Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/5/08 07:40 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: If you had read the bottom, you would have noted that I said I could just be full of crap. SO maybe I should of clarified it a little and said maybe I am full of crap about Ron Paul and people being stupid for not voting for him. I apologize for my human mistake and will attempt to correct such mistakes in the future.

I did. But what I supposed to say: "Yes, your full of crap". I agreed with part of your post, so I don't really think your full of crap. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, that was no the intention.

At 10/5/08 07:02 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: Quite honestly I have toyed with the idea of not voting for either candidate in the last couple weeks.

I pause today to wonder aloud at which evil would be a better choice. I am not going to get into a discussion about which is the lesser evil, because quite frankly I am going under the assumption that regardless of which one you would choose, you would agree they are both evils.

Yes, Barack Obama and John McCain are evil. They want to murder and rape people, and take over the world and turn the US into a dictatorship. /end satire. Seriously though, is any candiate really "evil". You may not agree with them, but does that really make them "evil"? If the answer is yes, then we really have sunken quite low.

I simply have not made up my mind because I am disgusted with both candidates, enough that there names make me go into deep states of disgust. One has, I would say, a 90% chance of going with the same policies as the previous president (which I must say is a policy of bankrupting the country and going into unnecessary wars)... The other represents a wide series of political stances that I have deeply despised my entire life. Of course I could always go with two other choices, which are voting for a third party candidate that has no hope because Americans as a collective society do not understand politics at all, instead voting entirely party base depending on what party they are. And the alternative, which is not voting for a candidate at all. The only problem I have with the last choice is it would mean I am surrendering completely. If I vote for what I consider to be the lesser evil, then I ultimately surrender a part of my conscience, permanently.

I guess I agree, but you kinda overdramatized it a bit didn't you? My mom and dad don't even remember who they voted for in half the elections, so I doubt your conscience will be destroyed, permanently.

And sadly, the media conglomerate consists of an entire base of insane fanatics that love to pit people against each other, and rather than report the truth spread half-truths and outright lies.

Yah, that's the media for you.

Now I know why George Washington strongly discouraged party affiliations, and his warning about the impending doom that it would bring upon this nation. Americans are pitted into a fight between two poisonous snakes every presidential election, and regardless of which one is elected we will more than likely be poisoned.

True, George Washington did discourage parties. But we arn't "poisoned" every election. There have been good presidents from both parties, y'know.

In the end, I wish that Ron Paul had one the Republican primaries, and that the American people would be smart enough to vote for him. But Alas, Americans are stupid and the media just exists to sell stories. Of course this is just my generic opinion and I could be full of crap.

Yes, because everyone who does not support the candiate you support is obviously stupid. There are plenty of reasons why I don't like Ron Paul, so am I automatically stupid now? If the answer is yes again, we've sunk even lower than ever before.

At 10/5/08 03:28 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 10/5/08 03:00 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Politicians are politicians because they want to help. I'm currently looking to obtain a degree in political science and then to go on and enter politics, but I'm not a "sold-out whore" and don't intend to be....

Then you'll encounter a glass ceiling, at the highest cutting you off from the U.S. Senate, although a few crazy altruists do make it into the House. They're a tiny minority, however. Probably, you'll never rise above the local level--state at the highest.

Considering I won't be running in the states, as they don't allow dual-citizens to have government positions, I'll be running in my other country of orgin, Canada. So no, try again :).

Saruman200 wrote:

...don't let your anti-authority hatred get the best of you.

I'm not anti-authority. I respect legitimate authority. Got any?

Your right. The federal government has no legitimate authority, what was I thinking...

It all comes down to how campaigns are funded at the federal level. For example, take a look at what each candidate had to raise in the Presidential primaries alone: half a billion dollars per candidate. Say it with me now: 500 million dollars. In the last primary election, I believe the frontrunners raised even more.

They raised money? Oh my god! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Do you honestly think that kind of money is available for anyone who won't do the bidding of their global corporate masters? Think again. Even if a true "maverick" (Lord, I'm sick of that word) slips through the cracks and manages to raise an impressive amount from lots and lots of "little people," he or she still requires the Mainstream Media Seal Of Approval. The MSM is, of course, entirely owned by a handful of incredibly powerful multinational conglomerates, so anyone who doesn't play ball is treated like a Bigfoot sighting. Ron Paul is a sterling example.

Of course, and evil global elite controls the entire world and runs everything. Watch out for the evil Zionist world conspiracy, the black vans will be coming to your house soon. Get your bible, get your gun, get your tinfoil hat, and run!

Of course, that poor little saint Ron Paul only lost because the evil global rulers didn't endorse: it had nothing to do with his policies and the fact that only a few ignorant students supported him, that has nothing to do with it, of course, what was I thinking.

Your belief that those in the Executive and Legislative (particularly the Senate) branches could do better in the private sector is just plain naive. You don't honestly think their salaries and benefits are their only perks, do you? They're part of a good-old-boy network that bestows perks beyond your wildest dreams upon them, just as sure as Cheney has ties to Halliburton, or that Rumsfeld had ties to Gilead Sciences (the creators of Tamiflu--ever wonder why Bird Flu was hyped so loudly when it killed hardly anyone?).

Prove it. Give me links to reliable sources that show that every member of the Executive and Legislative branches recieves these "perks".

I rather admire your idealism, but you have a lot to learn.

Please, tell me this is some sort of act, aimed at satrizing the consiparacy theorists please...please.

At 10/5/08 02:31 PM, marchohare wrote:
What I find amusing and dismaying is that this thread on a non-issue runs 7 pages, while the bailout thread is sinking to the bottom of the list. Here's a newsflash, Pro-Lifers: you can vote for the Republican half of the Sold-Out Whore Party (which consists of two wings and is really the only political party in the U.S.) because Republicans give this non-issue lipservice. You'll still never see any change, because the Big Health lobby won't allow it. Reagan talked this bullshit before most of you were born. Nothing changed. Even if the laws were changed (fat chance), it wouldn't make any difference. All it would mean would be that a black market for abortions would pop up, just as sure as I can buy a bag of pot within the hour if I feel so inclined.

Well, this thread is much more...spirited than the bailout thread. I think the bailout is a more important issue, but I'd rather post here than there.

Same is true of gun bans. Same is true of smoking bans. Prohibition does not work.

Yah, I agree.

