McCain Vs. Obama. Who will win?

[Phantom]

You had to see this coming.:mellow:
The presidential election is coming up...:O
So who do you think is going to win?:confused:

I personally want Obama to win... But that's just me...:cool:

So GO AT IT!:ninja:

[Andy]

I really have no idea. And until the Republican Convention is over, I have even less of an idea. :)

[Phantom]

Who will you vote for though?
You really don't have to answer that, it's none of my business.

[Nyx]

I want Obama to win.
I don't think he will.

[Phantom]

I think if he does there is gonna be an assassination attempt...

[Nyx]

Haha, that's what I was saying the other day.

[Phantom]

And you know who is gonna do it?

[Tsuki]

McCain will win because Obama will be assassinated before the elections.
He'll win by default.

[Snappy Penguine]

Sadly that's probably likely. I think Obama should win. But some comments of AOL users makes me doubt he will, comments included "Smart American's wouldn't let a Negro into the WHITE House". It's always made me sad reading those. I always assumed this country had grown out of those times.

[Andy]

And if McCain wins, he'll die in office too, but of old age.

Interesting scenario... :)

[Dunnskee]

This is all if there is an election. Besides, they're both the same candidate really.

[Phantom]

Which vice would you rather have in the white house?
Obamas?
McCains?

[Zombified]

Obama's gonna win.

America is tired of the way things are going. He's gonna bring change to the homeland and things will hopefully be the way they were.

I don't think there'll be an assassination. Despite all the threats, it just won't happen.

You think Barack doesn't know about that stuff? He does. But he isn't afraid.

People have said before, "I'm gonna fucking kill President Bush", but nothing ever comes from it.
If someone really wants to do it, they will, but they will be caught, and what you guys don't realize is that IF Obama is killed, his VP takes his spot, and Joe Biden has the balls and the brains to run the country if that happens.

So no, we will not see McCain in office.
No matter what happens, Democrats are taking back the White House!

[Starry]

I seriously doubt that anyone will ever actually succeed in assassinating Barack Obama. I mean, he knows that there are people out there who would try it, I'm sure he's got loads of security and stuff. Now, McCain dying of old age sometime soon is slightly more possibly, but I wouldn't bet on it.

As for who will actually win, barring any unforeseen deaths, as much as I would wish it to be otherwise, I don't believe that Obama will win. It's sad, but there are still plenty of racists out there, plenty of people who believe that he doesn't have enough experience, plenty of people who are afraid of things changing. I just hope that enough Democrats get elected into Congress to still be able to get things done in Washington.

[Shadow]

It doesn't exactly affect me, seeing as I'm British. From what I've read, I'd prefer the Libertarian Party to win or whatever, but obviously that's not gonna happen, so Obama. McCain just sounds like any other Republican guy: an idiot. What happened to that asshole Cheney, why isn't he suceeding Bush? Not that it matters, they're all the same. Nah, Obama's a fresh face. There's all this crap about "Oh, if Obama gets in, next we'll have loads of Blacks and Mexicans appearing". Who gives a fucking damn? Guess what? America was founded by immigrants, the British. And those Americans/British fucked things up by killing off nearly every Native American.

/rant

[Andy]

The latest McCain/Palin news. Yeah, I think McCain rushed his VP choice. Big time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin

I honestly prefer McCain. Obama really isn't anything new at all, just typical Democratic policies masked under a very young candidate and the black history he's writing. His acceptance speech promised so much that there's no fiscal way he can deliver it all. He hasn't even mentioned any numbers, just vague promises, which worries me even more. Universal healthcare, lots more aid for college students, and colleges, AND tax cuts for 95% of Americans? Either he's a fraud, or my generation's going to end up with a national debt that we'll never be able to get off our shoulders.

[Shaun]

We already have a debt to pay, Andy. Baby boomers are sucking all the money out of the system as it is.

The problem with Obama is the fact that he's making promises he can't keep without bankrupting the country. Universal healthcare is not a possibility right now, nor in 8 years. This is why Edwards was a good candidate: he made reasonable promises. But people are stupid. They fall for sensationalism, and vote for whomever best represents their most extreme of views. Obama sucks and so does McCain. McCain used to be good, but he went bat crazy in the last few years and went even crazier when he started talking like President Bush.

The problem with American politics is that it is dominated by two parties that are equally retarded. Neither party represents America. They represent extremes. We need a moderate President, not someone who wants to spend all our money (Obama) or someone who wants to ruin the country by destroying its educational system or whatever it is McCain wants to do. This election is less about the "right person for the job" and more about popularity and hot button issues. And the majority of Americans are too stupid to actually research their candidates...

[Shadow]

Ah, that's politics. England's economy's fucked up at the moment 'cos of Brown. Now even over 50% of his own party want him out of the Prime Minister position. And then Cameron's giving out messages more or less saying: "I told you so. Vote for me, I'll make it all better."

[electrilad]

I want Obama to win. If McCain wins, I will cry. I find that it's because lots of republicans don't BOTHER listening to Obama. Those republicans don't like black people, or think he's unpatriotic, or are too stupid (no offense, but you have to be pretty stupid NOT to realize this) that McCain is 4 more years of Bush! McCain agrees on 90% of Bush's policies! Geez!

Also, I keep on finding this STUPID thing online, where people write Obama/Biden- Osama/Binladin. They have NOTHING IN COMMON. Idiots just use that because the lettering works, and it pisses me off.

I know I'm being biased about Republicans, but what the party has become is racial, gun-toting, bible-carrying muckrackers. It sickens me.

[Nyx]

The problem with American politics is that it is dominated by two parties that are equally retarded.

That quote is so sig worthy.

[Phantom]

That is sig worthy...
/end spam

I'm not old enough to vote... Though I am sure that I have more common sense then the stupid welfare trash...
Grr... I pay taxes on that too, I have a right to be angry there






Another reason, Obama should win...
But I digress....
Obama is the better choice.






Also, no offence to familys on welfare...
If you're all working and still need help I respect that... At lest you work...
You see where I live, the people on welfare haven't done anything for maybe even FIVE generations! FIVE!
They sit on their FAT asses and watch TELIVISION!
If you're one of those people you really shouldn't have a computer.
Sorry...

[Dunnskee]

This is the third time I've done this. This is from articles I collected around three weeks ago.

It appears candidate Obama, if elected, fully intends to recruit young citizens into something he calls a “national security force,” apparently a large paramilitary group “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. Obama made passing reference to this disturbing idea in a speech delivered in Chicago on July 2. As should be expected, the corporate media, with the exception on the Chicago Tribune, completely ignored the statement and its implications.

If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” asked Farah. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?”
Farah should know there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans — they both take orders from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, David Rockefeller’s globalist coterie, the Trilateral Commission, and various one-world foundations and cliques.
It is no secret Obama’s top advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a close Rockefeller protégé, a founding member and former director of the Trilateral Commission, and a CFR member. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a member of the Chicago branch of the CFR. Big donors to the Obama campaign basically constitute a who’s who of corporate and Wall Street banking interests, including JP Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Citigroup. Disgraced former Obama advisor, James A. Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO and consummate Washington insider, is a member of the American Friends of Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Farah seems unwilling to make crucial differences when it comes to Democrats and Republicans, but in this instance we can forgive, at least for the moment, because he is asking all the right questions.
“Are we talking about creating a police state here?” he asked in a July 15 article posted on the WND website.

In the months and years ahead, with the engineered deconstruction of the economy, a “domestic security force” possibly the size of the U.S. military will be required to “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals,” as Rockefeller functionary Brzezinski might describe it.

In the meantime, after Obama is elected – or McCain, it really makes no difference – they globalists may be recruiting your neighbors or kids to do their bidding.
Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power. Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago.

All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago. Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure.

Obama's economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama. Obama's lemming legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922, and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today.

Stop fucking acting like I'm some ignorant teenager bent on anarchy with no real concept of society. I keep up with the same shit you do.


Quote:
Obama, on the other hand, has Zbigniew Brzezinski leading him around by the nose, the low-level Polish aristocrat whose life has been devoted to hatred of Russia. Recall Brzezinski’s effort to “suck” the Soviet Union into an Afghanistan quagmire. “The 1980 Carter Doctrine — that the US was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf — is at the root of the first Gulf War, of the present Iraq war, and of the possible war on Iran. Brzezinski’s grandiose schemes of world transformation caused a renewal of the Cold War and gave birth to Al-Qaeda, and without Soviet restraint the results could easily have been far more tragic than they turned out to be,”

Quote:
Obama’s press entourage were not informed of his secret meeting with Hillary Clinton in Northern Virginia until they were literally locked inside a plane that was taxiing down the runway on its way to Chicago.

Reporters were duped into believing that they were getting on a plane back to the campaign headquarters in Chicago with the presumptive nominee, while in reality Obama’s motorcade instead sped off in secrecy to Northern Virginia, which is also the scene of this week’s Bilderberg conference. The plane was stationed at Dulles International, which is less than a 20 minute drive from Chantilly Virginia as is shown below.

Quote:
If you want to know what kind of president Barack Obama will be, look no further than his sponsorship of the fingerprint registry bill now wending its way through the Senate. Obama apparently has no reservations when it comes to robbing Americans of their freedom.

Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) authored a bill (with 11 co-sponsors, including Sen. Barack Obama) that was incorporated into a housing bill passed by the Senate Banking Committee 19-2 before the Memorial Day recess — a bill that creates a national fingerprint registry.
According to a Martinez press release, the language merely “create[s] national licensing and oversight standards for residential mortgage originators.”
One of the standards, John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, may “require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries — and not suspected of anything — to send their prints to the feds.”
This is a step in the wrong direction — at least for a nation that preserves freedom.

What’s a little odd is the lack of public discussion about this new fingerprint database. No mention of it appears in the official summary of the revised Senate bill. No fingerprint database requirement is in the House version of the legislation approved earlier this month. No copy of the revised Senate legislation is posted on the Library of Congress’ Thomas Web site, which would be the usual procedure.

