Curse

MMSDome · Nov 01, 2008, 05:31 PM // 17:31

I got the following in an e-mail and I really related it and finally someone could put in words exactly what I was thinking.

Please make this a constructive thread and not a flaming thread. Flaming will not be tolerated and I will go tell on you if you do to the Moderators!

God Bless!

-Dome

> Dear Friends:
>
> My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois .
> I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small

> business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to

> be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not
> Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas " -
but
> that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they
want
> to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth
can
> they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help
those
> who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests
of
> America first.

> The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about
> the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority
of
> honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been
> passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve
themselves
> in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills,
> raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life.

> They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their

> heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that
what
> they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't
> understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public
trust
> with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They
> want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more
> government programs.

> We are in the unique position in this country of
> electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a
> candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager

> that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of
> the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look
at
> the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best
> qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and
> essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the

> credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the

> job right?

> I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this
> country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't

> explain, and calling it "change".

> "Change what?", I ask.
>
> "Well, we're going to change America ", they say.
>
> "In what way?", I query.
>
> "We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they
> exclaim..
>
> "So, someone who's not a politician?", I say.
>
> "Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so
> we're voting for Obama", they state.
>
> "So the current system, the system of freedom and
> democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get
a
> fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the
news
> and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all

> wrong?"
>
> "No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a
> lot of change."
>
> And so it goes. "Change we can believe in."

> Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations
> of change hold any promise for me ... or you. In recent months, I've
> been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live
in
> Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But
no
> one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of
> stuff. "Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person
> who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified
to
> be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on
earth
> - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of
> change.

> We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his
> upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's
> ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What
> qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator
and
> talks about change?"

> CHANGE WHAT?
>
> Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the
> American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what

> they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE

> of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the
> most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political
> experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements?

> Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read
> his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is
who's
> lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from
> Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of
new
> taxes.
>
> For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at
> the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

> Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half
> years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six
birthdays in
> that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high
school
> graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About
2,000
> days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take."

> John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to
> 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

> When offered early release, he refused it. He
> considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his
captors, and
> insisted that those held longer than he should be released
first. Did
> you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned
it down.
> A regimen of beatings and torture began.

> Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a
> filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own
freedom
> in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of
character
> that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines
John McCain.

> Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years
> whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you
will not
> find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of
this man. A
> graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received
the Silver
> Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying
Cross. His own
> son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama
is fond
> of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to
me is
> condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's
forget this
> man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership
abilities, and
> talk some more about change."
>
> I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am
> utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next
President, and I
> trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has
the best
> interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be

> President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge
difference.
> Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two
candidates. A
> man of questionable background and motives who prattles on
about change
> can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in
public service
> to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to
the Senate
> in1982.
>
> Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between
> old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or
his
> strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be

> President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them
than
> "trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John
McCain to
> be President of the United States of America - but his
demonstrated
> leadership certainly DOES.
>
> Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time
> for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people
of all
> parties to stop following the party line. It is time for
anyone who
> wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading
their
> nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and
neighbors and ask
> who they're voting for, and why.

> There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be
> readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that
evil as
> we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his
troops and on
> his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests
before any
> foreign country.
>
> I want a President who's qualified to lead.
>
> I want my country back.
>
> And I'm voting for John McCain.
> Phone: 760.434.1395
> E-mail: [email protected]

Symeon · Nov 01, 2008, 06:56 PM // 18:56

All arguments in favour of John McCain are nullified by his choice of running-mate. If he dies in office, a woman who said "We need healthcare reform to shore up our economy" will take charge of one of the most powerful countries on Earth.

DarkNecrid · Nov 01, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

America is one of the most powerful countries on Earth, and yet it is utterly behind the rest of the world in many things and a lot of Americans are blind to this (and yes, I'm American, so don't think I'm talking down on another country.).

