McCain v. Obama

I missed out on the finishing up on the abortion topic - so here we go. If anyone says it is off topic, no it isn't, because it is a political topic that would have some influence on liberalism vs republicanism.

First of all, adoption is fine, but people have a right to choose whether they want to give birth or not. Personhood does not begin when they are concieved, because they haven't had any experience, nor the ability to think or have a personality. A conscious being isn't a being. It's like the whole persistitant vegetative state argument - They can't move or respond or probably even think, but just because they are alive doesn't mean they are people. It makes them vegetables, and we seem to have no problem letting them die tastily in our stomach. I'm not saying we should eat people in persistitant vegetative states, but they aren't concious. They should be allowed to die. It's the same with abortions - if a mother doesn't want to have the child, it can't think, feel or act and even if it was born it wouldn't remember anything about it. An unborn baby isn't a person. A feotus isn't a person. Abortion isn't murder because you're not murdering anything but a vegetable, in reality.

Vote Obama. He'll cut back on guns, he'll allow abortions and he'll allow in PVS to pass on, rather than trap them. McCain is just a clone of Bush and no one seemed to like him either.

Well we should see soon who the new president is. So I am now allowing discussion of the election polls in this topic. I (or another person able to close this) will hopefully announce the winner of the election on this. Then close it.

Why close it immediately? Isn't there a little time for discussing the results? I'd say leave it open for a week after the election so we can discuss the results. I've said it before and I'll say it again: McCain is just a Bush clone who refuses to progress and would rather stick to the same old republican and christian traditions. Obama wants change, and I believe he will not only be an excellent president, it will set a good example against racism. Besides, there's a good chance that McCain will croak in office and we'll have Palin as president. Do we really want that?
I can assure you, 100% that Obama will win. I can feel it in my bones.

I'm actually watching CNN right now. the polls point to Obama (yay).

Sadly polls don't mean anything, last time they pointed to Kerry. Look what happened. McCain said he'll do things, but how? Obama gives good explanations on what he wants to do and how he will do it. McCain, quite the opposite. He says he will do stuff, but never said how.

Yeah, I'm with Oddball here, people will want to discuss why each candidate won/lost, so I don't think this should be closed immediately after the results are released.

Close it if it just gets spammed up with "Yay, the candidate I was supporting won!" after a while, by all means, but don't just close it for the sake of it when it might yet generate interesting discussion.

Yeah g33k. You lose. In yo face!

Ahem. I'm trying to control myself, but I mean.... I just dunno how anyone could've supported McCain. I mean the guy is borderline senile!
Now, I have a little side debate. I mean, it's called the White house, but with the first Black president, maybe we need some 'change' and give it a paintjob. The Black house? The Brown house? Hmm, give it some thought.

PS: He's giving his kids a puppy to go into the White house with. Soooo cute. I liek puppies and smiley things.

Plus oddball. If MacCain was elected, he is 72 and is most likely to die in office and plus would anybody want Sarah Palin to take over for him, no i don't think so.

Can somebody give a good reason why Obama would be a good president besides "mccain and republicans are stupid"? I mentioned that in the first post of the thread.


I didn't think so. I haven't found one good thing about Obama.

« Last edited by Town Idiot25 on Nov 5th 2008 »

On 04-Nov-2008 Oddball said:

OBAMA WINS! WHOOOIIIEEE



Ahem. I'm pleased.

Post Deleted. Please contribute to the debate.

Same for you FaleronDude_ (spelling?)

On 05-Nov-2008 Town Idiot25 said:

Can somebody give a good reason why Obama would be a good president besides "mccain and republicans are stupid"? I mentioned that in the first post of the thread.


I didn't think so. I haven't found one good thing about Obama.

He's going to bring change to America! Not sure what changes he's on about as he has never mentioned the but, well it makes a nice campaign slogan. I can't see how he will have such an effect on America, he's already restricted on what change he can bring by the people and congress (that may be wrong, not 100% sure on how the American government works).

Referring to your post in General Chat, I agree that when people keep banging on about an end to racism its highly unlikely to end now, don't see many people going 'I hate Black people but since Obama's become president I suddenly like them', its nothing more than a dream. I do like how the same people who were all, 'yay! now everyone can be equal' were the quickest to say McCain was too old to run the country, yeah nice one on the equality thing.

