Jump to content

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)


Trae

Next United States President  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One

    • Barack Obama
      54
    • John McCain
      46
    • Other
      7


Recommended Posts

What do you think of this? As a person who rejects 'organized religion' (but not God), I find creationism unsound and plainly man's early attempts to explain the world around them. I believe everyone's right to believe, but do we want this taught in our schools?

Absolutely! ...in social studies. ...and only in the context of other creation mythology from other major cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What am I to be made of!? :huh:

Am I supposed to work to help people? Is that my worth, is what I can do for you? For a child? For a poor man? For a crippled retard? ____ that! Is my worth defined by praise? By fitting in? By popularity? By fame? By fear? By power? By strength? By influence? By an obituary?

Moreover, why would you think that the accumulation of wealth would suit me? It does not. All the wealth in the world is worthless if it cannot be spent. I desire to earn money that I might spend it for my own benefit.

Then tell us what you mean by "making something of yourself". At first, it sounded like you wanted to leave a mark on history. Then it sounded like you wanted money. Now it sounds like you want to consume stuff. The suspense is killing me, so just tell me: what does TheNiche want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then tell us what you mean by "making something of yourself". At first, it sounded like you wanted to leave a mark on history. Then it sounded like you wanted money. Now it sounds like you want to consume stuff. The suspense is killing me, so just tell me: what does TheNiche want?

In short, I desire the opportunity to pursue whatever makes me happy; whether tangible goods, a service, or an emotional state; whether it is a lifelong objective or a momentary whim; whether my tastes are static or dynamic--whether my bretheren consider my habits popular or not--whether they suffer and I do not, or vice versa--and insofar as satiating my desires does not necessitate the non-consensual taking of another person's life or property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could all be an end around by the McCain camp to draw attention away from who he is gonna announce at the convention. Perhaps they are in talks with someone else. Look how they kept this turn of events a secret and have blown everyone away by it. Just a thought.
You have to hand it to McCain's camp, they stopped the buzz on the Obama Express' show from last night, dead in it's track. Every channel is talking about nothing but this new choice for VP. Great strategy on their part.

I think this has gained this much attention because this choice is strange. Come on, admit it, Palin, someone many people have never heard of and a woman, picked over many distinguished Republican hopefuls? Sure it's history in the making and all that good "stuff", but this is seriously an odd choice. Let's just say, it's f***ed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, I desire the opportunity to pursue whatever makes me happy; whether tangible goods, a service, or an emotional state; whether it is a lifelong objective or a momentary whim; whether my tastes are static or dynamic--whether my bretheren consider my habits popular or not--whether they suffer and I do not, or vice versa--and insofar as satiating my desires does not necessitate the non-consensual taking of another person's life or property.

So you "would be willing to endure an endless cycle of wars" to assist your pursuit of personal pleasure, but somehow those wars don't take anyone's life or property without their consent. I'm so confused. Are you talking about a video game or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has gained this much attention because this choice is strange. Come on, admit it, Palin, someone many people have never heard of and a woman, picked over many distinguished Republican hopefuls? Sure it's history in the making and all that good "stuff", but this is seriously an odd choice. Let's just say, it's f***ed up.

Yeah, he's stolen the show, but not for a good reason. Kinda the way one would stop watching the Boston Celtics victory parade to look at the car wreck on the side street. And, if McCain thinks this woman will attract female voters because she is "successful" rather than look at her policy positions that are antagonistic to women...well, it wouldn't be the first time McCain didn't get it, would it?

From just a couple of miinutes listening to her, she sounds like merely a shill for plundering Alaskan resources, which means that she will also be a shill for Big Oil. Her "energy plan" is "mine as much of Alaska that we can, and maybe eventually we'll come up with something else". I'm sure the pretty face will sell a lot of Republicans (it works for Fox News), but once you are forced to listen to what she says, her naivete on energy matters is clear. Not that you could blame her. Oil has made the entire state of Alaska a welfare state. As Niche says, once the people get used to that free money they don't want it to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you "would be willing to endure an endless cycle of wars" to assist your pursuit of personal pleasure, but somehow those wars don't take anyone's life or property without their consent. I'm so confused. Are you talking about a video game or something?

I've told you what I want. And I'll add to it that I don't want wars or criminal violence, either. That doesn't mean that what I want is necessarily a realistic expectation.

