Curse

DarkNecrid · Nov 03, 2008, 08:11 PM // 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

And since Obama is a black man he also has a higher chance of stroke or heart attack, combine that with the most stressful job in the world.....

...

Your skin color has absolutely nothing to do with your chances at a stroke or heart attack, I sincerely hope you are joking. Skin pigments don't affect your heart in any way.

Winterclaw · Nov 03, 2008, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Actually, blacks do have a higher rate of getting certain diseases. However it could be because of enviromental/social differences and not genetics. I'm not sure if there has been a study to see how much of it comes from genetics, the social differences, and the enviroment.

Shadow Kurd · Nov 03, 2008, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

And since Obama is a black man he also has a higher chance of stroke or heart attack, combine that with the most stressful job in the world.....

DarkNecrid · Nov 03, 2008, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Actually, blacks do have a higher rate of getting certain diseases. However it could be because of enviromental/social differences and not genetics. I'm not sure if there has been a study to see how much of it comes from genetics, the social differences, and the enviroment.

Of course it's because of environmental and social differences. It's crazy to think SKIN PIGMENT affects your chance to get a disease though. Obama is not your ghetto african american person though, he has about as much chance of getting a heart attack as your healthy white male in a metropolis. If he lived in a Chicago ghetto on like 2,000$ a month in a run down house then maybe you'd have something, but no.

Quote:

After reading the last three pages I sincerely want to vomit. If people like that guy support Obama, then I definitely want McCain to win.

Nice to know you care about the issues and not the people who support the person. Both candidates know or have talked to terrible people, and both have distanced themselves from them (Obama with Ayers and Wright, McCain with a terrorist group he openly supported, etc) and both have terrible people who support them. You have to not be dumb and see beyond this and look at what they're really talking about and actual NEEDED FACTORS (like say, a VP who could become Prez because the candidate has a real obscene chance of dying in office if you know anything about Health.) if you want to make an informed decision on the future of the country.

artay · Nov 03, 2008, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Wow, American politics are so much more interesting than Australian, it's like an episode of Home and Away.

Winterclaw · Nov 03, 2008, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

It's crazy to think SKIN PIGMENT affects your chance to get a disease though.

Not really. Enviromental differences can lead to evolutionary differences. Take maleria. Africans evolved a trait to help counter the disease. This trait lowers the amount of oxygen in their blood a tad bit I believe. However this trait can also lead to sickle-cell anemia.

So while the color of their skin might not lead to diseases, we have to remember there are evolutionary factors at work as well. These factors will lead to different tolerances towards diseases.

BTW, BO is half-black. That means he is outbred; generally speaking outbreeding is more likely to produce healthier children as it stirs up the genepool.

Turbobusa · Nov 03, 2008, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

The argument that John McCain is a weak one as people thought the same about Ronald Reagan when he was being elected for his second term and he turned out to be one the greatest Presidents ever.

Barack Obama has just as great a chance of being assassinated as John McCain does dying of old age.

ADDED: As much as all of you would like to believe religion should stay out of politics it won't. Our country was founded on religious views, hence why our country was founded UNDER GOD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...nt_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956#June

Master Fuhon · Nov 03, 2008, 11:14 PM // 23:14

This whole separation of religion thing is a game of semantics. The founders used the word 'religion'. They did not know that idiots would try to argue that there is a distinction between secularism and religion to try to weasel some ideological crap into country beliefs.

Religion wasn't a loaded word back then, it was viewed for what it was. And based on the wording of the Declaration of Independence, they established basic human rights under 'Creator'. This wasn't a loophole where you could deny the existence of God to begin denying the rights of humans. This was a view most likely based on failure to comprehend that people would try to establish that everything came about from unknown process of events instead of creation.

Secular and religious leaders rival each other in brutality throughout history. Religious ones have a slight edge in getting more people to follow them. People with a belief system are frequently more inspiring than those without, and it doesn't matter whether the beliefs are true or they are masters of self-delusion. And as I said before, it would take a non-functioning brain to be void of both secularism and religion.

Edit: Most likely misused the word secularism, can't find the right word to use right now. Appears that secularism came about 1850ish as a theory.