In the meantime, while the sold-out whores in D.C. chatter on about abortion and gay marriage and Obama's alleged connections with the Weather Underground and other dumb stuff, the economy is falling apart around our ears. I know economic issues make the mouth-breathers' who constitute a majority of American voters eyes glaze over, but y'all might want to shut up about idiotic non-issues and ponder the dawn of Depression 2.0, which is coming whether you like it or not.

Well, I don't like what your saying here. You do realize that almost all, if not all, politicians could be living a lot better than they are now if they stayed out of politics. So to say there all sold-out whores is stupid and frankly, quite immature. Not everyone is out ot get you. Politicians are politicians because they want to help. I'm currently looking to obtain a degree in political science and then to go on and enter politics, but I'm not a "sold-out whore" and don't intend to be. Most politcians do what they do because they honestly believe they are helping their country, their people, or their world. Are they really doing that? That's for us to decide, but to say there all sold-out whores and to imply they don't really care about their job is disrespectful and stupid.

McCain and Obama left the campaign trail and flew to D.C. to vote for an 850 billion dollar bailout for their fatcat cronies in Big Banking, which the Lame Duck In Office promptly signed into law. The sold-out whores just mortgaged your grandchildrens' future. That's the only issue worth talking about now.

And that is so much worse than the alternative, letting the finanicial system collapse.

So, who's it going to be: Sold-Out Whore A, or Sold-Out Whore B? Obama is going to win of course, but in the end it's not going to make one iota of difference. Maybe the Republicans will even hang the blame for Depression 2.0 on him, even though they're fifty percent responsible for creating it.

They both have very different views, so don't let your anti-authority hatred get the best of you. There have been good presidents and bad presidents, and we have to decide who we think would make the better president. People who say "there both evil scum" are really screwing over the nation more than they claim the politicians are. As far as they are concerned, we should all live under a one-party state, because apparently it already is. Congratgulations, you just killed democracy!

Are we paying attention, kiddies?

I find this very silly, considering that the whole "all authority figures are evil and corrupt and they are out to get me" attitude seems childish to me.

At 10/5/08 07:45 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 10/5/08 04:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/4/08 10:55 PM, Tianaman wrote: Actually... Freedom of Religion protects against that.

Actually, it doesn't.

Actually it does, douche.

Someone disagreed with you, he must be a douche.

Just because you claim to not even have a religion n claim to have no free will doesn't mean everyone else has to.

What? It's religion that takes away your free will...

Freedom of religion, you could say you believe in something and believe the oposite you know, I don't understand how you're such a dumbass.

Calling someone else a dumbass obviously will make you smarter.

Theres a story in the Bible that tlaks about 2 or 3 brothers who were kidnaped and worked for some crappy empire, n when told to bow down n pray to their God, they refused, and weren't killed because of the good job they had done, n they rose in ranks n helped the place they were.

Your right, we shouldn't have to bow down to anyone else's God. Which is why Christianity is stupid, since it says to convert everyone to Christianity and worship Jesus Christ.

So they did all they could to help people even though the people there didn;t believe in what they did, thats what the story teaches, doing what you can even if you aren't in the place where you want to be.

Well isn't that just great. Hypocracy in the Bible. I thought the people who followed the Bible were the hypocrites, but now I see the Bible itself is hypocrtical. It says you should help and love everyone, while at the same time teaching people to convert everyone to follow it's rules and worship it's God.

So instead of sitting on your ass reading this you should go out n get a frigin job or do you homework n not worry about what everyone else believes, I sure hope your not a frigin emo n punish yourself for nothing as you have lead me to think.

So instead of sitting on YOUR ass WRITING this you should go out and yadayadayadayada. It's works both ways buddy. And how do you know who has a job, who needed to do homework, or anything else. I have a job, and I'm finished with my studying, and I can still read this. Grow up.

You should worry about what other people believe, because it's stupid to just keep to yourself and be close-minded and selfish. What other people believe can effect you, and it's better to know about something than not know about it. See my sig, "Ignorance is the root of all evil"-Molly Ivins, or something like that. You should like the emo, saying "care only about yourself and no one else". Grow up and stop your childish ad hominem attacks.

At 10/5/08 07:03 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 10/5/08 05:11 AM, TheKlown wrote: Majority of abortions are from teen pregnancies they have no relations to rape. The thing thats fucked up about abortion is that the women who don't get them usually are the ones who were raped because they don't want to kill there own blood. Btw, if a womans rape couldn't they just take the morning after pill...

I agree that most abortions done are from and are obviously from underage girls, thats how sad the world is today, when young women are that stupid and/or ignorant.

Your right, all young women are stupid and ignorant. *rolls eyes*

But on the rape part, are you sure its not the girl's fault? I mean a girl is only not at fault when she has no control over the situation as in she was held down or knocked out.
What does matter is how the girl ended up in the rape situation, maybe the girl decided to go to a wild party with her freinds, thats a mark against the girl. Maybe at a party she decides to flirt n mess around with some of the guys there in attempt I assume to impress her freinds or to....I have no idea, thats a mark which should be many, against the girl.

Your right, rape is totally the woman's fault, you know, the guy grabbing her and forcing her to have sex with him is totally okay, we all know woman are inferiour beings, everything is their fault. *rolls eyes again*

So to shorten up an already long reply, the situation has have come from enyone exept the girl in order to put the fault on anyone but the girl sad but true, thats why there are so many girls out there blaming themselves for their rape, because alot of them were their fault.

Shaggy, this reply is hardly long... Though I have to admit, your grammer has improved a lot, I'll give you that.

Now before you come at me with all this pms heartless nonsese, I understand that rape is bad and anyone who does it desearves to be punished, but when a girl has a hand in it there should be none or the girl should have partial punishment.

What? You should watch The Accused with Jodie Foster. It's about this kind of stuff, you would definatly side with the rapists.

Such as the things I've already listed, girl getting drunk, high whatever, going to a bad place where she knows its dangerous, any risk the girl takes that lead to her being raped, that places more and more of the blame onto her.

How the hell do you know this happens? Do you have pyshic connection with everyone that's been raped or had an abortion, so you know everything about there lives? I doubt it, your just assuming things.

And don't give me this " Oh, my freinds wanted me to go so I had no choice," or more importantly "I had no choice," BULLSHIT, unless you believe yourself to be an insignificant rodent of this world therefore lowering your selfworth to the lowest being prone to becoming a member of some kind of satanic cult that brainwashes you, then you don't have my attention anymore.

