Obama Wins Presidency

[RobDog888]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7697829.stm

Boooo! :down:





:lol:

[dclamp]

rob! i already started a thread a whole minute before you!

[RobDog888]

True, not much to really see as positive.

Obama will be seen as a weak leader. Everyone just was fed up with the economy and osama just said "change" and everyone just jumped on the band wangon. Who knows what will happen now.

[RobDog888]

rob! i already started a thread a whole minute before you!
Well it cant possibly be a "whole minunte" :lol: Within seconds but you posted it in the wrong forum

[dclamp]

i wanted Mccain to win because he was against abortion.

Obama is for abortion. Damn him! fetus' have rights at the moment of CONCEPTION!

[RobDog888]

But abortion is a small piece of the puzzle. We need someone who can rebuild the country and restore it to a strong economy.

Still its history either way whomever would have won. Just Paylin would have been much better as shes a fine looking female! :D

[dclamp]

she is taken rob!

i supposed that our economy is some what important... lol

Mccains speak is taking too long...

[dclamp]

hmm Obama 333 to 155

[RobDog888]

Hes done now. McCain is seen as a stronger leader as hes a war hero and previous POW. He would be much more strong then skinny no-experience Osama.

[RobDog888]

Lets see tomorrow when the stock market opens how much of a "change" Osama does.

Now Osama is asking McCain for help running the country. If hes so great then why does he need help from McCain?

[dclamp]

what channel are you watching? im watching ch7... Obammamamama is not talking yet...

and obama doesnt take office until January ;)

[RobDog888]

Yea, channel 7. It was stated from McCains consession phone call to Osama.

Perhaps a preview of the way things to come????

"Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

[dclamp]

stupid obama, he is wearing a red tie... red is not a tv color.

[RobDog888]

Red is for Democrat foo :D

Looked like he was fighting back tears when he was talking about McCain.

[dclamp]

obama is getting his children a dog because they are moving to the white house... maybe if one of my parents become president, i will get a dog....

[RobDog888]

So now hes saying that "We wont get there in one year and maybe not in his term but eventually we will ge tthere."
So what happened to all that damn "change" already? :lol:


But that first part of his speech was good. The part about the "United States". Anyone have a quote of that part?

[dclamp]

i am recording it on my pc... well at least i think i still am.

[RobDog888]

i am recording it on my pc... well at least i think i still am.
Pirating broadcasts huh dclamp? :lol: ;)

[dclamp]

private use only ;)

i didnt get that part though. i am recording now.

[RobDog888]

Darn, well its been over for a few mins now. Maybe someone will upload the video to a certain video site ;)

[dclamp]

i am uploaded a short clip of a news anchor interviewing some people who have been waiting since noon

[SurfDemon]

I thought McCain came across very well/honorably in his speech, he would have made an excellent president, but I think that Obama is also a fine choice. Both are articulate and could potentially mend the damage that's been done to America's image abroad. As for the economy, lets face it, it's not the president that's going to save the economy, it's his economic advisors.....

[dclamp]

i can hear fireworks outside... i know it isnt July 4th... Or disneyland, they dont start until 10...

[RobDog888]

Its the FBI dclamp. They are raiding your house for pirating software :lol:


Well I just want the one that will bring us out of this recession and not screw things up.

[dclamp]

here we go.. only took like a hour and a half to upload... youtube sucks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otpbQF38s9g

[TheBigB]

i wanted Mccain to win because he was against abortion.

Obama is for abortion. Damn him! fetus' have rights at the moment of CONCEPTION!
Say that again when you accidentally get someone pregnant... ;)

[RobDog888]

Boo, very bad quality. Thats not the speach but the interview of the crowd. :(

[allankevin]

what will happen now to the call centers owned by american here in asia? specially in the philippines huhu :(

[schoolbusdriver]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Think yourselves lucky. You could have ended up with a [not seriuos] woman [/not serious] (such as the "mis-speaking" HC) in charge. Here in the UK, we ended up with...

Margaret Thatcher

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2005/03/23/MargaretThatcherhanibal.jpg

[visualAd]

We all know the president has no real power. ;) Without sounding too bad, the consensus here (in the UK) seems to be that US citizens have gone against the stereotypical "americans are racist" thing and voted a non-white person into the presidency.

[Atheist]

Now I havent followed the election (im not american! ;) ), but after reading a text about what Obama wants to change, I'd say I like him! He seems to be a man that will reson in questions using intelligence and careful thought, as opposed to using conservative "this is what we've always done, and this is what we'll do now"-thoughts.

[Andrew G]

I heard McCain is a bit of an angry guy, like he will act irrationally when angered, so do you really want someone who can't control his temper running your country? Obama looks more calm. I also wanted Obama to win cause some Americans are racist and its time you all got rid of that racist attitude, and if anyone thinks otherwise, i can find a fair few youtube videos to support my argument.

