AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-01-08, 08:34   Link #41
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity
Take this online poll. It will line you up with the candidate that you best support.
Oooo, fun. I've got Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, all Democrats, in joint first. Apparently, I disagree with Clinton and Obama on social security (should it be privatised? yes), line-item veto (allow? why not? it makes it easier to pass a bill) and education (should teachers be paid based on students' performance? sometimes, I think it's a good idea).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod
First things first, I'm not even American myself, but I'm very interested in the whole issue, and it IS a worldly hot topic after all.
Shh.....don't give them any ideas. I'd like to stop watching movies like Armageddon that make it look as though the whole world depends on Uncle Sam to save us. Frankly, the world would more often prefer to be left alone.

That said, when I had to put in a zip code for the poll, 90210 was the only one I can think of, no thanks to the influence of American soft power. -.-

I'm inclined to vote Hillary Clinton. She is a known quantity, and a safe pair of hands with considerable political experience, in my opinion. More importantly, she knows people, and is thus more likely to pull the strings that matter to get things done. I don't know how a political newcomer like Obama is going to do that.

I don't feel comfortable with Obama. I can understand why he appeals to young voters, especially idealistic college students, but I see him as nothing more than a collection of well-chosen soundbites. In other words, all flair, no substance. I wouldn't trust him to be the Commander-in-Chief of the world's most powerful military forces.

Anyways, why do I care about the US Elections? I don't get to vote. But it's a spectacle to behold, and it ultimately results in tragedy for the rest of the world to bear. For those reasons at least, I guess I should at least pay attention and find out who on earth this Ron Paul is. I keep coming across his name in this forum.

Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2008-01-08 at 11:39. Reason: It's embarrassing that I spelt Hillary's name incorrectly.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 08:39   Link #42
Kristen
Senior Member
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia Tech
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity View Post
Please tell me your joking. I thought we were going for an intelligent person this time. Al Gore is just as stupid, if not more stupid, than George Bush is.
Al Gore to me is respectable, and always has been. I don't think he would have us in an idiotic war or such a big mess with oil and the economy. But regardless, I'm voting for him because I think he is going to be the person with the best chance of winning the final. Edwards has a good chance, but he'll probably drop out by the time it reaches my state.
__________________
Kristen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 09:33   Link #43
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
I believe private affairs should be kept out of political affairs.

uh, no.
Uh, yes. There is a difference between leading your private life and leading a country. Both the decisions to be taken and their consequences. In fact I don't see any correlations between how politicans manage their private life and their office. If anything, a public display of morality and fanatism often go hand in hand.

If you're aiming for the top, your family takes second place anyway. If you're a familiy (wo)man you neither have the time nor the energy to take a leading position. That's just how it is, and one should neither complain nor delude oneself here.

If you want to know if a politican is capable of taking over a job it wouldn't it be a simpler idea to look how he's doing in his current position instead of musing about what the relationships between blowjobs and international crises are?

And if you want to delve into ethical philosophy then you have to do it properly. What did the politican do? What were the abstract values he based his decisions on? How do they affect the capability of doing his job positively or negatively? That does of course take for granted that people do carry a consistent ethics around with them, what I doubt. In any case, from the factoid "He got divorced and married another one 6 months later." I at least cannot conclude anything.

Now to put the discussion back on track. America's foreign policy was always oscillating between Empire and Isolation and we're going to see a massive swingback during the coming decade, especially when voters start to realize that GWB was not the root of all evil sent to earth from deep space, and that neither the state of the US nor that of the world will magically change once he's gone. For the non-US citicens this election will therefore probably mean much less than normally.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?