Quote:
“Obama will never investigate the Bush administration’s well documented criminal activity.”
Barack Obama, like previous presidential candidates before him, is very good at sucking up. The candidate who sucks up best to the largest number of wealthy donors and check bundlers usually becomes the party nominee. Obama is no exception to that rule.
The Senator would never have been able to launch a successful presidential race if he did not already have buy-in from very rich, very powerful people. Not only did he have to secure their support in order to run, he must continue securing it in order to win.
That is why he will never investigate the Bush administration’s well documented criminal activity. The rule of law doesn’t apply to presidents, to their cabinet members, to members of Congress or to criminal corporations. Obama’s backers would be most unhappy if they thought their guy was going to get into office and start calling powerful people to account on any issue.
“Obama is a genius at double talk.”
All of which means that Barack Obama will never investigate any of the crimes committed in the Bush administration. When pressed because of the long campaign against Hillary Clinton, Obama was sometimes forced to give an appearance that he would actually preserve, protect and defend the constitution if he became president. The Senator spoke on the issue himself in April, and once again proved that he is a genius at double talk:
“What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there [emphasis mine] and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt [emphasis mine] because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”
What kind of investigation pursues only what is already known? It seems that Obama would investigate only what he wouldn’t have to look for, but not so much that Republican sensibilities would be bruised. In other words, he won’t try to find wrong doing. If he did, he might have to take action and he is telling us in no uncertain terms that he has no intention of doing that:

“So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now [emphasis mine] — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important — one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.”
Again Obama emphasizes that he would look at what we know “right now.” It is also worth noting that while Obama says “nobody is above the law,” he doesn’t say what he would do if he actually discovered that deliberate law breaking took place. Keep in mind that this parsed statement took place when he was still in the midst of a democratic campaign when he was trying to make the case that he was the progressive candidate. After Hillary Clinton’s campaign ended he no longer had any need to pretend he was progressive. The FISA double cross was the first signal that the end of his need to win Democratic votes meant the beginning of his take no prisoners march to the political sea.
“Obama has no intention of exposing Bush administration crimes.”
Obama took a well deserved beating from angry supporters after he openly supported Bush and telecom industry law breaking. The brief moment of challenge was enough to make Obama leery of speaking for himself when he knows he is wrong. He now sends surrogates to tell us that he has no intention of exposing Bush administration crimes

Quote:
So Bush crimes will be buried by a Democrat. We will never know what the government knew on September 11, 2001. We will never know the extent of spying on American citizens. We will never know about the manipulation of intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq, which violated the Geneva Conventions and universally accepted international law. We will never know what the Bush administration told Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, their partners in crime. We will never know anything we should know because the system won’t permit that to happen.
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=8442

Also, Obama has openly said he would open a new Cyber Security Initiative?

[Shaun]

Some of what is written above is true. The fingerprint registry thing is easy enough to find and that's one of the reasons why I don't support Obama.

Just a note: If something like that goes through and they require all Americans to give their fingerprints, I won't. You can lock me up. My fingerprints are MY FINGERPRINTS. I haven't broken the law or done anything to deserve being put in a registry for the government to peruse at their disposal. I understand the reasoning for it, but it violates our civil rights on too many levels.

That being said, there's plenty about McCain that I hate too, particularly his support of "teaching the controversy" in our public schools, which goes against so many American standards and scientific logicalities. God is not science. God is religion. Science is science. Science is not a religion (though some would say it is like a religion).

I'm done ranting. I hate democrats and republicans. They both suck for different reasons, and unfortunately both parties have people in our government...which means our government sucks twice as much.

[Andy]

That being said, there's plenty about McCain that I hate too, particularly his support of "teaching the controversy" in our public schools, which goes against so many American standards and scientific logicalities. God is not science. God is religion. Science is science. Science is not a religion (though some would say it is like a religion).
Even so, it's a theory held by over a billion people, so at the very least schools should at some point explain what it is. Going out of one's way to prevent students from learning about worldly issues like this I think will only cripple their ability to tolerate people different than themselves. Same goes for reverse racism - how often is that taught in schools?

Both parties often put their interests above those of the United States, one issue of which they're both guilty of is illegal immigrants. Some Republican businessmen want cheap labor. And Democrats want the votes. If there was some independent candidate who took a more nonpartisan approach and had a chance of winning, I'd vote for them.

[Shadow]

I think lessons in schools that are named "Religous Studies/Education", but just teach one religion (i.e. in Catholic schools, they only teach Christinaity) should not be allowed. If they just teach one religion, call it that religion.

[Shaun]

Even so, it's a theory held by over a billion people, so at the very least schools should at some point explain what it is. Going out of one's way to prevent students from learning about worldly issues like this I think will only cripple their ability to tolerate people different than themselves. Same goes for reverse racism - how often is that taught in schools?

Both parties often put their interests above those of the United States, one issue of which they're both guilty of is illegal immigrants. Some Republican businessmen want cheap labor. And Democrats want the votes. If there was some independent candidate who took a more nonpartisan approach and had a chance of winning, I'd vote for them.

Really? One billion Christians actually believe in Creationism? They believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Most Christians are actually pretty sensible, Andy, and not so retarded to think the Earth is 4,000 years old.
Public schools are not the stage for religious teachings. Separation of Church and State. Everyone knows if you want to learn about religion, you either pick up the Bible or go to a Church. And it's not like Churches are hard to find in this country. You can learn "ABOUT" religion without teaching religion, but teaching Creationism is teaching religion, whereas saying "the Christians in such and such country were persecuted by so and so" or "from such and such date to such and such date the Christian faith gained widespread popularity among Western Europeans". That's teaching ABOUT religion, without teaching the religion itself. You don't need to be taught the faith or Creationism to have respect for people that think differently than you. And forcing kids to learn about faith will create more problems than we have now, especially for people like me. If you tried to teach it to me in public school, you'd end up with a very big problem and I'd probably have had such a violent reaction to any Christian I ever met because of it due to a bias created from that forced teaching. I'm not the only one like this either, not to mention you'll have parents that don't want their children exposed to religion when they should be learning history, maths, English, etc. And those parents will be upset when they have no say in how their children are taught faith, some possibly upset enough to cause havoc in school systems. Kids have enough to learn in public school anyway...do we really want to teach them more stuff they likely won't use later anyway?
We've not had faith learning in public schools for decades and it's worked just fine. I don't know why we need to include it now. Let parents be the ones to teach their kids about faith.
Besides...there's the blasted Interwebs. Kids no more about that than their parents do and if they want to learn something they can't find in school, they can find it on the net.


As for the illegal immigration: another issue I hate both of them on. And another one that's been argued exhaustively on this site. They don't belong here, send them back. I think it's particularly rude to immigrants who have come here legally, who waited the months or years to do it only to find out than they could have just jumped over the border from the start and not have to worry about it.

[Imelda]

Just a note: If something like that goes through and they require all Americans to give their fingerprints, I won't. You can lock me up. My fingerprints are MY FINGERPRINTS. I haven't broken the law or done anything to deserve being put in a registry for the government to peruse at their disposal. I understand the reasoning for it, but it violates our civil rights on too many levels.

The US has my fingerprints. I handed over my biology to the government for you, Mr, so you can hand yours over to stay out of prison. :glare:

[Shaun]

Yeah, well, that's not my fault. Blame George W. Bush.

[Shadow]

I agree that it kinda violates rights, but what's the big deal?

[Dunnskee]

The big deal is that they have the ability to know where you are, what you're doing at all times. Once a system becomes a police state, there is no more humanity. There is no room for error, no human nature. It is rigid. When you can't even go home and enjoy yourself, do what you'd like, that kind of thing, there is no real life left. That is what a police state is, that's what you see in movies about dark futures.

If Obama wants a new fingerprint system, and FISA or whatever the hell it was just passed and is taking place in October, along with the new passport tracking and this rumored new civilian police force, we are turning into something directly from Orwell. This is all a precursor to it, it seems.

And I thought the idea that the earth was 6,000 years old, (started in 4,000 BC) was shared only by certain sects of Christianity. It was an Irish monk I believe who developed it. Not sure on that though.

[Shaun]

It also means that the government has access to your perosnal information and they can theoretically use that information for whatever they want, including charging you with crimes you didn't commit, etc. It means the government is basically watching you, keeping track of information they shouldn't have a hold on...my fingers are my fingers, not the governments. If I murder someone, then you can take my fingerprints, but until then, they're mine.

[Dunnskee]

Are you a liberal, Shaun?

[Zombified]

Kind of reminds me of the Super Hero registration act they had in Marvel.

Where the government demanded all the secret identities of the heroes. Most of the heroes were very against it, but some were okay with it.

When the President in the comics said, "Heroes who do not comply with this act will be arrested for treason"
Captain America said and I feel the same way, "Giving the government our identities is the treason."

I wouldn't give up my finger prints.
Why should I?

Same concept as above, its our identities, with it they can set us up for any crime they want. They need a scapegoat for a terrorism act, it could be you.

Need someone to take the fall for a grizzly murder? It could be you.

[Shaun]

Are you a liberal, Shaun?

No, I'm a moderate right, meaning I'm fiscally republican (no Bush republican, but real republican) and socially liberalish. I agree with spending less, having less government, and being more efficient, while also believing in protecting citizens, making sure our kids get a damned good education, and making sure people aren't mistreated due to race or religion (and I mean mistreated as in put in prison for being Christian or murdered for that or whatever...if you don't like someone, you don't have to).

[Andy]

Muahahaha!
They believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Most Christians are actually pretty sensible, Andy, and not so retarded to think the Earth is 4,000 years old.You're right, most aren't. I'm not sure where you get the 4,000 from, though. Or the belief that all creationists think humans and dinosaurs coexisted, because plenty have no problem putting a date at 6 billion years ago, or with setting no date at all.