Japan and other asian countries outclass us in technology in about every way. Our beliefs and systems are at times so archaic that in 95% of our country homosexuals can't marry (and John McCain is actually against this.) or even have a "union". Marriage is still seen as something that only a straight man and a straight woman can partake in because apparently only straight people are awesome enough to love each other enough to have a bond. Our military prevents homosexuals from actually discussing homosexuality inside the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.) because it could cause fights etc. Rather than having a military that is tolerant to other people, we prevent people from talking about their sexual life? lol? Our sexual education is behind other countries by an ungodly amount. We don't teach sexual education, we teach abstinence. Our women are actually taught that exploring their bodies is bad, whereas we treat our men as gods when they get laid 19 times (and trust me, this isn't helping our divorce rate either.). Other countries such as Canada actually teach *gasp*...sexual education. You learn about the female and male bodies, how they work, how orgasms work, how to do X/Y/Z (i'm gonna keep this PG-13 here but SEXUAL TECHNIQUES.), and not just DONT HAVE IT IF YOU DO GOD WILL MAKE YOUR DICK FALL OFF. Our economy is one of the weakest world wide because our government has taken a more hands off approach than other countries do, which is also one of the biggest causes for the Great Depression - the government refused to acknowledge there was a problem until the problem grew so big that everybody except the fantastically rich were poor and the rich started to slip.

When Obama says change, he means change. America has been behind the times for years now, Bush didn't help, McCain's doing exactly what Bush did, and for some ungodly reason America freaks out when Obama said SEX EDUCATION EARLIER even though they took it completely out of context. Early sex education (he did not mean kindergarten at all, he meant a tad earlier than 6th grade.) is very useful, because as time goes on the age that people have sex goes down. I know 13 year olds who have had sex, what does sex ed at 6th grade accomplish for them? Absolutely nothing, they've already had it and possibly had their lives ruined.

Then on top of this you have a woman who thinks you can pray the gay away, and has no clue what is going on...ANYWHERE. She had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was, and in one of the interviews couldn't come up with anything and literally said "Welp, I'll find out and let YA KNOW LATER" basically. And we're gonna let this woman have a chance (it's less than a chance, there's a very high probability McCain will die in office, he's old, he's weak, and his leukemia or whatever etc aren't helping.) at office and have the power to destroy the world if she very well wanted. Mmkay.

America more than ever not only needs to fix its economy but catch up with the rest of the world. Other countries are out doing us in technology, education, AND economic options in cars etc, and meanwhile we're metaphorically jacking off over in Iraq none-the-wiser.

Winterclaw · Nov 01, 2008, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Actually, she's correct. By about 2040, social security and medicare (IE healthcare for old people) will constitute almost all of the US government's budget. Healthcare is getting more and more expensive every year and if nothing is done the government is going to spend itself into oblivion and no one will be able to afford it.

Part of the problem is we are obsessed with expensive, high-tech solutions.

Symeon · Nov 01, 2008, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Actually, she's correct. By about 2040, social security and medicare (IE healthcare for old people) will constitute almost all of the US government's budget. Healthcare is getting more and more expensive every year and if nothing is done the government is going to spend itself into oblivion and no one will be able to afford it.

Part of the problem is we are obsessed with expensive, high-tech solutions.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=heAibiOJ5NE

Sorry, I should have linked that in the first place (my quote was slightly paraphrased).

Master Fuhon · Nov 01, 2008, 10:00 PM // 22:00

I'll try to go through these issues one at a time, but they are coming up fast and I don't think I have time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Our beliefs and systems are at times so archaic that in 95% of our country homosexuals can't marry (and John McCain is actually against this.) or even have a "union". Marriage is still seen as something that only a straight man and a straight woman can partake in because apparently only straight people are awesome enough to love each other enough to have a bond. Our military prevents homosexuals from actually discussing homosexuality inside the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.) because it could cause fights etc. Rather than having a military that is tolerant to other people, we prevent people from talking about their sexual life?

The Homosexuality debate is currently ongoing in another form, if you've ever heard of Nature vs. Nurture. Nature is the side that you are born as you are. Nurture is the side that experience makes you who you are. In reality, both are likely enough to be partially true, but too often arguments are slanted towards only accepting one of them to be true. I just need to point out we use a third branch of the argument in the U.S. legal system: that we make our own choices.