Last edited by Slice of Life; 2008-01-08 at 09:45.
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 11:13   Link #44
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity View Post
Maybe, but the fact is that he WAS found out and in case you forgot, CLINTON LIED WHILE UNDER OATH. If that doesn't make him unfit to be President in and of itself, Hell, I don't know what would.
There was a reason that he didn't get thrown out of office in his impeachment. It's not like he was Nixon or anything.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 11:30   Link #45
Potatochobit
Certified Organic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Slice of life you are claiming someone can be a bad person on a daily base, yet suddenly, while he is 'on duty' doing office work, he is making saintly correct choices.

you are mistaken.

now, I am not saying we should hound politicians like tabloids do movie stars, they have a right to their privacy and to live normal lives.

however, implying a person should not be accountable for his actions REGARDLESS of whether it is a criminal act by law or not is incorrect.

answer this question, if it doesn't matter, how many US presidents filed for divorce while still serving in office?

Most of the time divorce is not a good thing. Regardless of what this young generation of americans think it does not change the fact that most of the world regards divorce as a negative action.

regardless of what you believe is right or wrong does not change the truth of what actually is right or wrong.

Do you believe if a presidential candidate plastered his minivan with pin up pictures of 18 year old girls he would be elected? It's legal is it not? they are 18 years old.

There are millions of people and only one president. He is the embodiment of their beliefs and values. because of that he must uphold those beliefs and values to a certain extent.

EDIT: btw, let me make it clear. I am not claiming people who get a divorce are bad people. I am just using this as a general example since it's in the news recently
and I don't think the french president is a bad person either
__________________
*Retired*
Potatochobit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 11:42   Link #46
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity View Post
Please tell me your joking. I thought we were going for an intelligent person this time. Al Gore is just as stupid, if not more stupid, than George Bush is.
It is "you're" not "your" .... and the rest of the sentence says more about your knowledge of the situation than it does about either Gore or Bush.

If you think either is "stupid", you're just being lulled by simple categorization soundbites.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 13:31   Link #47
Defron
Soy Bean
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OC California (nothing like the show)
Age: 25
This is going to be the first election I vote in .
As of right now I am unsure who I am going to vote for, but if I find out anyone is an oil-buddy I definitely won't vote for them.
Defron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 13:49   Link #48
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
Slice of life you are claiming someone can be a bad person on a daily base, yet suddenly, while he is 'on duty' doing office work, he is making saintly correct choices.
Actually, I'm not expecting any human being to make saintly correct choices, including saints. And especially not politicans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
answer this question, if it doesn't matter, how many US presidents filed for divorce while still serving in office?
I've discussed the ability to do a political job. Not the ability to be elected to do one in general or in the US in particular. Nor do I want to discuss what US presidents were, did, or believed. (And I'm not sure if you want to.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
Regardless of what this young generation of americans think it does not change the fact that most of the world regards divorce as a negative action.
I honestly have no idea what the majority of the world thinks on that issue, nor do I think that you have. I also don't care. If Sturgeon’s Law applies they probably have a few beliefs we both would find pretty disturbing. In any case, in most Western countries being divorced does not bar you from taking a political office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
regardless of what you believe is right or wrong does not change the truth of what actually is right or wrong.
That's certainly true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
There are millions of people and only one president. He is the embodiment of their beliefs and values. because of that he must uphold those beliefs and values to a certain extent.
This is quite a romantic view on how to organize a state. A person as embodiment of a nation's anything sounds a bit like an absolute monarch from the times when people (at least the monarchs themselves) still believed in absolute monarchs. Just an IMHO unlucky side-effect of the fact that the Americans had practically no other role models at that time to build a political philosophy of the role of the president on. Where people had to struggle to establish democratic control next to or against such monarchs, their views on their elected representatives were more earth-grounded right from the beginning. So if I might take a guess on the world's opinion, too: Most people don't consider their political leaders as embodiment of anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
and I don't think the french president is a bad person either
I haven't passed judgment on the French president. But I bet a lot of French people would beg to differ, albeit they might have different reasons.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?

Last edited by Slice of Life; 2008-01-08 at 14:05.
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 15:12   Link #49
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
Slice of life you are claiming someone can be a bad person on a daily base, yet suddenly, while he is 'on duty' doing office work, he is making saintly correct choices.

you are mistaken.
I don't know looking at Nixon, yeah he was pretty bad person and yet his foreign policy and domestic policy were excellent imo. As a person I have to call him a duche but I would say as president he did pretty good job (Yeah of course there was a incident with Watergate, and violated some of the constiounal rights of the people, but he still did pretty good job)
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 16:05   Link #50
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
Ron Paul supporters chase Sean Hannity (some Fox News talkshow host):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXKddQvC1o

Ron Paul is being excluded from a debate hosted by Fox News, which many believe to be because he doesn't support the war in Iraq.