DarkNecrid · Nov 03, 2008, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Not really. Enviromental differences can lead to evolutionary differences. Take maleria. Africans evolved a trait to help counter the disease. This trait lowers the amount of oxygen in their blood a tad bit I believe. However this trait can also lead to sickle-cell anemia.

So while the color of their skin might not lead to diseases, we have to remember there are evolutionary factors at work as well. These factors will lead to different tolerances towards diseases.

BTW, BO is half-black. That means he is outbred; generally speaking outbreeding is more likely to produce healthier children as it stirs up the genepool.

Environmental difference is not SKIN PIGMENT though. Pigments are not related at all, the thing with racial trends happens because of environmental placement of racial groups. Not because they are actually of X/Y/Z race. What I'm saying is is BEING BLACK (HAVING PIGMENT THAT MAKES YOUR SKIN BLACK) =/= increased chance of heart attack, LIVING IN BLACK GHETTO IN A POOR AFRICAN AMERICAN PLACE does. It'd have the same result on a white man if they lived in poor African American communities. It's not the skin color, it's the environment that the race tends to be placed in. You get what I'm saying, I hope, now? Barack Obama was only in such an environment for a very small time of his life, and he is a healthy male. He has absolutely no more chance of having a heart attack then any other healthy male in his current environment and his age. Whereas John McCain is just plain old, weak from years of torture and melanoma (not leukemia, my bad), and while he was declared "in good health" in 2005, he has a significantly higher chance to pass away than a young healthy male does.

This wouldn't be much of an issue if his VP wasn't a governor with no experience who didn't even know what a Vice President does, what the Bush Doctrine is, has gotten confused on several world leaders in interviews, etc. She's infinitely more inexperienced than even Obama, but not just inexperienced, unintelligent. Even George W. Bush didn't mess up world leaders in his interviews, even George W. Bush knew what a Vice President does, even George W. Bush knew and understood foreign policy in every foreign country. If George W. Bush can do something and grasp something and she can't, that's very telling. To make matters worse McCain has said in interviews that he didn't know much about the economy and that his pick for Vice President would help him out. And he picked her. Mmkay. I don't even fully agree with Obama on everything, but he's the better pick out of the two.

fenix · Nov 03, 2008, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

I've read the first page of that so far and I think the writer and the editor should be fired. To think that such ignorance is allowed to be published is sickening, especially from a big outlet like Newsweek. I'll post more after I read the other three pages.

After reading the last three pages I sincerely want to vomit. If people like that guy support Obama, then I definitely want McCain to win.

It's people like you that he was writing about. Clearly you missed the point, either because of bias or whatever it may be. He wrote the truth. Palin is possibly the most unqualified person to ever be chosen as a running mate, and if she became vice-president, it would be horrific. There was nothing that he wrote which was outrageous, he just wrote the facts. If you think he's ignorant, then maybe you aren't aware of what is going on.

Fril Estelin · Nov 03, 2008, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

This wouldn't be much of an issue if his VP wasn't a governor with no experience who didn't even know what a Vice President does, what the Bush Doctrine is, has gotten confused on several world leaders in interviews, etc.

We (not in the USA) are having loads of fun thanks to her by the way. I have never, ever seen such a terrible politician, after W. Bush, and I usually consider this topic quite serious. But she has made me laugh so much, you have no idea. And I think it says a lot about the republican's campaign.

Quote:

She's infinitely more inexperienced than even Obama, but not just inexperienced, unintelligent.

I didn't want to get into "your" debate, but since you brought it: experience didn't seem to be an important factor 8 years ago, as W. Bush was MUCH (triple emphasis) less experienced than Al Gore, yet he got elected. If "the guy" (hoping it's BO) has the right policy for his country, I'm sure he'll have someone in his team tell him how to handle the situation, whatever his experience is.

EDIT: sorry, I didn't mean to talk about Palin's inexperience as something irrelevant, but I was rather talking about how BO is attacked as a less experienced politician than MC (mainly due to age, which would be totally unfair to put as the main reason why to vote MC).

Something that is circulating in European political mailing lists and a nice encouragement message to all USA-ians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgU6mHYIo40

The Red Messenger · Nov 03, 2008, 11:50 PM // 23:50

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.

dave chappel proposed my favorite idea...