The view of allowing homosexual marriage is one based on being born that way. This is based on science of trying to find chromosomes or genes that predispose one towards homosexuality. The unfortunate side effect of completely accepting this definition: Is there a gene that predisposes killers or pedophiles? The argument against pedophilia is that something has gone wrong that causes the attraction towards unwilling and unaware children. Even if this is a proper scientific argument, I think it's a terrifying concept to allow humans to blame 'nature' for their behavior, or for people to send others 'back to nature' for appearing to be born a certain way.

The other view is far from compassionate, and unfortunately for your belief systems, is the one more heavily backed by legal systems (and in this case religion and moral systems). In this situation, homosexuality is treated as something going wrong during the development process that causes attraction to the something (one you can't mate with based on biology). The drawbacks of this side being recognized are you have people forcing you to sit through counseling or taking pills without recognizing that you just 'want to be gay'. Once again, this isn't completely a scientific argument but one that has been skewed.

To legally recognize marriage between homosexuals, is to legally tip the scales in Nature vs. Nurture on government policy (away from having a choice). And for political motivations, there are definitely enough people who want to tip the scales towards their own benefit without considering facts. It is compassionate to allow others to practice a lifestyle of their own choosing. But the prime motivating force behind denying gay marriage (and in most cases, hiding it from children) is about worrying about the influece legal recognition could have if the 'Nurture' side wins out.

Homosexual relations have never been proven wrong. Marriage is recognition that they are 'right'. You might not understand this based on the rest of your arguments, but you can teach children anything and have them believe it is right. (Right now I'm intending to go after the sex ed one when I have time)

bamm bamm bamm · Nov 01, 2008, 10:29 PM // 22:29

If you relate to an email written by Joe Porter/Ronald Hess/The McCain Campaign Team, then good for you. It probably means you should vote for him, not that you weren't going to anyway. Just know that Obama's promises and rhetoric are as specific and genuine as any other person of the variety that wants to run a country. You should believe them as much as you should believe any politician. Obama reminds me of Blair in that he can talk the talk, and so he'll probably win. His vague talk of Change is really capturing the minds of the disillusioned, but it's no more or less empty than the promises of any self-important politician with an ego that can only be satiated by the Oval Office.

I won't go through the email as it's as weaselly and rhetorical as any party political tool and would be a waste of time, but I will quote this part:

Quote:

Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."

The idea that you can't criticize a man's stance because he's a war vet is pathetic.

Master Fuhon · Nov 01, 2008, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

comparisons to Blair

You sound like you can learn better than most based on your skeptical view of both candidates. Think about this when hearing the promises, some of the ideas aren't even feasible or may be based on flawed reasoning.

If a politician comes around promising 'utopia', sure that sounds great. But the idea behind 'utopia' is everyone agreeing to one view. At that point you need to ask what that one view is, or what happens if you have a different idea of what it should be.

Alot of times people just look at the rhetoric and say, "I don't believe he'll do it". But sometimes you can say, "This guy didn't even think things through so he doesn't understand how it's not going to work."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

stuff about Canada having better sex ed than U.S.

All things considered about male/female differences, I would like to see many advancements before American schools start teaching sex ed in a more open manner. The current ciriculum is horrible. Sex Ed is just another thing people just want to see crammed into schools, despite complaints that Americans aren't scoring high enough on tests. I was taught in 6th grade during a time when people weren't bombarded with sexualized media, so obviously the age needs to be reconsidered at this point. The most important part is keeping people from indoctrinating children with 'beliefs' about sex instead of the 'facts'. Diagrams of the body, discussions of pregnancy, and the diseases should be talked about. It becomes complicated when having to discuss rape and child support laws though.

Understood as a species, there are distinct differences between males and females. Proven by facts, the most likely definition would classify humans as serially monogamous: you have relations with one person at a time, including the childbearing and raising process. If something happened, and you would move on to relations with someone else after that. It's unknown how rapid this process can be, whether new relations are supposed to be formed after traumatic incident such as death or whether a child growing up is enough to cause them to seek out other mates. The question would really be, how attached are human males supposed to be to their children? (this is where the double standard gets thrown in). I think the children get pretty angry when you abandon them, but this happens when you try to make the scientific argument about having no reason to stick around. This is trying to look at the facts, if you want to teach beliefs you have to teach them all. Schools don't have time to teach beliefs.