Also, Rob its Obama, with a B not Osama ;)... just cause one of his parents is muslim doesn't make him a terrorist. He's actually Christian (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/bios/#1918). :p

[crptcblade]

Americans are racist

Thanks, love you too :afrog:

[Andrew G]

Thanks, love you too :afrog:
Except you crptcblade, your too cute to be racist :afrog:

[GaryMazzone]

Remember change is good because it is change. And if the change is not good enought (remember change is good) we can change the change.

And so on and so on. Change the Change Then Change the Change that Changed the Change

[mar_zim]

Except you crptcblade, your too cute to be racist :afrog:

Now you two get a room!


Congrats to the USA.
We'll just wait if he keep his promises. :wave:

[visualAd]

I also wanted Obama to win cause some Americans are racist ....
This is the stereotypical view that I speak of; and it is one which the US needs to try and shake if it is to promote a "free country" and boast their values and democratic ways to the rest of the world.

Sure, racism is still systemic in the US (and the UK) and is an issue which will remain for a long time, not least, the view that the establishment itself is inherently racist. The issue of racism doesn't only extend to the "Black / Afro-Caribbean", as Rob Dog so effectively demonstrated, there is now the issue of racism toward Islamic societies. Apparently being Muslim makes you a terrorist - I encounter many individuals in the UK who also make the same assumptions.

Some US citizens have done a good thing by casting aside any societal miss conceptions regarding race and voting for the best candidate. Others, possibly non white US citizens probably voted for the first time in their lives simply because Obama was standing, others probably voted for McCain simply because he was white and they would rather be dead than see Obama as president.

The fact that he won is to the rest of the world a big, historic change. To us outsiders, we see the US president as a representative of the people, an ambassador for the US citizens and, even though racism will remain a problem for the US which will take time to "sort out". For the first time I think we will see other countries, especially the middle eastern countries, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan become more receptive to the US foreign policy.

So, Obama has literally been handed a chance to change the world. His leadership will be the test of weather or not he can do that. Weather or not he does is irrelevant, because he has already made history. :wave:

[System_Error]

It's over and done with and Obama won fair and square. All I will say now is that he's my President and I wish the best for him and hope he has a very successful term. I'm sure some of us have doubts, but maybe he will turn things around and prove that he's not just a light without heat. So in four years or even a couple I'd like to look back and say I was wrong about the guy.


With that said, I'm gonna contradict what I've said in other posts and say that I think Obama will have an easier time changing things than what people think. For the most part, a president just guides and influences policy. With such a large majority of our politicians having democratic leaning, it shouldn't be a challenge for Obama to get a "yes" on anything he wants done. That means the opportunity for change is definitely there, but the correct decisions still have to be made.



Americans are racist and its time you all got rid of that racist attitude, and if anyone thinks otherwise, i can find a fair few youtube videos to support my argument.

You can also find some youtube videos on the church Obama attended for so long - it might make your idea of "who hates who" less one sided.

[Arrow_Raider]

Since no one else has made a comment on this, I would like to emphasize that calling Obama "Osama" is ridiculous and makes you look like a fool.

[RobDog888]

If Obama can actually motivate change then good but change for the sake of change is not always good. It has to be the right change. You can not play trial and error with the economy. Careful research and analysis needs to be done. This takes time which of course we do not have. Remember there are stero types and Obama is not your typical Afro-American. That is the one thing he has going for him to help him suceed in fixing the country. Seems Americans are not as racist as many think. 62% of voters, I think it was was, were white supporters of Obama. Noww how is that racist?

[RobDog888]

Since no one else has made a comment on this, I would like to emphasize that calling Obama "Osama" is ridiculous and makes you look like a fool.
Of course I'm not serious on that part as even my posts are not directed in that manner. How could I be serious since I am not putting him down in any way other then not having the experience. ;)

[System_Error]

Since no one else has made a comment on this, I would like to emphasize that calling Obama "Osama" is ridiculous and makes you look like a fool.

It's ok to switch letters around in someone's name to make some funny nickname, but you CAN'T do it to Obama.

That's foolish...

Did you whine and complain when people came up with names for Hilary Clinton?

Hilary --> Hitlery (saying Hilary is Hitler, just in case you couldn't tell)
Obama --> Osama

Big deal. Get over it.

[RobDog888]

What? Well those jokes about Hillary were just as funny. :lol: But anyways, back on to the point. :)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Obama has shown that he can find the smartest person in the room and ask the right questions of them. It'll be change enough to have a leader who will seek out advice rather than ratification of his intuition.

McCain was a much better person than the campaign he ran. Anybody who has been awake for the last decade knows that he took Palin as a running mate because he felt she would give him a chance, not because he really wanted her as VP. The person he wanted to have as his VP was Joe Leiberman.

McCain is a rash, hot tempered, but highly principled public servant. In this campaign he gave away too much of himself to chase the prize. Now he'll be back where he belongs, and it makes perfect sense for Obama to reach out to him in particular, as McCain has shown a preference for principle over party whenever he didn't need party support for a presidential race.

[NotLKH]

62% of voters, I think it was was, were white supporters of Obama.

Would that be 62% of those white people who voted, voted for Obama?
Or
Would that be 62% of those who voted for Obama were white people?

