2008-02-07, 03:11 | Link #141 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-02-07, 04:01 | Link #142 |
Banned
|
I'm glad to hear McCain's campaign is going well. He's one of the few Republican's I feel is moderate enough to run a stable country. That is if he somehow manages a miracle and defeat's either Obama or Hilary in the actual election.
McCain has always struck a chord with me that makes me feel he's honest and wants what's best for all people. Sure he's made some slip ups, gaffs and racial slurs over the years, but I can forgive such things if he is willing to admit his mistakes and move forward. If I had to list the pros and cons of his voting record it would go something like this: Pros: - Wants better gun control - Against torture in any form - Has frequently cosponsored progressive legislation with Democratic Senators - Is never guaranteed to vote along party lines, but appears to vote based on his personal feelings and constituents wishes. - His candidness Cons: - Pro-Life stance - Pro Capital Punishment - Wants to form a long term garrison in Iraq - His candidness That he has less cons then any other Republican candidate currently in the running and isn't a complete "Angel guided the bullet into the deer's head" nutcase like Mike Huckabee (Who pretty much goes ultra right wing conservative on every hot button issue) makes him my most desired candidate for the Republican nomination. I would vote democrat if I lived in the U.S, but even seeing a Republican in McCain win wouldn't seem so bad as a consolation. Ron Paul now that I look at his policy was just bloody amazing and seems to have the same stances as McCain. Though I think now that Paul is seemingly out of the picture after Super Tuesday that McCain is the best bet at putting an end to Huckabee once and for all. In short, either Clinton, Obama, McCain or Paul can win and I think the U.S is in good shape from my outside standpoint, but if Huckabee wins then there's nothing but trouble on the horizon. About Vexx's comment on the whole right wing and left wing in the U.S versus other countries, let me share a story about the latest Ontario elections. Our Ontario Conservative party, sometimes known as the Progressive Conservatives (in Provincial Elections) leader John Tory (this is also hilarious because in Canada the cons are known as Tories) was running a decent campaign against Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty when he got a really really dumb idea. To extend public funding to faith based schools, or in other words, give up tax payer dollars to privately controlled funds. That was it, he was done. The public flipped out, he split his own party and the conservative election run was a complete disaster with Tory even losing his own seat as a result. We generally don't stand for taking things even that far. And as Vexx said, it's kind of true about different countries. Canada's major parties are the NDP, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois. The only one that can really be considered at all Right Wing are the Conservatives (A merger of the Progressive Conservatives, Reform Party and Canadian Alliance for one really odd mishmash of policy that actually ends up sitting somewhere in the centre right), and even they've got nothing on the Republican party. I'd argue they are a bit to the left of the Democratic party. Essentially the NDP is a clear-cut socialist party, the liberals are a center left party, the Conservatives are center right and the Bloc Quebecois.....well I'm not sure actually, there platform is basically built on represenation for French speakers. I guess they'd be Centre left too. Here is a pretty interesting blog article that lays out a comparison between the current American candidates and the Canadian parties that the author made by superimposing and scaling the parties onto a grid from PoliticalCompass.org. Yes, if Barack Obama were running in Canada he would likely be a left wing conservative. For those who don't want to visit the blog for the commentary, I'll also post the graph here. Credit goes to Paulitics by the way. Spoiler for U.S 2008 Presidential Candidate and Canadian Political Party Policy Comparison:
Last edited by Kaioshin Sama; 2008-02-07 at 05:01. |
2008-02-07, 04:50 | Link #143 |
permanentely bored
|
being from a foreign country i d rather stay neutral and not take anyside since i totally lack the information about the candidates programs.
