EPTYou know those commercials on TV where it seems the social situation the characters are in isn't based in an reality you would believe in? The advertisers are actually trying to have viewers relate to them, and more relate than you would think. When politicians spout pure rubbish its the same strategy, they only count on it working on those who it needs to.
Vote! 2008 and Exit Poll - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
You know those commercials on TV where it seems the social situation the characters are in isn't based in an reality you would believe in? The advertisers are actually trying to have viewers relate to them, and more relate than you would think. When politicians spout pure rubbish its the same strategy, they only count on it working on those who it needs to. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 03 2008 15:55 IdrA wrote: ya having read your first post the entire problem is you seem to think raising children and marriage has to go hand in hand. Yes. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On November 04 2008 04:53 Jumperer wrote: 2. john mccain of 2000 disagree. Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years? | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On November 02 2008 05:00 Senx wrote: It will suck that the racists will probably murder him within the first year... QFT man, it would suck hard but there's a relatively good chance it will happen. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:45 Jumperer wrote: if non nonpartisan facts-based website arn't credible, then what is? But yea, the plan is terrible for "small businesses who make 250,000 or MORE", but better as a whole for the country. Plus, there are not enough small businesses making over 250k to affect the jobs pool. Let's face it, nobody like new taxes, but the country is 4564654654 trillion dollars in debt and something has to be done to help balance the budget deficit and support the middle class. Mccain tax cut = make everyone happy = more vote but bad for the country. Plus Mccain admitted it himself in the prelim that he doesn't know anything about the economy. nope, i was just applying your flawed logic, what they say doesnt matters, their policies don't matter. Let's just vote based on flawed view of history and tradition. WHY GO 1RAXCC WHEN BOXER WAS DOING IT ONE BASE DROPSHIP STYLE. WAIT, NOTHING MATTERS SO WHY SHOULD IT MATTER? where do i say im voting based on history and past tradition. What i said about history had nothing to do with how im voting. I was describing how political campaigns are run and that they are fundamentally the same as they were since the age of Jackson. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong? allowing gays to get married does not mean they have to be allowed to raise children. and since they dont have a whole lot of choice besides adoption, which involves a bunch of screening and stuff, im pretty sure the average gay couple would make far better parents than alot of the random heterosexual couples who are allowed to have kids. so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
16987 Posts
On November 04 2008 11:20 Choros wrote: A part of me wants McCain to win because that will inevitably lead to the catastrophic implosion of the American economy and the death of the American empire. Perhaps then these crazy people with there destructive economic policies will shut up once and for all. If Obama wins they will continue to put pressure on people to do the ridiculously inept. Do you realize how bad it would be for the world if the American economy were to be destroyed? | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:45 Hans-Titan wrote: Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years? McCain knows that his policies giving huge tax cuts to the rich are morally bankrupt and economically incompetent. The Republican party said to him you do what we say if you want to be our candidate, and he immediately back flipped on his heart felt commitments of old. If McCain actually supported the policies he believes in he would be a pretty decent president. The fact is that it is the people behind the Republican party who direct policy and these people are ideological zelots who have un-swerving commitment to the destruction of Government, the destruction of any remnants of a welfare state taking away all support for the lower and middle class in the process then giving that money to the super rich. The fact is that the bulk of demand in the economy comes from the lower and middle class, take money away from them and the entire system becomes unsustainable making serious recession the best case scenario. The Bush administration gave ~$450,000,000,000 (450 billion) in tax cuts to corporations. Did it create more jobs. No, infact taking this money out of demand circulation reduced employment and contributed to the economic downturn currently in process. If McCain wins this election may god save the United States because no one else can. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
On November 02 2008 13:18 Ideas wrote: I'm curious... how is McCain better for Columbia? Actually, a question to all non-Americans, why do you want 1 candidate or the other to win? Well, because McCain is no doubt closer to Colombia than Obama (he came here during the campaing) he supports the free trade agreement, and is more critical of Hugo Chavez (who is like our sworn enemy). And i want Obama to win, just because he is most likely to be able to fix the world economy, end the human rights abuse by the US goverment (Guantanamo Bay) and in general have better relations with the rest of the world. Plus, im really tired of many retarded Latin Americans who just blame George Bush for everything wrong with their lives and the world, and it would be nice that the next US president to be actually a decent and smart human being, so that all of this retards no longer have somebody to blame for everything. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