Now onto the issue of teaching sex. Teens teach each other about sex as recreation, not institutions. Teaching sex as recreation is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. You get unwanted pregnancies this way. You spread disease this way. You mess around experiencing chemicals for pleasure, the same chemicals that facilitate longer term attachment. So you end up with lots of people who don't have long term reasons to spend more time together. Or you get a bunch of sex addicts. I hope you aren't advocating we teach this, because being able to understand the above is something most children won't get. People over 21 don't even understand this, and we have to subsidize them by paying for their medical treatment or that of their unwanted children. If people are so comfortable with their own bodies they don't need someone helping them get off.

You sounded like you are thinking of it as 'exploration', which I also have to say: Do you intend to teach self-stimulation in school? You intend to point out that kids have these parts and you don't expect them to be more curious about them? And then when the kids realize pleasure comes from these parts, do you really think that there are things you can say to them that will make them 'refrain from experiencing pleasure' in inappropriate places? Sex education is meant to be given at an age where you won't walk up to random people and show them random parts of your body. Or ask them to touch you in places without understanding what you are doing. The problem with sex education has always been about the wrong places teaching people about sex. Before we even get into 'sex', think about how schools are dealing with the issue of 'violence'. Media influence is very potent on both these issues.

Now, here's where beliefs get placed into the issue. In types of Islam (try not to view extremist Islam here), the women cover themselves. Westerners are the ones who tell you: she is repressed, she does that because she believes she is property of the man. But if you talk to her, she says that she has a higher value of self-worth for her body that she doesn't want to show it to everyone else. This is not an issue about fact, it's an issue about belief. Are you saying that in Canada you get indoctrinated with one belief about sex? America is about allowing alternate belief systems to exist as long as they don't offend other people. Your right to freedom is not unlimited, but it stops where someone else's rights begin.

Here's what really happens when people discuss sex ed: You get a horny man or woman, looking to get some more action, so he goes around saying "damn, everyone else is repressed and not comfortable with their bodies". This is not sex ed. This is projection, from psychology, believing other people share your beliefs about sex. Because most of the time, this person is just selecting others who have no interest in him. That's why they appear repressed, because they don't like what he/she is offering. These people need to find someone who shares their belief, not force that belief on someone else.

fenix · Nov 02, 2008, 01:03 AM // 01:03

Vote John McCain;

Corpse we can believe in.

What a dumb email, prisoner of war = president material? What about the fact that he's almost dead? What about Palin? If you ignore the fact that he could die in office, WHAT ABOUT PALIN? She's about the most terrible choice for any position of power, ever. Her alone should (and probably is) make everyone vote for Obama.

DarkNecrid · Nov 02, 2008, 04:55 AM // 04:55

ok time to answer Master F.:

On homosexuality:
No, we are the way we are because America is a hella Christian country and Christians have religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong not because of IS IT....INSANITY LIKE PEDOPHILIA??? or whatever the hell, ergo they don't want "dems gays" marrying in their churches. (This is mostly why Obama is for Unions, it's like marriage with all the benefits but not done in Churches)

If a President said GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL EVERYWHERE IN THE USA (note: Churches still have the right to turn away gay couples since they are privately owned but a lot of them wouldn't (more money)) it would be suicide and he'd never get elected, even though it's the right thing to do, just because America is crazy religious. Countries like the Netherlands allow marriage from anybody, as does most of the First World (and some of the Third World).

Yet, science (since that was the main point of your thing...right or wrong.) could say it was right and normal and people are born that way but its completely normal or whatever, all they want, and it'd still be politically suicide of any candidate simply because America is mostly Christian.

On sexuality:
No DUH you improve the rest of education first, I mentioned education as a whole in my post, but sex ed is a very important part of Education in...just about everywhere NOT America Also yes, self stimulation would be something that should be taught (IT IS EVERYWHERE ELSE).

The rest of the sex post I'm not even going to argue or pick apart because it's kind of weird and if you would take the time to research the European sex ed system (ie: it's not done so early that people just whip their dicks out at each other, but maybe they would in America cause we're so dumb.) you'd find out why it's superior to ours in every single way. It still teaches abstinence by a large amount (more so actually (ironic almost), as their age of consent is lower they teach abstinence a great deal more), but it's also true to its name: sex education. Not just sex prevention.