Yah, because anyone that believes anything different than you doesn't deserve your attention anymore, or great Shaggy. C'mon, this is the most sexist, ignorant, and assuming thing I've ever read. Face it, your trying to blame this on the woman, and your using some bullshit assumption you've come up with to back it up.

Either way it doesn't matter to me because my mother didn't abort me and in all my power i will pick and choose a girl least likely to go on a manhating killing spree just because I forgot to get her an aniversarry present....

What? Do you know how sexist that sounds. "i will pick and choose a girl". Sure, because you know men just pick out women, whoever they want, the woman doesn't deserve to have any choice who she marries/goes out with/sleeps with. If she gets raped, it's her fault anyway...

I hope you enjoyed that little rant, I've already forgotten what I wrote lol.

Yah, I would have expected that. I don't know how any could click "post it" and show this bullshit to the world if they actually knew what they had said.

Also heres a reminder, a women who sais "If abortion is murder then male masterbation is murder too," Get the fuck away from her, If male masterbation is murder then the FEMALE MENSTURATION IS MURDER, HAHAHAHAHA! The male reproduction cell works pretty much the same like the female reproduction cell, the two are needed to create a new strand of DNA meanind that new strand belongs to neither of the DNA strands that helpes create it meaning it is a completely unique set of DNA thus proving life starts at that moment. Killing another person's cells is a crime isn't it?

:0 :0 :0! Mensturation and masterbation are completely different. Menstruation happens once every month. Masterbation is completely voluntary. I don't have to jack off if I don't want to. I know people who'eve never jacked off once in there life.

Lets say you cut somone's hand off, thats a crime right? So shouldn't the killing of the one or more cells that have a unique DNA that are to divide and make up a new person a crime too?

Exept cutting off a hand is painful, and the person the hand was cut off has real thought. A clump of cells meanwhile feels no pain until the third trimester, and doesn't think.

I mean the few cells that are first created during the pregnancy, kiling those isn't murder as the killing of an entire human being? And that is basicly what it is too, just a couple cells may be small but it is a seperate person ultimately, you wouldn't kill a midgit and say it isn't murder would you?

A person is conscious, with an awareness of it's surroundings, problem solving ability, and the ability to feel pain, unlike a clump of cells inside a woman.

I'm done. Make sure to read this reply before saying something about what I've written, its not a good way to show your intelligence believe me lol.

Oh, I read it buddy, I read it, and this post was the worst way to "show your intelligence" I've ever seen. Please Shaggy, stop trying.

At 10/4/08 04:12 AM, S3C wrote:

At 10/3/08 01:05 AM, BetaOrionis wrote: Unfortunately, sex is really fun, and practically essential for most good relationships.

Abortion is just another form of birth control, like a condom, pill, or spermicide. It exists and anyone who can afford one should be allowed to purchase one. It's simply the individual's option. I like knowing that even if a condom breaks I have something to fall back on.

You can fall back on medical birth control such as "morning after" pills and other medical birth controls beforehand. If you cant handle the slim chances of having a child after this, then you shouldnt be having sex in the first place.

This true, but if someone decides they'd rather have an abortion than use said pills, what's wrong with that? There choice, so to ban abortion is wrong. If you personally think having an abortion is murder, that's fine, encourage people you know not to have one. But you form a minority of the population (I posted links to polls awhile back that showed that pro-life people form a minority of the population, if you want to look back you can, but if you don't, tell me, I'll post them again), so a law banning abortion is undemocratic and possibly unconsitutional, because it force the view of a minority of the population onto everyone.

Since no one really can prove that fetuses are conscious, there's no reason to block a useful procedure.

I have yet to read this topic fully but:

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant." R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_devel opment/fetal_pain.asp

somewhere on that site...

I'm not sure what 20 weeks and beyond is, all I know is that a fetus experiences pain only during the third trimester, which may well be 20 weeks and beyond. That is why I'm against third trimester abortions, though only personally, I don't believe it should be a law.

Even if the fetus WAS conscious, it won't be after we kill it, and no one will miss it, so no harm there. Wow, that sounds kind of evil. Perhaps I should have used euphemisms?

LOL what. Say you were born in a jungle and you had to raise yourself alone. I can kill you because no one will miss you?

Well, that's different. A person living in the jungle may not be missed by anyone else, but they will "miss themselves" (not really the right term, but I'm not really sure what to say). They are full human beings, who want to continue living (unless there suidical, in which case I totally support assisted suicide), and have lives, even if they live solitary lives. Meanwhile, an fetus does not even know what it is to die, so they really don't care. A fetus doesn't think "Oh shit, I hope I don't get aborted" because really, the don't "think" like we do. They don't have the same though process we do. They won't fear for there lives when the abortion begins, and they won't care if they die. They really arn't much more human than an ant mentally.

At 10/4/08 07:56 PM, Mad-Mardigan wrote:

At 10/4/08 12:12 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

BS. The Whigs collapsed in 1856, and Lincoln was elected in 1860. The Republicans were the second biggest political party at the time. The Republicans had already run a previous time, in 1856, with Fremont, who got second place. He may have been the first Republican to win, but the Republicans were still one of the two major parties at the time, they just hadn't won yet. Learn your history.

Yeah sure...

Yah, Lincoln was the first Republican president, I said that. Doesn't prove anything. Sorry for double post, I hit "post it" too early.

At 10/4/08 08:04 PM, Hansome-Pete wrote:

BS. The Whigs collapsed in 1856, and Lincoln was elected in 1860. The Republicans were the second biggest political party at the time. The Republicans had already run a previous time, in 1856, with Fremont, who got second place. He may have been the first Republican to win, but the Republicans were still one of the two major parties at the time, they just hadn't won yet. Learn your history.

You're missing the point from the other guy.... but what ever, calm down

What point am I missing? He said Lincoln was third party at the time, which wasn't true. And speaking of "missing the point", explain how I need to "calm down". What did I say that implied I was in any way emotionally enraged?

At 10/1/08 06:56 AM, Ynek wrote: Whilst looking in the art forum today, I came across a rather interesting opinion on the matter of voting, and it got me thinking.

Basically, my view on voting is that you have the right to vote, but also the responsibility to vote responsibly. Don't waste your vote by voting just because you feel you have to. A blind vote is a bad vote. If everyone votes blindly, then our next leaders are chosen purely at random, not by quality of policy.

True, it's everyone's responsibility to find out what the candiates positions are.

I think that there are some situations where choosing not to vote is the right decision, and those situations are:
- When you don't have an adequate understanding of the current political climate, both at home and abroad. (Don't vote for a bull when you're standing in a china-shop)

Correct, but instead of just not voting, you should try to find out before election day.