Canadian ID cards for everybody! if you get sick, just head on up north and get yourself checked out

Frank Dudenstein · Nov 04, 2008, 04:16 AM // 04:16

Ah, the youth on display here is always so invigorating.

Lesson#1 in politics. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever listen what a politician says on the campaign trail. Never.

Their JOB is to say exactly what you want to hear. They have huge teams of advisors, experts, and focus groups formulating their every word into exactly WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.

Obama is extremely gifted at delivering the message of what you want to hear. Mccain, basically, sucks at it. So Obama will become our president.

So what do you do if you can't beieve what they say? you look at their record!!!!!! THEN you find out what they believe, and how they will lead. Duh!

So what do their records tell us?

Obama is a staright-down-the-line solid-left liberal, regardless of his beautiful 'I want to bring everyone together' speeches. His RECORD speaks for itself. Some people embrace liberalism, other consider it an insult. Whatever your beliefs, know what you are getting.

Mccain is all over the map, he defies political classification and goes with his gut. This is good, in that he doesn't feel beholden to his party. It's bad in that he's often not as analytical as he should be (ala Mr Bush).

So please, try to get past the rhetoric and understand the positions. Vote the candidate whose record you believe in, not what they say now or how great (or poor) they sound saying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Red Messenger

dave chappel proposed my favorite idea...

Canadian ID cards for everybody! if you get sick, just head on up north and get yourself checked out

But will you die waiting in line?

DarkNecrid · Nov 04, 2008, 06:42 AM // 06:42

Quote:

I didn't want to get into "your" debate, but since you brought it: experience didn't seem to be an important factor 8 years ago, as W. Bush was MUCH (triple emphasis) less experienced than Al Gore, yet he got elected. If "the guy" (hoping it's BO) has the right policy for his country, I'm sure he'll have someone in his team tell him how to handle the situation, whatever his experience is.

No you are right, George W. Bush was terrible even after being experienced with a term of Presidency too.

But it's important to some people.

Quote:

Mccain is all over the map, he defies political classification and goes with his gut. This is good, in that he doesn't feel beholden to his party. It's bad in that he's often not as analytical as he should be (ala Mr Bush).

This is bad, he has flopped on the same issue multiple times.

Basically everything you said comes from the idiotic perspective that all the government does is lie to you, in a nutshell. Presidential candidates don't tell you what you want to hear (if they did they'd both be saying the exact same thing, although in some cases they are not allowed to say what they want to say...Obama would say GAY MARRIAGE = LEGAL if it wouldn't completely kill his chances of becoming president at all), they tell you want they plan to do! (All those advisors etc are chosen so they don't make mistakes, and really have little effect on anything except the word choice. Even if the candidates didn't have them, they'd say the same stuff just make a lot more mistakes which wouldn't be good for anyone.) However, the government is very slow and no president can ever accomplish everything they want to do. Hell, even Franklin Roosevelt with his 4 terms never accomplished everything he wanted to. But it's still these core issues you have to follow on and go with, not with some retarded notion that just because McCain doesn't follow his party (fyi we have parties outside of the Democrats and GOP for this reason) and flipflops on issues like crazy (pretty hard to follow and believe in what he's gonna do, huh?) that he's good for the country.

Lord Sojar · Nov 04, 2008, 09:54 AM // 09:54

I found an amazing quote:

"The comments by the common idiot sound like a 4th grade insult fight on the playground. Which candidate is the biggest doodie-head now?"

Oh, and I am voting Obama for the simple reason that he doesn't let religion pollute government nearly to the degree that the current incarnation of the Republican party does. Western Europe is correct in their stand; god, whether you believe in him or not, has NO place in government, period.

In addition, Obama is a professor of constitutional law. If anyone knows the constitution and realizes how important the judicial branch is, it is he. McCain is a war veteran and POW. While I feel sorry for his experience, and I respect his service to an infinite degree, that doesn't qualify him to be president. Palin is...an idiot. I won't even touch on her.

John McCain is a great man, and he does have some good ideas. Obama is a great man, and also has good ideas. They are both very well suited for the job. Why am I voting Obama? I believe his youth and views on a pure logical base are superior to McCain's. Many extremely intelligent people are voting for Obama because we realize that he represents logic, and removes silly religion from politics.