I never said date-setting creationism should be taught. Just the "creationism" bit. You know, the bare-bones variety that isn't full of logical and scientific fallacies advocated by some of the more silly Christians. :P
Public schools are not the stage for religious teachings. Separation of Church and State.Separation of Church and state was established to prevent forcing people to accept particular teachings, as was encountered in the country America broke away from. Teaching creationism isn't advocating a religion anymore than teaching French history is advocating a country. Students are still free to believe what they want, except that they'll have a greater understanding of a very interesting modern debate.
That's teaching ABOUT religion, without teaching the religion itself. So you're saying students should only learn about religions insofar as they play a role in history? Leave all else there is to know about religions in a black hole? Sounds like another big crack in modern education to me.
You don't need to be taught the faith or Creationism to have respect for people that think differently than you. You honestly think that some kid hearing "Evolution only! Evolution only!" from his older mentors for twelve years won't distance him or make him look down on a large percent of the population?
And forcing kids to learn about faith will create more problems than we have now, especially for people like me. If you tried to teach it to me in public school, you'd end up with a very big problem and I'd probably have had such a violent reaction to any Christian I ever met because of it due to a bias created from that forced teaching.You only say that now because you have developed such a bias, a bias you claim is the result of teaching creationism. Do you really believe that someone much younger than you would have singled out a religious teaching as a violation of rights and begun to hate Christians because of it? Honestly?
I'm not the only one like this either, not to mention you'll have parents that don't want their children exposed to religion when they should be learning history, maths, English, etc. And those parents will be upset when they have no say in how their children are taught faith, some possibly upset enough to cause havoc in school systems. Kids have enough to learn in public school anyway...do we really want to teach them more stuff they likely won't use later anyway?If those parents are that intolerant of teaching kids about world religions, they can homeschool them and teach them to grow into the Christian-tolerant people you claim they will become. :)
Kids no more about that than their parents do and if they want to learn something they can't find in school, they can find it on the net.Who will introduce them to religion in the first place, when religious school clubs are banned, students aren't allowed to even be seen praying or carrying a Bible, and basically all religious talk is worthy of detention?

[Shaun]

I never said date-setting creationism should be taught. Just the "creationism" bit. You know, the bare-bones variety that isn't full of logical and scientific fallacies advocated by some of the more silly Christians. :P

But there lies the problem. Teaching students something "scientifically" that can't be studied scientifically is a logical fallacy. You can't "study" god the same way you study gravity or physics or mathematics or biology. There is no scientific basis for god. God just exists, end of story, and because he cannot be accounted for by science, due to being, well, God, he can't be taught in a science class. The belief in god is just that, a belief, and it doesn't stand up to the scientific method, which requires physical evidence, theories, etc. There is no physical evidence of a god, and no way to test for god. God just is, and requiring science teachers to teach about god in the same manner as the theory of evolution or the many proven biological processes (like cell division) doesn't work. Which is why creationism is retarded to begin with. Accept that god is not supported by science as we now understand it and leave it as belief. There's nothing wrong with religion being religion. It doesn't have to be a science too. We've spent thousands of years with it being a religion and we're still here. This would be the same as evolutionists showing up in Church and having a moment where everyone learns about evolution.

Separation of Church and state was established to prevent forcing people to accept particular teachings, as was encountered in the country America broke away from. Teaching creationism isn't advocating a religion anymore than teaching French history is advocating a country. Students are still free to believe what they want, except that they'll have a greater understanding of a very interesting modern debate.

It is teaching religion. Students are less free to believe what they want when their school condones the teaching of religion. You can't teach creationism. I violates that very separation, no matter what it's original creation was for. You can only teach about religion, as an historical entity, but not its beliefs, nor its texts. It is not the school's job to represent religion in the classroom. That's the parent's job. Belief cannot be taught. You either believe or you don't.

So you're saying students should only learn about religions insofar as they play a role in history? Leave all else there is to know about religions in a black hole? Sounds like another big crack in modern education to me.

The big crack in modern education is the fact that almost everyone in the United States has no basic knowledge of how science actually works. They could barely explain to you how gravity works. Most of them couldn't tell you what a proton, or an electron is, nor could they explain how cell divide, or why stars shine, etc. And right now we're debating over whether to put Church sessions in the middle of the science classes that are already suffering from standardized testing and lack of funding for hands on research. Students should be spending their classroom time learning about things that will make them better, more competent individuals, ones who aren't afraid of science, but understand its core values and it's important in how our society has been shaped. Religion no more belongs in a science classroom than Curling. But our students are being deprived of this knowledge and the introduction of religious teachings alongside the teaching of the very basics of the evolutionary teaching have left entire generations of American in a position of pure ignorance. That is our future. Our future is being sabotaged as we speak by people who don't want to accept that Church and Church activities and the home are the place for religion, and school is for the teaching young people what they need to know to become competent individuals in an increasingly advancing nation dominated by technology and scientific advances. As it stands, our entire younger generation, by an astonishingly high percentage, will barely have the knowledge to know how to count change at a register or flip a burger. Including religion will not fix this. We don't have time to place religion in a classroom, nevermind that it doesn't belong there. Our kids are learning more and more every year, more than I learned in school, and faster, because they have to or we'll end up with a world of people that can't read, can't count, and have no understand for gravity, etc. You'd be surprised by the fact that many people don't realize that the Earth's mass is why we have the gravity we have. they just know that things that go up come down...that's terrifying.

You honestly think that some kid hearing "Evolution only! Evolution only!" from his older mentors for twelve years won't distance him or make him look down on a large percent of the population?

You provide a viable scientific alternative to evolution that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and we can say "evolution" and whatever new idea you've got. But Creationism is not a viable scientific theory because it cannot be tested. Evolution can be tested and we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that it is true, if not on the macro scale, then the micro scale. It's not a matter of only teaching evolution, it's a matter of having nothing else that produces a better result. Evolution is a prime example of why the scientific method works. It's not the same as it was when Darwin first proposed it, and has "evolved" with the advancing knowledge base.
I believe it should be taught as a theory, which is what it is, and should be taught properly as a scientific theory, highlighting what we know is true, and what we still don't know. Students should receive a thorough grounding in it so they understand that it is not, as a whole, proven, and that there is still much to learn about how species change and adapt in this world, as they have done in the last 200 years of scientific research.

You only say that now because you have developed such a bias, a bias you claim is the result of teaching creationism. Do you really believe that someone much younger than you would have singled out a religious teaching as a violation of rights and begun to hate Christians because of it? Honestly?

Yes. People who have had something crammed down their throats and don't believe it become hateful towards that something. I've met many people that become worse than I am to it.

If those parents are that intolerant of teaching kids about world religions, they can homeschool them and teach them to grow into the Christian-tolerant people you claim they will become. :)

The problem is that Creationists are not proposing teaching about world religions, just their religion. You want to teach all religions equally and with the same tone and depth, then I'd consider it, but not as science, only as an elective of history or philosophy. But you have to teach them all. You can't just teach Christian beliefs, you have to give Hindu, and Islamic, etc. And you have to teach Protestantism, Catholicism, etc. and open discussion about the various beliefs and their differences, and their historical implications in the world. But you can't do that in a science classroom. And such classes are taught at universities and community colleges, which offer anyone the opportunity to learn more whenever they want.

Who will introduce them to religion in the first place, when religious school clubs are banned, students aren't allowed to even be seen praying or carrying a Bible, and basically all religious talk is worthy of detention?

The real world. Are you telling me that these students will never meet a Christian or member of Islam as they go about the world? They'll never meet a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Protestant or a Mormon or Catholic, etc.? The world isn't so closed off here in the United States. I've met all sorts of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. before, during, and after high school. There should be no rule for students to speak about their religion on school, but schools shouldn't give public support to student activities centered around religion. But if you're on lunch break and want to pray, I don't have a problem with that. If students are sitting around on a break and decide they want to talk about Mohammed, then go for it. I have no problem with the words "under God" in our pledge, because it's been there forever and for a lot of people it's less a religious connotation and more a symbol, at least for people that should look at it from a modern perspective. You can believe in our nation being blessed by God, or you can just look as that as a way people from way back when considered our nation to be one of glory and greatness, for being united under a god of any kind would generally suggest that.
The whole point is that schools don't make efforts to support religious practice on school. If you decide to pray, fine, as long as it isn't in class. I also think all school clubs that exclude people based on race should be banned. There should be no African American clubs unless there can be White Clubs too. Period. This nation didn't fight against racist idealogies just to have the reverse take place. There's a lot to celebrate about white history too...like Einstein...Winston Churchill (the good stuff), FDR, Lincoln (the good stuff again), and many others who have done great things and happened to be white. Don't see why we can't have a club celebrating our heritage...if that's racist then so are clubs celebrating African American heritage or Asian heritage...

I'm rambling...

[Starry]

So, Shaun definitely just articulated perfectly most of what I was going to say-- the sole exception being the thing with the Pledge of Allegiance. "Under God" hasn't always been there; it was added in the fifties as some sort of anti-communist thing.

But I just wanted to add that today in my History class we got a "World Religions" project, which essentially divides the class into six groups for six major religions, and each group has a presentation on it. The religions are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shinto, and the requirements for information we have to present are things like point of origin of the religion, basic tenants of belief, how the religion spread, etc. It gives you a good background on the religion for both its historical context and its belief system, without favoring any one religion. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single person in a group for the religion that they practice, at least culturally, though how they managed to get together a group without Jews in our magnet program is beyond me :] ) Anyway, the point is that lessons like that can teach ABOUT the religion, without actually teaching the religion, and that's not that hard of a compromise.

[Shaun]

I know it hasn't always been there, but for me it has. I wasn't born before the 50s :P. I ain't that old.

[Starry]

"The fifties" was kind of approximated, actually. I know it was added sometime recently (from a historical perspective, at least), but AP US History is all a blur of memories of constantly falling asleep in class in my mind. :] And now that I'm in full IB, it doesn't matter anymore! Yay! Eurocentricity all the way!

[Alex]

Presidents seem to do better when their party isn't the majority in congress so I guess if nothing else thats why I'd rather have McCain. I actually wanted either Biden or Dodd to win ((I knew they wouldn't but still...)) so it does make me feel more for Barack, but I'd rather take 4 years of landlock and let the economy fix itself

((its just economic theory, ever 50 years, acording to Marx, there will be a time of severe economic downfall. It happened in the 1870s even though no one remembers, it happened in the 1930s obviously, and it was damn near happening in the 1980s and even if you are very liberal and think that Reagan hurt is more in the long run then he helped in the short term he still did his job of getting us out of what could have been a true national crisis and economic scholars predicted that because technology has increased even more rapidly then Marx could have predicted the cycle has been shortened. Its just what happens in a capitalist government... don't like it? Move to China...))

