McCain vs. Obama

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".

No they don't.

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.

[Religion should have no place in politics.] Why?

What would make invading Pakistan any different

That's funny. I think McCain and Palin should talk (more than just once). McCain believes teaching abstinence AND safe sex sends 'mixed signals' and would confuse the child. Apparently, it's best to stick with abstience.

I'm not a Macain supporter but have been following the American presidential race mainly out of boredom of our own politics, I wanted to start a discussion to why you think Macain will probably win despite him and his vice president not being the best choice for the country in my opinion.

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?

And hasn't even proposed even one serious bill. The kind of bills he has proposed have been like "lets dedicate a day in honor of ...." OK
fine recently,

Pakistan is a powerful and - let's face it - important country. An attack on it would have massive global repercussions that would absolutely dwarf those of Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, it has a strong military, the Bomb and a huge dose of political instability. That's a cocktail not even Barack Obama is stupid enough to shake.

Last time I checked, STIs and the risk of pregnancy was not particularly related to 'safe sex'.

It is a fact that it is adhered to by some, that's what schools should be teaching. Of course, teach other religion's views on things.

As for an education influenced by religion - in denominational schools, that is the choice of the parent to send their child to such a school.

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.



No they don't.



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.



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.



Why?

I realise you're a moron and all, but why are you making statements that are quite obviously false, with no shame or sense of responsibility at all?

Is it really so hard to use Google? Maybe his Senate website? Wikipedia? Come on. Ever heard of FFATA? DPVIPA perhaps? No? Then don't post trash.

Plus, he's 73, and suffered from several bouts of cancer. She's being talked about in the press as a prospective president because the chances are McCain's gonna be dead pretty soon!

The definition of a capitialist country is a very loose one i.e one based on property rights and primarily on free market principles. (Note that the lack of a firm consensual definition of capitalism/true scotsman is the root of this fallacy.)

This definition fits the US - if it doesn't give one that can be called capitalist in it's stead. And don't say HK - it's 'freest market' facade is a distortion of the facts.

Hence saying the US, the epitome of a capitalist country, is not capitalist because it does something some anarcho-capitalist or whomever doesn't agree with is a fallacious as saying a scotsman isn't scottish because he's done something you wouldn't consider a scottish attribute.

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.

Of course they say that being that America is extremely religious. I doubt religion played a huge part in the decision making, if any at all!