EPTReligion must be about reasoning existance, not reasoning stupid actions
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 37
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Religion must be about reasoning existance, not reasoning stupid actions | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for "maximum flexibility" going forward. Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military. A "spirited" conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. "It wasn't a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way." The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility (and unlike John McCain, whose hero worship of Petraeus bordered on the unseemly) — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command. Barack Obama has prospered in this presidential campaign because of the steadiness of his temperament and the judicious quality of his decision-making. They are his best-known qualities. The most important decision he has made — the selection of a running mate — was done carefully, with an exhaustive attention to detail and contemplation of all the possible angles. Two months later, as John McCain's peremptory selection of Governor Sarah Palin has come to seem a liability, it could be argued that Obama's quiet selection of Joe Biden defined the public's choice in the general-election campaign. But not every decision can be made so carefully. There are a thousand instinctive, instantaneous decisions that a presidential candidate has to make in the course of a campaign — like whether to speak his mind to a General Petraeus — and this has been a more difficult journey for Obama, since he's far more comfortable when he's able to think things through. "He has learned to trust his gut," an Obama adviser told me. "He wasn't so confident in his instincts last year. It's been the biggest change I've seen in him." pretty good article IMO http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 24 2008 11:19 Savio wrote: EDIT: And maybe he should sell a few of his houses so they can't be used against him.  Nah, because he earned them by being an exceptional businessman, not by marrying an heiress. | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On October 24 2008 12:07 D10 wrote: Im a spiritualist and i believe earth will be a shining beacon of charity. Religion must be about reasoning existance, not reasoning stupid actions When are humans going to be about charity? That would be an ideal state that I hope would happen but I almost tempted to say it never will because natural resources are going to run out, and even if we find alternatives the poor will still be poor and the rich will still be rich. What the fuck are you talking about exactly? | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On October 24 2008 12:30 boghat wrote: When are humans going to be about charity? That would be an ideal state that I hope would happen but I almost tempted to say it never will because natural resources are going to run out, and even if we find alternatives the poor will still be poor and the rich will still be rich. What the fuck are you talking about exactly? A future so bright that our present doesnt reflect it, pretty much few millenia ago no one belived that slavery would ever end | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5116 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 24 2008 11:33 boghat wrote: I see Mitt Romney kind of like someone like John Kerry. They are lukewarm candidates, they are both brilliant and would be good presidents but have low likeability for whatever reasons. I think when the Republicans lose this election they are going to obviously look for change for next election. Mitt Romney is not who the Republican insiders are going to be looking for. http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4 he's also a retard | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
all obama supporters are terrorists | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 24 2008 13:20 D10 wrote: Damn Jibba, how could I have missed that huge flaw, altruism doesnt exist, its just a big lie a reasonable argument can be made that it doesnt moreover, why is altruism a good thing? | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On October 24 2008 22:50 IdrA wrote: a reasonable argument can be made that it doesnt moreover, why is altruism a good thing? Altruism is a basic biological principle that explains a lot of animal behavior. Questioning its existance is rediculous. We may label altruism the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others, but in reality altruism is simply behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage that benefits others of its kind. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 24 2008 23:02 aRod wrote: Altruism is a basic biological principle that explains a lot of animal behavior. Questioning its existance is rediculous. We may label altruism the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others, but in reality altruism is simply behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage that benefits others of its kind. You totally lost me here. What animal behavior are you talking about. I don't see animals as altruistic. Evolution leads otherwise. I see altruism or charity as a ranking of utility or benefit that is not monetary. Giving to charity gives utility because you feel good about yourself--who you are. Or it could be ranking the hope of future reward (heaven or whatever else), above immediate consumership. Either way, it is an alternate method of gaining utility. And so, Adam Smith even explains charity. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
For a more in depth explanation of what I'm talking about read the Selfish Gene. | ||
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
Capitalism obviously doesn't work that well either if your goal is a society where wealth isn't so grossly misdivided, and I would think that would be the goal of altruistic societies. Maybe a combination of capitalism and socialism works better, that's the route Europe is taking and the newest route conservative Americans are so afraid of. Anyway, this will take thousands of years if it happens at all but unregulated capitalism and conservatism are the opposite of altruism, they just promote greed and unacceptance respectively. To put this on topic: I don't see how conservatism can last much longer in the US, the Republican party better transform its image. They interviewed some people from a small town in Nevada that were staunchly Republican and were asked why this area is so Republican. Their answer was all these people are "self-made" and don't rely on the help of other people. First of all, do they think people in cities are not "self-made"? People in cities have jobs just like those guys in Nevada, what is not self-made about that? And, rural communities and low population centers get more government money (earmarks, scary) than high population centers so they can thank the government for those fancy new roads that were just built. Politics has gotten pathetic in the US, a lot of people, from both parties, view this thing as a sporting match between opposing teams. Instead of the Red Sox vs the Yankees it's the North vs the South, urban America vs rural America, Red vs Blue, and people seem to revel in these "rivalries" still. But it's not really their fault, the government as a whole, and especially political campaigns, do little to make presidential races, or any other political races, seem otherwise. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Palin resisted the suggestion that if Ayers was a "domestic terrorist" — a standard line in her campaign addresses — then so were conservative religious activists who bombed abortion clinics. "I don’t know if you’re going to use the word ‘terrorist’ there," she said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27343688 | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
/hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. 2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude. 3. an act or instance of hypocrisy. 4. Sarah Palin | ||
| ||
