Your pick for the 2008 US Presidential race? (Page 2 of 3)

I never would've thought that I would write the following statement:

I have to second Ben's last comment - except for the horse part

Sorry Rob.

After resent development who wins is really anyones pick. With resent developments i mean the fact that Obamas grandmother is an illegal alien.

Haha. Ben and Blackbox both display pure ignorance. Robcore provides an arguement (at this point whether right or wrong is irrelavant), ben then throws up an incredibly over dramatic rant on how he disagrees, but forgets the key ingredients, his counter arguement.

Both of you then decide to say your not going to argue about politics meaning youve just accused someone of spouting utter nonsense without even bothering to back it up.

Thats fair. For the record, Im not to bothered about who wins the election, i just felt the need to comment.

Im sorry, just read my post, not his grandmother, his aunt.

no politician is ever going to be the 'right' choice. its about making the least bad one. And obviously there is some room for improvement. There are always going to be poor people compared to rich people and there are always going to be politicans that are going to follow agendas that does not benefit the people, knowingly or not. Humans were not made to live in societies like we do. But it has great advantages to us that outweigh those things. So I just hope you're well informed when you vote.

I’ll be voting at 7:00AM Tuesday. I find myself agreeing with Robcore’s last long post. I’ll be voting against Obama but I fear it won’t do any good. Too many of my fellow Americans just don’t understand their own successful capitalist system. I’m afraid they will make the mistake of voting in Obama for a variety of reasons that are not well thought out. The US will survive as will the world but who knows how long it will take to recover from the Obama years.

I have to agree with robcore on some level, not in the extremes as he puts it, but as he says, those are extremes...
There will always be poor, this is true and most definitely if society stays as it is...
The thing forgotten is the middle class, and since almost everybody here is middleclass, they can relate...
The problem with the rich getting richer and they help out the poor a bit, is that middleclass doesn't get shit! Everything gets more expensive, the rich make more money and middleclass, since it's the biggest part of Western society, pays the bill.
That's why Obama will prolly get the most votes, since most middleclass people are realistic and in the back of their heads think of themselves as poor people instead of rich people, most will never admit it, but its true.
There are off course also the 'wanabe-riches' which will vote for Mccain for that reason...

No kitty that's a bad kitty!

Those are definitely issues that the Dems have going for them.
For me, they aren't deal breakers though, because

a)with regard to gay marriage, the ball is already rolling and it's not going to stop. With Canada legalizing it, and Massachusettes in the US...and all the gays on sitcoms...fundamentalist conservatives are getting desensitized to it all...and they'll see that it doesn't threaten any religions either to afford people sexual freedom [as against the idea that sex and/or gender has anything to do with the identity of a person as I am; sex is something people DO, not something that they are...].

b)Abortion rights, to me, aren't so much an issue of politics, but of social development. You have liberating yet irresponsible forces fighting against oppressive yet morally firm forces. When we can get a marriage of liberation and moral firmness, people will wonder why it was ever an issue for debate. I've got no problem with people being allowed to do what they want...it's only a problem when they think it's a Right. Like, people are allowed to call each other names (it's their mouth, they can do with it what they wish!)...but by no means is that connected with anything resembling a Right. There is no 'Right to call people names' (except under the guise of 'free speech' which is ironic, since people get more flak for saying that things are wrong when they're only using the so called 'free speech' that they're entitled to).
In any case, abortion rights are something that society is growing and changing for so that they can be effectively accomodated.

c) sex ed. statistically does not affect the spread of STIs, or the occurrence of unwanted/early pregnancies. In the province of BC here in Canada, we have the most extensive sex ed. programs in the country, and the highest occurrence of STIs and unplanned pregnancies (possibly with the exception of Quebec re: unwanted pregnancies).
Again, an issue that is so trivial in the grand scheme is not going to be a deal breaker. Obviously, if society were totally sophisticated, abstinence would work. Of course we're not sophisticated, so teaching about contraceptives would be helpful...in the context of our mostly ignorant societies. It's an issue of social evolution...not of political importance. Whether sex ed. should be one way or another is not a black and white issue...it changes with the development of society. Right now, it might not be best...but hey, there's no such thing as a best sex ed. program.

...Palin as Pres. isn't the most exciting thought though...I'll give you that.
She'd make a good VP though...because even without the intellectual and strategic mindset, hard working determination and resourcefulness is all a VP really needs. They don't make the important decisions, they just work to make things happen.

A tad naive I feel there.  The ball could absolutely stop rolling as far as gay marriage, or any other gay rights are concerned.  At the very least they could make sure the ball rolls as slowly as possible.  And to answer Insuborden - yeah I think I also read that Obama wasn't really for gay marriage either, but you can bet your ass that he's going to be better for the cause than McCain. 

And McCain/Palin are already on record as saying they are dedicated to reversing Roe vs Wade to make abortion illegal in the States.  Whether they could succeed is another issue, but the very fact that would do everything they could means I could never in good conscience support them.  You know... if I was American. 

These are all just single issues that are important to me, but I also disagree with the McCain platform on larger issues such as foreign policy.  The world does not need an America who feels they have the right to police the world.  Obama strikes me as someone who would actually consider a more wide range of options before sending in troops wherever they bloody well please.

You honestly think she'll make a good VP???  She's already been investigated for ethics violations, and abuse of power.  The last thing that woman needs is more of it!!!

Hey guys, I'd love to debate this all some more, but I'm headed out of country for the next week or so (to Arizona of all places).

Quick response though:
regarding the gov't having to help with rights for African-Americans and whatnot. That was definitely more political, since it gave blacks the right to participate in politics. They were viewed as being lesser than non-blacks.
Going back to the age of slavery as well, abolishment of slavery actually put a huge burden on the economy (or at least on the financial sustenance of those who were slave owners). It was all a lot more political.
Gay marriage rights isn't really going to affect anything but the passing on of property to a 'widow', and visitation rights/rights to sign off on surgical imperatives when a gay person's partner isn't conscious enough to do so themselves. It's not going to facilitate a nation-wide disruption in the way that society functions (well, tax/pension benefits...but that's not going to be more than a blip on the radar really).
Abortion...while it is a freedom that women ought to have in my opinion, it is not something that we can't live without. It is not really a political matter. It is a spiritual/moral one (if it were political, it would affect the economy or social structure or something). (also, while I think women should have the right, I don't advocate for that right to be employed without abandon - it is a serious moral/spiritual matter!). Once society evolves enough that people don't feel threatened by the sense of moral abandon that pro-lifers seem to fear when it comes to pro-choicers, it won't be a critical issue. And let's be honest, pro-lifers do have justified concerns. They are advocating for the rights of something that may be conscious and human...something that cannot advocate for itself. Whether they're right or not isn't a political matter, but a moral/spiritual one.
Obviously it would be immoral to kill a child after it was born...why not before?
I don't have the answers for those issues....only reason to believe that it isn't a political issue aside from whether there's a law or not. It doesn't affect the economy or social structure, thus it's nothing near a deal breaker, because the government actually does have issues that affect the economy and social structure and whether wars happen or not...all issues that are much more important that the gov't deal with.

DO NOT edit my quotes like that again, Insuborden! 

w00t!