[Shaggy Hiker]

The jokes I heard about Bush would get me banned. Of course, with a name like that, the low hanging fruit is just too easy.

As a big, hairy, white guy, I have no misconceptions about racism in this country. People just seem to let down their guard when talking to me. Maybe it's just that I don't talk back. I was very concerned about the Bradley Effect in this election, since I know so many closet racists who have not changed their views, they have just learned to hide them in public. Thus, I was greatly encouraged by the results.

[RobDog888]

Would that be 62% of those white people who voted, voted for Obama?
Or
Would that be 62% of those who voted for Obama were white people?
Thats 62% of those who voted for Obama were white/caucasian.

Also, those who voted for Obama that made more then $200K a year also support him raising taxes on the rich which would increase their own taxes too.

[System_Error]

As a big, hairy, white guy, I have no misconceptions about racism in this country. People just seem to let down their guard when talking to me. Maybe it's just that I don't talk back. I was very concerned about the Bradley Effect in this election, since I know so many closet racists who have not changed their views, they have just learned to hide them in public. Thus, I was greatly encouraged by the results.

I thought Obama's race would be a great selling point for him in this race, but I do have my worries about his safety as a president.

[RobDog888]

I thought Obama's race would be a great selling point for him in this race, but I do have my worries about his safety as a president.
Thats my point and agree. If he can do it then great but I just felt McCain was more experienced.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I felt McCain was too much like me. I don't belong in the White House, and neither does he.

[Hack]

To be honest, I would have voted for Harvey the Invisible Rabbit as long as Harvey wasn't a republican.

We have had enough of those morons to last several life times.

[Hack]

Sorry but I just think that's stupid. Vote on the issues, not the party.Issues Shmisues - After George Bush I would have voted for kregg as long as he wasn't a republican.

Incidentially, I have been a registered, card carrying republican, for over 40 years.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The republican platform has many planks that I dislike. Therefore, I would have to agree with Hack if I looked only at the party platform. What issues are there other than the ones that the republicans take on? There are a few republicans in my state that I have no problem with. However, if they have the majority, then they will push the party platform, which I have serious problems with. You do have to consider party affiliation along with the individual. If the party is going to do things that you really dislike, then even if you like one member, you have to consider the impact of that one person being elected on the overall pattern.

[zaza]

So what you're telling me is if Person A was a Democrat and promised to burn all of our children and Person B was a Republican and offered to help keep your children safe, you would have voted for Person A just because of party affiliation? That was an extreme example but shows the fallacy in voting along party lines rather than the issues at hand.

Your attitude is another reason why we need to get rid of the parties to make sure voters vote on the issues. There are plenty of great Republicans but you're letting one or a few that you didn't like tarnish everyone. That just sounds irresponsible to me.



True, but it's precisely because your example doesn't actually happen that people can vote along party lines. Policies in general are pretty similar; both sides want everybody to be happy, everybody to be wealthy, everybody to be secure. They just have slightly different ideas as to how to go about it, and because there's no proven means to secure those objectives, it means that every Joe Plumber can get on his high horse and say "My idea is better than yours". What it boils down to is what people think about a few nitty gritty issues which are important to them, such as policy on healthcare or taxes or military spending, and if they aren't even particularly swayed either way by that then why not plump for the guy who looks the part.


Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for, if you aren't especially bothered either way, voting for the party in opposition because if one party stays in power too long they tend to go a bit barmy. Keeps everybody on their toes to have a change of govt fairly regularly.

[schoolbusdriver]

Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for, if you aren't especially bothered either way, voting for the party in opposition because if one party stays in power too long they tend to go a bit barmy. Keeps everybody on their toes to have a change of govt fairly regularly.
Quite true. Maggie Thatcher had become power-mad and was in tears when she was kicked out, still in disbelief.

As regards McCain and Obama, I've found the run-up to the election amusing at times. Let me explain - the media in the UK are like rotweillers when they scent a weakness in a politician and it's no doubt the same in the US. For instance, HC was a dead duck when she said she was "under fire", McCain lost it after the "Bomb, bomb Iran" jibe. Both demonstrated a lack of integrity and certain contempt for the general publics' intellect. As far as I know, Obama never tried to fool anybody.

Add that to communications and file sharing technology - any politician who messes-up can't hide any more. i.e. I don't even need a phone, PC or envelope to communicate in short order - I can send emails through my TV if I want (and it's got chat facilities now...)

Obama may be good for the US in other ways. Others have already said many US leaders/citizens are racist, but what about the coloured leaders of unfriendly oil rich countries ? They may be more amenable to a black (If the president of the US can say "black", so can I ...) president than a white one. The US has voted in an opportunity, it would be daft not to use it.

Spoofs can backfire on you. During the mayoral elections for London (UK), Ken Livingston put out a video ridiculing Boris Johnson. People regarded Livingston's video as childish. Boris won despite being portrayed as a buffoon. The Obama/Osama and Hussein jibes have no doubt had exactly the same effect - showing the McCain camp as being ridiculous and childish.

And finally...