1) It upsets me that there are people in this country who cannot see what a Barack Obama presidency offers us. The president is first and foremost the leader of the country. He is a beacon to the world of the character of the people who elect him. He is the position of power established by a populace pleading for something different, something new. Barack Obama has the ability to literally change the way the world sees the United States of America. Someone once told me that to be an effective leader is to know the motivations of the people who follow you, and have the fortitude to make decisions to that end. The world will take a long time overcoming the deficiency of the last president. It won't be easy for Barack to succeed.... BUT - WE MUST TRY. This country has always been about action, about rising to the occasion. At the worst times in the history of our country, leaders have risen out to lead us to a new age of prosperity and success. Does ANYONE here believe John McCain can make the same impact on the world as Barack Obama could? 2) Democrat v Republican - Take a look at what this country has become. Take a look at where we are going. Do not act as a teenager driving his brand new car on graduation night after having a few too many drinks. Do not disengage from the immediacy of the need for change. No matter what you believe, policy decisions are only a part of the story. This country is divided. We are at war with ourselves. No one here can show you a picture of the world ten years from now. It is your DUTY to act now in a way that establishes a new age of inclusiveness. We are no longer a nation of the success of white puritans who fled from European oppression. We are an amalgamation of cultures who need to work together to solve dozens of extremely important issues over the next 50 years. The fact that you might need to pay another 5% in taxes should not be your reason to vote against a candidate. You should not vote because you are against gay marriage. You should not vote because he will be the first black president. You should vote because Barack Obama is willing to fight for the future of the country. You should vote because there are dozens of crises around the corner, and every four years we should be actively working to avoid them. You should vote because you care. Vote - The planet will not give you a second chance. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 11:22 Empyrean wrote: Do you realize how bad it would be for the world if the American economy were to be destroyed? This is an interesting topic to discuss. Now it will be bad absolutely, it will lead to a global recession, however in my opinion the United States kick started and fueled growth in China, India etc but this growth has now come to a point where it has such internal momentum that they will be able to grow and achieve prosperity without the United States. China for example has 2 trillion in the bank they will unleash to spur continued growth. Every non western country (with very limited exceptions like the Congo for example) has strong growth, which is primarily internally driven (for example South America is doing very well simply trading with eachother). I expect if the United States collapsed it would cause a fairly short recession (still fairly long and painful in a relative sence) then the global economy will forget about America trade amongst themselves and be better for the effort. This is something which is already happening, this will simply accelerate the process. That said I am still hoping for an Obama victory. The best reason to vote McCain is if you are an anarchist you wants to create extensive chaos, McCain saying on numerous occasions "there will be other wars" is also quite ominous. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 04 2008 11:12 IdrA wrote: did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong? You never engaged me on my points at all, you simply offered your own opinion. I'll debunk it for you at the end of this post. =] so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude. I never said anything prudish, I've been very fact-oriented here. You are taking a wild stab at my feelings about homosexuality. Didn't your mother tell you about making assumptions? + Show Spoiler + I'm bisexual, babe. As promised: On November 03 2008 15:55 IdrA wrote: gay parenting and gay marriage are different things, you may have a point about gay parenting and it definitely needs to held under close scrutiny, in case it does have an adverse impact on the kids. What are you saying? Why do gay people need to be under close scrutiny around children? Are you a bigot, Idra? Defend this notion, and don't use my post as a premise, because you said I'm wrong. but what rationale is there for denying gay marriage? it IS a civil rights issue. theyre being denied equal treatment because the idea of 2 men having sex makes you and a bunch of stuffy old politicians feel icky inside. You show here that you didn't read my post at all, because this was the EXACT topic of my post. If someone is born gay, presumably they will only court people of the same sex. The consequence is that they will never be able to embody, as a single spousal unit, the complete expression of mankind, that is, our sexes, both man and woman. And consequently, they won't be able to provide the ideal context for raising children. And the ideal merits distinction, even if it's not a necessity. Gay parents are obviously better than no parents. But it's not ideal. It's just a natural, non-imposed consequence of being gay. Just like the consequence of me being 5'9" means I'll never get to be a basketball player. If the teams are desperate for players (just as babies are desperate for parents) then yeah, having me on the team is better than nobody, but that's it. Just like grass is