Also about the Islam thing: I don't ever recall saying that you couldn't skip it like you can now (that's always an option.), etc. (But I do see what you mean about the different beliefs but someone could skip it or something so its not like you'd be forcing their beliefs, is what I mean.)

A good sexual education is needed in America more so than those other countries tho...if you've ever been to anywhere in Europe they're a lot more open (probably because they're not Christian countries, hm.) in-so-far-as they aren't all OMGGGG TABOO and will actually say penis in public without everyone freaking out or can discuss it more openly as adults and no one gets embarrassed (I had a girl in my Sophomore year Sex Ed class that cried from having to say the word Vagina in class. It's true.). The difference is is that sex is seen as something that everyone should know about it in its entirety and enjoy when it is right for them (and make sure its right for them, if not, abstain!), and so they don't even really need it, their parents could do a good job.

America is largely a Christian country that if parents and only a kid's parents had to teach sex education, we'd....well we'd be right here where we are now. Ideally parent's should be the only one teaching this kind of stuff, but they don't teach facts (and they wouldn't in America, most of the time), they just teach OH MY GOD YOU'RE MY BABY PLEASE NEVER HAVE SEX!!!11!!!!! just like the schools do basically.

A grade or so earlier isn't going to hurt anybody (it's fairly needed), and a more comprehensive class that actually educates people about stuff is very much so needed (same goes for all our other stuff obviously). Most Americans are learning very faulty sex eds right now, and in most cases the best place for an American to learn about sex (and the facts about it) is actually on the Internet on like WIKIPEDIA and the various external links linked on the Sex page, and that's just really sad.

EDIT:
About the horny man/woman thing, again, if you actually check out the rest of this thing called the world, America is actually one of the most sexually repressed countries.

EDIT:
I feel like I could go into better detail and explain myself through PMs where I wouldn't be forced to keep it PG-13, so if you want to continue the sexual argument, I'd prefer it if you took it through that method.

Master Fuhon · Nov 02, 2008, 05:01 AM // 05:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Our economy is one of the weakest world wide because our government has taken a more hands off approach than other countries do, which is also one of the biggest causes for the Great Depression - the government refused to acknowledge there was a problem until the problem grew so big that everybody except the fantastically rich were poor and the rich started to slip.

You are right that the economy sucks, but you may have added some political distortion about 'taking a more hands off approach'. We have people on payroll to oversee our economy who are a combination of ineffective and corrupt. I've seen a few who care, giving passionate speeches to empty congress chambers. The rest are terrible. This includes the obvious Bernanke/Paulson combo who only throw tons of money at problems (same solution as Bush administration). But this also should include House Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who helped to contribute the side projects (aka pork) onto the bailout bill. Should I mention that Nancy Pelosi is third on the list for presidency and she specializes in giving partisan speech to antagonize politicians into voting against her instead of speeches to inspire? But do you know why those pork projects were there? Because Congressmen leveraged their vote and forced the U.S. government to bribe them.

When someone says "U.S. government is taking its hands off the economy", I hope for all sakes it means that more corrupt politicians are taking their hands off of influencing our financial ruin. Our government sponsored oversight is a terrible thing; you think theres a safety blanket but everyone is just taking bribes from major financial institutions while they turn their backs. Not only do they turn their backs, they don't even have a clue what's going on. These guys aren't law enforcers against the companies that have them on payroll.

This is where political distortion comes in, and the politicians every year tell you the economy needs more or less regulation. These clowns make the economy worse, and they tell you that the solution to the problem is either many clowns or few. You wouldn't have Democratic/Republican propoganda campaigns if people paid attention to what they were doing during non-election periods. Private citizen Warren Buffett has been more active helping this economy than those guys. The original plan for bailing out the companies was to hand over the money and never see it again, until the taxpayers demanded some type of return or else congressmen would not get re-elected. Can you believe that? The economy itself is entirely unregulated and people are taking action to save it themselves instead of government. No people don't see it because they only pay attention to politics once every four years, even with 24 hour news coverage and various points of view. That's the time you get some guy to take credit for all the good that happened and point fingers at someone else for all the bad.