There are all sorts of reasons for hoping that Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. He seems highly intelligent. He has an air of courtesy and sincerity. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, he has no difficulty in orally extemporising a series of grammatical English sentences, each containing a main verb.

Boris for the next UK Prime Minister ? :lol:

[RobDog888]

There are all sorts of reasons for hoping that Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. He seems highly intelligent. He has an air of courtesy and sincerity. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, he has no difficulty in orally extemporising a series of grammatical English sentences, each containing a main verb.
Very good quote. Perhaps you should have worked for Obama's campaign

[Andrew G]

So what you're saying is because of a few people who are racists, because you heard McCain is angry and because Obama looks cool to you, you wanted him to win? Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

I just hope no one voted for Obama just to prove we're not racist because that in itself is racism. Vote for him because you like his policies.

Maybe Ron Paul in 2012? (hey I can dream, can't I?)
A person who keeps his cool in the heat of an argument or conflict and hence is able to make good decisions is much better than a rash person who makes quick decisions without having a clear mind. In your anger you make stupid decisions, now magnify that to the whole country.

People should really vote for who has the best policies that appeal to them like you said, but that should not be the only thing they should think of. Remember they only just want to get supporters, so how do you know anything they say will even happen?

You personally might not be racist, but there are plenty of people who said they wouldn't be caught dead with a black president, how is that not racist?

[RobDog888]

They are saying Paylin will be groomed to run for president in 2012 but only if Obama screws up otherwise she will run in 2016 when he comes to the limit of his term.

[Andrew G]

She knows she has no chance against him? :p

[Ellis Dee]

Besides, if you look at what the Democrats and Republicans are voting on in the House and Senate, they're almost the same party most of the time. I really think we need to disband the parties and restructure our voting / party system but that'll never happen.This is so very not true. For example, the issues I care about: I want us out of Iraq yesterday.
Abortion must remain legal.
Stem cell research should be federally funded, like all other promising areas of research.
The war on drugs needs to be abandoned, especially the mandatory sentences. The focus should be treating drug abuse as a health issue, not punishing it as a crime.
The Patriot Act needs to be immediately revoked, as well as every detainee in Guantanamo needs to be given immediate representation. Under Bush we have become a monstrosity that would have made our founding fathers weep. 20 short years after Orwell's nightmare, Bush brought it to life. No more imprisonment without due process. No more torture. No more warrantless wire taps. This police state has got to go. Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
I want the next Supreme Court appointees to be liberals.
Religion, as well as all woo-woo superstition, needs to be removed from the White House. What is with Republicans and their dopey beliefs? At least Laura Bush wasn't consulting astrologers.Tell me again how both parties are the same.

[Atheist]

All good points mr Dee! :afrog:

[Ellis Dee]

You don't get to say "that's a Bush thing, not a Republican thing" when we've had to suffer through 8 years of destructive Republican policies. If his policies were so contrary to Republican ideals why did he get their nomination in 2004?

I thought of a couple more that I don't particularly care about since they don't apply to me, but the lack of these things offends me as a thoughtful person. They make me ashamed of my country, or at very least its leadership. Actual sex education, as opposed to the current "abstinence-only or you lose your funding" fundy approach.
Gay marriage should be legal.As to your "rebuttals", you have got to be kidding me. You seem to agree that the war on drugs is at best ineffective. As stated, I'm a guy who very much wants it abandoned. Be honest: If I were to cast a strictly one-issue vote on this, given two unknown candidates, which party would I do better to cast my vote for? Same question for stem cell research.

Please cite or retract your claim that Obama wants to "restrict abortion." Note that if you link to a quote where he talks about some specific type of abortion -- say, late-term partial birth abortion for example -- then you have committed the worst kind of disingenuous douchebaggery that unfortunately pervades most political discussions. Your wording deliberately implied that Obama wants to restrict all abortion. Don't be deceitful like that.

The fact that you can dig up at least one representative from both parties that are on any given side of any given issue is irrelevant. It is an obvious attempt at obfuscation in order to support your false premise that both parties are the same. They are demonstrably NOT the same. Under democratic presidencies, schools can teach about contraception without losing their funding. There is no debate about whether the joke that is creationism gets taught alongside science as "the other side of the debate."

Under democratic presidencies, the country doesn't wallow in and take pride from their willful ignorance. Our science community doesn't fall behind the rest of the world; we become the mecca of scientific research. Our economy doesn't crumble during wartime, which I would have previously thought impossible. Yet the ineptitude of republican leadership managed to pull even that off. Bravo.

And if you honestly believe that consulting psychics and astrologers isn't a dopey woo-woo belief -- you're aware I was referencing Nancy Reagan, right? -- then you are beyond hope. And Obama is not a creationist like Bush, so don't say they have the same beliefs. Bush thinks the world is 6000 years old. Yeah, I'm comfortable calling that a dopey woo-woo belief as well.

(Btw, I hate multiple-quotebox point-by-point replies. Please don't do that. Assume I know what I wrote and just put together a cohesive narrative addressing the points you want to address.)