In the real world, trade-offs are inevitable. Ideals are impossible. And politics is an optimization problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've told you what I want. And I'll add to it that I don't want wars or criminal violence, either. That doesn't mean that what I want is necessarily a realistic expectation.

In the real world, trade-offs are inevitable. Ideals are impossible. And politics is an optimization problem.

Have you worked out these equations? Do you know how many people can die for each dollar you get to spend on making yourself happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. McCain has never met her in person and they've only spoken on the phone once. Yeah, this isn't a risky move.

It smacks of desperation on McCain's part. He probably thinks he can get some Hillary supporters to jump ship. I'm guessing that it won't work since Palin is much more conservative than Hillary. Hopefully people will vote on issues and not on gender or race this election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of this? As a person who rejects 'organized religion' (but not God), I find creationism unsound and plainly man's early attempts to explain the world around them. I believe everyone's right to believe, but do we want this taught in our schools?

****

McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

By Brandon Keim August 29, 2008 | 12:57:43 PMCategories: 2008 Presidential Election, Evolution, Religion

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska trotted out the usual creationist education canard: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08...ns-vp-want.html

This may have just made my decision. I haven't liked Obama so far, and even though I believe in God, I still can't believe someone who thinks creationism is more than a moral story is fit to be 2nd in charge. Looks, maybe. Brains, sorry, can't check that box.

BTW I actually know someone who lived in Wasilla. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you worked out these equations? Do you know how many people can die for each dollar you get to spend on making yourself happy?

It is an intuitive calculus, so yes, the factors have been weighed.

There have been 4,150 U.S. military KIAs over a span of nearly five and a half years. The U.S. population is 305,006,273. So in a given year of the Iraq War, approximately 0.0002% of the U.S. population has perished in it. And that's not even subtracting the number of U.S. troops that die as a result of accidents or natural causes. In the context of most of the other major wars that the U.S. has fought, this basically inconsequential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an intuitive calculus, so yes, the factors have been weighed.

There have been 4,150 U.S. military KIAs over a span of nearly five and a half years. The U.S. population is 305,006,273. So in a given year of the Iraq War, approximately 0.0002% of the U.S. population has perished in it. And that's not even subtracting the number of U.S. troops that die as a result of accidents or natural causes. In the context of most of the other major wars that the U.S. has fought, this basically inconsequential.

Are you really saying that military deaths are inconsequential? Way to think like an accountant. Or a republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an intuitive calculus, so yes, the factors have been weighed.

There have been 4,150 U.S. military KIAs over a span of nearly five and a half years. The U.S. population is 305,006,273. So in a given year of the Iraq War, approximately 0.0002% of the U.S. population has perished in it. And that's not even subtracting the number of U.S. troops that die as a result of accidents or natural causes. In the context of most of the other major wars that the U.S. has fought, this basically inconsequential.

I know you like to rile people up but this is a bit much, don't you think?

I'd love to see you tell a military family these thoughts.

By the way, what about the 30,568 US troops that have been wounded?

What about the 314 coalition troops that have been killed, largely from the UK?

What about the 581 US troops killed in Afghanistan?

What about the 130 journalists killed?

AND, last but not least, some international estimates and medical journals place the Iraqi death count at 1,255,026 killed since the US invasion in 2003. What about these people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an intuitive calculus, so yes, the factors have been weighed.

There have been 4,150 U.S. military KIAs over a span of nearly five and a half years. The U.S. population is 305,006,273. So in a given year of the Iraq War, approximately 0.0002% of the U.S. population has perished in it. And that's not even subtracting the number of U.S. troops that die as a result of accidents or natural causes. In the context of most of the other major wars that the U.S. has fought, this basically inconsequential.

It's fascinating that you only include US military deaths in that total. You have a truly messed up world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an intuitive calculus, so yes, the factors have been weighed.

There have been 4,150 U.S. military KIAs over a span of nearly five and a half years. The U.S. population is 305,006,273. So in a given year of the Iraq War, approximately 0.0002% of the U.S. population has perished in it. And that's not even subtracting the number of U.S. troops that die as a result of accidents or natural causes. In the context of most of the other major wars that the U.S. has fought, this basically inconsequential.

Shame.

I see why you support John McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you like to rile people up but this is a bit much, don't you think?

I'd love to see you tell a military family these thoughts.

By the way, what about the 30,568 US troops that have been wounded?