- When you have a lower IQ than a glass of water.

Well, I don't think people with low IQs even know how to vote, so no problem here.

- When you don't feel that any of the candidates put forward truly represent your views, or stand for what you believe is in the best interests for your country.

I disagree. I'm all for voting for the lesser of two evils, cause if you don't, the greater evil may win.

However, it appears that some people believe that "Not voting is a vote for the apocalypse." That you, as a citizen, have the right to vote, and therefore, you shouldn't squander that right by not voting. Your forefathers have fought and died to preserve this right of suffrage (among others), and so you must use it lest they have died in vain.

I suppose that's true, but we have the right to vote, and you don't have to exercise a right. We have the right to pratice religion, but some people (such as myself) don't. It's your choice. However, not voting because you lazy is BS.

Personally, I feel that this type of mentality is what leads to dangerous people getting in control of countries - People voting just for the sake of voting.
Inversely, Others might argue that it's because of people not voting that dangerous people get in control of countries. - Only those who support the dangerous party bothered to vote.

I'm interested to know how the citizens of NG feel about this subject.

Well, I believe we should stop bitching about getting people to vote, but instead try to inform people about politics. If you know enough about politics, your going to want to vote, so instead of just telling people to vote for the sake of voting, tell them about politics, so they get involved and become informed voters. People (me included) hate those who don't vote out of laziness, but it's laziness to just go "vote or die" instead of explaining "Candiate A is from Party B and he supports position X. Candiate C is from Party D and he supports position Y" Of course, that would cost a lot more money and isn't as catchy, but in my view, someone who doesn't vote is better than an uniformed voter.

At 10/3/08 08:50 PM, MeMaMoMoo wrote:

At 10/3/08 04:08 PM, Saruman200 wrote: No, he wasn't...

Yes...............he was
Whigs and Democrats were the two major parties at the time. Abe was the first Republican to win.

BS. The Whigs collapsed in 1856, and Lincoln was elected in 1860. The Republicans were the second biggest political party at the time. The Republicans had already run a previous time, in 1856, with Fremont, who got second place. He may have been the first Republican to win, but the Republicans were still one of the two major parties at the time, they just hadn't won yet. Learn your history.

At 9/30/08 06:09 PM, Mad-Mardigan wrote:

I looked it up and despite being in the debates Ross Perot still lost. No one really cares about third parties and a third party has never won in history.

Abe Lincoln was third party at the time! : )

No, he wasn't...

Wow, is it just me, or are half the posts in here ad hominem attacks? Seriously guys, get your shit together, just because someone doesn't agree with you on the interwebs, doesn't mean there a "idiot" or a "rebellious kid" or a "prick", or anything else. I mean, I haven't looked at this thread since three pages ago, and I don't even know what element of religion you guys are even talking about anymore...

Just watched the debate, which I had recorded. Biden definatly won the debate, but that doesn't really mean he scored a point for the Obama campaign. People had such low expectations of Palin, anything short of her completely humiliating herself would have been considered good. And to give her credit, she did better than I had expected. Did anyone notice that the McCain/Palin ticket has some problem with looking at their opponent during a debate? McCain didn't do it in the first presidential debate, and Palin didn't appear to be looking at Biden either, though she did better than McCain when it came to visuals. In the context of the debate, Biden one, but strategically it was a draw. I don't think either campaign benefitted from this.

At 10/2/08 10:19 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 10/1/08 07:52 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

It's actually a confederation.

Linguistics are silly.

I was practicing out loud for my Law Midterm.

Okay.

but treating a unsuccesful EU knock-off like the AU or Mercosur like a country is even more foolish.

No, especially on the influence side of the question; that's what the EU and all of these regional blocks are all about: having a say in world matters.

Yah, but that doesn't mean there all succesful.

Not on all fronts, but if countries with a low political force unite, they certainly get more political power, if they manage to agree, of course, which is not always the case; but since they have relatively similar cultures, in the backbone of policies they tend to agree.

Agreed. The Mecroseur countries have more political influence now that they are together, but that doesn't mean they have a lot of influence, just more than before.

Venezuela and brazil are the most corrupt, impoverished ones in Mercosur, besides Paraguay.

Venezuela is the richest member of Mercosur by GDP per capita.

No, Argentina is, or Chile if you consider a member of it; Argentina's numbers are undervalued.

Pfff...bull, your trying to condemn a international survay because it makes your country look bad...

Come on: Quality of life? What is that? It's an incredibly volatile and subjective aspect.

Well, as I said, better let people who know a lot more about the subject than us decide.

I was wrong about Brazil, it is behind Uruguay, but higher than Argentina or Paraguay.

Again Argentina's values are undervalued, because it decided not to appreciate its currency, Real went to 1.9, and Peso stayed at 3. (currency to buy a dollar).

Currency doesn't mean much, a country can have great currency but a crappy economy.

Well, that is precisely my point; a distortion in the currency markets makes Brazil look better than Argentina in GDP per capita, but that does not translate into the real economy, where the real income of Argentinians is higher than Brazilians

Is that so. And what statistics did you draw this conclusion from.

In terms of GDP per capita (PPP), Venezuela is still highest, followed by Uruguay, but Argentina beats out Brazil.

No, Argentina has 13000 and Venezuela 12000. Uruguay is 3rd.
Argentina beats any mercosur member in per capita basis, and in human development; it only loses to Uruguay in income distribution.

Uh, look at the sources, instead of trying to make your country look good by claiming flaw in international surveys.

That is precisely what I did; those numbers were taken from the links you provided.

Sorry, I was thinking GDP (nominal) not GDP (PPP). Just rechecked, you are correct.

In terms of Corruption, Uruguay is highest, then Brazil, then Argentina, then Paraguay, and Venezuela is last Brazil is the only emerging developed economy among them, though Argentina is on the frontier. Sources: Here,here,here,here,and here.

Brazil's only the emergent? where?
Argentina has a much better education system, higher literacy rates, higher life expectancy, higher GDP per capita, a lesser homicide rate, und so weiter und so fort (Etc etc).

Again, look at the sources, I'll let the experts, who know a lot more than you or me, decide.

I have

Then you would see that Brazil is the only "emergent" and Brazil is less corrupt than Argentina. I wasn't refering to the other statistic, since things like homocide rate, infant mortality, and life expectancy have no real effect on how powerful or influential a country is.