[Ellis Dee]

There's a stereo type that Republicans are hard core Christians but that's just a stereo type and many Democrats have the same beliefs (i.e. most of them).This deserves its own reply.

You may not be aware of this, but there are different christian denominations. Some are more "hard core" than others. For example, some are bible literalists who believe the grand canyon was caused by noah's flood. These are known as evangelicals. The vast majority of evangelicals make up the base of the republican party.

Other christians believe in god, but not the literal word of the bible. Some are democrats, some are republicans. These reasonable, not idiotic people make up the majority of christian democrats but only a minority of christian republicans.

So saying that both sides are christians is either naive in the extreme or another attempt at being intentionally disingenuous.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You don't get to say "that's a Bush thing, not a Republican thing" when we've had to suffer through 8 years of destructive Republican policies. If his policies were so contrary to Republican ideals why did he get their nomination in 2004?

I had to quote this because of the second quote (there couldn't be only one).


(Btw, I hate multiple-quotebox point-by-point replies. Please don't do that. Assume I know what I wrote and just put together a cohesive narrative addressing the points you want to address.)

Nyah, nyah!

Of course, as probably the most liberal American on this forum, I agree with what you have said, but I agree with lots of the arguments that Kas put forward as well, especially the war on drugs. I feel that the only solution that has a real prayer is heavy education, but I recognize that it has no chance of solving the problem. After decades of strong and multi-faceted attempts to stop drunk driving, having surrendered on the question of stopping drinking entirely, we have not solved the problem.

The impact of alcohol on human societies is greater and more negative than all other drugs combined, yet we have given up prohibiting it, and are fighting a constant and unwinable battle to limit the damage. The other drugs will be no easier to deal with.

As for R vs D. There lines between the two have wandered back and forth over the decades. The south was staunchly democratic until the 60's because Lincoln was a Republican. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he stated that he did so though he realized that it would cost the Democratic party the south for at least the next generation. He was right. The southern vote followed the party of segregation. Other segments have followed evangelical leanings of one party or another (the first born-again evangelical president was Carter). Other groups have wandered around based on fiscal policy. The rhetoric and party platforms seem to have lagged behind the membership, though.

I supported conservative fiscal values back in the early 90's when the deficit hawks in Congress were R (like Warren Rudman and Ernest Hollings). At the time, the Rs labeled the Ds as "tax and spend". They still use the line, even though the party of deficit hawks is more the democrats than the republicans. The Ds should be labeling the Rs as "borrow and spend" conservatives, just for the contrast with "tax and spend". Ultimately, I believe that the Rs will regain the mantle as deficit hawks, but not for several more years.

[Ellis Dee]

I agree with lots of the arguments that Kas put forward as well, especially the war on drugs. I feel that the only solution that has a real prayer is heavy education, but I recognize that it has no chance of solving the problem.I think I'm not communicating my position properly.

My position is that the war on drugs is both ineffective and destructive, and as such it should be shelved. I would recommend shifting some of those reclaimed resources to the treatment of drug abuse as a health issue, but that's mostly irrelevant to my point. Regardless of what is done in place of the war on drugs -- a large scale education & treament initiative, complete decriminalization, whatever -- the main point is that the war on drugs must go.

Anything -- and I mean anything -- would be better. So when you guys say "yeah, treatment won't work either", you are implying that you want to stick with the war on drugs. I don't care a whit if the alternative doesn't work; I want the draconian, life-destroying punishment system we currently offer drug addicts to end.

To be clear, arguing that alternatives would be no better is neither compelling nor relevant to my position. "No good" is better than "actively bad."

[Ellis Dee]

God damn it! That's a huge reply! Ugh and you're so biased it doesn't even matter..... oh well :(You clearly haven't a clue. A good example is the following:Actual sex education, as opposed to the current "abstinence-only or you lose your funding" fundy approach.Fyi, under a Republican presidency you can teach about contraception. I learned about it during the first Bush administration. My cousins have learned about it in this past Bush administration. What you're saying is unfounded FUD and nothing more.Try reading for comprehension next time. Of course schools can teach about contraception. If they decide to do that, however, they will lose out on federal funding. Just like I said in a very short, clearly stated sentence.

'Abstinence Only' Policy Puts Teens at Risk (http://www.aclu-nj.org/issues/reproductivefreedom/abstinenceonlypolicyputste.htm)Yet, instead of promoting comprehensive sex education, the federal government aggressively funds "abstinence-only until marriage" programs that fail teenagers by withholding information they need to make healthy, mature decisions about sex.

To receive federal funding, abstinence-only programs must have the "exclusive purpose" of teaching the benefits of abstinence. They may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.

Thus, recipients of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds operate under a gag rule that censors vitally needed information. Grantees are forced to omit any mention of topics such as contraception, abortion and AIDS or to present them in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate fashion.

In fiscal year 2006, the federal government lavished $3.6 million in grants on New Jersey organizations to deliver abstinence-only programs to students and young people. Nationwide, some $87.5 million is spent annually on abstinence- only programs, most of it taxpayers' dollars.