my general preference would go to either obama or clinton (though i dont really like her but that is totally partial since like i said i dont know enougth about each candidate's program). unfortunatly no foreign nation can afford to careless about this electioin since USA 's politic directely affect too many other nation throught the way they deal with foreign policy. what i m more interrested in is wich one between obama and clinton "won" this super tuesday, it was rather confused yesterday with no clear "winner". |
2008-02-07, 05:23 | Link #144 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2008-02-07, 15:53 | Link #145 | ||||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
He's also not pro-life. Yes, he says he is, but he's not in practice. He generally seems like a straight-shooter, but that pandering (and his self-congratulating habit) is why I don't trust him. Not that I see how being pro-life is bad. So long as the life of the mother is in danger, I think its ridiculous to put social convenience ahead of human life. Even if we could decide when it becomes human life--and I don't think we can--by the time we're aware of most pregnancies it clearly is, even if it isn't fully developed. Nonetheless, his pro-life stance is mostly talk. He's bad enough that even many of the most prominent conservative republicans have said they won't vote with their party if he's nominated. Quote:
Liberals hate him for being too conservative, but conservatives hate him for being too liberal. If more people actually paid attention to what he was saying, though, instead of dismissing him by taking a couple of quotes out of context, I think many would find he's not that objectionable, as his notable bi-partisan support as governor is a clue to. Much like Ron Paul, his brand of conservatism can't be shoe-horned in with the stereotypical republicans. Of course, many simply dislike him for being open about his faith, but that's really a different issue than most make it out to be. He's backed away from the "Intelligent Design" issue once it became clear that it was more than a movement to counter anti-religious rhetoric in the classroom and that it was being spearheaded by nutcases who wanted to teach religion in science lessons. He's also clearly separated the "evolution objection" from objecting to evolution as a whole to the very specific points Christians generally don't believe. The fact that every one else up there claims to have the same religion (Romney aside, whose religion teaches the same way) doesn't dawn on most people. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Huckabee's religion scares me less than even those who don't talk about theirs. I can understand why not every one sees it that way, because my experience with many religious people (pastors included) gives me a certain perspective. There are some who practically wish for theocracy, and there are some whose faith makes them even more respectful of the different values and beliefs of others and the government's responsibility to stay out of the issue. From what I've seen to be able to discern the difference, Huckabee lies on the latter end. Some comments he'd made about amending the constitution had caused me to think otherwise, but reading more about what he has to say on the subject at length rather than taking an out-of-context and misapplied sound bite defines it as something he sees as a social issue than a religious one--but a social issue that happens to fall in line with his religious views. I disagree with him on the proper solutions to this, but that's not something the president is responsible for, anyway. Huckabee on the proper role of religion as a politician (the real meat comes after the first few questions, and some light is also shed on his actual stance on the death penalty): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZP0FxAhmgk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1dvMttUh9k Quote:
I'd say Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running, but much like Huckabee his conservatism isn't the stereotypical brand we're used to seeing squabbled over. I think if we would stop reducing issues to sound bites and really discuss what's at their core, we'd find far more agreement and be able to come to more amicable decisions. That's more trouble than most people want to go to, though, and most people want to be able to play for a "team". *sigh* A good example of this... Quote:
Generally, though, if private religious schools are considered just as any other private school, and they are held to certain standards. On the chance that they might receive any government money, they are often held to further standards and subject to more state regulation. The choice frequently comes down to private schools staying completely private, or private schools essentially becoming partly public in exchange for receiving some public money. The clamor over it, though, usually ends up sounding like "GOVERNMENT MONEY TO FUND RELIGION!!" although many private universities do similar things with their grants and scholarships.
__________________
|
||||
2008-02-07, 16:05 | Link #146 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
BTW, the media here has almost indecently targeted the Democrat campaign without much regard for the Republicans, so there's not much doubt around these parts on which party's gonna win.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-07, 17:15 | Link #147 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-02-07, 18:12 | Link #148 | |
moo
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth, the planet of stuff
Age: 30
|
Quote:
YES! It's THAT simple... Too bad there are too many dumb farts trying to run this country... Anyways, when are the final elections supposed to be again? There's been too much Hooplah to keep track of when it is.... Not that I give a crap, or two! |
|
2008-02-07, 18:29 | Link #150 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
I agree that laws should not force personal views or will upon the population, but abortion is a violation of that principle. I am, for the most part, quite libertarian: I'll live my way, you live your way--with the requirement that our rights to live the way we want extend all the way up to the point where they intrude on the rights of some one else to live the way they want. Abortion fails that test by pushing the view and decision of one person onto another (the mother's will against the child's), and excepting the case of rape or immaculate conception the existence of the child is not imposed upon the mother without her knowledge/consent. If the law creates a special exception for taking the life of unborn children at the whim of the mother (or other entity) by not yet considering them human, then suddenly the law is dictating theology, which it has no business doing. So, yes, this lines up with the "sanctity of human life at all stages" aspect of my faith, but I see it very much as a secular imperative of a society which respects the rights and personal boundaries of individuals. See also: Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-07, 18:58 | Link #151 | |
moo
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth, the planet of stuff
Age: 30
|
Quote:
OH, well. That's what you hear from me, when, your parents try to indoctrine you to beleive that EVERY SINGLE conservative is a greedy scumbag that is only doing things to get more money! Last edited by JustInn14; 2008-02-07 at 18:59. Reason: TYPOEZ DON"T YOU LOVE THEM?!!?!?!?!!?!!!????! |
|
2008-02-07, 19:13 | Link #152 | |||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
First, you claim that abortion is bad because it pushes a mother's rights over those of her child. I'm not going to argue whether the fetus has rights or not, but you then make an exception for the cases of rape or when the existence of the child is imposed on the mother. You've just created an exception that tramples the rights of the child regardless. That is, you're recognizing that the child has rights, and yet you're stating that under certain conditions those rights of the child - which you are claiming are the same rights that any other person has, I presume - can be suspended. I think that is a very dangerous thing to state. Second, it still bothers me that you'd make that judgement. It's that sort of judgement that causes people to call the police on their neighbors when they feel that a neighbor disciplining a child is abusing that child. Yes, there is a difference - in the case I described it's often a case of good will and misunderstanding that leads to an unpleasant visit from the police, whereas there's no real misunderstanding about an abortion, just different views. I'm not against neighbors watching over each other, or about trying to prevent child abuse, either. But that judgement still feels to me like a case of someone getting into someone else's business when they don't belong. My feeling over this is likely because I am pro-choice, so I don't suppose there's much more we can discuss here without going into the merits of whether rights are really being violated or not. I'd get into that all too easily so I'll try to refrain from responding on that aspect so that we don't derail the subject. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2008-02-07, 19:47 | Link #153 |
moo
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth, the planet of stuff
Age: 30
|
PErsonally, I don't beleive a human "Life" starts until age 3, or 4. DON"T ASK. That's just MY opinion on that matter...