McCain for now and 4 years later we'll do this business all over again. At least this is better than Kerry-Bush from 2004.

[JackAttack.]

Anyones better than George Bush :mad:

[Shaun]

I've actually made my decision now after learning more about who Sarah Palin is. There's no way I'm voting for McCain and allowing that kind of insanity into the White House...

Obama for the win.

[blue phoenix]

From what I've read most like Obama...

And so do I, I know VERY little about the subject but from what I have heard I think Obama should win.

[Diocletian]

Ron Paul FTW!

...Anyway, McCain will win; that Sarah Palin he pulled out of the hat was a brilliant move. Even though many are complaining that he's seeing women as shallow and inclined to vote for a woman VP, its true that he's been getting much more support from women now that she's on his ticket.

As for Obama, his star is fading. What has he done recently to prove that he's an agent of change? Biden was one of the worst choices he could have made, in my opinion; he should have chosen a woman or at least a Washington outsider to cement his aura as a fresh face in the industry. Instead, he's brought himself in as a moderate now, which is not a good thing as people don't want a lukewarm candidate to lead them.

[Shaun]

I think it's going to be a close race and I'm not looking forward to McCain at all. His Palin choice clearly shows his inability to lead this nation through a secular viewpoint and I have no doubt he will do what he can to alter the way we educate our children, especially with Palin and her crazed Jesus Camp religious nuts on the side...

[Imelda]

Hey, I'm a woman, but I'd NEVER vote for McCain and Palin. She's nuts. Now Hiliary was nuts, but in a better way ...

[Diocletian]

I think it's going to be a close race and I'm not looking forward to McCain at all. His Palin choice clearly shows his inability to lead this nation through a secular viewpoint and I have no doubt he will do what he can to alter the way we educate our children, especially with Palin and her crazed Jesus Camp religious nuts on the side...

The Vice President (with the exception of Cheney) has nothing to do with decision making; that's one of the reasons why its such a hated job, even among Vice Presidents themselves. So Palin really won't be affecting McCain's judgment that much, I don't think.

[Shaun]

Vice Presidents are chosen to reflect the same beliefs and views as the President, and McCain has made it very clear that he shares the same religious beliefs as Palin. So, yes, she will have influence over the President.

[Diocletian]

No, Vice Presidents are usually chosen to gain votes from demographic that needs to be persuaded to vote for the candidate in question. They don't have much to do with actual policy-making.

[Shaun]

And that's not what I said. I said she was chosen because she represents McCain's beliefs and modes of politics. Whether she personally makes policy is completely irrelevant. She will still have influence over McCain. Just because the VP doesn't have a lot of actual power (they do have power, by the way, they're not just token positions) doesn't mean they won't have influence over the decisions of the President. This is American politics. The people in Palin's camp are going to use her position to the best of their advantage, which will mean manipulating McCain where he's not currently willing to go.

[Phantom]

I think that Obama made a HUGE mistake by not picking Hilary to be his running mate. He will regret that.
Look what Palin did for McCain. Think what Hilary could have done for the Obama campaign. She would have set him into a sprint to the White House, no looking back, the polls would be devastating for McCain. Obama would have 75% of the voters on his side.

[Zombified]

I think that Obama made a HUGE mistake by not picking Hilary to be his running mate. He will regret that.


That is the most ignorant thing I've heard people saying.

Just because Palin is a woman she is automatically going to siphon all the Hillary supporters?

No, women are not stupid. You think that they will see a candidate with breasts and say, "Well she's a woman! She's got my vote!"

No. Palin stands for the COMPLETE OPPOSITE that Hillary Clinton spent her whole life working for.

No abortion? Even in rape cases?
Stay in Iraq because, "God has sent us on a mission"?
Gays can't marry?
The Economy doesn't need to change because its not that bad?

I'm sorry, but McCain showed that he really isn't right for the job. He picked a candiate who he picked without ever really meeting her. They spoke on the phone, people. Thats how he asked her.
On the fucking phone.

If you really think that women voters or voters in general think Palin is Hillary in another form, you're all dead wrong.

Think people.

[DarthVader]

I not sure that is what she meant...
I think that she meant that most liberals wanted Clinton or Obama to get the nomination... So she was saying that it would have been a POWER DUO.

[Zombified]

Not really.

Who's to say that if Hillary was the VP pick, McCain would have still picked Palin?

He probably wouldn't have. I think the Republican party used Palin as a way to say, "Hey McCain is old but Palin sure is young! See how we are a balanced ticket like Barack and Joey?"

Its how they operate. The Republican party is sneaky and conniving. They would do anything to get their greedy little mitts on the Nation again.

Keep the war going to fill the pockets of their rich friends. Keep trying to abolish Abortion and gay marriage?
I don't think so.

[DarthVader]

That is very true.
Phantom says " Stupid republicans..."
She really didn't want me to write that... :D

[Zombified]

It's true though.

And everyone knows it.

They are a bunch of rich fat cats who step on the working class to get their way.
They lied about the war.
They busted out criminals from prison even after they were sentenced.
They fired government officials for no reason at all and claimed that they, "Did not recall" why they did it.

They've fucked over everything that Bill Clinton spent his career in office to make.
They're responsible for thousands and thousands of dead American soldiers for a war that we shouldn't be in the first place.

They're the ones who sold out their CIA agents and then lied about it.

Need I go on?
'Cuz believe me, I can.

[DarthVader]

Yes, that they are.

[Shaun]

It should be noted that Palin's approval ratings have taken a nose dive in the last week following 9/11. McCain's dropping too, but not nearly as bad, but that's because he wasn't very high to begin with. Obama has remained relatively steady, with only a minor drop after Hillary dropped out, but nothing severe enough to make it seem like he didn't stand a chance.
That said, this may still be a close race and guaranteed it will prove that the current Republican administration still doesn't care about the voting process. They're already gearing up to disenfranchise voters and intimidate voters at the polls by challenging them. Obama, on the other hand, has already registed over 150,000 new voters. So, the republicans don't want people to vote, but Obama does...lovely. And this has been going on for the last 8 years, by the way, and it was really heavy during Bush's second run. The democrats have done this in the past too, but right now the dems are looking really good to me because they're at least trying to play fair, and if Obama can be man enough to play a relatively clean campaign, he's definitely the man I want in the White House. Lies and deceipt are unacceptable from a man we're supposed to look up to, and McCain is lying and cheating his way to the polls. I think our politicians should be held to a higher standard and should be charged as criminals for lying and deceiving the American people, but that's me.

[ScottyMcGee]

VOTE FOR SCOTTY!!!


Personally, I don't believe in the Presidency.


I think we should all make another revolution. ^^ ^^


But if I'd seriously pick, then Obama.

But that doesn't mean I faithfully follow him either. I go my own independence.

[phytoxoeia]

I'm sorry, but Sarah Palin is NOT a person who I would want as vice president. She thinks that just because you can see Russia from Alaska, she has the right to foreign policies. Yeah, you can see Russia from Alaska, but from this itty bitty island that no Alaskan governor has ever set foot on ever, and it's abysmal population of less than 150 lives in impoverisation. And from that itty bitty island that no Alaskan governor has ever set foot on, you can see a rock that is owned by Russia. How does that count toward foreign policies? Just how?

Also, I completely disagree with McCain's government spending policy. He wants to freeze government spending to the bare minimum, until the economy steps up. The idea's really risky, and most likely to backfire.

I'm not sure whether this is true, because I saw it in the Daily News, but there was some controversy over McCain trying to associate Obama with terrorists. Has anyone else heard about that?

[Alex]

No party should have to go out of there way to make sure people vote. That isn't something they should do, especially if it hurts them. I would say the same thing if it were democrats who didn't want more people to gain voting rights. Why should the republicans want more voters? To lead to their own demise? I don't see what you gain from getting people to vote, and then vote against you. If you say its that every vote should count and that if people aren't voting it might not be who America wants well then too bad because they had the opportunity to go register and they didn't, we shouldn't be holding the American people's hand because we are too incapable of doing things ourself.

Also, I want McCain because if Obama gets in then I might not be able to go to the school I'm going with, and no that isn't a fear based on rumor, 7% increase for families over 250,000$, luckily this year my mother won't make that (I can't believe I'm saying luckily about that...), but if she does make it in 2009 then I don't know if I'm going to have to go to public college like USF or get to go to a good school like Emory/Rice etc.etc. So on a personal level I want McCain because it personally allows me to get into a school I want to. Is that selfish? Yes. I don't care quite frankly.

But no, no, thats not the only reason I would rather have McCain. I feel that drilling offshore and Alaska should be done, maybe its because I don't care about the vast Alaskan beauty I'll never see, but according to some geologist who has spent his life in Alaska there is approximatley enough oil to last us 200 years. I don't know if that information is credible, but it comes from a geologist of something like 40 years so I'll take his word for it (not like anyone is refuting those claims). If thats true then it gives us time to develop alternatives, and if we loose natural beauty, too bad...

Also, I don't like Obama's plan for withdrawl for Iraq. The situation is unstable as it is, and its because of us. You can't go into a country, decimate it, then pull out, it just doesn't look good. The instability we'll cause by leaving there and not monitoring it could be enormous. Civil War may be inevitable there, who knows, but when we left Afghanistan after helping them in the Cold War everthing broke down. Now I'm not saying I like McCain's "lets stay there for 100 years" idea, but its not like he'll be around that long anyway.

Also, Sarah Palin isn't qualified, you all are right. That being said she isn't a dumbass who has no idea what the fuck she is doing. People laugh at how she is forced to only say things that they tell her to, I would do the same if I were in that situation. The fact is that its safer than risking a Howard Dean moment and completley making this race irrelovant. That being said, Obama is going to win, I think its obvious at this point. As bad as it sounds I hope Obama resigns and gives the position to Biden because I like his flat tax, I like his experience, and it will make the democrats that criticize McCain's temper shove it up their asses because Biden is just as fiery (not saying its a good thing, but it gives a warm feeling that it goes both ways). I love me some Joe Biden, but alas.

