Decision '08.

[Astor]

Anyway, do you have a source for that?

 

More here.

 

Thanks Achilles, I really should have remembered to include a source, but we can't all be like you.

[Achilles]

This is the point of the motherhood thing. It has nothing to do with personal decisions.

Not sure what this is supposed to say within the context of what you quoted.

 

This is politics and if your policy is shown to prove ineffective in your own home, then it's reasonable to conclude that it will not work effectively in a larger scope.

Yep. Glad to hear we agree.

[HeyWire]

I think I'll chime in on this discussion. I will be voting for McCain in this upcoming election, here's why.

 

My main issues are climate change, energy, the economy, healthcare, and the future of space exploration and research.

 

Regarding these issues, I think that McCain has an edge over Obama.

 

Climate Change: Both candidates essentially propose the same policies. Regulatory policies that mandate lower emissions and cap-and-trade. Honestly, the best and only policies that will work in a capitalistic economy

 

Energy and alternatives: Both candidates back increased renewable and bio fuels. However, McCain doesn't support subsidies for such fuels. McCain does support subsidies for nuclear energy, which I am a big supporter for. Nuclear power has gotten an undeserved bad reputation. The newest nuclear reactor in the country is thirty years old. Obama supports research on safe and secure nuclear power... but this technology is already here. Newer reactors are built to burn their fuel twice and produce less waste. Such a power source has the ability to burn the estimated 200 years of uranium reserves on the planet at present consumption. The time will allow development of other alternatives while lessening carbon pollution.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/bourd.htm

 

The economy: This is perhaps the most complex issue. The economy has its invisible hand in everything this election is all about. Energy consumption, foreign wars, healthcare, etc. There is no quick fix, there is no "plan" that will fix it. We have a national debt, low taxes, and completely retarded spending structure. However, increases in taxes due to a government funded national healthcare structure would not help. Not only would it invariable disrupt or destroy the healthcare industry, it would cause taxes to increase without alleviating any debt.

The economy of gas prices is tied to the world market where increased demand in China and India leads to increases in the price of oil period. It will not decrease without supply being made available. There is no way around it. Alternative fuels are one answer. Ethanol is already putting a dent in prices domestically, electric cars are another answer. But unless we can plug out hybrids into an outlet not powered by oil or coal, we're just polluting and using oil at the source not the destination. Another thing nuclear power will help with. In this area, I just think that a Republican will be better able to function.

 

Healthcare: This goes to the economics issue as well. Any nationally tax funded healthcare system will hurt the economy. There is zero doubt of this. More taxes is less GDP. McCain proposes tax credits that will offset the cost of any insurance for those who can afford it, and subsidy safety nets for those low income people who can't.

 

Space: I love space, this is purely a subjective issue, though not without its benefits. I don't believe that as a species we should abandon the progress that we have made exploring the natural world, including space. Any cuts or eliminations for NASA will undermine this. McCain seems to me to have always been a supporter of NASA.

 

Other issues: Abstinence only is a ridiculous religion based policy. However, this is America, and if I choose to tell any of my kids that they should use condoms when they choose to act how they are biologically compelled I will do so. Its up to the parents, and always has been. This is not a governmental issue.

Gay marriage: I'm not gay, but if other people choose to be or are, thats completely their business and not up to the state to tell people that they can't enter into these kinds of legal and social contracts.

 

Any and all baby mama drama has no bearing on my choice. The VP has no constitutionally allowed power, so it doesn't really matter who fills the chair. :edit: Besides, its not any of my business. :edit:

 

Sorry for the wall-o-text, if you respond, I will get back to this post

[SD Nihil]

Now I see a double standard here with Palan's daughter.

 

Sarah is a mother. And as a mother all you can do is teach and decipline your children. And of course live the example of how you wish your children to live..

 

So since all you can do is parent you are not responsible for your child's controdictory decisions to how you were raising them. We all have choice. And we all can choose to deviate from how we were taught.

 

Oboma's mother had him out of wedlock. The media didn't jump all over his mother for that. But yet here they are with Palan's daughter.

 

In both cases both Palan's daughter and Oboma's mother had children out of wedlock. Oboma has even said this does not belong in the election.