[Ellis Dee]

Have you ever seen a person on drugs? It can be very intense and scary.Is this some kind of parody? If you're serious with this, I can't possibly take you seriously.

Have I ever seen a person on drugs? Let me guess; you helped organize a Scared Straight intervention for your Up With People group.

The scary drug users! So intense! Clearly, throwing them in jail is the best way to go. How could I possibly be expected to cope with scary and intense?

And just how old are you that you think a person on drugs can be "scary and intense"? 18? Most adults would describe a person on drugs as sad or depressing. Scary and intense? It's like you're describing going on safari, where you came frighteningly close to the animals.

[Ellis Dee]

My point was my schools never had any funding issues. They never had anything cut. Also, remember I specifically said I didn't know much about the issue I was just stating my experience. So "Try reading for comprehension next time".This from the guy chastising me for generalizing a specific. Way to preach it, brother. Hypocrisy lives. What the **** does your school have to do with the inarguable fact that there are such things as schools who DO need federal funding? Those schools who need the funds are not allowed to teach about contraception.

Once you graduate from your pampered, sheltered, upper middle class high school -- I'm guessing that'll be this coming June -- then maybe you'll have an opinion worth listening to. Until then, keep your naivety to yourself.

As for the hostility, here's a friendly tip: When you open with "You are a dick", don't be surprised when rudeness is returned to you.

[Ellis Dee]

You opened up the hostility with your rude and biased comments.Oh please. You didn't even understand what I was saying, as evidenced by your later agreement that what I was calling dopey woo-woo beliefs you would also call dopey woo-woo beliefs.

Then you personalized your misunderstanding of what I said and lashed out in anger, calling me a dick. And I'm the one who started it by being "biased"? Grow a thicker skin. Or just grow up. Either way works.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Anything -- and I mean anything -- would be better. So when you guys say "yeah, treatment won't work either", you are implying that you want to stick with the war on drugs.


It's hardly worth replying, since all of Kas's posts are gone, making this thread so disjointed I actually have no idea whether you were really talking to me or responding to something else. If that was directed at me, you either didn't read what I wrote or I didn't write clearly.

[demotivater]

In fairness, I think both users posts should all be gone. Just because one didn't resort to name calling, they're still condescending and contain personal attacks.

[Ellis Dee]

It's hardly worth replying, since all of Kas's posts are gone, making this thread so disjointed I actually have no idea whether you were really talking to me or responding to something else. If that was directed at me, you either didn't read what I wrote or I didn't write clearly.It was ambiguous:The impact of alcohol on human societies is greater and more negative than all other drugs combined, yet we have given up prohibiting it, and are fighting a constant and unwinable battle to limit the damage. The other drugs will be no easier to deal with.When I first read that, I inferred your meaning to be that because the act of "giving up prohibiting" alcohol has led to a situation "more negative than all other drugs combined", giving up prohibiting drugs would cause worse problems so we should stick with the war on drugs.

There is another way to read it, so apologies for the misinterpretation.

[Ellis Dee]

In fairness, I think both users posts should all be gone. Just because one didn't resort to name calling, they're still condescending and contain personal attacks.In his very first reply to me he called me dick -- "You are a dick." -- so I treated him as a hostile opponent from then on.

Not all of us have the patience of a saint.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My point was that we tried a war on alcohol, and when that failed we tried education, which has also failed. The war on drugs is an expensive failure, but no other solution will actually work, either, so what we need to do is manage for the situation using the most cost effective solution available, which appears to be education and treatment.

[Arrow_Raider]

Solution to war on drugs: death penalty for possession or use of drugs.

[mendhak]

In his very first reply to me he called me dick -- "You are a dick." -- so I treated him as a hostile opponent from then on.

Not all of us have the patience of a saint.
Don't turn hostile in return. If you get insulted, report it instead. If you turn hostile as well, then you'll be part of the problem too, from a moderator's/admin's point of view.

[allankevin]

Looks like NASDAQ is down by 4.34% :D

[FunkyDexter]

Ellis, I agree with most of what you've put (not too keen on the tone but I didn't see Kasracer's posts so, <shrug>, who am I to judge) but I do want to pick you up on a couple of points:-
Anything -- and I mean anything -- would be better. I disagree with this. The evidence from the Netherlands (the most licentious state in Europe) is that an increased tolerance to canabis has led to increased usage of harder drugs and all the problems assosciated with that. We've seen similar results in the UK as a result of downgrading it to a class C (a decision which is now being reversed). The clear implication is that a tougher aproach does have some deterring effect. Whether a limited pool of funding is better spent on deterance or treatment I really don't know as I don't think a truly impartial study has ever been done. What I'd like to see is a policy based some truly objective research rather than some focused research undertaken to support whichever policy the current government feels will be easiest to sell to the public. I suspect the most effective policy will actually be a combination of deterrence and treatment.

I also disagree with treating drug abuse as a health issue. Drug abuse contains an element of choice. Certainly in the early, pre-addiction stages and, I would argue, in the addicted stages as well. Contracting cancer, for example, contains no such element of choice. Deterrents will have some effect and, while they should not replace treatment, I believe it's sensible to keep as many tools in your arsenal as possible.

