Turn on thread page Beta

McCain vs. Obama watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What a lot of ********.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History Lost in Physics)
    Well judging by Track and Bristol, one of them is probably called that.
    QFT. The next one will probably be called UCAS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    You obviously don't the first thing about the republican party or US politics. The republican party and the Christian right are overwhelmingly in support of Israel in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
    Hey I never said they weren't supportive. I meant that Sarah Palin probably doesn't know crap about this conflict and hence will make weird remarks. I know that the USA is supportive of Israel, and it upset the USSR in the past because we thought Russian jews would stick with us, but they sided with America :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    But, as you said earlier, US governments are socialist ones, no? You're not going to start equivocating on me are you?
    Ok, stop right there. I haven't been trying to push an ideology or make value judgements on this thread, but you seem to be trying to twist such an intent out of me.

    I have been perfectly consistent throughout this whole 'discussion,' I have responded to everything you have said, and tried to ignore the nagging suspicions that your selective quoting of what I have said is intended to somehow nudge me towards "admitting" that the US is a "socialist country" (and thus, I suppose, that the US's success can all be assigned to socialism? I guess that is what you are trying to covertly imply).

    To be absolutely clear, because I absolutely do not want either to appear as though I am pulling the wool over someone's eyes, or contradicting myself, or to have my words twisted by someone with a partisan bias, this is my position clearly and in its entirety:

    - The US government has had significant socialistic elements since at least the 20s, and more minor ones before that.
    - The US is not a "socialist state" in any absolute sense, it merely exists at a point on a capitalist - socialist continuum and not on absolute capitalism [OT: You still havent explained why you used to believe the US was an absolute capitalist society.]
    - Most other countries and all other major powers lie further to the 'socialist' side than the US does.

    If you want to infer value judgements, or draw partisan conclusions, then do so yourself. I may wish to discuss them with you, but they're nothing to do with this, which is a simple matter of fact.

    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    It's ain't no true scotsman.... sorry, capitalist country?
    If you're trying to imply what it seems you are, then you don't understand what that fallacy consists of.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by favh)
    If you're trying to imply what it seems you are, then you don't understand what that fallacy consists of.
    People are decrying America as not a true capitalist country because it does something that doesn't agree with their definition of capitalism/scottishness.

    I think the fallacy holds.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuseValheru)
    Universal Health Care and a pay rise for Teachers? How is this going to be paid for? Who will suffer? If you tax businesses it affects employees. Higher tax means smaller profits to counter this they will raise the price of their goods and services.

    The withdrawal from Iraq, primarily the handover of power and responsibility, has already begun. Its a slow process in a politically unstable environment.

    Religion doesnt dictate government in America, its a multicultural soceity.
    George Bush did say that God "told" him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as Palin said something along the lines of the Alaska pipeline being "God's will".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by favh)
    6. Sarah Palin believes creationism should be taught in schools.

    This is the only position she takes I would say comes anywhere near being 'disturbing'
    Of course Creationism should be taught in schools. Sociologically, it is important enough to be an issue worth discussing, even if it is biologically rejected. I was taught about the fundamentals of it because I took a religious studies class; just as I was taught about the various beliefs of people of different sects and faiths.

    But yes, generally an excellent response to the other points.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History Lost in Physics)
    At least she didn't call any of them WOLLSMOTH
    haha quality
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    People are decrying America as not a true capitalist country because it does something that doesn't agree with their definition of capitalism/scottishness.

    I think the fallacy holds.
    1. The definition of a capitalist society is x.
    2. America does not meet x.
    C. Therefore, America is not a capitalist society.

    1. A Scotsman is someone from Scotland.
    2. Person A did something Very Bad.
    C. Therefore, Person A is not a Scotsman.

    One of these is fallicious, the other is not.

    If you really think it's a fallacy to say "x is not a true y because it doesn't meet the definition of y" then how can you justify making any descriptive statements about anything?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pipkinlove)
    No the evidence is so unbelievably overwhelming that the majority of scientists who study and research evolution will call it fact. It also isn't a case of choosing what to believe, a fact is a fact. The same way I wouldn't say 'well I'm reluctant to tell this child that Hitler existed for a fact because it pushes them into a belief'. You can't tamper with fact.

    I still understand what you're saying about tact and such though. People will take time to come around to it.
    Yes, evolution is accepted as a fact, because microevolution (the selection of beneficial traits over generations in response to environmental stimuli) can be proven in an experimental setting. The theory of evolution is more concerned with how it all happened on a large scale, opposed to did it happen.

    I think most of my teachers handled the issue well, since I live in a generally religiously conservative state, by mentioning the existence of creationism as something that some people believe as an alternative and leaving it at that. I just find it frustrating that intelligent design and biblical creationism are lumped together, since the first at least allows some admission to logical thought. Evolution happened with a few nudges, okay, I can stomach that, but those that think the dinosaurs died in Noah's flood? Sigh...

    Haha, so if we are going to teach biblical creationism, shouldn't all the other creation myths of the world be included? I think the Mayan creation of humans from corn dough sounds as valid as Adam from dust.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    That might be true, but alienating a key ally isn't going to serve America's long-term interests. The ordinary American in the street probably doesn't care about that very much, though, so I think you're right to highlight the "something to prove" factor as a reason to be wary of Obama.

    He needs to learn that there are certain things that you DO NOT SAY to your allies; and fairly high on the list is "we will send troops into your country without your permission". That's called an invasion.

    a.sheikh is right. If America suddenly turns on Pakistan now, it will be disastrous for its foreign relations, quite apart from the problems it will cause for the so-called "War on Terror".