 

In Palan's case that's her daughter making the decision to have a child at such a young age. And with Oboma his mother had him out of wedlock. He's a grown man and it has or shouldn't have anything to do with an election.

 

I see a double standard because with Oboma the media didn't make a big deal out of it. With Palan's daughter they are. Sounds like a double standard to me. Sounds like they're jumping all over this for political purposes. All to somehow discredit Palan for political gain.

[El Sitherino]

Now I see a double standard here with Palan's daughter.

I don't, I see people looking at things with the wrong perspective. And making a bigger deal than should be.

 

Sarah is a mother. And as a mother all you can do is teach and decipline your children. And of course live the example of how you wish your children to live..

Indeed.

 

So since all you can do is parent you are not responsible for your child's controdictory decisions to how you were raising them. We all have choice. And we all can choose to deviate from how we were taught.

I don't think anyone is arguing that at all.

 

Oboma's mother had him out of wedlock. The media didn't jump all over his mother for that. But yet here they are with Palan's daughter.

They didn't have a reason to jump on Obama's mother for the circumstances of his birth. While I agree the media is making a larger deal of this than they should the simple fact is that it's not simply about her becoming a mother. She has every right to.

The issue here is that this event completely contradicts the ideology that has been set forth by this party and upheld by McCain's campaign. This throws things in a bit of a jig and they're hoping this can pull in their favor.

 

My concern with this is that even with this having happened McCain/Palin are of the abstinence only persuasion. I think this is a socially irresponsible decision. As public schools are funded by government money (both state and federal) the government should allow, or rather enforce the highest possible education for our children. If I have to sacrifice for this so be it, but I see the potential for a better future to be a wiser investment than other things tax money goes to.

 

In both cases both Palan's daughter and Oboma's mother had children out of wedlock. Oboma has even said this does not belong in the election.

Okay.

 

In Palan's case that's her daughter making the decision to have a child at such a young age. And with Oboma his mother had him out of wedlock. He's a grown man and it has or shouldn't have anything to do with an election.

Poor structure aside, I don't think anyone will disagree with this.

 

I see a double standard because with Oboma the media didn't make a big deal out of it. With Palan's daughter they are. Sounds like a double standard to me. Sounds like they're jumping all over this for political purposes. All to somehow discredit Palan for political gain.

Sounds to me like someone doesn't understand how journalism works, especially modern journalism.

 

Also, it's not a double standard as Obama was born 40+ years ago and if they did for some reason make a news cast about it it'd likely be about mixed race children as opposed to teenage mothers.

 

Now let's have a civil, cal, discussion where at the end of the day we don't dispise each other for having differering views, but where we can agree to agree or agree to disagree and nothing personal with mutual respect for each other. For those that are Americans we can disagree on politics and policy, but we should agree on principle. Freedom of speach for example. We are all for the basic freedoms, but with policy we simply differ on how to further those principals that make us Americans.I don't hate you. In the end we are all Americans with differing views. This statement applies to those here that are Americans.

 

Thank you.

Again, can you stop with this. These comments are not necessary.

 

 

Also you haven't refuted my arguments from the previous debate. I understand my personality may come off as unusual and flamboyant, however there's method to the madness.

[Rogue Nine]

Palan's

Her name is Sarah Palin.

 

decipline

Discipline.

 

controdictory

Contradictory.

 

Oboma's

His name is Barack Obama.

 

dispise

Despise.

 

differering

Differing.

 

speach

Speech.

[SD Nihil]

I don't, I see people looking at things with the wrong perspective. And making a bigger deal than should be.

I guess you could say that too. People are having the wrong perspective, again using your words "wrong perspective". Yes they are making a big deal out of Palan's daughter's decision that the mother didn't make. Her daughter cho

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that at all.

 

Good. In the McCain vs. Oboma and earlier in this topic it was. Like I said hopefully things will be better from here on out.se to do. I agree.

 

They didn't have a reason to jump on Obama's mother for the circumstances of his birth. While I agree the media is making a larger deal of this than they should the simple fact is that it's not simply about her becoming a mother. She has every right to.

The issue here is that this event completely contradicts the ideology that has been set forth by this party and upheld by McCain's campaign. This throws things in a bit of a jig and they're hoping this can pull in their favor.