I do fear that Obama has created a picture of himself and the future which he simply can't achieve and that there will be a lot of very disappointed people in a few years time.

« Last edited by super craig on Nov 5th 2008 »

On 05-Nov-2008 g33k said:

Post Deleted. Please contribute to the debate.

Same for you FaleronDude_ (spelling?)

It's Flareon Dude_, with a space.


Also, I saw something about republicans are stupid, give a reason besides that why Obama is good.


Well, I am in favor for his idea of spreading the wealth and taxing more on the rich. This, in turn, will help some people, in the end. Also, his National Health Care PLan seems promising. I blieve everyone gets health care now or something along those lines, yes?

On 30-Oct-2008 imaloony8.0 said:

So you'd rather kill someone and not even give them a chance? Everyone deserves a chance. It's up to them to take that chance.

Okay, maybe that was a little corny, but still. If you don't want the kid, you shouldn't have had unprotected sex. And even protected sex has its risks, so other than for rape, it would be the girl's responsibility.

Condoms can break. Birth control pills can fail. First of all - I'll first up say that the argument of kids in foster care with little sense of identity or knowledge of their parents is an excellent reason for abortion and not adoption, second, it mainly appears you are using the 'gift of God' argument. Religeon and state should be seperate, and that's why republicans are so blinded that they can't see past the whole God thing. I'm a Christian, but when you make life changing decisions over a God that is a 'maybe' thing. Abortion should be available to anyone that can't support the child or isn't in a relationship or has a half decent reason to not want to have a child, because personhood does not begin in conception no matter how hard you wish.

Other than that, on the Obama winning thing -
KKK has made an official race war due to Obama's winnings. Five bucks bet that McCain would be completely safe in office, yet there's a good chance Obama will sadly end up pulling a JFK on us. I really hope he will be okay.

« Last edited by Oddball on Nov 6th 2008 »

TBH I only wanted MCain to win because he was called John. Obama has better idea's, while Mcain was going to repeat the old things. So Obama will be a good president, he's fun, too.

On 05-Nov-2008 Town Idiot25 said:

Can somebody give a good reason why Obama would be a good president besides "mccain and republicans are stupid"? I mentioned that in the first post of the thread.


I didn't think so. I haven't found one good thing about Obama.

Well, we'll ignore the "lesser of two evils" argument that states that, despite your mockery of it, the "I don't want McCain/Palin in power" argument is a fair enough one, since you've challenged us to provide good things about Obama. Well, believe it or not, that 'crazy socialism' he's espousing counts as far as I'm concerned. No, I'm not a red-blooded socialist. I don't believe it a crime to be rich, or that we should make sure everyone is entirely equal. I look at it more from a 'High Tory' point of view, to use a somewhat outdated term: that the rich have a duty to help the poor. Unfortunately, much of our current generation of rich seem to think this is beneath them in some way, so, as someone I know recently put it, "they need a bit of a helping hand from the government". Again, I'm not saying they should give up everything they own in taxes, particularly if they have genuinely earned their wealth. But, for paychecks like they get, is an extra couple of percent really that much to ask? They've still, in practical terms, got just as much purchasing power as they had before, and as far as prestiege goes, I believe the 'world's richest' lists rank by income, anyway. O but for the days of ancient Rome when the rich boasted not about how much money they had but how much they spent on the public good...

But regardless of any obligation the rich may have to the society which has given them so much, what about equal oppurtunity? How is that goal compatible with a tax system which levies the poor to support the rich? Furthermore, don't forget that Obama's tax cuts don't just go the working class, or to those much-touted but rarely seen 'lazy homeless bums' that those arguing for Republican tax policies usually sneer upon left-wingers as wishing to support, but to the middle classes, too. Are they lazy for not having the good sense to be born rich, or for not being able to get rich because they're stuck paying high mortage rates because a group of executives decided to give their stock options a boost by lending to those who couldn't afford it? I repeat: Obama's tax policies have been tailored to help these people. And the cost? A couple of percent more of the paychecks of said executives.