[Shaun]

Yes, I've heard about it and it's a slimy political move on his part and it's igniting that small portion of America that thinks Obama is a terrorist (scarily just because his name is Barack Hussein Obama more than for any other reason). There have been cries for Obama to be assassinated as a result and now McCain is trying to quiet it down because the whole thing backfired on him, but it's a little late. McCain is a slimy person. It's sad he went from being such a good presidential candidate (better than Bush) to being this horrible right-wing, nutso republican that he is. He's really gone downhill in the last 6 months...it's sad. Obama just keeps looking better and better to people. Predictions suggest a huge win on Obama's part at this point.

[Shaun]

No party should have to go out of there way to make sure people vote. That isn't something they should do, especially if it hurts them. I would say the same thing if it were democrats who didn't want more people to gain voting rights. Why should the republicans want more voters? To lead to their own demise? I don't see what you gain from getting people to vote, and then vote against you. If you say its that every vote should count and that if people aren't voting it might not be who America wants well then too bad because they had the opportunity to go register and they didn't, we shouldn't be holding the American people's hand because we are too incapable of doing things ourself.

For the record, Democrats are actively seeking to register more people to vote, which is a good thing, and Republicans are actively seeking to take away people's rights to vote to reduce the number of them that are voting (and it should be noted that these disenfranchised voters are almost exclusively Democrats). The way I see it I'd rather support a party that wants people to vote than a party that wants to violate our rights so we can't vote. It might sound like hand holding to you, but I'd rather the government hold my hand than bitch slap me in the face.

Also, I want McCain because if Obama gets in then I might not be able to go to the school I'm going with, and no that isn't a fear based on rumor, 7% increase for families over 250,000$, luckily this year my mother won't make that (I can't believe I'm saying luckily about that...), but if she does make it in 2009 then I don't know if I'm going to have to go to public college like USF or get to go to a good school like Emory/Rice etc.etc. So on a personal level I want McCain because it personally allows me to get into a school I want to. Is that selfish? Yes. I don't care quite frankly.

Yes, in fact this is possibly the most selfish thing you could possibly say. You're saying you'd rather vote for a man who will actively tear down the foundations of this country (like the Constitution) and take absolutely no direct action to fix the economy all because you don't want your parents to get taxed some marginal percentage more. The fact is, your parents should be able to afford to send you to college if they make 250,000 a year, and if they can't I would severely question what the hell they're spending all that money on. And if they just don't want to pay for you to go to a private college, then deal with it. That's real life.
To put this into a different perspective you're saying that because you're privileged, it's okay that you get to go to college, but some tens of millions of kids who aren't so fortunate can't because, hey, I'm rich, and they're not, and the government shouldn't take steps to make sure that even poor kids can get an education and better themselves. Wonderfully selfish.

Additionally, there is actually no difference between private and public schools. There are shitty private colleges too, by the way. This is suggesting some snobbishness on your part to assume that going to a private school automatically makes you better than other people education wise. That's not actually true. Private schools are traditionally liberal arts schools are found to actually result in lower wages on average than a good public school. I go to a public school (UC Santa Cruz) and we're one of the top unis in the world, particularly for scholarly and student research. Other great schools in Cali are found within the public sector such as UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc. etc. etc. There are great schools in other states too, all public, all renowned for academic excellence. Look it up. A private college doesn't automatically mean "great". In fact, most of what makes an education good is what you take out of it. The reason why public institutions get flack from the private college world is because they have lower standards from individuals. That doesn't mean it reflects on the academic standard of teaching, in fact, it most often has nothing to do with the standard of teaching, but with the students themselves. If you're a dedicated student, you'll get a better education anywhere you go than most students. That's just the way it is. I get more from my education that most of the students who are literature majors primarily because I am active and pushing myself to be better. I want to be at the top, so I push myself to be there. I work with the Professors, with the college itself, and research, because I want to be a good student and I want to succeed. Success in life has more to do with you than where you happened to go to college. Graduating from Harvard might make you look good, but if you're a frakking moron who doesn't know anything it won't matter. You'll eventually get fired and someone else will take your place, who quite possibly might end up having been from one of those evil Public schools you suggest are so bad.

So, to put this simply, grow up. If you wage politics by something as petty as money, then you're subscribing to the same idiotic policies that George Bush brought into office and eventually brought us to where we are now. I hate to have to be mean about this, but the truth does hurt, and this is the truth.

But no, no, thats not the only reason I would rather have McCain. I feel that drilling offshore and Alaska should be done, maybe its because I don't care about the vast Alaskan beauty I'll never see, but according to some geologist who has spent his life in Alaska there is approximatley enough oil to last us 200 years. I don't know if that information is credible, but it comes from a geologist of something like 40 years so I'll take his word for it (not like anyone is refuting those claims). If thats true then it gives us time to develop alternatives, and if we loose natural beauty, too bad...

Drilling offshore won't solve any of our problems and in fact won't fix the oil shortage one bit because it can take a minimum of 10 years before we even see the oil from those offshore sites. Not to mention someone has to pay for the time it takes to find that oil and set up drilling stations...and that begs the question: if we're willing to throw billions of dollars into drilling for more oil, why aren't we willing to spend billions of dollars making alternate fuel choices viable? McCain happens to be heavily against alternate fuel choices, which means we'll just end up with more idiotic policies. I thought McCain was a good candidate for a while, but he's insane. I'd rather have Obama's more realistic, logical approach.

ANd you should care about the vast Alaskan beauty. You're basically suggesting that, hey, fuck nature. It's not worth anything. Let's just mow over Yellowstone and all the rainforests and everything else, cause there's stuff there we could use, and who gives a fuck about pretty things and nice animals and what not. Fuck'em. Humans are the only important animals. Natural beauty is something that is impossible to get back. We can't just fuck up Alaska and 50 years later go "hey, well, let's put it back the way it was". It doesn't work that way. Once we fuck it up, that's it. Inevitably, all we've done is produce more problems for our children all because we're too stuck up as a society to make the changes necessary to get rid of our dependence on oil. We have the technology. It works. Why it's not being subsidized by the government is because we have politicians who are still in bed with oil people. We could have become non-dependent on oil 20 years ago...could have...

Also, I don't like Obama's plan for withdrawl for Iraq. The situation is unstable as it is, and its because of us. You can't go into a country, decimate it, then pull out, it just doesn't look good. The instability we'll cause by leaving there and not monitoring it could be enormous. Civil War may be inevitable there, who knows, but when we left Afghanistan after helping them in the Cold War everthing broke down. Now I'm not saying I like McCain's "lets stay there for 100 years" idea, but its not like he'll be around that long anyway.

You mean withdrawing in stages as opposed to staying there for a hundre years? Obama is at least suggesting we plan to withdraw, and his made it more clear over the last few weeks that he has no intention of just up and pulling out. He understands that the situation is volatile and sensitive, and he at least fucking acknowledges that we need to finish with Afghanistan...everyone else seems to have forgotten that shit is even going on. And Iraq is doing a lot better in recent months that you'd think. It's not perfect and won't be for a while, but Obama is in no way suggesting we wash our hands of the country. We'd still be there helping and making sure things remained stable. But I'm about sick of having our troops there, and if there is a logical exit strategy I think we should take it.

Also, Sarah Palin isn't qualified, you all are right. That being said she isn't a dumbass who has no idea what the fuck she is doing. People laugh at how she is forced to only say things that they tell her to, I would do the same if I were in that situation. The fact is that its safer than risking a Howard Dean moment and completley making this race irrelovant. That being said, Obama is going to win, I think its obvious at this point. As bad as it sounds I hope Obama resigns and gives the position to Biden because I like his flat tax, I like his experience, and it will make the democrats that criticize McCain's temper shove it up their asses because Biden is just as fiery (not saying its a good thing, but it gives a warm feeling that it goes both ways). I love me some Joe Biden, but alas.

Well, Palin was just found guilty of abusing her authority in Alaska, so if that isn't a good marker of a bad leader, I don't know what is. She's also actively seeking to incite violence and racial hatred in this country, two things we really don't need.

I think Biden is a balancing point for Obama. You can see that in how his policies have shifted a little. Biden was a good VP choice as far as politics is concerned. And Obama does seem like the type of person who will take Biden's comments to heart. That's important. I don't think Obama is perfect, but he is the best candidate we have who is offering change. Some of it might not work, but I'd rather take the risk at this point than vote for McCain, because I don't believe radical religion should become a part of politics...

[Alex]

People are always so scared of going against our Constitution, completley oblivious to the fact that the original constitution, the articles, failed. If the Constitution keeps having to be ammended, is it that great (I think so, but the framers of the constitution intended for more of a confederacy than a republic in which the states would have their own rights, so in that respect we have been going against the constitution, and no one seems to care).

Also, I think withdrawing in stages that take 8 months is different from not withdrawing in 8 years and when McCain is too old and brittle to lead someone else will wind and take them out. Hes not going to put them there for 100 years because he won't be alive and he will be powerless to stop us from taking them out.

No one would even care about the Alaskan land if it weren't for Ted Stevens turning it all into fucking natural preserve with his earmarks on bills. If that land is legal to drill on then we are drilling and no one gives a fuck, but the fact that it is illegal because that corrupt politician made it so isn't the right thing to do. There is no way to prove this either way because it didn't happen, this is my opinion, and I'm assuming yours will be different.

Also, I think the candidates are equal, obviously you don't. Its a matter of opinion. You seem to think McCain is coming in with the scope of tearing down America and ripping apart our Constitution, but federal teaxes aren't a constitutional idea in the first place.

Also, on voting, bitchslapping in the face, I want to support the party I feel has the right plans for the future (yes I must want to go to Pennsylvania, steal the liberty bell and throw it into the water because I'm republican leaning), and if that means that for those ideas, that I agree with, to be put in place everyone doesn't need to vote then for it because in my mind that is better for the country. If I liked Obama this time around I would say get people to vote because it helps his numbers. You know very well that the democrats wouldn't be trying to get those voters to vote if they wouldn't vote democratic, but you would still agree with their policies so you wouldn't say anything. Yes, this is inferring something, but this is my perspective on it.