 

Exactly what I mean. These people stand for what they stand for and Palan's daughter chose to do what she did. And who'se fault is it. It's the daugher not Sarah Palan. She is not at fault for her daughter making the decision she did. Yes your right it does give the other side ammo. I agree.

 

And like I said with Oboma his mother having him out of wedlock the media didn't make a big deal out of that, but in Palan's case they are. I agree it shows they have an adgenda and their double standard.

 

Sounds to me like someone doesn't understand how journalism works, especially modern journalism.

 

Also, it's not a double standard as Obama was born 40+ years ago and if they did for some reason make a news cast about it it'd likely be about mixed race children as opposed to teenage mothers.

 

Yes nowadays journalism is very cut throat and adgenda and the reporter's bias are intermingled in the story they present. What it use to be and what it should be is that they report the facts and leave it up to the public to make their own conclusions. But yes it's changed. Bias whether it was concervative or liberal use to be not factored into journalist's reporting or at least much less. Yes today it's different.

 

That's why to get the full story you or at least I watch both CNN and Fox. I've just made my decisions that lean more concervativily. And in my opinion if someone white marries someone that's black so what. It's just pigmintation in the skin, karatan, and epithelial tissue that's just different. Now yes blacks are more prone medically to diabetes for some strange reason, but just biologically slight differences. Doesn't make us different people or shouldn't.

 

Now I will say if two parents have a child that's mixed race kids today can be cruel. Some kids wil just pick on you all because of even the tiniest things like you have a beter shirt, or you have a funny acent. Kids.

 

Yay one post that that was civil. (applods). Let's continue.

 

Also you haven't refuted my arguments from the previous debate. I understand my personality may come off as unusual and flamboyant, however there's method to the madness.

 

Oh. Please elaborate.

[jonathan7]

If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). That's my 2 cents, on this; I'll leave the rest of you to argue your points

[Litofsky]

If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). That's my 2 cents, on this; I'll leave the rest of you to argue your points

 

Quote for truth. I agree with most everything you just said, Jon.

[SD Nihil]

Jothanathan

If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep). That's my 2 cents, on this; I'll leave the rest of you to argue your points

 

Hey thanks for the link to this forum. Rocky start I think we're better now. So I still don't get though why you think democracy doesn't work. Still don't get why you think that. People vote on their own bias, facts, prejedice, views, religion, etc. They made their own decisions and vote.

 

Now it isn't a pure democracy. Meaning it's not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. The electoral college allows states to count more fairly than what mob rule would do. Because if it was purely mob rule it would be based on population. Meaning because of California's population they would count more than say wyoming. I looked up wyoming in the atlas. According to the one I have that's the least populated stae. What the electoral college's intent and purpose is to make a more fair system than that of a mob rule which would mean that California would count more than Wyoming.

 

It's far from perfect, but it's better than mob rule according to those who made it the way we vote.

[jonathan7]

Rocky start I think we're better now. So I still don't get though why you think democracy doesn't work.

 

Forgive me, but I was under the impression it was 8 12 years since you had a democratically elected candidate in charge of your country?

 

* Thanks Sithy for pointing out my error.

 

Now it isn't a pure democracy. Meaning it's not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. The electoral college allows states to count more fairly than what mob rule would do. Because if it was purely mob rule it would be based on population. Meaning because of California's population they would count more than say wyoming. I looked up wyoming in the atlas. According to the one I have that's the least populated stae. What the electoral college's intent and purpose is to make a more fair system than that of a mob rule which would mean that California would count more than Wyoming.

 

It's far from perfect, but it's better than mob rule according to those who made it the way we vote.

 

So what happened to one man one vote? Surely that's kind of the point of all men being born equal?

 

I never tire, of using this quote, as I love it so...

His play - Enemy of the people;

 

Dr. Stockmann: Never, Mr. Aslaksen! It is the majority in our community that denies me my freedom and seeks to prevent my speaking the truth.

 

Hovstad: The majority always has right on its side.

 

Billing: And truth too, by God!

