Vote:Obama/McCain+all politics/news

[Trailbreaker]

Voting in this thread is corrupt people.
This morning Obama/Biden had 10 votes, McCain/Palin 4.

Now Obama has 36!!?
No fucking way. I wanna recount.:lol

Why don't you look back and see who started this poll in the first place.

[Chip]

Liberals feed off misery, they need it.
Pregnant, you don’t want a baby. Just kill it.
Get a grip on reality people.

If you believe that all abortions are possible mothers saying "Kill It"...I think you are the one who needs to get a grip.

Why do all Pro-Life people assume that Pro-Choice means Pro-Abortion? WTF!

I sadly know two women who have had abortions...I couldn't make the decision they did...it is a decision that has plagued them their entire life...but it was their decision. They weren't carelessly 'dicking' around either.

Beetlejuice...you wanna be cute and fly a USSR flag for Obama...why don't you post an Iranian flag for McCain and his "Choice" to refuse a womans choice.

I agree that our moral-fiber is something to be questioned. We are in a bad place. Teenage girls have become whores and many parents are doing little to change it. We have a real problem. What happens once you pass an abortion-ban. What happens to those children?

And why is it that so many Pro-Lifers are Pro-Gun? Don't "murder" and unborn baby...but shoot a fucking moose in the head and brag about the ability to field-dress it. WTF...was the moose threatening someone? Did it possess WMD's? Owe, it was to feed the village and protect the children!:lol

[megatron42]

if big IF MCCain gets into office palin wants bounty hunters to shoot wolves
and cut off thier paws off... she's says she prolife


Sarah Palin, predator control, shooting wolves | Salon

Ahh. Sarah Palin. What a wonderful loving women she is in how she is justifying the killing of wolves. Her "moose" excuse is a lie which was proven by a guest from the Rachael Maddow show and this article is a must read for all who want to know where Sarah Palin's heart is. It clearly belongs in the snow of Alaska . Below is a little clip of the article on what length she will go to get these wolves killed. You decide.....

Palin offered the $150 bounty for wolf paws in 2007 after efforts to kill wolves from airplanes that season were, in her view, coming up short. State officials had hoped that 382 to 664 wolves would be killed during that predator-control season. State officials were disappointed when only 115 wolves were killed from the air.

[uraydo]

If you believe that all abortions are possible mothers saying "Kill It"...I think you are the one who needs to get a grip.

Why do all Pro-Life people assume that Pro-Choice means Pro-Abortion? WTF!

I sadly know two women who have had abortions...I couldn't make the decision they did...it is a decision that has plagued them their entire life...but it was their decision. They weren't carelessly 'dicking' around either.

Beetlejuice...you wanna be cute and fly a USSR flag for Obama...why don't you post an Iranian flag for McCain and his "Choice" to refuse a womans choice.

I agree that our moral-fiber is something to be questioned. We are in a bad place. Teenage girls have become whores and many parents are doing little to change it. We have a real problem. What happens once you pass an abortion-ban. What happens to those children?

They live... Duh. you know, if a woman is pregnant, and the baby dies form some kind of substance abuse, she gets charged with neglect. Yet if it's okay for a doctor to kill it. Makes little scene to me.

And why is it that so many Pro-Lifers are Pro-Gun? Don't "murder" and unborn baby...but shoot a fucking moose in the head and brag about the ability to field-dress it. WTF...was the moose threatening someone? Did it possess WMD's? Owe, it was to feed the village and protect the children!:lol

I'm sorry you have been effected by the first "great forgetting", which is something has to die for you to live. and also, having a gun isn't about killing something. It is about protecting one's self. We have a right to bear arms, because we have the right to protect ourselves.

[nelson]

Thats a bullshit thing to say. I got a better idea. why don't we, as a country, get some morals, and not F*CKING bone ever thing we see. Not only will the abortion problem be solved, but also AIDS, Herpes, and other such sexually transmitted diseases. Sex is a freaking responsibility, not something you do over the weekend, because you're to much of a pig to get a real hobby.

You can't dictate sexual behavior period. You can't dictate what a woman can do with her body. It's the price you pay for freedom.