He has very strong internet support (as shown in this thread). Most of his supporters are quite young too.
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 16:25   Link #51
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
I'm hoping Mike Bloomberg will run. America's two party system is boring and a strong third party candidate performance in the 2008 presidential elections may shake things up a lot. It's unlikely that he'll actually run though .
http://economist.com/world/na/displa...ry_id=10431050

Very hard to predict who will win the two party's nominations at the moment. I don't think Huckabee has much of a chance of winning because he really hasn't talked much about what he'll do about in many major issues. Romney has no chance of winning because he's a Mormon which many Republicans can't see past. I think it'll either by McCain or Guiliani who win the Republican side. McCain's comeback has been amazing since last summer when many thought his campaign was destroyed.

The Obama vs Clinton race is pretty interesting (I still don't see Edwards as a contender at all from how he acts in debates). I've been reading for many months now how Clinton has no challenge, but Iowa may have already decided the Democratic nominee.

New Hampshire will clarify some things tonight, but the race will still be very open.
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 16:50   Link #52
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Hmm.. This is getting quite interesting indeed.
I think it's important and great that people are expressing their opinions here, so thanks to those who did that .

In the case of Al Gore, he is known for a couple of things. He might have been President for the 2000-2004 Presidency if there was no *Republicans order a recount of votes in Florida (someone confirm this)*, and somehow Bush ends up winning that last state instead of Al Gore, who was first announced as the winner. Thus, he became the Vice President, someone who has no influence IMO, yet stands right under the President. He also went on to pick up some strong environmental views, and I do agree that he has good views for the country, and even on a global scale basis.
However, for those who watched an Inconvenient Truth and heard the numerous testimonies from various scientists may realize that although his intent was for the common good, his facts (such as the overgrowing global warming rate) which predict the meltdown of Greenland and the North Pole within the next few decades or so, may have been a little overexaggerated. I personally believe him, and because I know not much about this, I won't judge. But Al Gore is someone that isn't to be taken lightly IMO. He means business. I just don't know what he has planned for Presidency, because I see him more as a hardcore environmentalist now than a President.

As for Private Affairs staying out of Political affairs. This is similar to the case of atheists or non believers saying "Keep religion out of state", but honestly speaking, this is Inevitable. A person leading a country with 300,000,000+ people is unlikely to be able to satisfy each and every individual of the 300 million + individuals. I disagree when it comes to private affairs and political affairs, because when someone is making a big political decision, what are they essentially doing? They are making a decision based on their own personal conscience which has formed throughout many years of life experiences. Simply put, a rich person who has never seen a homeless person in his life, and lived in luxury all throughout his life, as opposed to a person who has acted upon, helped, and was charitable to those who are in desperate needs will have different feelings for the less fortunate. A person's political life is just ONE aspect of their Private life. Ultimately, that means that the Political aspects are bound to be influenced by other aspects. Everyone has reasons for their own beliefs, do they not? But we do not know the reason for every person's beliefs, unless they are brought forth to us, the people. So I do think that a person's private affair, their issue, and their character, every aspect of a person, WILL affect a person's view on things. This idea is not mine, but it's just the way things work. It's not easy to turn a blind eye to something that makes you who you are. And thus, if we simply say that private life or affairs should not have any relevance to the political life or affairs of a person, we are not being sympathetic or empathetic, and I personally think such requests are unreasonable.

-A.K.
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 17:28   Link #53
Spectacular_Insanity
Ha ha ha ha ha...
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
It is "you're" not "your" .... and the rest of the sentence says more about your knowledge of the situation than it does about either Gore or Bush.