Western Europe grew up; they kicked religion to the curb and removed it entirely from politics. As a result, they are doing far better than the United States, and are in a more civil state. Religion must stop playing a role in modern politics, period. McCain will block that, Obama will further our pull away from religion. While it is fine to have religion, and believe in god (I will not condemn anyone for doing so), it is not ok to force that belief on others that do no wish it. God is a thing that may or may not be; logic is and cannot be denied. Logic should run government, and god/religion should have absolutely no involvement in it. The Republican party needs to learn how modern society functions, and let our society be free (at least in government) of these religious beliefs.

So, in summary: I am voting for Obama because he is a professor of congressional law and understand government. Books smarts will fix this situation, honor and service will not.

Frank Dudenstein · Nov 04, 2008, 10:28 AM // 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

In addition, Obama is a professor of constitutional law.

This comment made me lol. How is it he never got around to reading the 10th ammendment?

Obama's RECORD is about as far from the ideas presented in the Constitution (limited central govt, local decisionmaking, individual responsibility) than any candidate in my lifetime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Oh, and I am voting Obama for the simple reason that he doesn't let religion pollute government nearly to the degree that the current incarnation of the Republican party does.

I couldn't agree more, and when I was 20 it would have decided my vote. The unholy alliance (pardon the pun) between the repubicans and the religious zealots is disgusting. (however, note that the alliance with labor unions and environmental extremists on the Dem side is no less hideous).

But now that I'm nearing 40 with a mortgage and family, I have to see the bigger picture. Obama's economic plans spell disaster - its hard to grasp that a man so obviously intelligent can look at history, look around the world, and think that writing a small check to indviduals while raising taxes on the companies that employ them will work. It's a surefire way to shut down economic growth. It happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Hey, I'm one of the little guys, I might even get one of those checks. But I've been through this before. I even sat at the kitchen table with my parents while they sweated out the Carter years ... the "I wonder who will get laid off this week" game is no fun at all and I'm not looking forward to a repeat under President Obama.

Lord Sojar · Nov 04, 2008, 11:22 AM // 11:22

I really doubt what you say will come to pass. Democrats tend to do well in economic hardships, Republicans do well when the economy is doing well. This is a historical trend.

Obama is most like Western European government movements, and thus, should do quite well for our country in its current state.

Frank Dudenstein · Nov 04, 2008, 12:01 PM // 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Obama is most like Western European government movements, and thus, should do quite well for our country in its current state.

I don't know if you've noticed, but most of Western Europe is retreating from the socialist ideals that have stunted their growth for the last 30 years. Even France!

The fact that we are rushing towards it, while the rest of the world learns from the same mistakes, is mind-boggling.

Fril Estelin · Nov 04, 2008, 12:11 PM // 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Dudenstein

I don't know if you've noticed, but most of Western Europe is retreating from the socialist ideals that have stunted their growth for the last 30 years. Even France!

Not true at all. The socialist ideal has simply evolved (I have been discussing that a lot with my best friend who's active in Le Mouvement des Jeunes Socialistes/Group of Young Socialists), you can see this much more clearly in the UK. Nicolas Sarkozy has won against the socialist Ségolène Royal, but this does not mean in any way that socialism is gone, if you knew the underlying context (whose symptoms are the strikes, there's been one after the other for many months) you'd think otherwise. But that's a different discussion!

Frank Dudenstein · Nov 04, 2008, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Not true at all. The socialist ideal has simply evolved (I have been discussing that a lot with my best friend who's active in Le Mouvement des Jeunes Socialistes/Group of Young Socialists), you can see this much more clearly in the UK. Nicolas Sarkozy has won against the socialist Ségolène Royal, but this does not mean in any way that socialism is gone, if you knew the underlying context (whose symptoms are the strikes, there's been one after the other for many months) you'd think otherwise. But that's a different discussion!

I didn't mean that socialism is gone ... but you can't deny that so many of the 'ideals' are being replaced by free-market concepts that actually work in the the real world.

European socialsm is actually brilliant ... on paper. But the fact is, Human Beings are imperfect and respond strongest to incentives. Free markets take advantage of this fact ... Socialism seems to presume it doesn't exist.