No, Mercosur is and will trade with those countries, but in no way will it be under the sphere of influence.

Bolivia and Venezuela are already considered part of Russia's sphere of influence, and many other nations with follow. Why do you believe that Mercosur won't be a part of another countries sphere of influence?

Because Brazil is the 10th economy in the world.

And thus it must be the tenth most powerful country?

Well, economy is not the only determinant of power, but it is a good measure of it.

Okay then.

Also, in GDP (PPP), which is generally considered a better factor than GDP (nominal) Brazil is 9th, behind Russia, which sits 7 (if you look at the CIA World Factbook or International Monetary Fund) or 6 (if you look at the World Bank). If you add the GDP (PPP) of all the Mecroseur countries (I used IMF, just because it was the first listed) it is only 400,000 higher than Russia's, small if consider that Mecroseur is 5 nations and Russia is only one.

And that's precisely why the Mercosur was created, to generate a market of 250 million people, that could stand up better to the world powers than alone; Brazil is stronger with Argentina Uruguay and Paraguay, and not to mention the increase in political power Uruguay or Paraguay gets.

Okay then, that would be correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't in anyone's sphere of influence, and Mercosur is hardly a unified nation, thus to compare it to a single nation is unfair and silly.

We have no USSR threatening our States. We are quite the peaceful nations.

No more peaceful than any other nation. Source:
Here.

I meant on the military aspect, that index considers internal peace as well; Argentina has a war every 100 years, compared to the US' one every decade.

Um...if you want to have influence, you can't have internal strife.

Everyone has internal strife, and Mercosur's is not large; there isn't a large political movement that threatens the State, it's just plain crime activity.

Yes, but it is no less than any other countries, and thus Mercosur are not "peaceful nations" compared to the rest of the world, rather just average.

From the Russian/Chinese perspective, couldn't the USA take the place of the USSR, a expansionist neighbor with a large sphere of influence which hopes to use that influence over that area of the world?

Chinese yes, but on the economic front, and not so much.

How so? China and Russia economically dominate any individual Latin American country, even Brazil, and Latin America is hardly unified. Political and miltary power are just as important as economic power, so stop ignoring them.

Not really; wars are kind of outdated, and the battles are fought in the economic front. The US beat the USSR because it had a superior economic organization, and rushed the USSR into an economic battle it could not win.

The USSR collapsed because of it's own doing, not because of anything the US did. Gorbachev had good intentions, but he was a bad leader and rushed into reforms that took the country by storm, leading to destabilization and eventually collapse.

Stop ignoring the facts and focusing on certain areas because they make Argentina look better.

I am not ignoring the "facts"; on the contrary I have quite a good idea about the reality of Latin American countries.

Because you live there? I've visited Latin America (specifically Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Venezuela, and Chile), and it's hardly the peace-loving, prosperous land you seem to to think it is. My purpose is not to bash Latin America or you, rather to show that it is quite clearly open to become part of Russia or China's sphere of influence; I feel we've deviated from that point quite a bit, so I'd rather like to get us back on track. Cheers!

At 10/1/08 07:29 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: It reminds me of Hitler's blame on Jews.

oh noez I lost teh argument cuz I said hitler.

I generally hate Hitler/Nazi analogies, but because this is about racism, it fits. That Congresswomen is an idiot, come the election, vote her out Minnesotians.

At 10/1/08 07:41 PM, jennyzapp wrote: Take a look at Democratic Vice President Nominee Joe Biden's political career and his family life.

He seems like a really good guy and a good dad

Well, that was a whopping two minutes, not really an indepth look. I agree, he seems like a nice guy, but how does this effect how good a VP he will make? I perfer to focus on the issues, rather than a candiate's family life. But anyway, tomorrow we get to watch him and Palin debate, so that will be...interesting, if you find outright slaughter interesting.

At 10/1/08 07:09 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 9/30/08 08:19 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/27/08 02:17 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:
Yes it is, especially against minor countries as Bolivia.

Why? I'm no expert, but I'd like it if you gave reasons.

Because it's a country of 200 million, with an investment fund of 120 billion dollars, among many other things. 120 billion is ten times the economy of Bolivia.

Now that's what I was talking about. Your correct.

Mercosur growth ranges from "very fast" to moderate, it has no military power since there's not much point in it, and it's economically superior to Russia.

Average Mercosur growth is not as fast as Russia's however, and Mercosur isn't a country, it's a organization. To treat it like one country is foolish. Treating the EU like a country is foolish,

It's actually a confederation.

Linguistics are silly.

but treating a unsuccesful EU knock-off like the AU or Mercosur like a country is even more foolish.

No, especially on the influence side of the question; that's what the EU and all of these regional blocks are all about: having a say in world matters.

Yah, but that doesn't mean there all succesful.

Venezuela and brazil are the most corrupt, impoverished ones in Mercosur, besides Paraguay.

Venezuela is the richest member of Mercosur by GDP per capita.

No, Argentina is, or Chile if you consider a member of it; Argentina's numbers are undervalued.

Pfff...bull, your trying to condemn a international survay because it makes your country look bad...

I was wrong about Brazil, it is behind Uruguay, but higher than Argentina or Paraguay.

Again Argentina's values are undervalued, because it decided not to appreciate its currency, Real went to 1.9, and Peso stayed at 3. (currency to buy a dollar).

Currency doesn't mean much, a country can have great currency but a crappy economy.

In terms of GDP per capita (PPP), Venezuela is still highest, followed by Uruguay, but Argentina beats out Brazil.

No, Argentina has 13000 and Venezuela 12000. Uruguay is 3rd.
Argentina beats any mercosur member in per capita basis, and in human development; it only loses to Uruguay in income distribution.

Uh, look at the sources, instead of trying to make your country look good by claiming flaw in international surveys.

If we look at quality of life, Brazil is the highest, then Argentina, then Uruguay, followed by Venezuela, then Paraguay.

Yeah, by a 0.001 margin, and that study fails anyway.

Because it makes Argentina look worse than Brazil?

In terms of Corruption, Uruguay is highest, then Brazil, then Argentina, then Paraguay, and Venezuela is last Brazil is the only emerging developed economy among them, though Argentina is on the frontier. Sources: Here,here,here,here,and here.

Brazil's only the emergent? where?
Argentina has a much better education system, higher literacy rates, higher life expectancy, higher GDP per capita, a lesser homicide rate, und so weiter und so fort (Etc etc).

Again, look at the sources, I'll let the experts, who know a lot more than you or me, decide.