But moving off economic policy for a moment. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I also favour getting our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible (and yes, I say our; remember that there are British troops there, not just American ones). I don't believe that continuing to be there any longer than is necessary benefits anyone: not us, not the Iraqi people... well, maybe the Al-Qaida leaders trying to stir young Muslims in Britain and America into a fanatical sense of outrage at the 'suffering of their people'. So getting the troops back home sooner rather than later greatly appeals to me.

And finally social policies... what more is there to say? I'm a liberal through and through as far as these concerned; if Obama's policies aren't ideal, they're still a darn sight better than that "most liberal of Republicans" John McCain's (who nonetheless managed to include a member of the Christian Right on his campaign ticket). But perhaps this strays too close to the lesser of two evils argument for you, so I'll just quickly run off a few examples of where I particularly argee with Obama's social policies:

- The environment. I admit, I'd probably vote the Green Party if I were old enough and they popular enough (one could argue that the Liberal Democrats don't fit the latter criteria either, but I digress). I do think we need more action here, and that, to not beat around the bush, America is greatly behind on this as developed countries go. Yes, China and India have yet to adopt many green policies, but they need an example to follow, methinks. And much as I wish it were otherwise, the European Union and its constituents simply aren't conspicuous enough, nor even the likes of Canada, Japan and Australia. America is the country which must lead the world here, simply because, as most Republicans are very fond of saying, it is, currently, the foremost power of the world. And yet, instead it's lagging tremendously behind, having not even ratified the Kyoto Protocol yet. So this is why I favour Obama and the Democrats rather than McCain and the Republicans here.

- Sex education. No, I don't want 6-year olds to be taught the precise mechanics of sexual reproduction. But then, neither does Obama; to suggest otherwise is to deliberately misquote him. I am, like him, however, in favour of starting general sex education earier, and of course making the end package, so to speak, more comprehensive. We've (or, I suppose, strictly speaking you've) had 8 years of abstinence only; this policy, however, clearly isn't working. Enough said, I feel.

- Parental responsibility. I suppose this isn't so much a policy matter, but I feel it deserves a mention anyway. I too would rather have parents take a more active role in their children's lives rather than leaving that to the TV. The benefits to this are severalfold, not least in that it's far easier for a parent to get a child to do regular exercise than a TV, for obvious reasons.

Anyway, I think that's enough positives about Obama to be getting on with for now. Whether you agree with them will, I expect, be a diffrent matter.

Obama is going to plan out be a great President.... I've heard he is also giving JOBS to the people he run up against, including McCain. Anyone else got information on this? If not I will research and find it out myself, but I thought it was just plan interesting he would do this.

On 18-Nov-2008 Aeon-Flux said:

Obama is going to plan out be a great President.... I've heard he is also giving JOBS to the people he run up against, including McCain. Anyone else got information on this? If not I will research and find it out myself, but I thought it was just plan interesting he would do this.

Don't know about McCain but I read in the paper that he is expected to give Hillary Clinton some important job, secertary of state I believe. Can't really see why he would do it other than to gain more support, afterall the reason they were running against each other was that they had different ideals, giving them power and they don't strictly have to do everything you say.

Yeah, Secertary of State is the position he is giving her. Really strange I thought.

On 18-Nov-2008 super craig said:

Don't know about McCain but I read in the paper that he is expected to give Hillary Clinton some important job, secertary of state I believe. Can't really see why he would do it other than to gain more support, afterall the reason they were running against each other was that they had different ideals, giving them power and they don't strictly have to do everything you say.

I'd have to disagree with that. The whole point of democracy is that one man's ideals aren't the be-all-and-end-all for the way a country's governed. That Obama is ready to include people in his government whose ideas don't necessarily match his own is - showing that he's open to other ideas - is to me the sign of a very good leader. A counterbalancing influence to the now-Democrat-packed Congress should also do something to ease the minds of America's more conservative voters - another thing important for a Democrat leader to do. Obviously there is a fine line in the former case between good people-management and weakening the government by making it in the decisive and in the latter case between appeasing the people and populism, but I don't believe that Obama has yet crossed either of these lines.

And even if it is solely for political reasons, is that really such a bad thing? "Political reasons" is a phrase which is very much frowned upon in today's climate, but at the same time such actions are undeniably a part of politics - an evil maybe, but a necessary one nonetheless. After all, small concessions in one area, such as appointing an ideologically opposed (but still competent) individual, could very well lead to greater co-operation later on between the two sides - and again, isn't that what democracy is all about? Therefore, so long as the individuals Obama's appointing are still suitable for the job, I see no problem with appointing them to appease their respective parties/factions.