 

Dr. Stockmann: The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent men must wage war. Who is it that constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the¨clever folk, or the stupid? I don’t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!–you can never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should govern the clever ones I (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes–you can shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has might on its side–unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in the right–I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority is always in the right.

 

As such I disagree with Democracy; on the grounds I would do a better job than the idiots the people of Britain put in charge of the UK.

[El Sitherino]

People vote on their own bias, facts, prejedice, views, religion, etc. They made their own decisions and vote.

You say that like it's proper. I understand it's realistic, but we're supposed to set aside our biases and vote on what will be better for our country, globally. From our social policy to our foreign policy, we need to vote for what will improve the quality of the nation.

 

The American Dream isn't about settling for average, or excusing yourself away. It's about making improvement so you can sit pretty at the top of your mountain. Not necessarily an ego thing, but rather you make your success from the bottom up.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

So what happened to one man one vote? Surely that's kind of the point of all men being born equal?

One square mile of barren land devoid of life one vote.

[mimartin]

If McCain get's in I'll take it as evidence that democracy clearly doesn't work - [/Quote] I was under the impression that everyone knew American democracy didn’t work back in 2000 with United States Supreme Courts involvement in stealing a Presidential election.

 

You did not firgure out that American I will also have lost all faith with the general intelligence of the majority of the American public (not that I have much faith, where ever there is a majority consensus - the mob after all is just a collection of sheep).

American intelligence? Don’t you get American television programs across the pond? Between that and our giving George Bush a second term, how can you even question our intelligence?

 

Now I see a double standard here with Palan's daughter.

I agree. If it had been a Democratic candidate, we would be hearing all about their lack of family values. I agree with Achilles on this matter.

 

Personally, it is not an issue with me because I still remember being a teenager and doing a lot of thing my parents taught me not to do. However, my mother was not running for office and my mother taught me sex education and not just abstinence.

 

The American Dream isn't about settling for average, or excusing yourself away. It's about making improvement so you can sit pretty at the top of your mountain. Not necessarily an ego thing, but rather you make your success from the bottom up.

QFT

 

Only I'd add the American Dream is not just for the privilege few, but should be all inclusive. It is my belief that hard work and perseverance should ensure that dream comes true for all Americans. However, that is not the case today.

[jonathan7]

I was under the impression that everyone knew American democracy didn’t work back in 2000 with United State Supreme Courts involvement in stealing a Presidential election.

 

American intelligence? Don’t you get American television programs across the pond? Between that and our giving George Bush a second term, how can you even question our intelligence?

 

<3 mimartin - where you been bud? Don't recall seeing you post for a while (though this maybe because I have been away ) Glad to see you back!

[Corinthian]

So, basically, Jonathan, Democracy only works if your favored candidate wins? That's interesting.

[jonathan7]

So, basically, Jonathan, Democracy only works if your favored candidate wins? That's interesting.

 

No - what on earth made you think that? I don't believe in democracy full stop - but out of a choice of only Obama and McCain there is only one clear winner as to who is fit to lead a country...

[SD Nihil]

Well John if you are refering to Bush being re elected yeah the electoral process was done, but due to a dispute with things being so close in 2000 courts got invoved. It brought controversary. Even about hanging chads also made each card have to be looked at very carefully to make sure there wasn't a mistake of who that person voted for. Oh and dimples where the hole wasn't pushed through. And in 2004 many of those that voted for Kerry simply disagreed with it too. But in both elections the electoral college was used. As for 12 years ago I believe Clinton was in office. How do you think the electoral college was not used 12 years ago?

 

So what happened to one man one vote? Surely that's kind of the point of all men being born equal?

 

They do count. But if it again was vote per person without the electorla college then it again would be mob rule where it would have to do with population. You might want to look up and read more about the electoral college. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to not understand something here. Maybe not.

 

As such I disagree with Democracy; on the grounds I would do a better job than the idiots the people of Britain put in charge of the UK.

 

Again it's not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Please look up both if you want. There's a difference. I thought a뀐lso we were talking about democracy in reference to the U.S. If you think you will do better then if politics is your interest please take the necessary classes and get a job in that field. You have a very good start in that you have the enthusiasm. That's good

 

El Sithiro

You say that like it's proper. I understand it's realistic, but we're supposed to set aside our biases and vote on what will be better for our country, globally. From our social policy to our foreign policy, we need to vote for what will improve the quality of the nation.