The difference I was making about going to a private school is that it costs money while a public one does not, so don't jump to conclusions. The two schools I was comparing, as well, were Emory and USF and if you want to prove to me that USF is a better school than Emory then go right-a-fucking-head because I see no argument. That entire paragraph was about the money aspect, and the schools on my list (Emory, Miami, Rice primarily) are all private colleges. I don't want my Prep School education that my single mother mom worked for to go to waste going to a school like USF or UCF (those would be my two options) that are many steps below the schools I mentioned before.

Drilling for oil in Alaska gives us time. Again, I personally know nothing, but according to experts (like my incredibly liberal masters degree history teacher who hates Ronald Reagan but is still awesome) we have 40 more years of foreign oil dependancy left. I would rather have 240 years than 40 to come up with the most reasonable solution to the problem. I even mentioned that in the original post, but oh, he wants more oil meaning he must not want alternative energy sources, you can at least say that your inferring that and that I didn't say that in any way before blasting it.

And Palin was found guilty of abuse of power in Alaska, ok, but when someone like Ted Stevens does it to protect wildlife its ok (and yes he did resign because he was going to be impeached for abuse of power). Ted Stevens does it for something you like and nothing happens but it happens on the other side and you can point it out? No. Like I said, Palin isn't qualified, but people who describe her as idiotic and moronic are full of themselves thinking they know more about politics then she does. Is she the best cnadidate, NO! of course not. (not like there was anyone good anyway), but the fact that she attracts some of the feminist Hillary Voters who were on the fence and some of the ultra conservatives who felt McCain was too right wing. The decision to pick her doesn't make him a bad leader either (not saying you said that, but I've heard that alot).

Also, I think the way the campaign has been run proves that Biden is going to be phased out. There are commercials and bilboards where hes not even a footnote, and thats pathetic considering he is the most qualified (in my opinion) of the four running-persons. Again, I understand its a political move that the majority of people who are going to vote don't care who Biden is, and while Biden may be more qualified than Palin, how is it wrong to phase out Biden because of lack of political impact as to exemplify Palin on the republican side as she will draw.

It comes down to the point that I can't vote, and I will barely be able to vote next election. I've thrown out everything I know here and I know you'll come back with more facts that I won't be able to argue with my knowledge. Its like a toddler and a steamroller, but this is my view, and if I have the choice of two even candidates in my mind (even only because the potentail for Biden swaying Obama in the idea of a flat tax and a more reasonable plan of retreat for Iraq exist) then I'm going to choose the one that in the end leaves me with more benefit.

Also, please don't accuse me of being snobbish, as yes, I am arrogant, and yes I am upper middle class, but snobbish implies total lack of knowledge and even if its true then I missed a few things because I'm not the smartest or most eloquent person out there but I'm not bottom of the barrel either. ((Also, this wasn't arrogant because I conceded you are a smarter A) debater and B) politician than I am, so before anyone decides to run me over with the bus I'm so sorry I consider myself more than mentally incapable of physical motion)).

[Shaun]

People are always so scared of going against our Constitution, completley oblivious to the fact that the original constitution, the articles, failed. If the Constitution keeps having to be ammended, is it that great (I think so, but the framers of the constitution intended for more of a confederacy than a republic in which the states would have their own rights, so in that respect we have been going against the constitution, and no one seems to care).

States still have their own rights, but the Fed is there specifically to enact laws that are greater than the states (sometimes it doesn't work, obviously, and sometimes the Fed abuses its power, and that's something we have to fight against). The Constitution shouldn't need ammending if people would just look at it and take it for what it's actually saying (I'm specifically talking about adjusting previous or current ammendments, not adding new ammendments). The problem is that law makers seem to think that the Constitution is like the Bible, but it's not. You don't need to use theological interpretational training on the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms...so, they have the right to have guns. It doesn't say that they have the right to ALL guns, so it's within logic and reason to make restrictions on this rule. So long as people who are good citizens still can have guns, there's no issue, right?

New ammendments, however, are important to ensuring that the constitution remains accurate and applicable to the times. The Founding Fathers never would have thought we'd have computers or flying machines or ships that can go into space, or submarines, or nuclear bombs, or a number of things. They probably never would have thought we'd become such a multi-cultural country either. So new ammedments are necessary provided they don't violate our rights.

Also, I think withdrawing in stages that take 8 months is different from not withdrawing in 8 years and when McCain is too old and brittle to lead someone else will wind and take them out. Hes not going to put them there for 100 years because he won't be alive and he will be powerless to stop us from taking them out.

No one would even care about the Alaskan land if it weren't for Ted Stevens turning it all into fucking natural preserve with his earmarks on bills. If that land is legal to drill on then we are drilling and no one gives a fuck, but the fact that it is illegal because that corrupt politician made it so isn't the right thing to do. There is no way to prove this either way because it didn't happen, this is my opinion, and I'm assuming yours will be different.

I care. I'm not particularly enthused about mowing down forests and pretty trees and flowers and natural habitat to build super markets or new houses. There are plenty of people that would have a problem with drilling in Alaska even if it wasn't protected land.

And quite honestly, if we can't even prevent people from destroying land that is supposed to be protected, what's to say we can prevent people from detroying other protected things? That land is meant to be left alone. So leave it alone.


Also, I think the candidates are equal, obviously you don't. Its a matter of opinion. You seem to think McCain is coming in with the scope of tearing down America and ripping apart our Constitution, but federal teaxes aren't a constitutional idea in the first place.

I think the candidates have seriously diverged in recent months. McCain was actually looking much better in my eyes up to the month prior to picking Palin, and then after Palin he completely lost me. Palin is an example of someone who will have no objectivity and who will abuse her power. She's not who I want as President if McCain, being so old, kicks the bucket.
Taxes are technically illegal, so I have no contention on that point. I know all about that. The problem is that people just accept that you have to pay taxes. I choose to pay taxes, because I like the benefits one can get from tax dollars. However, what McCain is suggesting we do will effectively be a failure. He's proposing tax cuts to rich people (and minor cuts to middle class and poorer peoples) as a means of stimulating the economy. The problem is this type of policy has proven to be a monumental failure time and time again. In fact, the best time to give tax cuts to rich people is when the economy is doing frakking good, giving them a "relief" as a way of sort of saying "hey, keep up good business". Unfortunately I think that the tax system has to exist because we're too dependent on it for it not to. If we remove it it will only increase the gap between rich and poor and eventually we'll be back to square one where the rich use their wealth to exact authority over everyone else. It's a scary thing...


Also, on voting, bitchslapping in the face, I want to support the party I feel has the right plans for the future (yes I must want to go to Pennsylvania, steal the liberty bell and throw it into the water because I'm republican leaning), and if that means that for those ideas, that I agree with, to be put in place everyone doesn't need to vote then for it because in my mind that is better for the country. If I liked Obama this time around I would say get people to vote because it helps his numbers. You know very well that the democrats wouldn't be trying to get those voters to vote if they wouldn't vote democratic, but you would still agree with their policies so you wouldn't say anything. Yes, this is inferring something, but this is my perspective on it.

Actually, the democrats in the last 8 years haven't given a flying fig who you vote for. They've made efforts just to register people. I've been prompted numerous times and I actually am not a democrat. I'm independent and generally more right leaning than left (I just don't believe in the current brand of Republican politics at all). I know a lot of people who were prompted to register who are Independent or Republican (though they aren't voting Republican this time around, they just happen to be registered that way).
My problem with both parties is that both of them, at one time or another, have used these horrible policies of disenfranchising voters, and quite honestly I think both parties need to be held accountable and fined heavily for violating the rights of every day Americans. If you don't like that a county is voting Republican or Democrat, tough fucking shit. Voting is our fucking right. So long as you'renot a felon you should be allowed to vote. End of story. I said this when Bush had the scandle around him both times, and now it's happening again. It just happens that Republicans are doing it this time around. Maybe in 12 years it will switch and we'll see Dems do it. And I'll probably be pissed then and be leaning towards Republicans again.

The difference I was making about going to a private school is that it costs money while a public one does not, so don't jump to conclusions. The two schools I was comparing, as well, were Emory and USF and if you want to prove to me that USF is a better school than Emory then go right-a-fucking-head because I see no argument. That entire paragraph was about the money aspect, and the schools on my list (Emory, Miami, Rice primarily) are all private colleges. I don't want my Prep School education that my single mother mom worked for to go to waste going to a school like USF or UCF (those would be my two options) that are many steps below the schools I mentioned before.

Because there aren't other colleges in Florida at all, right? Or maybe out of state? There are good colleges in Florida or other states, some of which aren't private and some of which are. The issue I took with what you said was that it made it sound like you were presuming that private schools are just better all around. That's not true. In fact, I was considering a private school before I went to UC Santa Cruz. That private school actually lied to me and used that lie as a way to get me to want to go there. UC Santa Cruz, however, welcomed me with open arms before I'd even accepted their invite to attend. I was literally showered with literature about their programs, invites to numerous events for tours, to talk with advisors and professors, etc. And after a year being there I know for a fact that this school is literally the best choice I could ever have made. I have been more than able to pursue the things I'm most interested in. I wouldn't have been able to pursue those at the private school I had considered (a relatively good private school, actually).
I'm just saying that private schools aren't all that. They're more expensive, have smaller student bodies, but they aren't necessarily better. There are a lot of issues with private schools, and lots of issues with public schools. You should do a lot of research before you just auction off everything else. College is a big deal after all.

Drilling for oil in Alaska gives us time. Again, I personally know nothing, but according to experts (like my incredibly liberal masters degree history teacher who hates Ronald Reagan but is still awesome) we have 40 more years of foreign oil dependancy left. I would rather have 240 years than 40 to come up with the most reasonable solution to the problem. I even mentioned that in the original post, but oh, he wants more oil meaning he must not want alternative energy sources, you can at least say that your inferring that and that I didn't say that in any way before blasting it.

The problem is we don't have 240 years. Gas prices are not going to get drastically cheaper. We need to make changes now while we can. Drilling won't produce anything for a decade at the minimum. Not to mention that there's little reason to assume that oil companies are going to reduce prices based on what we could potentially drill. They're raking in the profits, why should they?
I was referring to McCain regarding the anti-alternative energy sources. McCain has a voting record against alternative fuels. I wasn't speaking to you. Sorry if you thought I was, might have been a mis-write on my part.

