified to be president, and in picking her, McCain shows that he has little respect for the presidency.

Before speech, Palin gets some coaching

Of course this is normal, but I bet they are gonna make sure it is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the oft-mentioned near religious level of following of the founding fathers and their ways. I wonder if she really cares about what was ''good enough for the founding fathers'' and what not or if it is all just propaganda.

The thing is, the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with the founding fathers. It was created in the late 19th century, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until 1951.

So Palin is idolizing the founding fathers without even knowing what they actually did or didn't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palin wanted to ban books from the local library, tried to fire librarian for refusing

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Analysis: GOP contradicts self on Palin family

Huh? The Republican message about the Palin offspring comes across as contradictory: Hey, media, leave those kids alone — so we can use them as we see fit.

Basically no one can use them for bad things to point out the mothers hypocrisy, but the republicans can use them in ad campaigns etc to gain support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''The thing is, the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with the founding fathers. It was created in the late 19th century, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until 1951.

So Palin is idolizing the founding fathers without even knowing what they actually did or didn't do.''

Silly me, that is true.

Then I ask if she really cares about what she THINKS were the ways of the founding fathers or if it is all just propaganda. Given that she is apparently not to well versed in these matters it would seem the latter. Then again, it seems Americans are often quite serious on matters that they know nothing of.

Of course to most people such matters of founding father's and pledges is little more than trivia but it seems like it may be an issue of some concern when somebody running for VP knows so little about such affairs.

How much influence and power does a VP in America have? If it is a lot then it seems to me that if Sarah Palin remains as Mc Cain's running partner then that is a new reason to vote for somebody other than Mc Cain. There has been discussion here focused on the policies of the members and which are less bad with both candidates generally being doushebags.

Well, it seems that Sarah would generally like to continue the policies of Bush. Unless all this talk about God's will is once again propaganda?

Are the Bush and his policies sufficiently popular that there would even be any sense in making such statements as propaganda? Is his popularity poll % high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Cheney had pretty much free reign to do whatever he wanted

Including shooting people and having them apologize for being shot. :P

I just watched 15 min of John McCain giving a speech at the convention. That is some crazy politics. Much different than Canadian. We have an election on October 14. I'll make a thread once it is official.

McCain never gave any specifics. It was all generalizations on what change he would make. Do they ever make specific policy announcements? Or do they wait until presidential debates?

Also most of his speech I heard was fear mongering about Iran, Iraq, terrorists, and Russia.

EDIT:

Also funny that Obamas donation server crashed during McCains speech. So much traffic to it :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite true; the Democrats and the Republicans in general are not mirror images of each other - the Democrats tend to be more centrist on all things, while the Republicans tend to be extreme in both their social conservatism and their ultra-capitalism.

Relatively speaking, most democrats are left leaning. Centrists would mean that you agree more or less with the level of taxation and the amount of government spending of your country. Democrats generally want to expand both, though there are also so-called "fiscally responsible" democrats, i.e. Bill Clinton and Richardson. Bush has been running a disastrous "borrow and spend" program but a lot of republicans disagree with them (McCain opposed Bush' tax cuts originally on the grounds that he didn't think Bush would match it with budget cuts)

By the way - regarding your support for liberalism (I refuse to call it "social and economic liberties," as I firmly believe that capitalism destroys all the liberties that matter) - is it based on axiomatic principles or utilitarian concerns? In other words, do you think liberalism is good in and of itself, or do you believe it promotes some other, higher purpose?

A bit of both. No regulations or taxes at all would be ridiculous because companies use the nations infrastructure and ought to pay for it, and stockholders of limited liability companies are never liable beyond what they've paid for their shares so they shouldn't whine when the economy is regulated to ensure the long term health of the system. But when that's "done" I don't think that we should begrudge people the fruits of setting up a succesful company wich will ultimately benefit the entire economy with jobs and new products.

Not that the current tax levels taken as a whole are particulary horrid in the US, but Obama wants to raise them to absurd levels. Obama's also a closet protectionist, he's laying off the anti-NAFTA rethoric right now so he can pander to the centrist voters but when he's sworn in we'll see the same Obama we saw during the primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of 9/11 "tribute" at last nights RNC convention

The tv host apologizes for showing it because he is smart enough to know it is exploiting the victims.

Definitely watch the video! Only 3:40 and shows how crazy republicans are. They want to invade Iran. Also the people at the convention cheered at the video. They cheered at wanting to go to war and the fact that 3000 Americans died on 9/11.

McCain Camp Says Palin Won't Talk To Media During Campaign

That's the perfect VP. No access to media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<img src=http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9071/poster4620781kc2.jpg>

Thanks to ordos for finding it hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During McCains speech last night he had a background that was supposed to be the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But instead the image they put up was of Walter Reed Middle School in Hollywood California.

The Walter Reed gaffe

The republican campaign really sucks.

here's a pic of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, it's not as if I want to convince you to become a communist - when was the last time someone's political opinions were radically changed as a result of a single debate? But I would like it if you understood our side, so that you wouldn't do things like calling Obama a Marxist (that's about as random as calling Bush a monarchist).

This is just one of the forums I visit, and I've come to see many of the others I do are abundant with extreme lefties that spew a lot of BS about McCain and now Palin and praise Obama as a saint. So I'm learning from the best on how to make pointless accusations. Luckily I don't post here much so I'll keep it to a minimum.

McCain never gave any specifics. It was all generalizations on what change he would make. Do they ever make specific policy announcements?

I was unaware Obama's speech was full of specifics.  Maybe I missed them.  Care to point them out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just one of the forums I visit, and I've come to see many of the others I do are abundant with extreme lefties that spew a lot of BS about McCain and now Palin and praise Obama as a saint. So I'm learning from the best on how to make pointless accusations. Luckily I don't post here much so I'll keep it to a minimum.

It is the dualist character of these elections which cause these: if I support one, it equals I am (have to be) against the other. Democrats tend to be more populist or leftist, or just generally more liberal, what (when translated to the party's groupthink) expects the extremists to express an extreme support for their candidates. Even if both Obama and McCain are centrists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was unaware Obama's speech was full of specifics.  Maybe I missed them.  Care to point them out?

I didn't see his speech so I have no idea. I was asking more of a general question. When do they start with specific policies and promises?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...