It's terrible that dictators are running better economies than the U.S. But it's probably because that dictator cares about his own wealth within it so he takes care of it.

Master Fuhon · Nov 02, 2008, 05:08 AM // 05:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

On homosexuality:

I can't argue about religious influece in politics, founding fathers had a religion and a belief system that they built the country around. I already looked at a variation of the argument supporting gay marriage, but I warn you. Obama appears to not support it either. I attempted to write a constitutional argument about why 'change' doesn't happen and it's not always someone not caring. Sometimes 'change' happening by fighting for a particular right overwhelms anything else. I'm still in the process of trying to learn how the government works or fails to work. Here's what I had:

When the country was first created, marriage was defined based on the concept of self-government and homosexual couples were left out because they couldn't have children. Over time, we've added fertilization clinics and adoption agencies that help out heterosexual couples. In other words, people who aren't self-governing are still able to get married. So looking at it this way, I would guess that they would have considered allowing gay marriage based on constitutional rights.

But then I take a look at one thing: a single man or woman wishing to raise a child. He/she would more likely need more rights than marriage offered, since he/she had no one else to take care of himself/herself. I can see how this is a problem, this lone person who does not wish to get married will end up more of a burden on the system, than a married person. By nature/nurture the lone person would have the same rights to marriage since it was not a choice to be nonsexual. So to try to define the nonsexual as a decision made by choice, would be to define the homosexual as one who chooses also. It is the heterosexual who is not acting on choice and is trying to make the best out of the situation biology gave him/her.

This appears to be an argument of lifestyle rights if anything. Someone could see me as cruelly denying homosexual rights; I see it as ignoring nonsexual rights. In other words, redefining marriage is asking for the country to be redefined based on emotion. On what standard should the country be redefined based on wants? These aren't small changes people are asking for. If marriage is a constitutional right, and not something based on following conditions, then more people must be granted it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

On sexuality

We most likely live in different parts of the country where I wouldn't know better about the primitive methods that are being used to teach sexuality. It appears to be combination of states doing their own things, but federal mandated programs are more likely to anger people on a regional basis. So on some points, states are too big to have one program to follow, but everything is grouped under public schooling. I don't see how a president gets involved to decide 'one view to be accepted by all'. Positions aren't going to budge on this issue.

I think you understand what I said about not mandating teaching beliefs in school, when you recommended that extreme Christian perspective be taken out. But they will seriously fight harder than anyone to keep it that way, just a warning about making this a political issue. If teaching sex offends a belief system you have to understand why it does. Some people think of sex as something to be explored for the first time between two couples, that includes learning all the parts on the spot. To talk about it in front of them is to violate their beliefs. And yes, they don't worry about good or bad performance.

About sexual repression, this was a theory of Sigmund Freud in the late 1800s. Why do we care that Europe is based on late 1800s theory? America is not supposed to follow Europe, but to find its own way. And I don't want to go on African standards. We can't be intimidated by the size of the world or the status of Sigmund Freud. If they are wrong, they are wrong. If they aren't wrong, we still accomodate wrong beliefs as a country (anti-discrimination laws). That's kind of where my anti-gay marriage argument went nowhere, the U.S. does not care about scientific right/wrong.

My little joke about horny guy/girl is my reference to Freud, and his dominantly male perspective of how humans work. He's has a better perspective of guys, but women disagree with him. Fastforward to now, repressed sexuality and promiscuity are both recognized as flawed perspectives by enlightened humans. I hope Europeans aren't hundred years behind. But do we really want the U.S. government telling people they have repressed sexuality because they turn down certain advances? Maybe the U.S. would have to set an attractiveness scale before doing that. You know what I mean, some parts of the country, I just understand why they appear
repressed.

No need to go PMs. You could abbreviate first letter and I could figure out. But to go above PG-13, I'm not sure why you would need to graphically describe anything for your argument.

pumpkin pie · Nov 02, 2008, 05:15 AM // 05:15

I foresee the thread closed, as all political thread has been in the past, lol, why do you even bother!!!