And Palin was found guilty of abuse of power in Alaska, ok, but when someone like Ted Stevens does it to protect wildlife its ok (and yes he did resign because he was going to be impeached for abuse of power). Ted Stevens does it for something you like and nothing happens but it happens on the other side and you can point it out? No. Like I said, Palin isn't qualified, but people who describe her as idiotic and moronic are full of themselves thinking they know more about politics then she does. Is she the best cnadidate, NO! of course not. (not like there was anyone good anyway), but the fact that she attracts some of the feminist Hillary Voters who were on the fence and some of the ultra conservatives who felt McCain was too right wing. The decision to pick her doesn't make him a bad leader either (not saying you said that, but I've heard that alot).

Never said what Ted Stevens did was okay. I simply said that Palin was found guilty of abusing her power.
And she's not qualified. She has almost no experience whatsoever, not to mention she's governor of the most insignificant state as far as legitimate political power is concerned. And we should talk about her objectivity and the fact that she is part of a church that is actively seeking to force religion into school classrooms, that thinks the world is still only a few thousand years old, that refuses to acknowledge that the Earth is actually fucked up, or that the U.S. is flawed and needs fixing, etc.
Palin is more right win that McCain is. And yes, she is an idiot. She has no idea what the structure of the U.S. government looks like, let alone what the VP position represents.
And yes, picking Palin puts McCain's competence into question. He could have chosen a lot of people that would have been far more legitimate, but he chooses someone that has about as much experiencing in politics as I do as an astronaut.
Oh, and don't forget that Palin adopted a policy that forces rape victims to pay for the rape kits that are used during prosecution. So, you get raped, you have to pay, rather than, say, catching the rapist and making them pay...which is the way it should go. The way I see it, anyone that allows that kind of bullshit to go without challenging it is not someone I want in the Oval Office.

Also, I think the way the campaign has been run proves that Biden is going to be phased out. There are commercials and bilboards where hes not even a footnote, and thats pathetic considering he is the most qualified (in my opinion) of the four running-persons. Again, I understand its a political move that the majority of people who are going to vote don't care who Biden is, and while Biden may be more qualified than Palin, how is it wrong to phase out Biden because of lack of political impact as to exemplify Palin on the republican side as she will draw.

Biden is far from being phases out. Palin is just getting picked up more because she's far more entertaining, particularly the things she's been doing lately to insight the ultra-right wing racist mob. Biden has been doing a lot on the campaign trail too, though, such as meeting up with the Clintons and a lot of other things, not to mention that Biden will appeal to working class voters, plus at least Biden isn't afraid to say "hey, Obama and I don't agree on everything". That shows that Obama wants actually discussion in the White House, not just "oh yes Mr. President, do whatever you want." Not saying it will work, but I do like that.

It comes down to the point that I can't vote, and I will barely be able to vote next election. I've thrown out everything I know here and I know you'll come back with more facts that I won't be able to argue with my knowledge. Its like a toddler and a steamroller, but this is my view, and if I have the choice of two even candidates in my mind (even only because the potentail for Biden swaying Obama in the idea of a flat tax and a more reasonable plan of retreat for Iraq exist) then I'm going to choose the one that in the end leaves me with more benefit.

You also have to realize that Obama can't just say "oh, bring them all back tomorrow". He's not only not that stupid, but he doesn't necessarily have that authority. I would like a flat tax, but I think the biggest thing we need to do is address federal spending and build up a surplus to act as an emergency fund. Then we can go to a more fair tax system when the system is evened out. Right now a fair tax system would basically destroy half the country's programs, including ones that actually should exist.

[QUOTE}Also, please don't accuse me of being snobbish, as yes, I am arrogant, and yes I am upper middle class, but snobbish implies total lack of knowledge and even if its true then I missed a few things because I'm not the smartest or most eloquent person out there but I'm not bottom of the barrel either. ((Also, this wasn't arrogant because I conceded you are a smarter A) debater and B) politician than I am, so before anyone decides to run me over with the bus I'm so sorry I consider myself more than mentally incapable of physical motion)).[/quote]

You just came off as a snob. Part of that might have been in how you presented what you were saying. Generally I don't like that kind of attitude because it exemplifies exactly what is wrong with a lot of rich people in this country: I'm rich, I'm better than everyone. If that's not who you are, try to reflect that in how you write about such things like money and college.

And I don't run people over with large vehicles (such as a bus). Generally I like to use tricycles or, on rare occasions, clown cars.

[Shadow]

Wow, Shaun, your fingers hurt?

/spam

[phytoxoeia]

New ammendments, however, are important to ensuring that the constitution remains accurate and applicable to the times. The Founding Fathers never would have thought we'd have computers or flying machines or ships that can go into space, or submarines, or nuclear bombs, or a number of things. They probably never would have thought we'd become such a multi-cultural country either. So new ammedments are necessary provided they don't violate our rights.I'm reaching somewhat off-topic with this, but one of the things I don't get though, is if Americans believed the words they ratified in the Declaraction of Independance, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... why the hell was there slavery or segregation? If all men have these unalienable rights, then the thirteenth amendment should never have had to have been written. In essence, millions of Americans were denying their own beliefs of freedom for nearly two hundred years, when they were right in plain sight. In the Supreme Court case that ruled slavery was allowed, or something like that, the Supreme Court stated that slaves weren't citizens, but notice how in the Declaration of Independance, it doesn't say "citizens" it says "men." If this truth was "self-evident" why did slavery happen, and why didn't the Founding Fathers include it in the Constitution?

[Alex]

the simple answer is Blacks weren't people, they were property. You could also say "why didn't women have unalienable rights", but its because they were seen as symbols and figures, by 'people' they most likely meant white males. Also, the Northerners who were pro-abolition from the start could not survive, in the early part of America's history, without the South's agricultural support and economic outport so the South could get what they wanted.

A slave is property, they are bought and sold, like property, not like 'men' in the traditional sense is the simple answer.

[Shaun]

I'm reaching somewhat off-topic with this, but one of the things I don't get though, is if Americans believed the words they ratified in the Declaraction of Independance, why the hell was there slavery or segregation? If all men have these unalienable rights, then the thirteenth amendment should never have had to have been written. In essence, millions of Americans were denying their own beliefs of freedom for nearly two hundred years, when they were right in plain sight. In the Supreme Court case that ruled slavery was allowed, or something like that, the Supreme Court stated that slaves weren't citizens, but notice how in the Declaration of Independance, it doesn't say "citizens" it says "men." If this truth was "self-evident" why did slavery happen, and why didn't the Founding Fathers include it in the Constitution?

The problem is that at the time that the DoI was made, people didn't consider black people to be the same as white people. A black man was less than human, while a white man was fully human. Black women were at the lowest point. Slaves, essentially weren't granted the same rights as white people (and there's a point of contention here because technically everyone was equal for a short time immediately following independence and what not) because they weren't humans. They weren't actual men or women. They were, in essence, put on this good earth by God for God's true children to use as they saw fit. I don't agree with it, I'm just saying how it is.
So that's why they had to make that ammendment. They had to make it perfectly, 100% clear that slavery was unacceptable and through abolishing slavery it announced that blacks were, in fact, human. That's just the way it was back then.

If you really want to know how this discourse shaped the world, look into the various things written during colonial times. Look at how Europeans referenced people of color, whether they be black or Native American, or other. You'll find that white people had a disturbing outlook on their humanity for a long time.

[Shaun]

the simple answer is Blacks weren't people, they were property. You could also say "why didn't women have unalienable rights", but its because they were seen as symbols and figures, by 'people' they most likely meant white males. Also, the Northerners who were pro-abolition from the start could not survive, in the early part of America's history, without the South's agricultural support and economic outport so the South could get what they wanted.

A slave is property, they are bought and sold, like property, not like 'men' in the traditional sense is the simple answer.

Little known fact: women actually were allowed to vote for a short period of time either immediately after the DoI or after the ratification of the Constitution (the first ammendments of it anyway). I can't remember which, but I suspect the former. Whether they actually got to vote I don't know, but men immediately changed it when they realized that women would have a say. It's an interesting tidbit in history. I think it lasted a couple weeks before all the white men screamed "blasphemy" and changed things.

[Alex]

well almost all of the western states that applied for statehood had women's and black's votings rights from the get go because the community needed to be tight nit to get through.

But who cares about Wyoming =p

[Mercy]

I'd vote for Obama. Before McCain chose Palin as a running mate, I was beginning to see some advantages to him being president, but I don't want that woman so close to the presidency. In my opinion, she seems intolerent and a little scary.

Honestly, I don't always watch the debates and do all my research, but I've read and watched quite a bit and from reading all the previous posts, it makes me lean to Obama even more. xP

A little off topic...Alex, what do you your parents do? I don't think I'll ever see 250,000 dollars in my life! My mom only makes 45,000, I think and then she has to pay for taxes, school, gas, etc. Personally, I believe the rich should be taxed a bit more, but I know that the majority of the wealthy will find a way around it and we'll be paying for everything anyway. >.>

[Shaun]

The only reason the rich have to pay more is because liberal politics took strong hold. That's not necessarily a bad thing when you consider the majority of things we've gained from liberal politics (public school for everyone, legal representation for people who can't afford asshole lawyers, etc.), but admittedly there are seriously faults with liberal politics. We end up with so many programs that we become fixed into a tax system that punishes rich people. Not to mention that the tax system doesn't take into account where a person lives. If Alex's parents lived in, say, the bay area in California and made 250K, that would not be worth nearly as much as it is where they do live. In fact, 250k is not all that much here. It's still rich, but it's not crazy rich. My mother's partner made 100k in Santa Cruz last year (or she would have, but she didn't work at that place the whole year, so she basically made that much if divided by month) and they were still scraping by just to live comfortably. I'm not saying they couldn't have cute back or anything, but if making 100k means you can barely keep a good standard of living for a family of two adults and a teenager, that's saying somthing. And there are people who make a lot less than that in Santa Cruz who can't afford to do much of anything here...they live in the slums. We lived in a decent area at least, but it wasn't easy at all.