 

Your right that's how it should be, but this is the fact of how things just are.

 

mimartin

I agree. If it had been a Democratic candidate, we would be hearing all about their lack of family values. I agree with Achilles on this matter.

 

Personally, it is not an issue with me because I still remember being a teenager and doing a lot of thing my parents taught me not to do. However, my mother was not running for office and my mother taught me sex education and not just abstinence.

 

I'm happy we agree. Speaking of sex education as far as those classes that try to discourage having sex early and encourage abstanance. I think rather than say you can get this or that or you then have to have all this responsibility. I think rather than telling them that they should show the screaming babies and the exhausted parents. Just show a parent that has like 5 babies and she's a teen. Yikes. I mean I'm still wrestling whether I should ever have kids in that geez some kidds are just bad, messy, annoying, but that's just me.

[Web Rider]

So, basically, Jonathan, Democracy only works if your favored candidate wins? That's interesting.

 

it's just poor sportsmanship, people on both sides do it. I don't think it means democracy doesn't work, but I do think it shows VERY poorly of the American populace.

 

They do count. But if it again was vote per person without the electorla college then it again would be mob rule where it would have to do with population. You might want to look up and read more about the electoral college. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to not understand something here. Maybe not.

Mob rule is prevented by Congress and the bill of rights and other legal stuff. The electoral college is just a smaller mob, and if it wanted to it could cast it's votes for whomever it chooses, though unless the government was majorly corrupt they wouldn't get away with it. So that won't happen.

 

I'm happy we agree. Speaking of sex education as far as those classes that try to discourage having sex early and encourage abstanance. I think rather than say you can get this or that or you then have to have all this responsibility. I think rather than telling them that they should show the screaming babies and the exhausted parents. Just show a parent that has like 5 babies and she's a teen. Yikes. I mean I'm still wrestling whether I should ever have kids in that geez some kidds are just bad, messy, annoying, but that's just me.

honestly, I think that's a great idea.

[Jae Onasi]

....Only a few nuts accept Moore as a credible source. So you are either insulting me by calling me a nut, or you are attempting to discredit the issue by claiming it came from a crazy source.

Corinthian, Web Rider, the snarky bickering is getting annoying. Both of you need to be civil, reporting offensive posts if need be and not announce it to the entire universe, or simply not post. Subjecting the rest of us to this is tiresome.

 

The "issue" is that this woman is, instead of admitting that her daughter was going to be a teen mom, decided to claim that instead she was pregnant. Now, I don't know about you, but somebody who would go that far to hide what's going on in her family is pretty crazy.

This is not confirmed. Your Daily Kos link said the story couldn't be found. It also sounds very odd.

 

Actually no. Pregnancies are pretty standard. Most women are showing, if only slightly, in their 3rd, 4th, and in some extremes, 5th month. By the 7th mother, development of the fetus has accelerated and a woman can't get away with clothes being "a little tight". By the 7th month there's not a woman alive(save Sarah Palin) who's been pregnant that would tell you they weren't showing at all.

Now, I have to address this, because I hate for medical misinformation to get bandied about. As both a doc and woman who's been pregnant twice, which is more than a lot of people here will ever be, I can tell you that it is extremely common for women who are pregnant for the first time not to show until well into the 5th month, sometimes closer to month 6. I wore regular clothes until about 5.5 months of pregnancy with my son, and 5 months with my daughter, and I didn't look really big until closer to 8 months. Most women don't show much until month 5. The typical baby is only around 2.19 in/5.4cm at week 12 gestation, 4.5 in/11.6in at week 16 gestation, and 6.46 in/16.4cm at week 20. How much do you think a few inches of baby is going to make a woman show?

 

Furthermore, while there is a range of what's normal, each woman, and indeed each pregnancy, can have/be a very different experience. That range of normal is very wide. I carried both my kids very differently, and it changed how 'pregnant' I looked each time. There are plenty of stories of women who never realized they were pregnant until they went into labor because they never 'showed' and had an extremely irregular cycle. Some women have very small babies and won't show much, and some women are extremely adept at artful dressing.