Leave to you some to tell every one sex shouldn't be a pleasure and only used for pro-creation.

How about Republicans/Conservative start supporting sex ed in school and stop fussing over condoms being given out at schools?

You guys speak as if abortion is something people long for and celebrate it as a family event.

Your photo was in bad taste and poor judgement.

[nelson]

They live... Duh. you know, if a woman is pregnant, and the baby dies form some kind of substance abuse, she gets charged with neglect. Yet if it's okay for a doctor to kill it.

Because governments can't tell a woman what to do with her body. Get it through your head.

Makes little scene to me.

Sense.

having a gun isn't about killing something. It is about protecting one's self. We have a right to bear arms, because we have the right to protect ourselves.

Actually, the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the 1st amendment. Something that is hardly done by 2nd amendment supporters.

Millions of people go through life without having a gun. Most murders are based on the premise of surprise. Surprise the victim so he/she won't have time to defend themselves. How many stories do you hear about people actually successfully defending themselves with a gun? Not many. In fact, everyone in the crossfire usually dies.

BTW, no one in this thread is advocating for guns to be done away with. Just need stricter gun laws.

There are more important things right now than gun rights.

[Clutch]

Actually, the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the 1st amendment. Something that is hardly done by 2nd amendment supporters.

Millions of people go through life without having a gun. Most murders are based on the premise of surprise. Surprise the victim so he/she won't have time to defend themselves. How many stories do you hear about people actually successfully defending themselves with a gun? Not many. In fact, everyone in the crossfire usually dies.

BTW, no one in this thread is advocating for guns to be done away with. Just need stricter gun laws.

There are more important things right now than gun rights.

OK, I'm siding with you for the majority of the political arguments currently in effect, but I can't let most of what's above slide.

Self-defense with a gun =/= pulling it out and filling the skies with lead and cordite most of the time. In fact, I couldn't even begin to account for all of the accounts of people having defended themselves from a crime simply by just indicating to the aggressor that they have a gun and, thus, are capable of defending themselves. I'd run out of appendages to count with, for starters. And that whole idea of "everyone caught in the crossfire usually dies?" Well, if you're a gangbanger with a MAC-10 and your main source of gun knowledge is Boyz in the Hood, then I guess that would be true. However, for most everyone else who knows how to handle a gun and handle themselves in a gunfight (where applicable), that's just bullshit. If that were the case, then the North Hollywood shootout in '97 should have produced a lot more casualties than it did.

Stricter gun laws? Not really. Frankly, I'd rather see classes or some form of training become mandatory for owning a gun, and that training could vary depending on your reason for wanting to own one (competition, self-defense, hunting, so on and so forth). That would work a lot better than the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in '04. And you know, actually enforcing the laws already on the books would help too - IIRC, the Virginia Tech shooter got his guns despite his medical condition, which Virginia law should have prevented. Stricter laws won't stop the criminals from getting their firepower; it will only keep the ones who truly need it from having it when the time comes.

Again, I agree with most of what you said, but you're rather off base when it comes to this.

[uraydo]

You can't dictate sexual behavior period. You can't dictate what a woman can do with her body. It's the price you pay for freedom.

Leave to you some to tell every one sex shouldn't be a pleasure and only used for pro-creation.

How about Republicans/Conservative start supporting sex ed in school and stop fussing over condoms being given out at schools?

You guys speak as if abortion is something people long for and celebrate it as a family event.

Your photo was in bad taste and poor judgement.

The thing is, it's not her body that is being killed. How old you you have to be for the law to be able to protect you? how long do you have to live before the act of kill you is murder. When do you get a soul? when do you feel pain? when do you get your will to live?

but you know what. I'm not even against abortion because of the killing involved, and make no mistake that it is killing a living thing. No, I'm against it because it pretty much negates the responsibility of having a healthy relationship with some on. It seems as the years go by, casual sex and divorce become more common place. People don't care for one another, because there is no reason to. We say "till death do us part" with our fingers crossed, and we control-alt-delete our offspring.

Excuse me if I find that just a little scary.

Now granted I don't think abortion should be down right outlawed, because there are cases of rape and the threat of the baby killing the mother.