If you think either is "stupid", you're just being lulled by simple categorization soundbites.
Whatever. I am allowed to make typing mistakes, you know. Not to mention it was 3 in the morning when I wrote that. Cut me some frigging slack. Talk about nit-picky.
__________________
Spectacular_Insanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 17:29   Link #54
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Ummmmm,
1) Al Gore did not become vice-president by losing to Bush. Dick Cheney is Bush's VP.
That's not how elections work here. Al was VP during the Clinton Administration and was given a fair amount of influence.

2) It isn't a matter of "believing" Gore or not... its a matter of looking at the data and the science. Gore is just being a spokesperson for thousands and thousands of scientists who have been researching the situation for decades. The only thing you can accuse Gore of is invoking the "Malthusian Effect" which is he describes what is going to happen if the situation continues AT ITS PRESENT RATE OF ACCELERATION.

3) Sorry but "keep religion out of state" is not an atheist or non-believer idea... its in our Constitution and many ardently religious people with a clue support that because they understand that intermingling the State with Religion produces a theocracy or fascism or a repressive monarchy of One Religion 'NotNecessarily' My Way.

4) A person's private behavior *IS* a reflection of character on a professional level. Most professional guilds have rules about it (pharmacy, law, etc). However, the question should be limited to "are you cheating or lying in some way" rather than "oooh, the way you have sex offends me!!!" or whatever. Clinton dropped the ball in that regard, but Bush and the people around him drop so many balls in so many ways even the comedic view is stale.

5) The question of religion is important in this election because we have several candidates who sincerely believe their religious doctrine supercedes the Rule of Law. That is antithetical to America's entire principle of operations and if anyone wants that, I recommend they visit a few theocracies first. Its a very different thing to use your spiritual beliefs to help you gird your loins for the work versus saying, "my religious sect says you must wear purple on Thursday and if you don't I'll have my Holy Soldiers stone you to death."


@spectacular: I notice you ignored the important part of the post (that labeling either "stupid" indicates you really haven't taken a close look) ... but if you're going to call someone stupid, you ought to cover your ass.

Last edited by Vexx; 2008-01-08 at 17:41.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 17:37   Link #55
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
In response to three posts above:

Presidents pick their own vice presidents, so no, Al Gore was not Bush's vice president. It's standard nowadays for two people to run for president and vice president together; a presidential nominee picks a running mate who will become vice president if the nominee is elected president.

Al Gore was Bill Clinton's running mate in 1992, and because Bill Clinton was elected president then, Al Gore became vice president then, and served in that position from 1993-2001 (both of Clinton's two four year terms).

It's very common for vice presidents to run for president in future elections, as Gore did. In the 2000 presidential election, Gore ran for president while still vice president and won the Democratic nomination. He ran against the Republican nominee George W. Bush (son of a former president). Gore won the popular election by half a million votes, Bush got the majority of electoral college votes, which is what really counts.

Florida caused many problems that election. It was first announced on election night that Gore had won the state (this was based on unofficial exit polls I believe) but later it was announced that Bush won it. It was Al Gore and the Democrats who called for the recount. Some people believe that there was voter fraud and votes were counted incorrectly. The Supreme Court however was called in and ordered that the initial vote tally that had Bush winning would be the final word, and the recount stopped. If the recount had continued, it's most likely Gore would've won the state and became president.

So Bush became president in 2001 and his running mate Dicky Cheney became vice president. Many people believed that in Bush's first time that Bush hardly did anything as president and his vice president, Cheney, did most of the work. It's typical that vice presidents have no real power and presidents shun them, but that certainly hasn't been the case for Cheney.
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 17:45   Link #56
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Ummmmm,
1) Al Gore did not become vice-president by losing to Bush. Dick Cheney is Bush's VP.
That's not how elections work here. Al was VP during the Clinton Administration and was given a fair amount of influence.

2) It isn't a matter of "believing" Gore or not... its a matter of looking at the data and the science. Gore is just being a spokesperson for thousands and thousands of scientists who have been researching the situation for decades. The only thing you can accuse Gore of is invoking the "Malthusian Effect" which is he describes what is going to happen if the situation continues AT ITS PRESENT RATE.