green, and the sky is blue. Do you see why the concept of fairness isn't applicable, at least from my viewpoint? ya having read your first post the entire problem is you seem to think raising children and marriage has to go hand in hand. there is nothing that says a married couple (or group) has to be allowed to raise children. we could allow anyone who wants to get married and only allow male/female couples to raise children. You are still drawing a line on "gay rights". You're just drawing it somewhere else, ie, you are still saying that gay couples aren't equal to straight couples. The rainbow coalition agenda is agnosticism towards sexuality. You are still a bigot in their eyes. although given that we allowed single parenting and underaged girls to have/keep children, plus just generally unqualified parents, i think its kinda retarded to prevent a stable gay couple from raising children. Ok. I agree that single parents and underaged girls are under-qualified. That doesn't make gay couples more qualified. The comparison is garbage anyways: 'single-parents', and underrage mothers' are inherently negative categories; nobody aspires to be in those situations. Gay partnership is actively sought out. And if a single parent gets married, or the girl grows up and finds a father figure, the situation could be improved. Man, every single-parent female I know is desperately trying to find papa bear. I can't not believe that that's not built in genetically. (triple negative grammar!) | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On November 04 2008 12:02 HeadBangaa wrote: You never engaged me on my points at all, you simply offered your own opinion. I'll debunk it for you at the end of this post. =] I never said anything prudish, I've been very fact-oriented here. You are taking a wild stab at my feelings about homosexuality. Didn't your mother tell you about making assumptions? + Show Spoiler + I'm bisexual, babe. As promised: What are you saying? Why do gay people need to be under close scrutiny around children? Are you a bigot, Idra? Defend this notion, and don't use my post as a premise, because you said I'm wrong. You show here that you didn't read my post at all, because this was the EXACT topic of my post. If someone is born gay, presumably they will only court people of the same sex. The consequence is that they will never be able to embody, as a single spousal unit, the complete expression of mankind, that is, our sexes, both man and woman. And consequently, they won't be able to provide the ideal context for raising children. And the ideal merits distinction, even if it's not a necessity. Gay parents are obviously better than no parents. But it's not ideal. It's just a natural, non-imposed consequence of being gay. Just like the consequence of me being 5'9" means I'll never get to be a basketball player. If the teams are desperate for players (just as babies are desperate for parents) then yeah, having me on the team is better than nobody, but that's it. Just like grass is green, and the sky is blue. Do you see why the concept of fairness isn't applicable, at least from my viewpoint? You are still drawing a line on "gay rights". You're just drawing it somewhere else, ie, you are still saying that gay couples aren't equal to straight couples. The rainbow coalition agenda is agnosticism towards sexuality. You are still a bigot in their eyes. Ok. I agree that single parents and underaged girls are under-qualified. That doesn't make gay couples more qualified. The comparison is garbage anyways: 'single-parents', and underrage mothers' are inherently negative categories; nobody aspires to be in those situations. Gay partnership is actively sought out. And if a single parent gets married, or the girl grows up and finds a father figure, the situation could be improved. Man, every single-parent female I know is desperately trying to find papa bear. I can't not believe that that's not built in genetically. (triple negative grammar!) Headbangaa, The "ideal" quality that you seek was the same argument people used to prevent minorities from being treated the same as white people. It was also the same argument men used to prevent women from holding the same jobs and voting etc etc. I imagine that you will say that the issue of gay marriage is different......but THINK about it. It is NOT different. All MEN/WOMEN are born equal. Until we, as a society, show that we believe in this principal, we will never achieve our potential and neither will our children. Children of racists grow up to be racists. What do you think children are learning when we discriminate against gay/lesbians? | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 03 2008 21:09 kemoryan wrote: Are Obama and McCain the only candidates? All I see is everyone discuss about these two... USA is a country of 300 million inhabitants, how can 2 single guys represent the ideology of so much freaking people. I'll never understand how can people consider this a democracy. Where is the 'demo' part of it? They shouldn't consider it a democracy. As per its constitution, the United States of America is a republic. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
All MEN/WOMEN are born equal. Equal? In what way? Why are fatherless children more likely to take drugs and fail in school, than say, motherless children? Until we can coerce our biology and psychology to play along with this cultural-invention of "equality", you'll have a hard time convincing people that it's actually true. "Equal but different" is a better term. Equal in rights, I agree. Yet, this is an issue not concerned with rights. "Hey! I want to play basketball! I am created equal to you! You play basketball, I want to play basketball! On the Celtics! OK! It's my rights!" Fairness not applicable. Consequence of nature. get it? Also, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, as it seems to fall on deaf ears. | ||
| ||