As for the picture, I don't think it was in bad taste. It seems like I'm the only one considering them human, so I don't see a difference in post that vs a slab of beef. There both just hunks of meat after all. It's not like I showed a gruesome murder were the victim was burned from the inside out.

Because governments can't tell a woman what to do with her body. Get it through your head.




Sense.




Actually, the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the 1st amendment. Something that is hardly done by 2nd amendment supporters.

Millions of people go through life without having a gun. Most murders are based on the premise of surprise. Surprise the victim so he/she won't have time to defend themselves. How many stories do you hear about people actually successfully defending themselves with a gun? Not many. In fact, everyone in the crossfire usually dies.

BTW, no one in this thread is advocating for guns to be done away with. Just need stricter gun laws.

There are more important things right now than gun rights.

what clutch said.

[Clutch]

Now, uraydo, much the same way I just crawled up nelson's ass, I'm headed up yours.

You raise good points about abortion, and I'm not about to try to answer the moral questions present in that topic. That said:

1) People not caring about meaningful relationships is not nearly as prevalent as you would make it out to be. I have yet to see anyone who's divorced that didn't have some raw, underlying reason for getting that divorce that every now and then comes oozing to the surface and threatens to send me and most everyone else in the room scrambling for cover. And usually, when I see people break up, they're not all "Oh, that didn't work - I'm going to try this next." They're pissed, for a good little while. The behavior you speak of just isn't that prevalent unless you're either constantly around a bunch of high-school grads or you're thinking that same gangbanger "Damn the world, I'ma get mine" logic I just called nelson out on.

2) The picture was in bad taste. I don't care what kind of a point you're trying to prove - you pull something like that, and you'll drive away more people than you convince. I'm sure you can make a point without resorting to PETA-level tactics.

[nelson]

The thing is, it's not her body that is being killed.

How old you you have to be for the law to be able to protect you? how long do you have to live before the act of kill you is murder. When do you get a soul? when do you feel pain? when do you get your will to live?

A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.

Most of the embryos that are aborted do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.

Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering.

Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere.

While abortion is an ugly reality, and we should all hope for breakthroughs in contraception that reduce the need for it, one can reasonably wonder whether most aborted fetuses suffer their destruction on any level. One cannot reasonably wonder this about the millions of men, women, and children who must endure the torments of war, famine, political torture, or mental illness. At this very moment, millions of sentient people are suffering unimaginable physical and mental afflictions, in circumstances where the compassion of God is nowhere to be seen, and the compassion of human beings is often hobbled by preposterous ideas about sin and salvation. If you are worried about human suffering, abortion should rank very low on your list of concerns.

[nelson]

OK, I'm siding with you for the majority of the political arguments currently in effect, but I can't let most of what's above slide.

Self-defense with a gun =/= pulling it out and filling the skies with lead and cordite most of the time. In fact, I couldn't even begin to account for all of the accounts of people having defended themselves from a crime simply by just indicating to the aggressor that they have a gun and, thus, are capable of defending themselves. I'd run out of appendages to count with, for starters. And that whole idea of "everyone caught in the crossfire usually dies?" Well, if you're a gangbanger with a MAC-10 and your main source of gun knowledge is Boyz in the Hood, then I guess that would be true. However, for most everyone else who knows how to handle a gun and handle themselves in a gunfight (where applicable), that's just bullshit. If that were the case, then the North Hollywood shootout in '97 should have produced a lot more casualties than it did.

Stricter gun laws? Not really. Frankly, I'd rather see classes or some form of training become mandatory for owning a gun, and that training could vary depending on your reason for wanting to own one (competition, self-defense, hunting, so on and so forth). That would work a lot better than the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in '04. And you know, actually enforcing the laws already on the books would help too - IIRC, the Virginia Tech shooter got his guns despite his medical condition, which Virginia law should have prevented. Stricter laws won't stop the criminals from getting their firepower; it will only keep the ones who truly need it from having it when the time comes.

Again, I agree with most of what you said, but you're rather off base when it comes to this.

I think we have to agree to disagree.