No, Mercosur is and will trade with those countries, but in no way will it be under the sphere of influence.

Bolivia and Venezuela are already considered part of Russia's sphere of influence, and many other nations with follow. Why do you believe that Mercosur won't be a part of another countries sphere of influence?

Because Brazil is the 10th economy in the world.

And thus it must be the tenth most powerful country? Also, in GDP (PPP), which is generally considered a better factor than GDP (nominal) Brazil is 9th, behind Russia, which sits 7 (if you look at the CIA World Factbook or International Monetary Fund) or 6 (if you look at the World Bank). If you add the GDP (PPP) of all the Mecroseur countries (I used IMF, just because it was the first listed) it is only 400,000 higher than Russia's, small if consider that Mecroseur is 5 nations and Russia is only one.

We have no USSR threatening our States. We are quite the peaceful nations.

No more peaceful than any other nation. Source:
Here.

I meant on the military aspect, that index considers internal peace as well; Argentina has a war every 100 years, compared to the US' one every decade.

Um...if you want to have influence, you can't have internal strife.

From the Russian/Chinese perspective, couldn't the USA take the place of the USSR, a expansionist neighbor with a large sphere of influence which hopes to use that influence over that area of the world?

Chinese yes, but on the economic front, and not so much.

How so? China and Russia economically dominate any individual Latin American country, even Brazil, and Latin America is hardly unified. Political and miltary power are just as important as economic power, so stop ignoring them. Stop ignoring the facts and focusing on certain areas because they make Argentina look better.

At 10/1/08 06:23 PM, j2witz wrote: Bump?

Um... Please read the BBS rules, no bumping a topic without any new information.

I'll give my opinion anyway, practically, the death penalty doesn't really help. Crime is no lower in areas with the death penalty than it is in areas where there is no death penalty (actually, if we're looking at the nation level here, it's lower where there is no death penalty, but I don't really think the absence of a death penalty is the reason for the lower crime). As for spending tax money, I'm sceptical about how much money is wasted not having the death penalty. Obviously the jails become more crowded, so you may have to expand, and bye more food for the extra prisoners, but maintaining execution facilities costs money too.

So really, this debate trickles down to morals. I think there should be no death penalty, because I fundamentally think killing someone is always wrong. Everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation (though the modern rehabilitation programs need a major overhaul, I don't want murderers and rapists back on the streets because they fufilled some "maximum time" in rehabilitation). Even if there a rapist or murderer, if we kill them, we revert to a medieval system and lower ourselves to there level. The death penalty is a massive human rights violation, in my eyes. If we need to lock someone up for life, then fine, they deserve it, but they don't deserve to die.

Putting my own personal moral views aside, I'll turn to the morals of others: the death penalty is wrong because it determines who lives or dies on a set of morals that are not nessicarily held by the citizens. Not everyone is for the death penalty, so how can we kill someone on the grounds that only half the country believes what he did is punishable by death? Why let the lawmakers decide on what moral grounds we do or do not kill someone, if a large part of the population does not agree? Really, leaving personal moral values out of this, having the death penalty makes us worse than the Arab countries that stone and behead people for small crimes, because at least in those Arab countries, a good 90% or more of the population agrees that is the correct form of law? It makes us no better than dictatorships were dissidents are executed, because in both cases a small group of people decide who lives or dies. I'd rather my country not be like that, thank you very much.

Both science and religion can be pretty political, they both have been used for political means. So let's not pretend one isn't political and the other is.

At 10/1/08 09:51 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 10/1/08 09:42 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: My point is EXACTLY that science can NOT be political and the nature of the bible WAS political.

See my point?

Methodology-wise yes. Conceptually no. I'm not getting how you can say science is not political.

Neither am I. Science is political, just like religion.

I'll use one of the more famous examples where science is political to show my point.

Please...no Nazi examples. Can't we all rise above that. It's a slippery slope from this to the whole "everyone that disagrees with me is a Nazi" attitude...

Less famously the "gay brain" experiment or the women cheaters experiment. Both published and released to the public on the incentive of something less than science (fame and money respectively).

Yes, science can be used for political means. Doesn't mean that science is automatically discredited.

At 9/27/08 02:17 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:
Yes it is, especially against minor countries as Bolivia.

Why? I'm no expert, but I'd like it if you gave reasons.

Mercosur growth ranges from "very fast" to moderate, it has no military power since there's not much point in it, and it's economically superior to Russia.

Average Mercosur growth is not as fast as Russia's however, and Mercosur isn't a country, it's a organization. To treat it like one country is foolish. Treating the EU like a country is foolish, but treating a unsuccesful EU knock-off like the AU or Mercosur like a country is even more foolish.

Of course, russia is party in europe, so they can directly affect them, but that doesn't mean that their economy is as big as Mercosur's. Heck, Bolvia can threaten Argentina more than Canada.

I never said it ment there economy was as big as Mercosur's, but you said Mercosur can talk to the EU, and that sentance was a reply to that, not to the economy point.

I believe NAFTA is a pointless joke. Mexico has nothing in common with either the US or Canada, and the US doesn't have much to gain, since it is already enormous.

I agree.

Venezuela and brazil are the most corrupt, impoverished ones in Mercosur, besides Paraguay.

Venezuela is the richest member of Mercosur by GDP per capita. I was wrong about Brazil, it is behind Uruguay, but higher than Argentina or Paraguay. In terms of GDP per capita (PPP), Venezuela is still highest, followed by Uruguay, but Argentina beats out Brazil. If we look at quality of life, Brazil is the highest, then Argentina, then Uruguay, followed by Venezuela, then Paraguay. In terms of Corruption, Uruguay is highest, then Brazil, then Argentina, then Paraguay, and Venezuela is last. Brazil is the only emerging developed economy among them, though Argentina is on the frontier. Sources: Here,here,here,here,and here.

Grant it, that's gonna happen in a loooooooooooooonnnnnnng time.

A very loooooooooooonnnnnnng time. Till then, Latin America/South America is better off working and growing inside another country's, like Russia or China, sphere of influence.

No, Mercosur is and will trade with those countries, but in no way will it be under the sphere of influence.

Bolivia and Venezuela are already considered part of Russia's sphere of influence, and many other nations with follow. Why do you believe that Mercosur won't be a part of another countries sphere of influence? Latin America was in the Cold War, with certain parts in the Soviet sphere and others in the Western one, why not now? I understand that you, being from Argentina, wouldn't want Latin America to be part of anyone's sphere of influence, but that's what's happening as we speak.