Master Fuhon · Nov 02, 2008, 05:45 AM // 05:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I foresee the thread closed, as all political thread has been in the past, lol, why do you even bother!!!

I just like how people casually bring up random issues that can be discussed for years and never come to conclusions. But I try to answer them out of curiosity for what the next questions are going to be or what other opinions are out there.

DarkNecrid · Nov 02, 2008, 06:00 AM // 06:00

Nah man, America really is...sexually repressed. We're plain up not taught anything. Now unless if Rhode Island has the godliest Sex Ed ever, barring the internet or other external not-on-the-internet sources there is no real way a dude (or even a girl really, unless they explore.) is gonna know how to please a woman or what parts do that. Girls are infinitely more complex than guys are (we don't even know the whole story on them actually, alot of stuff on female sexuality is very recent, because a lot of countries were like us and made girls feel bad for being sexual.) and there's no education on any of that here. People having to go to external sources can be a lot worse than having a good sex ed...look at pornography. It's a very true reality that a lot of American males do actually think pornography is how that all plays out, because they are never shown anything different. Ever. That's not the way it should be...it's heartless and the women are treated worse than animals at times. A strong curriculum with real facts by a trusted parental figure (teacher or parent, tho teacher is infinitely more likely to happen in America.) is going to go a lot farther than where we are now.

Here's everything I learned in Sex Ed (a semester class, so half a year.):
-How to use a condom (but never actually do it in class.)
-Do not have sex because of...(STI's...unwanted pregnancy etc.)
-Guys have a dick girls have a vagina (WHOAH. MIND. BLOWN.)
-I wish there was something I could put here but that is literally it.

I mean, that was literally at man. We discussed how urine etc works, and I think we covered menstruation, and how pregnancy actually happens in its cycles, but nothing on actual sex. We didn't even learn about ejaculation and that's a function neccessary to pregnancy. The thing is this isn't even just my school, I've talked to people from other schools all across my state and outside of it, and it is the same everywhere else practically. That's just wrong.

Obama may not outright change this (it's not something you can just CHANGE outright, a lot of his other stuff yes, but this is something that would take a couple presidents to do...), but at least he's taking a step in the right direction, IMHO.

Winterclaw · Nov 02, 2008, 06:04 AM // 06:04

I'd say the US is more sexually obsessed than repressed.

And yeah, this thread is getting closed.

fenix · Nov 02, 2008, 06:18 AM // 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I'd say the US is more sexually obsessed than repressed.

And yeah, this thread is getting closed.

As a result of being repressed MAJORLY.

Faer · Nov 02, 2008, 06:22 AM // 06:22

Ron Paul.

Hope for America.

Abedeus · Nov 02, 2008, 08:06 AM // 08:06

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aX...eature=related

Well said, Jack.

As for you, Americans...

FOR ONCE YOU WILL HAVE AN IDIOT FOR A VICE PRESIDENT! MUWAHAHAH!

You will understand why Poland hates it's presidents and (ex-, now, thank God) vice-presidents.

Turbobusa · Nov 02, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

TBH I think both have bad sides...

John mac cain seems more reckless, more "american" from a foreign pov. I'm a bit afraid of this guy, I mean yeah he's a strong minded man but this war experience has limited use at the white house.

Obama seems more calm, I don't really know about his program so I can't comment on it. What I find dumb is someone saying "He'll raise taxes and that's all what he'll do!!' That's just stupid.
I don't believe in pure smart/successful evil. You really think his objective is to piss people off? Ever thought that this kind of money is usually used for public programs such as health care, roads, such things the government has to do because nobody would otherwise?

OFC the government could invest a lot in public programs, give money to everybody, and then what? Debt up to 70% GDP.
We pay taxes, that's normal. Socialism? yeah a bit, so what, you use it.

^This isn't directed to anyone particulary, just to those who think taxes is the only worry of Obama.

Anyway, we'll see... Can't be worse than Bush lol

EDIT:
On the sex ed thing, we never had any kind of sex ed in school, noone ever complained... and Rapes happen to be quite rare (I don't have the actual numbers but if the media aren't reporting huge number of rapes, that would mean there isn't many)