    In fact, I can't help wondering if Obama intends to sabotage that "War" because he disagrees with it. Invading Pakistan would certainly have that effect.

    Seriously. Just look at those two words. "Invading Pakistan". Anyone with even a shred of political brains would call it unthinkable.
    As a Pakistani I agree with you and A.Sheikh. Do the American's think our people have no pride? Would Americans be ok with foreign planes conducting strikes and killings of people in their country?

    It's high time Pakistan reconsiders its stance in the War on Terror which is only being further aggravated by America's (apparent) short term policies. One has to wonder what their long term policies really are. Each time there is a violation of our sovereignty the moderate masses who elected secular/moderate parties are further marginalised and taliban is given a justification. And to top it off we have people like Karzai; making statements from small windows of his fortified palace about sending troops into Pakistan. What about the fact that all the opium producing (taliban funding) provinces are under Afghan/ISAF/US control, not Pakistan's?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by favh)
    I don't get it, and I don't even agree with most of them:

    1. Despite problems at home, Sarah Palin does not believe in giving teenagers information about sex.

    Translation: Palin supports the teaching of abstinence instead of subsidising condoms.

    So do billions of catholics, many of them in this country. This is a partisan issue, not objectively 'disturbing'.



    "3. Sarah Palin believes in punishing rape victims."

    Translation: Palin doesnt support abortions for rape victims.

    If you accept that the fetus has a right to life, this follows logically. Again, all you're saying is you don't agree with this partisan view, that many Britons also hold and is hardly objectively disproved.
    I have to disagree with you on these. The fact that people can hold these views is very disturbing. Teaching abstinence is not good enough, it will only lead to misunderstandings about sex education therefore putting people at risk of pregnancy/STIs. People have the right to an education that is not influenced by religion. She has to keep in mind that not every one shares these views and every one has a right to follow their own beliefs.

    As for her views on abortion, those really do scare me. How many rape victims does she think will be capable of caring for their child? It's not fair on either the rape victim or the child.

    I cant get my around my she is VP, people like her should not be in politics. Religion should have no place in politics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkened Angel)
    I have to disagree with you on these. The fact that people can hold these views is very disturbing. Teaching abstinence is not good enough, it will only lead to misunderstandings about sex education therefore putting people at risk of pregnancy/STIs. People have the right to an education that is not influenced by religion. She has to keep in mind that not every one shares these views and every one has a right to follow their own beliefs.

    As for her views on abortion, those really do scare me. How many rape victims does she think will be capable of caring for their child? It's not fair on either the rape victim or the child.

    I cant get my around my she is VP, people like her should not be in politics. Religion should have no place in politics.
    absolutley agreed
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkened Angel)
    I have to disagree with you on these. The fact that people can hold these views is very disturbing. Teaching abstinence is not good enough, it will only lead to misunderstandings about sex education therefore putting people at risk of pregnancy/STIs.
    Palin has never said she is against sex education, and indeed informing people about sex and STIs etc. It's not a view I particularly share, but equally it is one that is very much misrepresented.

    People have the right to an education that is not influenced by religion.
    No they don't.

    As for her views on abortion, those really do scare me. How many rape victims does she think will be capable of caring for their child? It's not fair on either the rape victim or the child.
    Well, I for one think your view is a far more revolting one: that someone may lose their right to live for reasons that they have no control over.

    Assume a rape victim cannot get an abortion - would you support infanticide of her born-child? Your arguments would equally apply to that.

    As for the complete nonsense about it not being 'fair' on the child: absolute rot. You can recover from being put up for adoption, being the result of an unwanted pregnancy, an unhappy childhood and so forth - you cannot recover from being killed. But more importantly, it is not your place to judge whose life is worth living before he or she is even born.

    people like her should not be in politics.
    I could say the same about you, but it would be complete nonsense. Either way, she is in politics, and she's very likely to become the next Vice President of the United States. That's your problem, it would appear, not hers.

    Religion should have no place in politics.
    Why?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by angel_with_horns)
    Hey I never said they weren't supportive. I meant that Sarah Palin probably doesn't know crap about this conflict and hence will make weird remarks. I know that the USA is supportive of Israel, and it upset the USSR in the past because we thought Russian jews would stick with us, but they sided with America :p:
    Can you blame us former USSR Jews? :p:


    USSR was horrible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    she needs shooting end of

    i eulerwaswrong, hereby places a bounty of One whole pound sterling (£1) on her head - payable on her death.

    fire at will i tell thee, fire!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't really add to what L i b said about the specifics.

    The fact that two reasonably well thought-through posts can be made, one on each side of the discussion of these issues, rather proves that no one side is obviously wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Urgh god, it's like an American Daily Mail.

    OK she might not be the greatest, but some of the things they've said.

    Like the 3rd. She believes in "punishing rape victims". No, she's just very strongly pro-life.

    I'm not saying she's good or anything, don't get me wrong, she does have a lot of problems. But she's not the demon that's trying to make her out to be.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Some of those beliefs are shocking. Is all that true? She really believes all that about rape victims, creationism and the american army?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Franc Vouloir)
    QFT. The next one will probably be called UCAS.
    Next year they'll be renamed "Five Rejections"

    Or maybe if they're lucky "You have been accepted for a 4 year MA in PPE at the University of Washington D.C."
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.