3) Sorry but "keep religion out of state" is not an atheist or non-believer idea... its in our Constitution and many ardently religious people with a clue support that because they understand that intermingling the State with Religion produces a theocracy or fascism or a repressive monarchy of One Religion 'NotNecessarily' My Way.

@Spectacular: I notice you ignored the important part of the post. But if you're going to call someone stupid, its best to cover your ass.

4) A person's private behavior *IS* a reflection of character on a professional level. Most professional guilds have rules about it (pharmacy, law, etc). However, the question should be limited to "are you cheating or lying in some way" rather than "oooh, the way you have sex offends me!!!" or whatever. Clinton dropped the ball in that regard, but Bush and the people around him drops the ball in so many ways even the comedic view is stale.

5) The question of religion is important in this election because we have several candidates who sincerely believe their religious doctrine supercedes the Rule of Law. That is antithetical to America's entire principle of operations and if anyone wants that, I recommend they visit a few theocracies first. Its a very different thing to use your spiritual beliefs to help you gird your loins for the work versus saying, "my religion says you must wear purple on Thursday and if you don't I'll have my Holy Soldiers stone you to death."


@spectacular: I notice you ignored the important part of the post (that labeling either "stupid" indicates you really haven't taken a close look) ... but if you're going to call someone stupid, you ought to cover your ass.
1) Oh, my bad on that one. But it is true that Al Gore lost to Bush because Repubs called a recount on the Florida votes, is it not? Also, I really don't think Al Gore had much influence, especially during the Clinton Administration, I think he was rather quiet, working behind the scenes. But yes, you're probably right, he probably did have a fair influence.

2) This is not exactly true. One of my friends gave me a National Geographic issue from sometime in the 1970s (it's a yellow bordered book, I don't have it now), and he told me that Al Gore's presented statistics in An Inconvenient Truth has been presented in that book's 1970 edition, 30 years ago. Of course, I'm not criticizing or doubting Al Gore whatsoever, I mean I'm sure he did his research and work to get to where he is now. However, I've heard too much about how many scientists have proven that not all the facts presented by him are true. Just too many times to make a verdict and say that Al Gore presented 100% fact, and nothing less. Thus, although many scientists do share views with him, I really don't think that things are to such an extreme, although things are rotting pretty quick at the same time.

3) My idea of Religion in State is not so that the President can preach to his people 24/7. My idea of Religion in State is that when there are decisions to be made, just remember the principles which the country of United States originated from. It does have a Christian background, whether that makes it right or wrong. That's not the point. It's just the way I see it, on certain hot topics such as abortion, you really need to consider the views of everyone, and what the conscience truly tells you is morally correct. I'm not saying Religion should be enforced on every individual or every single problem, but I'm saying that the Religious Values and Principles which our ancestors or preceeding individuals have kept should be remembered. Everyone does have different views, but there should be some common ground between the Constitution and Religion, generically speaking.

4) /agree? Heh.. Not much more elaboration necessary there. :/

5) Mentioned above, I'm not wanting religious enforcement on everyone and making everyone feel uncomfortable, pressured, or anything along those lines.
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 17:54   Link #57
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn Demon View Post
In response to three posts above:

Presidents pick their own vice presidents, so no, Al Gore was not Bush's vice president. It's standard nowadays for two people to run for president and vice president together; a presidential nominee picks a running mate who will become vice president if the nominee is elected president.

Al Gore was Bill Clinton's running mate in 1992, and because Bill Clinton was elected president then, Al Gore became vice president then, and served in that position from 1993-2001 (both of Clinton's two four year terms).

It's very common for vice presidents to run for president in future elections, as Gore did. In the 2000 presidential election, Gore ran for president while still vice president and won the Democratic nomination. He ran against the Republican nominee George W. Bush (son of a former president). Gore won the popular election by half a million votes, Bush got the majority of electoral college votes, which is what really counts.

