EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 89
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/ (side note: this guy is a genius, you should subscribe to his blog) "Also in the CBS interview, Biden said, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’"" When the stock market crashed in 1929, Herbert Hoover was President; FDR wouldn't get the job until 1933. Television as a mass medium was a decade or so in the future. The first president to appear on TV was (I think--corrections welcome) Truman in 1946. If Palin had said it, it would be taken as proof positive of her lack of education. It is hard to see any explanation for Biden's statement other than striking historical ignorance. Does it matter? Probably not—any more than it matters how recently Palin got a passport. Neither the things one is supposed to learn about American history in high school nor the things a tourist learns wandering around Europe are all that important for doing the job they are applying for. But it will be interesting to see what form the story takes in the media, according to who wants to slant it how. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
"Nobody's an atheist on their deathbed" or something like that. Pascal's wager is still completely unsound though. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 03 2008 08:24 MYM.Testie wrote: I'm not willing to say it's the smartest thing he did, simply put because I still find it to be very dumb. It's not good for the country. People supporting McCain should recognize this choice and honestly say, "we can't have a dumb vice president on the job trying to push her own agenda rather than the interests of the people." They should really realize they are voting against their own interests and change their vote. When so much goes wrong in a campaign, from ridiculous lie after lie, to realizing McCain is sold out and is a bitch to private interests, showed poor judgment and is in no way a "maverick", to picking a VP for purely political reasons rather than the best interests of the country... I just really wish rather than defending the side a person is voting on they would realize these things and see what is more important and vote accordingly. If Obama sucked more than McCain I would say, 'ho shit we can't have that'. I feel a lot of conservatives cling to their side when some logical part of their brain must know different. Maybe part of it is people are just too stubborn to admit they are wrong, because the general consensus almost everywhere of informed people is that the republican ticket has been absolutely ridiculous for a while now. Abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights/control do not measure up in any way to real issues. =[ But you see, Abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights/control may be minor issues to some, but to others choosing a vice president is an even smaller issue. It didn't matter who McCain chose, you would vote for Obama anyway, so why not do the politically smart move and balance the ticket with youth, and "celebrity." Voting for the guy fighting for the opposite of everything you believe in just because your candidate chose a dumb VP makes about as much sense as Hillary supporters voting for McCain because Obama won the nom. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Again, Palin is wrong, Biden is right. Biden's account is pretty accurate, while Palin's "wisdom of the people" is actually what the forefathers didn't truly believe in, which is why we have a fancydancy representative republic. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 04:55 KlaCkoN wrote: Hm Savio I am curious about one thing, do you actually believe that the US ecconomy will do better under Mccain? or do you support him for other reasons, like above mentioned abortion debate. You guys might not like this, but in my opinion, the economy is pretty dang independent of politics. The economy of the US is a behemoth and the government is a small part of it. Its true that economic growth can be stimulated by tax cuts (the GOP talking points), but it is ALSO true that it is stimulated by increased government spending (democrats talking points). I don't believe that the differences between the two are very significant. Now, as far as things like this bailout (stabilizing some large institutions) I don't know much about that, that falls more under finance than economics. I don't think that Presidents have profound effects on the economy. However, McCain does favor lower taxes on businesses and that seems like it would better allow our companies to compete in the world market. McCain also favors limiting the scope of government involvement in the economy. I support that. But MOST OF ALL, as far as economic reasons that I support McCain, is that more than any other politician in Washington, he has fought and continues to fight wasteful government spending. I am disappointed with both President Bush and the Republican Congress for completely abandoning all pretenses to fiscal restraint and behaving like a bunch of democrats. It used to be that the GOP was all about fiscal responsibility and restraining government, but in the last 8 years, it seems that they just became another democratic party of big spenders. McCain has been fighting this and refused pork spending his entire career. He has also committed (and only he has the clout to say this) to vetoing every bill that contains pork regardless of whether it was for democrats or republicans. But I support McCain for many other reasons besides economic reasons. I do always vote pro-life, I own several guns and I don't want guns and ammo taxes increased 500% as Obama supports (this is true as verified by factcheck.org), and I do trust McCain's experience, knowledge and judgement more than Obama's on military and foreign affairs. So there you have it. | ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
On October 03 2008 09:32 Jibba wrote: "Nobody's an atheist on their deathbed" or something like that. Pascal's wager is still completely unsound though. I don't know the original version, but the one I heard recently on Bill Maher's show was something to the effect of, "there are no atheists in foxholes, and no libertarians in economic crises." I found it pretty funny, lol. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 05:00 Jibba wrote: He doesn't care. He already said the three main issues directing his vote are: 1. Abortion 2. Gay Marriage 3. Gun control Holy FUCK See my above response. But, yes, these are important to me. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
I think everyone needs to be a little more respectful to the conservatives posting here. There's not a lot, and if they decided to stop posting because they keep getting gangbanged, then this thread becomes just a left-wing clusterfuck. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 05:07 Jibba wrote: Ah, but my friend, you are using logic! Savio supposes that Presidents have the ability to appoint judges, thus they should appoint judges based on their own political agenda, even though judges only decide on constitutionality, not legislative worthiness. He fails to understand that appointing a judge for said reason only means you are tampering with the checks and balances of government and you're setting yourself up for a let down when a winning opponent chooses the same tactic. Right now, there are 5 justices that feel they can "interpret" the constitution and that it is a living document. 4 are more originalist. John Paul Stevens is a liberal justice who is 88 years old. You cannot say that this is not important. Appointing the next justice will almost surely be the most important thing the president does. And it is permanent! Tax policy can always just be undone by the next president. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 06:26 aRod wrote: As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo. Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people. So the baby is not "the mother's body". The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
On October 03 2008 10:03 Savio wrote: Debate has started. I feel nervous. answer my post in previous page on gay marriage. Actually I'll put it here since it was directed to you anyway. What do you have against gay marriage? Right, the bible said you'll go to hell for it. Remember a time when all left handed people were thought to be devils? and that they should be punished for it? In some extreme cases people were actually killed for it, how ridiculous does that sound? Until they found out being born left handed was in their genes not because they were witches did the whole thing die down. Same goes for being gay, I used to hate gays as well until one day I asked myself, what have they done to me that I have to bash them every chance I get? think about it. I Don't even wanna bother with researching if people are born with it or suddenly change into a gay, there are all types of people out there I'm not surprise if it's both, but who cares, that's not the main point anyway, Keep in mind that there are homosexuality in ANIMALS as well, so stop hating. I used to be a strong christian as well, but it seems to me there are logical fallacies in the bible which tend to say if you're not a true christian you're going to hell what about all the other religions that say the same freakin thing? isn't the safest way then to believe in every god? this makes it a a lot harder for people who grew up in tribes without getting a chance to "know" the one real god, i suppose they go to hell too right? it just doesn't seem fair. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
 . | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 10:08 BalliSLife wrote: answer my post in previous page on gay marriage. Tomorrow. The post go by too fast during a debate. Tomorrow I will post about both abortion and gay marriage. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 10:09 Boblion wrote: Live stream link please for a poor frog. Dunno where to find it .I think this should work: http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1 | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 03 2008 10:11 FragKrag wrote: lol Palin is trying so hard to appeal to the middle class. Since when has the republican party given a shit about small business owners? Well actually Republicans are the ones that generally favor lowering taxes on businesses, especially small businesses. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
 . | ||
| ||