Finally, on drug abuser being scary or sad, it depends on the drug user and, to a large extent, the drug in question. A guy whose whose taken canabis is unlikely to be a threat, they're also not particularly sad. A guy on Heroin is generally sadder than they are scary. Coke, on the other hand, does tend to make people arrogant and aggressive. Someone on PCP can be downright terrifying.

[RobDog888]

Ok alot has gone on since I last looked in this thread.

Good point mendhak.



Ok, more to the topic...

World President Obama?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/06/nations-look-obama-president-world/

[SurfDemon]

Looks like NASDAQ is down by 4.34% :D
Is that good news? Why the smiley? :ehh:

[RobDog888]

If Obama is supossed to be for change then why is the stock market lacking confidence in him? It has fallen almost 1,000 points this week since he has won the vote?

[Shaggy Hiker]

As if the stock market reacted rationally to ANYTHING. It collapsed before the bailout, and dove again right after it. Unemployment is at a 14 year high, GM stated that they will run out of money by the end of the year, and the banks STILL aren't loosening credit. The market is sinking because the market is ruled by only two emotions: Greed and Fear. Right now, there isn't much greed, but there's a HUGE amount of fear. No election that will change the leadership three months from now, is going to change the facts.

[Ellis Dee]

Contracting cancer, for example, contains no such element of choice.This is a poor argument. One of the biggest strains on the healthcare system right now is morbid obesity. Eating could be argued to be a choice.

As for cancer not having any element of choice, I smoke cigarettes.

Do you have any cites for your argument that decriminalization has led to higher drug use in those countries? I'm not saying you're wrong -- it certainly sounds plausible -- but I'm also not going to just take your word for it.

Assuming there is a higher incidence of drug use, that's mostly irrelevant. Up until the Bush administration, one of the primary ideals of the American justice system was that it is far better to let 100 criminals go free than to lock up one innocent man. This principle would seem to suggest that a higher incidence of drug use is preferable to having fewer drug users with some behind bars.

[demotivater]

Hey Ellis, why don't you provide "cites" for your drivel? You seem to thrive on demanding cites, how about backing up your own liberal rhetoric? Provide a cite or retract your statement that Bush thinks the world is 6000 years old. Pull your head out of your rear end and quit trying to stun everyone with your oh so grown up words. Falling prey to your left wing "woo woo" blogs and coming here to show how enlightened you are is, frankly, laughable. Pomposity and substance are two different things.

[RobDog888]

As if the stock market reacted rationally to ANYTHING. It collapsed before the bailout, and dove again right after it. Unemployment is at a 14 year high, GM stated that they will run out of money by the end of the year, and the banks STILL aren't loosening credit. The market is sinking because the market is ruled by only two emotions: Greed and Fear. Right now, there isn't much greed, but there's a HUGE amount of fear. No election that will change the leadership three months from now, is going to change the facts.
All the analysts were watching the market the next day, as you say, there were fears that if McCain won the market would cash and if Obama won that it would have some kind of gain. The market reacts to many influences and presidential elections are just one of them.

[Ellis Dee]

Provide a cite or retract your statement that Bush thinks the world is 6000 years old.Bush endorses 'intelligent design' (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/)
Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html)
Bush White House still promoting creationism (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/12/29/bush-white-house-still-promoting-creationism/)
Candidates back creationism, scientists shocked (https://list.terc.edu/pipermail/ct-science-educators/1999-August/000443.html)
High Level Government Support for Creationism (http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html)

[Shaggy Hiker]

All the analysts were watching the market the next day, as you say, there were fears that if McCain won the market would cash and if Obama won that it would have some kind of gain. The market reacts to many influences and presidential elections are just one of them.

All the analysts? Every single one? Doggone, and here I follow the financial news every single day and had never heard even one person suggest that the market was going to go one way or the other due to the election. I guess it wasn't "all" the analysts.


When I listen to market analysts, I feel greater disgust than I do listening to political rhetoric. When they state that the direction of the market today was due to X (not you Xanith, I'm not blaming you for anything), it's so absurd I tend to make sarcastic comments at the radio, even though there's nobody around to hear me. Nobody could explain what happened for the last few weeks, and finally gave up trying. They should do that more often.

Nobody can tell what is going to happen on any given day in the market. That has never been more true than it is today. There are any number of computer driven buying and selling that is utterly devoid of emotion, yet can drive the market in the first or last hours of the day (perhaps throughout). There are also fund managers doing things for reasons that don't have anything to do with the immediate news. Look at trends rather than single day moves, unless you are doing some kind of day trading.

The general trend has been down, which is a reasonable reaction to the plethora of negative news that is hitting us day after day. The bottom is coming, but why does anybody think that electing a person who will not have any policy impact for three more months will cause some kind of dramatic change. I expected a minor bump from either election (because human traders will hope for something good from the election), but overall I think we'll end up with a DOW in the 7000s, hopefully the upper 7000s. Since we aren't there, then a further decline was reasonable to me.