Florida caused many problems that election. It was first announced on election night that Gore had won the state (this was based on unofficial exit polls I believe) but later it was announced that Bush won it. It was Al Gore and the Democrats who called for the recount. Some people believe that there was voter fraud and votes were counted incorrectly. The Supreme Court however was called in and ordered that the initial vote tally that had Bush winning would be the final word, and the recount stopped. If the recount had continued, it's most likely Gore would've won the state and became president.

So Bush became president in 2001 and his running mate Dicky Cheney became vice president. Many people believed that in Bush's first time that Bush hardly did anything as president and his vice president, Cheney, did most of the work. It's typical that vice presidents have no real power and presidents shun them, but that certainly hasn't been the case for Cheney.
Don't forget that because of Ralph Nader, Gore lost some of the vote to the Green Party that could have gone to him instead.
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 18:05   Link #58
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
1)
2) This is not exactly true. One of my friends gave me a National Geographic issue from sometime in the 1970s (it's a yellow bordered book, I don't have it now), and he told me that Al Gore's presented statistics in An Inconvenient Truth has been presented in that book's 1970 edition, 30 years ago. Of course, I'm not criticizing or doubting Al Gore whatsoever, I mean I'm sure he did his research and work to get to where he is now. However, I've heard too much about how many scientists have proven that not all the facts presented by him are true. Just too many times to make a verdict and say that Al Gore presented 100% fact, and nothing less. Thus, although many scientists do share views with him, I really don't think that things are to such an extreme, although things are rotting pretty quick at the same time.
Well... I certainly won't deny the information is presented in alarmist fashion (is shouting "fire!" alarmist? ) but the IPCC report and its scientific community consensus should scare the crap out of anyone who understands how science works. At the very least, the concept of "pick up after yourself" shouldn't be so hard for certain factions of the human race to acknowledge

I took the test that Spectacular_Insanity provided a link to early in the thread.... apparently my "spectrum mixed" views put me in the Dem camp this time.... though I have to say whatever algorithm it uses seriously oversimplifies issue views. So I don't recommend anyone use it to determine who to vote for without further investigation to candidate proposals.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 18:32   Link #59
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity View Post
Take this online poll. It will line you up with the candidate that you best support. My mom emailed it to me, and I think it works fairly well. I voted both how I felt and the exact opposite of what I thought, and the candidates that showed up seemed to follow the views that I presented to the poll each time. Now, obviously this isn't an end-all-be-all thing, but it both gives you an idea of which way you lean and gives you plenty of links to finding more about the candidates out there.

On a completely different note, I urge people not to vote based solely on party lines (I know A LOT of people do that), but based upon what's best for the country, and what's best according to your own opinions about the important issues discussed.
The second question in this quiz asks what is your stance on immigration, but all of the options are anti-immigration in one form or another. I'm completely for immigration, and believe there shouldn't be any requirements to become a U.S. citizen (besides the obvious ones like not being a criminal and stuff). Screw security, if America didn't intervene in other countries so much we wouldn't need to worry about terrorism.

A very bad quiz indeed.

I wish America and all other countries were more open to immigration, because it really benefits everyone. I especially wish Japan was more open to immigration because then i wouldn't have to go to college and get work lined up in Japan just so live there indefinitely. As it is though Japan is one of the countries with the most limited immigration . Hopefully though they'll see they need more immigration with their aging population and open up their... airports.

Immigration is going to be a huge issue in the American presidential election, and it's really a shame McCain et al's immigration bill didn't pass because undocumented residents in America really should have a path to citizenship and shouldn't be penalized for taking the initiative to move here to improve their lives.
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-08, 18:52   Link #60
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Well... I certainly won't deny the information is presented in alarmist fashion (is shouting "fire!" alarmist? ) but the IPCC report and its scientific community consensus should scare the crap out of anyone who understands how science works. At the very least, the concept of "pick up after yourself" shouldn't be so hard for certain factions of the human race to acknowledge
Word. The message did have to get across, and this time it should have been pretty clear.

Regarding the quiz, I havn't taken it myself, but let's remember that he probably put it up for beneficial purposes .
(This goes for everyone)

-A.K.
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
debate, elections, news, politics, united_states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.