Just like the EU began to work and grow inside the US's sphere of influence.

We have no USSR threatening our States. We are quite the peaceful nations.

No more peaceful than any other nation. Source:
Here. From the Russian/Chinese perspective, couldn't the USA take the place of the USSR, a expansionist neighbor with a large sphere of influence which hopes to use that influence over that area of the world?

At 9/30/08 06:07 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:
yeah because they are brainwashed it's a dictatorship but I guess education in bolivia sucks. plus healthcare in cuba sucks horribly.

Wow, healthcare in Cuba is really good for a country it's size, it's only two ranks under the US, which has a much greater GDP. Cuba is a dictatorship, but they don't love Castro because there brainwashed, they've always loved him, it was popular support that put him into power. And considering how much he improved there quality of life (it's not high, but way better than what it was before Castro), there's no reason they shouldn't love him. Cuba has been a dictatorship for as long as I can remember. The only difference is they went from a US-backed capitalist dictator to a communist dictator.

Lol, if the kid lunged at him, how'd he get shot in the back at close range. C'mon, this is completely irrational. The kids stole some Twinkies, so trailer trash decides to hold them at gunpoint and executes one of them, then orders the other kids to drag the body outside, and then the dumbfuckers in the town stand up for him? WTF, this is pure craziness. Texas is fucked up... I feel sorry for the relatives of the child. This man deserved to be convicted of murder. I don't care if the kids broke the law, this wasn't a split second desicion. He already had them kneeling on the floor, he could have just called the police right there and then, or sent them home, but instead he shoots one in the back? That is not self-defence...

At 9/27/08 01:56 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 9/27/08 01:44 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Yah, because everyone that disagrees with you deserves to die.

Way to comprehend :D

Why thank you.

Habla englais?

Nah.

Ja, mein Führer

You're another reason why communism fails.

Good thing I'm not a communist!

At 9/27/08 01:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 9/27/08 07:52 AM, HairGlasses wrote: I only hate three things in America:

I've never met you and I already wouldn't help your sorry ass out of a pinch if it came down to it.

Yah, because everyone that disagrees with you deserves to die.

- You are always telling yourselves you are the best country in the world.
- You are always telling us Europeans about WWII.
- You don't like football!(FOOTBALL not that American football.)

Why the fuck do you care what we tell ourselves, especially concerning the hearty goodness of American middle-class life? Can you explain why you hate it when we raise ourselves up? Would you like it better if we just all shut up and gave only negative criticisms of our great nation? IS IT FUCKING POSSIBLE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE "ALWAYS" TELLING OURSELVES?!

Yes, because the American middle-class is superiour to all other middle classes. If you are born in America, you are automatically better than everyone else, just because you happened to be born in a certain place at a certain time. Anyone who disagrees with LazyDrunk is an idiot who should kill himself.

You Europeans forced us to develop nuclear weapons by allowing your nations to fall victim to nationalist socialism and war against the Western powers. We tell you about world war two because YOU are responsible for it's disemination and subsequent 50million+ unnecessary deaths. You hate America's way of remembering WWII? I hate the way you fuckers keep breathing after such a disgrace.

Yes, because those evil Europeans dared to look to someone who improved their economy and said the same thing you are saying: that the people of one country are superiour to those of another country. Anyone who is even partially related to a small minority of the European population deserves to stop breating, because LazyDrunk said so, and he is the Fuhrer.

Soccer is only popular because the cultures and societies it's most popular in aren't smart enough to take a stick and bat a rock.

Yes, because liking different sports than LazyDrunk makes you stupid. He is a superiour being, kill all those who disagree with him or do not act like him.

In conclusion, I hope my trumped up defense reinforces your perceptions of american superiority, military might and athletic advancements.

Because that makes every American, espically LazyDrunk, superiour to everyone of every other country.

Sprichst du Deutsch? Nein?

Ja, mein Führer

The mighty power of this thread, lorded over by LazyDrunk in all it's supreme ignorance and dumbfuckery is greater then all, and affirms that Americans are the greatest people on earth and superiour to all others.

At 9/27/08 03:44 AM, Healthy wrote:
Religion is there for two reasons in my world. For those with faith that there is something past this life, that there is a greater being looking out for our general well being. That there is a peaceful bliss that can be achieved by good morals. Which brings me to the second point, morals/arguments. There are those we know as sudoChristians, which are usually intense believers in Gods morals. That they take every line of the bible as a strict code that must be followed. These are the people that oppose abortion and gay marriage. Religion is needed.

You believe that your morals are the only "good morals" just because one book says so. How very modest of you. Yours morals are crap. If I right a book that says abortion and gay marriage are great and to oppose them is evil, then by your logic, that is automatically correct and thus you must follow it. Religion is not needed, because it makes people do stupid things, like oppose abortion and gay marriage.

Doesn't that lead back to a naturally present capability for discriminating right from wrong? Well in a way it does. But as you think about what you said, the bible is there to tell us what is right and wrong based off one mans thoughts(or more). The bible in my opinion is to tell us that there is something waiting for us after this life. And to merely give us a general direction of what is right and wrong. That god has something planned for us if we keep to his general code that he gave us. I find the bible to be a lot like a map. It can only tell you the direction of what way to go, it can not truly guide you there, it is your interpretations that guide you there. I feel that I'm repeating my self.

And is there any logical or factual evidence to suggest this? No of course not. You just blindly follow it because it's written in one book, that teaches a bullshit system of morals are are unnessicary, intolerant, and close-minded. If the bible is a map, it's a really out-dated one, where all the roads and directions have changed, and you should throw it away and get a new one.

As a Christian I strongly believe that god exists, or some greater being that resembles a god like figure exists. But as a 'ponder' believe in evolution, and that the universe was created by some insane chemical reaction. But I have to wonder, something must be have pushed the chemical reaction to happen. As we know the universe is 13 billion years old(or something like that), and that before those 13 billion years the extremely compact heat must have been created, or triggered by some greater being for a purpose, this purpose we do not know.

Why? You say you believe in God, but you have yet to explain any real reason why. And no, something doesn't have to have pushed that chemical reaction. It's as simple as that. Your arguement is invalid due to that simple fact, why is it so hard to comprehend?