Also, NOVEMBER?! Geez, there's going to be lots of hooplah before then about the elections, and stuff. |
2008-02-07, 20:21 | Link #154 | |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
That is why you don't know. If there won't be any kind of protection, there is a high chance that you would have known...
Quote:
|
|
2008-02-07, 20:38 | Link #155 | ||
~
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2008-02-07, 22:22 | Link #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
That is completely untrue. Almost every single state fell well within the margin of error if not nailing it prior to super tuesday. The exception to this being New Hampshire where the pollsters nailed the republican polls but missed the democrats. The lone exception was the suffolk poll which nailed the democrats, but was way off on the republicans. New Hampshire clearly had a sampling problem on the dems side that only one place correctly handled.
On the democrats side on super tuesday, edwards had recently dropped out and the majority of his people were polling as undecided. For the majority of the states with enough polls to actually calculate anything, the polls were basically accurate to scale, even if they were outside the margin of error. There were less than a handful that were wrong or statistical dead head going in that ended up with slightly different results than the numbers said. On the republican side, the same thing basically holds true with the majority of states being accurate to scale with a handful of exceptions and things that cannot be corrected for in polling. (Example: Caucus format caused the polls to be completely incorrect .) Beside, polls are weaker when used as instantaneous measures of popularity. They are far more accurate when taken for trends because you can spot possible errors. (The exit polls have been very accurate this year too.) |
2008-02-07, 23:14 | Link #157 |
^.^
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
|
Slow reply to people who told me how I was missing the part where McCain was a military hero who was tortured during the Vietnam War for 5 years? 12?
That's not the point. Honestly speaking, in Canada, there isn't much of a "Military Tradition" as there is in America. With that said, in America, when you have a military hero like McCain running for President, he's going to get a lot of supporters, veterans or troops or anything of the like. However, let me say this. The fact that McCain got tortured "For America" doesn't make him fit to be president off the hook. McCain probably suffered a lot more than many Americans, and others, such as myself, but that doesn't justify the luxury he is in right now. It just doesn't. And about abortion.... "Seven years ago Pam Stenzel grew weary of hearing the phrase, NOBODY TOLD ME!! After years of counseling young girls who found themselves in crisis pregnancies, Pam began to realize that so many were completely unaware of the risks involved with sexual activity, and that many had never been told about all the consequences of their choices. That was the inception of Pam's life as a speaker, but Pam Stenzel's story started years earlier. In 1964 a fifteen-year-old girl was raped, became pregnant, and decided to carry her unborn child to term. Five months after the baby girl was born, in an act of courage and love the young mother provided her child a better environment by giving her to an adoptive family. That child was Pam Stenzel. She is the oldest of 8 children… 7 adopted…1 biological, and her extended family includes 38 adopted children in all. Following her graduation from Liberty University with a degree in Psychology, Pam moved to Minneapolis, MN where she began to work with New Life Family Services, and young girls who were planning to place their children for adoption. Pam was approached by a group of concerned parents, to develop a two-hour program for the Rally for Life 1992, a conference on sexual abstinence. She developed the program by mixing media and music, her own talk, and the testimonies of young girls. The response of students, parents and the community was so overwhelming that Pam began to get numerous requests to speak all over the Midwest. In 1993, Pam's talk Sex Has a Price Tag was produced as a video. No one was prepared for the explosive response. Pam's speaking requests were so numerous that she decided to go on the speaking circuit full time. "Sex Has a Price Tag" has since been translated into 11 languages, won the Charleston Film Festival Award in 1995, and is currently used in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Australia, Ireland, Europe, the Ukraine, Romania, Poland, and throughout Africa. In 1998 Vision Video and Gateway Films produced the film series "Sex, Love and Relationships" in Santa Monica, California. It won the Crown Award for Curriculum of the Year in November 1999. Pam's current videography includes: "Time To Wait For Sex," "Sex Has A Price Tag 2000," "Character Matters" (a video for parents) "Sex, Love & Relationships," and "Take A Look In The Mirror" (a video for girls only). She is also the Founder of Enlighten Communications, Inc., a organization focused and committed to the betterment of children and families in America and around the world. Enlighten offers a broad new model approach for those desiring to embrace strong