[Alex]

my mom's a dentist, but considering she came to America from a Communist Romania with nothing I'll say she does pretty well for herself. My mom makes around 100-150k a year, but because dentistry is based entirely on who is coming, and no one is, that is dropping, and when all my life I've gone to an expensive private school to ensure I would be smart it seems kind of counterproductive to spend all that money on a private school in high school then end up going to a school like USF (nothing agains't USF but I could've gotten into USF doing absolutley nothing my entire middle-high school life) when I could go to a southern ivy like Rice, Vandy, or Duke. It just kind of takes the point of my childhood and throws it out the window, and that is why I am 'stuck up'. I'm not saying I can't succeed going to a big name college, but what did I work for to this point? I could've gotten into USF doing nothing.

[Imelda]

my mom's a dentist, but considering she came to America from a Communist Romania with nothing I'll say she does pretty well for herself. My mom makes around 100-150k a year, but because dentistry is based entirely on who is coming, and no one is, that is dropping, and when all my life I've gone to an expensive private school to ensure I would be smart it seems kind of counterproductive to spend all that money on a private school in high school then end up going to a school like USF (nothing agains't USF but I could've gotten into USF doing absolutley nothing my entire middle-high school life) when I could go to a southern ivy like Rice, Vandy, or Duke. It just kind of takes the point of my childhood and throws it out the window, and that is why I am 'stuck up'. I'm not saying I can't succeed going to a big name college, but what did I work for to this point? I could've gotten into USF doing nothing.

Alex, you can still get into an ivy school, you just have to be prepared to work to afford it. That's what you've worked for all this time.


On topic: I've just been reading about McCain/Obama and I'm appalled at all the lies they're propagating. Especially this one: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1849483-1,00.html

[Shaun]

my mom's a dentist, but considering she came to America from a Communist Romania with nothing I'll say she does pretty well for herself. My mom makes around 100-150k a year, but because dentistry is based entirely on who is coming, and no one is, that is dropping, and when all my life I've gone to an expensive private school to ensure I would be smart it seems kind of counterproductive to spend all that money on a private school in high school then end up going to a school like USF (nothing agains't USF but I could've gotten into USF doing absolutley nothing my entire middle-high school life) when I could go to a southern ivy like Rice, Vandy, or Duke. It just kind of takes the point of my childhood and throws it out the window, and that is why I am 'stuck up'. I'm not saying I can't succeed going to a big name college, but what did I work for to this point? I could've gotten into USF doing nothing.


And there you go again. I went to public school, Alex. Have gone there my whole life. I guess I'm just a moron then. Us public school folks don't have the luxury of being guaranteed smart when we gradutate from our little ole schools. We all just end up at Taco Bell or Kmart. Yup. IQs of 10. We is just retards at our public schools. We can't never compare to all you gosh darn private school folks. Gee willickers. You all is so smart.

After this, Alex, you can't sit there and tell me that you aren't a snob. You keep referencing USF as if that's the only public school you can apply to...as if USF is all there is in the public school world. Wake up. Jesus. There is a big wide world out there full of public schools that just so happen to be good, some of them even better than all those stuck up Ivy League schools.

And it goes without saying that where you graduate from has less to do with job placement than how involved you are in your chosen campus. Maybe you should start thinking out of your narrow-minded box and look elsewhere for schools. USF isn't the only public school in the damned world, you know. There are others, lots of others. Better others. The idea that you have to go to a private school to be smart or successful is idiotic, Alex. It's a programmed mentality that you need to break.

[Mercy]

I go to a private school and it's horrible. xP We don't even have air conditioning in the gym....I also heard there are several public schools better than the private ones in our area. But they are really big and I'm not good with people, so I'm going to cling to this school as much as I can, despite the fact it isn't all that great or fancy.

I doubt I'll go to a private college. I don't see the big attraction to them, one that feels comfortable is fine for me.

As for politics, both candidates do sort of suck...but I still lean more towards Obama instead of McCain. Palin's just to frightening. >.<

[Imelda]

We don't even have air conditioning in the gym.

Oh how awful for you! *sarcasm*

We were lucky if we were allowed IN the gym. They liked to keep the floors shiny to show off to prospective students and their families ...

[Phantom]

What does this have to with the election?

[Mercy]

Maybe, but it gets hot down here in the south...xP It was horrible last year. >.< And then when you cramp the middle and high school together...it's a small gym...it's hot....it's not fun. >.<

[Phantom]

I've done that. My school is SOOOO small, but the gym is smaller.
Stupid gay adminastration.

[Imelda]

We had the opposite problem. Taking exams in winter with no heating ... and you weren't allowed to wear coats in case you had notes hidden up the sleeves. :( Of course, all the invigilators had coats on, and huddled round the single small gas heater up at the front. :glare:

[Mercy]

That's horrible. =(
Out heating went out once, when we came back from fall break in early January. xP I can't imagine being without the heat all winter. >.<

[sera_bookworm]

Hmm...based on the recent debate i think Obama will win this election

[Shaun]

Alright, let's keep on topic from this point on. I think we're wandering a bit too far from the original topic.

Zombie, ease up on the deleting. Yeesh. Nothing wrong with politely asking to bring the conversation back to the original topic :P

[dj4ever]

McCain really stabs my apples. He's no good and I think he's gonna lose.

[phytoxoeia]

To get back on topic...

Who watched the debate last night? I think Obama came off a lot more in-control and calming. McCain was much edgier than he was in the last debate, and made more desperate attempts to make himself look better - they both did, but I think McCain more. Facial expressions were also interesting. Whenever McCain said something Obama disagreed with, Obama played it cool and just shook his head an smiled, waiting for McCain to finish so he could rebuttle, whereas McCain looked disgruntled and unsettled, and frequently tried to interrupt Obama.

In school we took a sort of questionair to see which candidate we agreed more with, without knowing which candidate we were supporting as we chose. Needless to say, it was really obvious who was who when it came to National Security and the War in Iraq. McCain's never been exactly quiet about his plans when it comes to the army.

Obama's education policy is also one which I favor. As most of us here are going to be moving into college during the next 4 or 8 years, if we aren't in college already, I think it's really important that we know what we can expect when we get there. I mean, college tution's skyrocketting. I know in Ireland, Trinity College is now having tutuion fees for the first time, because they can't get enough funding to send students there for free.

[Alex]

And there you go again. I went to public school, Alex. Have gone there my whole life. I guess I'm just a moron then. Us public school folks don't have the luxury of being guaranteed smart when we gradutate from our little ole schools. We all just end up at Taco Bell or Kmart. Yup. IQs of 10. We is just retards at our public schools. We can't never compare to all you gosh darn private school folks. Gee willickers. You all is so smart.

After this, Alex, you can't sit there and tell me that you aren't a snob. You keep referencing USF as if that's the only public school you can apply to...as if USF is all there is in the public school world. Wake up. Jesus. There is a big wide world out there full of public schools that just so happen to be good, some of them even better than all those stuck up Ivy League schools.

And it goes without saying that where you graduate from has less to do with job placement than how involved you are in your chosen campus. Maybe you should start thinking out of your narrow-minded box and look elsewhere for schools. USF isn't the only public school in the damned world, you know. There are others, lots of others. Better others. The idea that you have to go to a private school to be smart or successful is idiotic, Alex. It's a programmed mentality that you need to break.


I can only go to USF because I won't have to pay board because I live in tampa (only 1 year is forced to live on school campus) and I have florida pre-paid. So yes, its the only public school that makes logical sense to apply to because I go to a public school somewhere else I pay 10,000 a year in room and board, but if I go to somewhere like Tulane I pay around 15-20,000 total because of the immense scholarship bonuses. USF is the only place I can go where I would pay nearly no money.

Please point out to me where I insulted the intelligence of anyone at a public school. I mean my parents pay 15,000 dollars a year to send me to a private school so I get a better education, I'm sorry but yes, I feel my education has been better than that of a public school level, that is why I can take a class like precalculus two years earlier than at bay area public schools (that is just an example). If that makes me snobby to think my education is better then good golly gosh I guess I'm snobby as a royal prince.

I'm not saying I wouldn't work either, but its kind of hard trying to earn 50,000 dollars a year when I'm planning on double majoring. Áctually I'm not applying to one ivy league school. They are just nerd schools in the south, 'southern ivys' refers to their level of education, not their level of pretentiousness persay.. I don't like the northeast where all the actual ivys are anyway, too cold.

But I'll shut up now because its futile trying to argue when people don't know my situation (I can just see the next question I get is "well if your parents are paying that money now then why can't they pay it later" and I don't feel I have to answer than question for personal reasons).

So seriously, If I'm so damn snobby for wanting a high level of education so be it, I'm snobby. There, is everyone happy now? Good, its nice we could all agree on something.

((Sorry to take the thread off-topic again I just wanted to defend myself))

[Shaun]

I can only go to USF because I won't have to pay board because I live in tampa (only 1 year is forced to live on school campus) and I have florida pre-paid. So yes, its the only public school that makes logical sense to apply to because I go to a public school somewhere else I pay 10,000 a year in room and board, but if I go to somewhere like Tulane I pay around 15-20,000 total because of the immense scholarship bonuses. USF is the only place I can go where I would pay nearly no money.

This tells me that you haven't even bothered researching other universities, Alex, because I can tell you right now that if your parents can afford to send you to an Ivy League school they can afford to send you to an out of state public school, and a good one at that.

Please point out to me where I insulted the intelligence of anyone at a public school. I mean my parents pay 15,000 dollars a year to send me to a private school so I get a better education, I'm sorry but yes, I feel my education has been better than that of a public school level, that is why I can take a class like precalculus two years earlier than at bay area public schools (that is just an example). If that makes me snobby to think my education is better then good golly gosh I guess I'm snobby as a royal prince.

I know people who are freshman in High School who are taking pre-calc, and others who have to go to college universities just to take the math courses they want to advance because their schools don't provide things like Analytical Geometry, etc.

Yes, it does make you snobby. You're making this sad assumption that private school automatically means better. I've known people who went to private s