 

Another interesting factor is that her water had supposedly broken and she chose to take an 8 hour flight home instead of deliver where she was. That's unheard of.

No it's not. The amniotic sac can have a small break without rupturing completely and that can go on for days or even weeks before labor starts. Furthermore, labor doesn't always start as soon as the water breaks. Mine broke and it took about 2 hours before labor even started, and it was a good 12 hours from that point til my daughter was born. In addition, when you've developed a relationship with a provider, particularly if you have an unborn child with developmental/genetic problems, you don't want to give birth with a total stranger in attendance who's completely unfamiliar with your case and your baby. It doesn't surprise me in the least that she wanted to get home to the providers with whom she was familiar and who understood her particular needs.

And does anyone think maybe it was unplanned? They can't exactly have an abortion considering her mother's (and the party) views on the subject.

Does it matter if the baby was planned or unplanned? The point is moot--she's pregnant, and I pray for her, her baby, and her fiance that everything goes well. Also, why are you assuming that she'd have an abortion if she was a Democrat or if her mother was pro-abortion? Why couldn't she decide on her own that she wanted to have her baby, regardless of parental wishes or party lines? I dearly hope she's decided she's having her baby because she and her fiance want to love and care for this tiny person they have created together, and not because the Republican party wants her to.

 

@Achilles--I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin revisits her decision on abstinence-only programs in light of her daughter's pregnancy. Perhaps this will be one of the positive things she gains from a challenging situation.

[Arcesious]

Indeed, voting is an appeal to to the majority, a fallacy.

 

Edit: Oh sorry Jae. My mistake.

 

Don't edit out moderator comments. --Jae

 

Edit: Oh sorry.

[SD Nihil]

Web Rider

Mob rule is prevented by Congress and the bill of rights and other legal stuff. The electoral college is just a smaller mob, and if it wanted to it could cast it's votes for whomever it chooses, though unless the government was majorly corrupt they wouldn't get away with it. So that won't happen.

 

All the more that supprts the fact it's not based on mob rule. If enough people in that state vote towards one candidate those electoral votes go that candidate. Yes it isn't corrupt. Thanks for supporting me.

 

honestly, I think that's a great idea.

 

Now of course part of me also wants them to see what how do ii put this delicatly...if in those vids we could include certain products of the baby being cleaned up. Of course with something that graphic you'd probably have to have a concent form to see it. Something tells me back then we did to see sex ed vids anyway. It's been long enough I can't remember. Probably. If so this just would be an appendige to it.

 

Now also the miricle of child birth. It should show the birth. And the alien looking placenta. By the way animals and some native tribes eat that thing. Somewhere I'm grosing someone out. It makes me ahppy to know that's so. Now for the evil bush laugh. He He He. Dange I forgot to do that shoulder thing. lol. See guys I may be a concervative, but even I can make fun of some annoying things.

 

But anyway back to what I was saying. They should also tell in the vid what they said on Scrubs. "Congratulations. Your expecting. Your doctor will tell you everything you need to know." Then the doc says "Youll fa**, pe* and po* infront of 10 complete strangers (medical staff) that wil be staring intently at your vag***. Which has a 80 percent chance of taring."

 

Now back to the bush thing. It's so great to have a president that looks like he's looking into the sun. How he always blinks. And you know when he gets something right when he gets a little excited at the end and gets that almost excited haulted laugh.

 

I know he jokes about how he talks like a 1st grader. Like we are going to get em. And how he says some words like nuclear wrong. He says it like nukular. Listen Bush if you joke about it and see your doing something wrong that's the first step. The second is correcting the fact your saying it wrong. That's just ignorant. When you know your saying it wrong and tell everyone you know, but still do it. Yes sometimes he makes me cring when he talks.

 

Whether we get Oboma or McCain we'l either have to deal with McCain saying "My Friends". Or Oboma constantly says the two words hope and change. I guess on the bright side it could sure provide a good drinking game word. He he said hope drink. He said my friends. Drink. At the Saddle back debate McCain I counted said My friends 17 times. Oui.