But to truly answer your last question, Why is this fantasy so persistent? You must very well know that the bible is one of the best works of literature ever created. This book has been here for over 2000 years. This book has inspired millions, if not billions into faith. Such a strong faith that they risk their lives protecting this faith. This is such as how others are more patriotic then others to there own country, there are those who are more religious to there own religion then others. We simply call these people Atheists. Atheists may not promote there faith to god, but god or faith of him finds his way into there hearts, and makes them wonder if god does exist and their in fact wrong.

Really? An intolerant, violent, close-minded, terribly written, non-sensical steaming piece of bullshit is one of the best works of literature ever created? Man, authors must really suck at writing books if that's the best humanity can give us... The last part is a bullshit assumption. I used to be Christian. But when I got a higher education, I realized that God, the Bible, and religion are bullshit. I've never looked back. God or faith or any of that bullshit will never find it's way into my heart, or anyone logical's heart either. That's why so many people today are converting to atheism. It's one of the world's fastest growing "religions". And most of these converts realize that when they get a higher education and begin to understand the world for what it is, not what one book and thousands of years of repeating the same old lies says it is. Your arrogance is astounding. Because you believe it, it must seep into everyone's heart, right?

PS: I apologize to anyone reading who may find what I've said to be offending. Arrogance pisses me off, so I may have been a bit harsh.

At 9/27/08 12:58 PM, Mad-Mardigan wrote: It's so gay that they don't let third party candidates in anymore.

They never did, and please explain to me how that is homosexual. I don't want someone who has no chance of winning cluttering up the stage and wasting my time.

At 9/27/08 11:41 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:
A democratic Bolivia is what's best for Brazil; you cannot have a union if you have different ideologies. That's why the EU is pressing Turkey to eliminate the death penalty.

Really? Maybe a democratic Bolivia is best for South America, but I think Brazil would prefer a pawn that will sell them natural gas cheap and risk-free, democratic or not.

Of course, Brazil won't be happy at all if Bolivia decides to stop selling gas all of a sudden, they'd probably pressure the Bolivian govt, but Brazil wouldn't foster a coup to keep the gas feeding Sao Paulo. They'd punish Bolivia with every diplomatic and economic tool they have, until Bolivia comes to its senses. If a non democratic govt appears, they'd pressure for a democratic, until they achieve a democracy that respects Brazilian capital.

If that does happen, Brazil can't do anything about it. Bolivia will just take it's gas somewhere else. China needs fuel, and the West needs it too, so even if Brazil tries there hardest, Bolivia will find someone else. Brazil isn't nearly as powerful as you think.

I could see this happening.

Me too.

If it is, surely not Russia's. Mercosur is (today) more important economically than Russia, and negotiates face to face with the EU.

Russia's economy is growing very fast, and they have the military power and political clout to go along with it. Mecrosur does not. Russia doesn't just negotiate fact to face with the EU, they influence the EU with the threat of cutting of their natural gas and oil pipelines.

I meant Mercosur; which has been around for almost 20 years now, and it's an imperfect trade union, flow of goods is not free, but flows of resources is. I'd say it is more developed than NAFTA. Its objectives are freeing trade completely, develop a miltary integration, having a common currency, a Parliament, and ultimately, making San Martin's dream come true and have a single govt for the whole region.

Okay, sorry, when you said "Latin America" I assumed the Union of South American Nations, as Mercosur doesn't include all of South America. I'd say Mecrosur is more developed than NAFTA, but NAFTA already has two G8 members in it, so it doesn't need to be developed. No offense, but Mecrosur, besides Venezuela and Brazil, is pretty much all impoverished under-developed third world nations rife with corruption, even if they are growing.

Grant it, that's gonna happen in a loooooooooooooonnnnnnng time.

A very loooooooooooonnnnnnng time. Till then, Latin America/South America is better off working and growing inside another country's, like Russia or China, sphere of influence. Just like the EU began to work and grow inside the US's sphere of influence.

At 9/26/08 11:07 PM, JoS wrote: What I want to see is a Conservative government (majority but minority will do fine too) with an NDP opposition.

My ideal Canadian government would have the NDP in government, with either the Liberals or Green in opposition. Of course, this is impossible, so realistcally I would hope for a Conservative minority with NDP opposition.

The Liberals complain about what Harper has done over the last 3 years, but they neglect to mention they let it happen. They could have stopped him 3 years ago if they wanted to, but they weren't interested in having an election because it didn't suit them best. They weren't looking out for Canadians interests or what they think is Canadians interests, they were looking out for their own.

Well, it's not like the Conservatives have done much better. They broke there own fixed election law because it was better for their party. That's politics for ya, everyone is looking out for their party. But I'm probably going to vote strategically for the Liberals, cause they have the best chance of beating the Conservatives in my riding, and thus helping to prevent a Conservative majority. But then again, I like the Greens. I might just end up not deciding what to do till election day and then just vote NDP by default...

Sorry for double post, but I hit the post button too early. I ment to give my overall impressions aswell.

I think the debate was a tie, with a slight edge to Obama. He seemed a bit clearer in what he was saying, and McCain appeared nervous. Obama was more collected, speaking to the audience, and when McCain was speaking he was looking at him and appeared to be listening. McCain didn't talk in any particular direction, and when Obama was speaking he looked down at the podium and looked solemn. McCain also failed to show how he knew anything more about foreign policy than Obama. He emphazed that he had been to Afghanistan and all, but he made a lot more factual mistakes when talking about foreing nations than Obama did. However, McCain's actual statements where just as intelligent as Obama's, he just didn't deliver them in a as good way. Judging by CNN's little audience reaction tracker, people appeared to like Obama better overall. McCain did better with his own party then Obama did with his, but Obama did better with Republicans than McCain did with Democrats, which was suprising, if that ticker means anything. Independents seemed to favor McCain at first, but Obama later. Me thinks this debate won't have a major effect on the polls due to the close nature.

The other two debates with hopefully be more decisive. The second one is a town hall, McCain's strong point. The last one is about the economy and other domestic issues, and I think Obama will do better at that one, if the early economy related questions at the first debate were any good indication.

At 9/27/08 12:01 PM, aninjaman wrote: I think it was a good debate and Obama did win by a little.
The one thing that really angered me about the debate was when McCain kept saying how much money Obama has used in earmarks. That is true but McCain used earmarks to every politician does. Insted of going on the defensive all Obama had to do was say to McCain "Well how much have you spent on earmarks?" and made McCain's remarks invalid.
Also the debate was supposed to be mianly about the economy but it wasnt most of the time.

No, it was supposed to be about foreign policy and national security. The third debate is about the economy and other domestic issues.