While humans will always look for ways to kill, outlawing automatics and assault-level firearms won't make it so easy to kill so may people.

[Clutch]

I think we have to agree to disagree.

While humans will always look for ways to kill, outlawing automatics and assault-level firearms won't make it so easy to kill so may people.

Maybe, but it's considerably harder to get ahold of a gun than a car. Or a book of matches, for that matter...

[uraydo]

A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.

Most of the embryos that are aborted do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.



Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering.

Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere.

While abortion is an ugly reality, and we should all hope for breakthroughs in contraception that reduce the need for it, one can reasonably wonder whether most aborted fetuses suffer their destruction on any level. One cannot reasonably wonder this about the millions of men, women, and children who must endure the torments of war, famine, political torture, or mental illness. At this very moment, millions of sentient people are suffering unimaginable physical and mental afflictions, in circumstances where the compassion of God is nowhere to be seen, and the compassion of human beings is often hobbled by preposterous ideas about sin and salvation. If you are worried about human suffering, abortion should rank very low on your list of concerns.

Fine, since I can't pull my soul out and show it to you, or give you God's telephone number, I won't press my view of it being pointless death. Hell, I'll even tell you that picture I posted was a relatively late abortion. Like I said before, my issue with abortion isn't with the kill, it is with the moral decay.

I believe there are reasons we should take sex seriously, and I think abortion is one of the reasons we don't. if we could, as a world, stick with one or two sexual partners, sexually transmitted diseases would be a thing of the past. If we could do it as a country, I'm sure it would put a big dent in it.

Now don't take me as an idiot. I know this will never happen. I know how screwed up our moral compass is. But still. abortion takes away from peoples responsibilities, and I don't like that.

[Chip]

Hey Uraydo...I want you to know that I completely agree with your concern of our deminishing morality. It scares the living crap out of me. And while we have varying view points of the Roe Vs. Wave issue, I stand beside you in the concern of our current and future moral view. Being a 31 year old male, and hopefully a future dad, I am terrified by the modern free-love mentality. The dramatic rise in std's is frightening as is the view of casual sex by younger generations.
My only hope is that our conversations on these delicate topics do not influence the kind conversations we have all shared regarding films, cars, transformers and chicks.

[Trailbreaker]

I'm watching the vice-presidential debate right now.

[redqueenar]

Fine, since I can't pull my soul out and show it to you, or give you God's telephone number, I won't press my view of it being pointless death. Hell, I'll even tell you that picture I posted was a relatively late abortion. Like I said before, my issue with abortion isn't with the kill, it is with the moral decay.

I believe there are reasons we should take sex seriously, and I think abortion is one of the reasons we don't. if we could, as a world, stick with one or two sexual partners, sexually transmitted diseases would be a thing of the past. If we could do it as a country, I'm sure it would put a big dent in it.

Now don't take me as an idiot. I know this will never happen. I know how screwed up our moral compass is. But still. abortion takes away from peoples responsibilities, and I don't like that.

I admire your enthusiasm, honestly I do, and I would never have an abortion myself. That said, I also treat my body with respect, choose my partners wisely and am pretty smart about sex. A lot of people don't have the advantages of my knowledge, though. I am absolutely pro-choice because I cannot assume responsibility for what other people do. I don't want my taxes to pay for some screwed up kid that nobody wanted whose life is going to be hell. Yeah, you feel for the kid, but are *you* going to raise it? I don't want some rape victim to put herself in further danger by suffering through an illegal abortion in a dark room somewhere. I don't want some nice young couple to have to sit there and watch their child die slowly and horribly before it even reaches kindergarten because it was born with Tay-Sachs.

I'm pro-knowledge. Only sexual education can prevent the kind of moral decay you're talking about and every time a conservative fights against sexual education they advocate the kind of dangerous ignorance that leads to that decay.

[Trailbreaker]

Sorry this isn't on topic with the whole abortion thing, but what exactly caused 26 people to flock to this thread and vote Obama overnight? Just curious. I too, was surprised by this huge jump in numbers in just one night.