 

I know I put stars in those above words. Not sure whether it was against the rules or something to actually spell it out. But you know what I was meaning. I hope I got some laughs. Scrubs is awsome.

[Jae Onasi]

Indeed, voting is an appeal to to the majority, a fallacy.

No, voting for the person who you think will do the best job is both your right and your privilege. You should exercise it wisely and as often as you can. There's nothing fallacious about it if you've done your research on the candidates and chosen the one who you believe will best do the job.

[mimartin]

I'm happy we agree. Speaking of sex education as far as those classes that try to discourage having sex early and encourage abstanance. I think rather than say you can get this or that or you then have to have all this responsibility. I think rather than telling them that they should show the screaming babies and the exhausted parents. Just show a parent that has like 5 babies and she's a teen. Yikes. I mean I'm still wrestling whether I should ever have kids in that geez some kidds are just bad, messy, annoying, but that's just me.

Isn't that what sex education is suppose to do? Shouldn’t sex education show the ramifications of your actions, but also show you the safest method to practice the safest possible sex should you stray? The problem with Palin’s position on sex education is she believed we should only teach our children abstinence and not with safest way to have sex. I agree with her that the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases is abstinence. The problem with only teaching abstinence as a prevention method is you end up with pregnant teenagers.

 

Sex education should inform and be design to present information to save lives and prevent unwanted pregnancies. It should have any thing to do with political agendas. So no, I don’t think we really agree on this issue. Plain’s seventeen-year-old daughter has nothing to do with my belief that she is a major idiot. Her stance on only teaching abstinences does. If she can make such an irresponsible decision on something so fundamental, why should I be encouraged by her other politically motivated decisions that could affect my life should she become President.

[Arcesious]

Well maybe I should have been more clear... I beleive everyone has the right to an opinion, right to a vote, and whatnot, but appeal to majority via a mass vote isn't very reasonable. And that's why we debate over these things... Thing is, when a debate comes out in favor for a certain side, the other side's original position is still often supportable via voting in this democratic system. I'm saying this for both sides... There are 'sheep' on all sides of arguments who don't take the time to think critically. Although I admit oftentimes forget to think critically and end up concluding things with a fallacious opinion...

 

Bascially, we can vote about this stuff, but there are some things I think should be really debated by the 'smart people', which the people in power should have to consider unbiasedly... (Although operating without any bias is quite hard.)

 

"The people who pretend to know it all annoy the people who do."

 

For example: Creationism in public schools. It's been debated quite often, and the conclusion seems to be that that should be left to churches and private religious schools. Yet that issue still seems to be subject to a vote via popular opinion.

 

It's for stuff like that, and other things, that voting is a really illogical...

Not to mention the other big ones... Global Destabilization, Gay Marriage, Abortion...

 

Yep, all those are subject to votes about what to do about them, by the governement and the population. And frankly, the way voting effects those kinds things is very oftenly horribly inefficient and inneffective...

 

I beleive that everyone's opinion matters- up until opinions can be forced by a popular vote. (Facts and evidence are quite the opposite.) All opinions being attempted to 'be put into stone' should be analyzed for validity and improvement/discrediment via critical thinking and rational analyzation.

 

Edit: However, for some things, it may be wise to be avoided to be definitly concluded. For example: Let's say there is a deadly disease spread through oranges in the USA... Oranges are banned. Ten years later, the disease dies off, but without a cure to counteract it might come back. Research provides inneffective means to make an antidote for the disease. But should the orange ban be lifted? Maybe a strand of the disease is still left and could grow back up into great infestation of ornages again. I could go on but... I think you get my point...

 

Problem is, scepticism and the inductive fallacies work wonderfully to avoid allowing working conclusions. IE, if gays should be allowed marriage or not. A basic, non-thorough example: If God exists and the Bible/Quran/whatever it is is literal and true? Then it's a mistake, but if he doesn't, why keep restricting their right to marriage? (Perhaps there are even more than just these two sides of the argument.) Problem is, we can't 100% be sure about such things, and because of that, much progress is held back. However, this is sometimes a good thing.

 

Admittedly, we have to use some judgement via 'opinion' to conclude things. Although, that leads into an annoying debate over whether beleiving that scientific fact is true is using faith or not and stuff like that...