What about the 314 coalition troops that have been killed, largely from the UK?

What about the 581 US troops killed in Afghanistan?

What about the 130 journalists killed?

AND, last but not least, some international estimates and medical journals place the Iraqi death count at 1,255,026 killed since the US invasion in 2003. What about these people?

You get triple bonus score for the journalists..........;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an intuitive calculus, so yes, the factors have been weighed.

There have been 4,150 U.S. military KIAs over a span of nearly five and a half years. The U.S. population is 305,006,273. So in a given year of the Iraq War, approximately 0.0002% of the U.S. population has perished in it. And that's not even subtracting the number of U.S. troops that die as a result of accidents or natural causes. In the context of most of the other major wars that the U.S. has fought, this basically inconsequential.

How pathetic. Just goes to show that, yep, the US military is bearing the brunt, and enduring the losses, of this war. Maybe if we could rotate just 1% of our US population through mandatory military rotations (fighting the war), maybe then we'd all have a different view of war, all together. That would limit us to the truly necessary wars, e.g. WWII type of conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really saying that military deaths are inconsequential? Way to think like an accountant. Or a republican.

You'd think an amatuer economist would at least comment on the war's cost. Maybe a bunch of soldiers are inconsequential, but surely the $700 Billion in past costs and $1.5 Trillion in future costs bothers you a bit.

(response to Niche, not 'cuda)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you like to rile people up but this is a bit much, don't you think?

No.

I'd love to see you tell a military family these thoughts.

HAIF has a tremendous number of members. I suspect that I just told quite a few military families my thoughts. I certainly wouldn't have said it on a public forum if I were afraid that someone might disagree with me.

By the way, what about the 30,568 US troops that have been wounded?

It doesn't affect my point.

What about the 314 coalition troops that have been killed, largely from the UK?

The UK has about 61 million in population. If you want to add them in, then it makes the total war fatality rate look even lower. Doing so would appear to support my argument.

What about the 581 US troops killed in Afghanistan?

Obama supports the deployment in Afghanistan. He also has lamented that resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq; had there been more personnel in Afghanistan, it is probable that casualties would've been somewhat higher...if only as a result of non-combat deaths.

What about the 130 journalists killed?

Journalists and contractors go of their own free volition. They know the risks (and get compensated for them).

AND, last but not least, some international estimates and medical journals place the Iraqi death count at 1,255,026 killed since the US invasion in 2003. What about these people?

I honestly have no idea what to make of that. Estimates of civilian casualties have been all over the place...and yours seems to be on the extreme side. Moreover, it becomes very difficult to assign responsibility for all of them to an American president. While it could be said that many fewer Iraqi civilians would've met violent/militaristic deaths had the American invasion not occured, there were a lot of subsequent players that drummed up ethnic strife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating that you only include US military deaths in that total. You have a truly messed up world view.

The coalition members are all sovereign nations; I am only a U.S. citizen talking about the election of a U.S. President. Never mind that the statistics actually look better when you add them in...it just seems that responsibility ought to be shared on some level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How pathetic. Just goes to show that, yep, the US military is bearing the brunt, and enduring the losses, of this war. Maybe if we could rotate just 1% of our US population through mandatory military rotations (fighting the war), maybe then we'd all have a different view of war, all together. That would limit us to the truly necessary wars, e.g. WWII type of conflicts.

No, that would be more than a pinprick. To be clear, I don't advocate the continuation of the war any longer than is necessary in order to ensure that redeployment will be unnecessary, nor do I advocate increased troop levels at this point in the game.

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. Go back and reread some of my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty sick to hear how selfish and idiotic some Houstonians can behave on the internet, but alas you are MY idiots.

My family is a multi-generational military family, I regularly stay up late at night just to hear from them. My sister is an EMT at Tulane and we all try to do our best in seeing the forest for the trees by the grace of god.

Niche is really about power; social control through consumerism and market forces. I can appreciate his honest discourse but not his intellectual dishonesty. I would suggest to you that you find that significant other, sooner than later (it very apparent in your internets).

As far the election is concerned,

it seems like McCain was doing fine, why shake things up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coalition members are all sovereign nations; I am only a U.S. citizen talking about the election of a U.S. President. Never mind that the statistics actually look better when you add them in...it just seems that responsibility ought to be shared on some level.

The statistics don't look better when you include civilian casualties. Unless you're just getting off on pointless death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...