[Trailbreaker]

Just watched the debate. The verdict...not neither, but both. Both Vice-presidential candidates did a heck of a job. In my book, Sarah Palin has proved herself to be a good debater while Joe Biden maintains his reputation as an experienced debater. It's too bad this is the only vice-presidential debate.

[Michael Do]

Just watched the debate. The verdict...not neither, but both. Both Vice-presidential candidates did a heck of a job. In my book, Sarah Palin has proved herself to be a good debater while Joe Biden maintains his reputation as an experienced debater. It's too bad this is the only vice-presidential debate.

I think Palin did a poor job. Shes not straight to the point and talking crap before answering the question.

[Trailbreaker]

I think Palin did a poor job. Shes not straight to the point and talking crap before answering the question.

Where she was good was taking the spotlight and was in your face. I still don't agree with her stands on issues though.

[uraydo]

I think Palin did a poor job. Shes not straight to the point and talking crap before answering the question.

That and she kept saying "maverick" but never said anything to justify it.

I have been leaning for McCain for a long time because I thought he would do a better job of achieving fuel independence. However, with the economy the way it is, I don't think fuel will be the fix I was hoping it to be.

[nelson]

Just watched the debate. The verdict...not neither, but both. Both Vice-presidential candidates did a heck of a job. In my book, Sarah Palin has proved herself to be a good debater while Joe Biden maintains his reputation as an experienced debater. It's too bad this is the only vice-presidential debate.

I think Biden hit it out of the ark when he confronted her with the differences of Bush's policies, when he called her on McBush's love for deregulation (she couldn't defend McBush), when he called her out for calling her and John "Mavericks," and when he said he was a single father in the past.

CNN is reporting the following: 51% of those polled thought Biden did the best job in Thursday night's debate, while 36% thought Palin did the best job.

Sarah Palin did not make any new converts. Republicans say she proved she could rise above expectations. Which brings me to the point: How can someone say that she "exceeded expectations" like it's a GOOD thing? Why can't anyone hold her to a realistic standard?

[BeetleJuice]

Sarah Palin was phenomenal. She had real enthusiasm, reestablishing her credentials. So much pressure on her tonight, she aced it.
Senator Biden was calm and professional. Clearly experienced, and a very good debater. Two different styles.
Palin didn't help McCain much though, more a rescue operation for herself.

John McCain missed a big opportunity not opposing the Wall St. bailout plan, undercutting his message of reform. The Maverick siding with the establishment. Bullshit. His campaign is fucked up.
Sarah Palin 2012.

Sorry this isn't on topic with the whole abortion thing, but what exactly caused 26 people to flock to this thread and vote Obama overnight? Just curious. I too, was surprised by this huge jump in numbers in just one night.

Take a guess.
Thank the administrator of shootfortheedit.com, Nelson. The votes are rigged.
37 for Obama. 26 in one afternoon, very impressive.

[BeetleJuice]

I think Biden hit it out of the ark when he confronted her with the differences of Bush's policies, when he called her on McBush's love for deregulation (she couldn't defend McBush), when he called her out for calling her and John "Mavericks," and when he said he was a single father in the past.

CNN is reporting the following: 51% of those polled thought Biden did the best job in Thursday night's debate, while 36% thought Palin did the best job.

Sarah Palin did not make any new converts. Republicans say she proved she could rise above expectations. Which brings me to the point: How can someone say that she "exceeded expectations" like it's a GOOD thing? Why can't anyone hold her to a realistic standard?

The Republican's campaign has been totally blitzkrieged by the Wall St. bailout fiasco.
McCain should not support the bailout, it's against everything Republicans stand for. He's fucked up big time.
No escape now, Obama by a landslide.

And btw, Sarah Palin is not an intellectual, she is not a brilliant orator, and she is not part of the Washington elite.
Accept the cultural/social divides of America. Palin is a good politician with strong beliefs.
Disagree with the Governors policies, maybe, but don't question her intelligence. Sarah Palin's academic record speaks for itself.

[nelson]

Take a guess.
Thank the administrator of shootfortheedit.com, Nelson. The votes are rigged.
37 for Obama. 26 in one afternoon, very impressive.

Yeah, I would take the time to rig polls.... I'm not a Republican.