character in today's youth. Enlighten empowers parents, youth leaders and educators to lead informed discussions on sexual abstinence and the benefits it produces. Pam now travels both domestically and internationally, speaking to over 500,000 teens a year. Surprisingly many of her requests to speak come from teens themselves. She has been a guest on numerous national TV and Radio programs, including appearances on Fox News Network's "Hannity & Colmes Show," ABC Radio's "Sean Hannity Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," CBN's "The 700 Club," and ABC Television's "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher." Pam Stenzel is a dynamic, charismatic, and educated expert on sex, love and relationships. She understands the perils that young people face as they make adult choices, and is dedicated to reviving the character and integrity of today's youth. " -http://www.pamstenzel.com/pamsbio.asp Pam Stenzel. A person who fights for what she believes. Do not push the population to prevent abortion? It's funny, how this abortion war got these titles "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". An average Miss South Carolina would hear the words "Pro-Choice" and be like "Oh man that sounds good. Pro Choice? Yeah I'm pro choice, I choose". In the process of choosing something that sounds so positive, yet involves the murder of a developing baby, the people, as it is part of human nature, develops bias towards the other side of the argument - "Pro-Life". Now obviously I'm Pro LIFE, and I choose to go with Pro Life because it involves saving the life of an existence, rather having to let it lose its existence after it's being hasn't been indulged into the great wonders of modern society. I'll give you my opinion. I'm already influenced by Pam Stenzel's talk which I watched on DVD, but it's still legit and logical. DON'T GET THE ABORTION, HAVE THE BABY. There are many reasons which support this. One is that the person can turn out to someone who gives hope and encouragement to other people, such as Pam Stenzel. If you didn't read about her above, she's the result of a raped mother who decided to have the baby. I don't see another explanation existent here other than *out of love*. This woman doesn't even know her biological father. Yet, she has a family and helps the troubled youth of today with her abilities. Another reason is, There are MANY people in this world who want to adopt babies due to various circumstances. Have the baby, and then put the poor little girl/guy for adoption, so he/she can at least have a decent life with another family that is capable of taking care of the baby. Rather than exceptions can be made, let's get things straight. By supporting pro-choice, one believes they have control over their body. Why are they going over into another being's freedom of choice too young to 'fend for itself? So please, for Love's Sake, let's not try to cut through corners and reason why killing babies is not wrong. It ain't just some view and belief. It's just that simple irony of illegalizing murder and condemning someone to death when you got power, or allowing the mass murder of babies in a day (I think the figures are over 7,000 per day? That's right, 7,000 you's inside a city, all dying. Think about that.) that makes me think, "If no one else will say it, I better do it".
__________________
|
2008-02-07, 23:16 | Link #158 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
bayoab is entirely correct in his analysis. I recommend visiting http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and comparing the averaged late polling data by state against the actual results for Super Tuesday. The only glaring error is for the Minnesota Democratic caucuses where no poll was taken after January 27th. Caucuses are much more subject to turnout effects from a good "ground game." Obama clearly targeted the smaller caucus states where his financial advantage and pool of enthusiastic young volunteers could mount effective insurgencies. (I'm curious to see whether Clinton fights back on this front in the upcoming Washington and Nebraska state caucuses.)
One other intriguing error concerns the difference in results for California between the respected John Zogby and an outfit called SurveyUSA. Zogby had CA going for Obama, while SurveyUSA had Clinton with a slight majority, matching the actual result. What makes the difference interesting is that SurveyUSA apparently uses automated telephone robots to conduct its polls while Zogby uses human interviewers. My experience in polling, and my gut, both tell me humans should be better interviewers than robots, but the facts in this instance at least speak otherwise.
__________________
|
2008-02-07, 23:24 | Link #159 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
__________________
|
|
2008-02-07, 23:28 | Link #160 | |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Quote:
Also, if you watched CNN (or followed on the Web) on Tuesday, you should have noticed the winning announcement coming quite late for most of the states, even for the ones where the difference was more than 8 points in exit polls. Forget about the early polls, it is interesting to see the amount of trust they have even for the exit polls. |
|
Tags |
debate, elections, politics, united_states |
Thread Tools | |
|
|