And finally, a note on Hilary Clinton in particular, do remember that, while she may have run against Obama in the primaries, she's still a member of the same party of him, so her ideology isn't going to be that different to his.

Oh, and in answer to Aeon-Flux's original post, the only one I'd heard of was Clinton. Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't going to give posts to prominent Republicans - for the reasons mentioned above, I think that would be a good idea in moderation. Just so long as none go to Sarah Palin and her ilk...

On 19-Nov-2008 Shadow_Lord said:

I'd have to disagree with that. The whole point of democracy is that one man's ideals aren't the be-all-and-end-all for the way a country's governed. That Obama is ready to include people in his government whose ideas don't necessarily match his own is - showing that he's open to other ideas - is to me the sign of a very good leader. A counterbalancing influence to the now-Democrat-packed Congress should also do something to ease the minds of America's more conservative voters - another thing important for a Democrat leader to do. Obviously there is a fine line in the former case between good people-management and weakening the government by making it in the decisive and in the latter case between appeasing the people and populism, but I don't believe that Obama has yet crossed either of these lines.

And even if it is solely for political reasons, is that really such a bad thing? "Political reasons" is a phrase which is very much frowned upon in today's climate, but at the same time such actions are undeniably a part of politics - an evil maybe, but a necessary one nonetheless. After all, small concessions in one area, such as appointing an ideologically opposed (but still competent) individual, could very well lead to greater co-operation later on between the two sides - and again, isn't that what democracy is all about? Therefore, so long as the individuals Obama's appointing are still suitable for the job, I see no problem with appointing them to appease their respective parties/factions.

And finally, a note on Hilary Clinton in particular, do remember that, while she may have run against Obama in the primaries, she's still a member of the same party of him, so her ideology isn't going to be that different to his.

Oh, and in answer to Aeon-Flux's original post, the only one I'd heard of was Clinton. Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't going to give posts to prominent Republicans - for the reasons mentioned above, I think that would be a good idea in moderation. Just so long as none go to Sarah Palin and her ilk...

I can see that having people with different ideas would be an advantage in the way that you described but a party that has conflicting ideals within it will not be able to run effectively and will become bogged down in internal arguements. Even if someone does have the 'right' idea, with all the messing around that would take place it would take far too long for anything to become of it.

He needs to give Palin some role unless he wants to start making a couple of gaffes himself, how else is the world going to make fun of the government?

« Last edited by super craig on Nov 19th 2008 »

On 19-Nov-2008 Shadow_Lord said:

I'd have to disagree with that. The whole point of democracy is that one man's ideals aren't the be-all-and-end-all for the way a country's governed. That Obama is ready to include people in his government whose ideas don't necessarily match his own is - showing that he's open to other ideas - is to me the sign of a very good leader. A counterbalancing influence to the now-Democrat-packed Congress should also do something to ease the minds of America's more conservative voters - another thing important for a Democrat leader to do. Obviously there is a fine line in the former case between good people-management and weakening the government by making it in the decisive and in the latter case between appeasing the people and populism, but I don't believe that Obama has yet crossed either of these lines.

And even if it is solely for political reasons, is that really such a bad thing? "Political reasons" is a phrase which is very much frowned upon in today's climate, but at the same time such actions are undeniably a part of politics - an evil maybe, but a necessary one nonetheless. After all, small concessions in one area, such as appointing an ideologically opposed (but still competent) individual, could very well lead to greater co-operation later on between the two sides - and again, isn't that what democracy is all about? Therefore, so long as the individuals Obama's appointing are still suitable for the job, I see no problem with appointing them to appease their respective parties/factions.

And finally, a note on Hilary Clinton in particular, do remember that, while she may have run against Obama in the primaries, she's still a member of the same party of him, so her ideology isn't going to be that different to his.

Oh, and in answer to Aeon-Flux's original post, the only one I'd heard of was Clinton. Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't going to give posts to prominent Republicans - for the reasons mentioned above, I think that would be a good idea in moderation. Just so long as none go to Sarah Palin and her ilk...

Yeah very true. Seems correct about Hilliary though. Just sounds werid him doing that.