[RobDog888]

All analysts <> mean they are all thinking it will go up, only they are all apying attention to it etc.

Well I can see you are passionate about the topic but lets get carried away here.

[NotLKH]

Bush endorses 'intelligent design' (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/)
Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html)
Bush White House still promoting creationism (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/12/29/bush-white-house-still-promoting-creationism/)
Candidates back creationism, scientists shocked (https://list.terc.edu/pipermail/ct-science-educators/1999-August/000443.html)
High Level Government Support for Creationism (http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html)


As to your first cited article, it seems that it all might hinge on a single, extremely politic, statement:


''I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. ''You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Although I am a republican, and I spent my first 8 years in a catholic school, I am not a supporter of "creationism" as a field of science. However, I certainly think there is room in the sciences for students to be introduced to creationism. Perhaps for five or ten minutes.

...
Your second article seems to be a rehash of the first.
...
Your third article, although most distressing, did not point out the following {Found Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=3278700) }:
in 2004, the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore moved the book from the natural science section to the inspirational section as requested by the scientific organizations

If I were to stumble across this book, I would certainly put little merit in something that might be sitting right next to "navel gazing for dummies".

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't be so harsh, I know some navels that are well worth the gazing, whether by dummies...or anyone else.

[DeanMc]

pfft who cares, we all know the LaLiLuLeLo run the US and is it true that vault tech have floated on the stock market?

[demotivater]

Bush endorses 'intelligent design' (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/)
Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html)
Bush White House still promoting creationism (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/12/29/bush-white-house-still-promoting-creationism/)
Candidates back creationism, scientists shocked (https://list.terc.edu/pipermail/ct-science-educators/1999-August/000443.html)
High Level Government Support for Creationism (http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html)
Sorry, I should have said provide some credible cites. Fail.

[Shaggy Hiker]

pfft who cares, we all know the LaLiLuLeLo run the US and is it true that vault tech have floated on the stock market?

I'd be interested in seeing a poll as to whether or not anybody actually understood any part of this. I understand most of the words, and it appears to be grammaticly correct. I can also see that there are two parts joined with an AND, yet I can't make sense out of either part.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sorry, I should have said provide some credible cites. Fail.

I knew that response was coming, I just didn't know the actual words that would be used. Therefore, as I raked up the bazillion leaves that one tree dumped onto my lawn (it must have had a good year, as there was a layer over six inches thick in some places), I pondered whether or not it would be possible to have a discussion of any political point based on some kind of common truth. My conclusion was that it wasn't possible.

In science, the only truly valid citations are peer reviewed papers. Even books are considered gray literature. Peer reviewed papers are generally considered to include discreet studies coupled with sufficient methodology information that the study could be independently reproduced. Many studies ARE independently reproduced.

The debates in this forum rarely stray into anything other than fairly recent history (with occasional forays into moden, yet not recent, history). History cannot be reproduced. Worse, every observer filters history to fit into their own particular narrative. No two people can construct events of only a few minutes past in identical fashions. Further, with the avalanche of information available at our fingertips, consuming ALL of the information available on ANY subject is beyond the abilities of any one person. Even if it were possible, the person consuming the information would filter the information based on their own biases and preconceptions. After all, the brain is only good at one task: The recognition of patterns. As a result of this, if we have a pattern that we expect to be true, the brain will amplify signal that matches the pattern, and supress signal that contradicts the pattern. We like to believe that what we perceive is actually truth, but it is nothing more than a version of truth distorted by our filters.

In this case, filtering can happen at the highest level. We can consciously decide that those sources of information that do not conform to our expectations of the world around us are simply false, while those that DO conform to our expectations, even if they do so by saying nothing at all about a subject, are valid. The absence of signal on any given subject in conforming sources is seen as proof of the fallacy of said signal in other sources. This is an utterly absurd, but self-serving, indeed self-supporting, convention.

So how are we able to deal with this? How can we live in a world where half of a population believes one set of truths are valid, while the other half believes that a different set of truths are valid. As far as I can tell, the reason this is functional is that the truths don't really impact the immediate well-being of either side. People are worried that taxes will go up, or that Palin will become president and remove all our personal freedoms, or whatever doom you so choose. None of those actually matter, though, because your cable company is going to raise your rates tomorrow and drive you into bankruptcy, or a bread truck is going to run over your car, while you're driving it, causing you to incurr huge medical bills, or perhaps your weiner dog will choke on a weiner, knock over his water bowl, and simultaneously stick his nose in the socket, causing a fire that burns down your house. The everyday disasters (and successes) that really steer our lives totally dwarf the everyday impact of most political decisions.

We simply can't prove that Trickle Down economics works. We can't prove that a different foreign policy would have prevented 9/11. We can't even prove that there is bias in the press (I recently read an article discussing the attempts at answering this empirically, how and why they have all failed so far, and what attempts are being tried at this time), though various groups have always claimed that the press favored the other side (that particular phenomenon, that pretty nearly every group sees the press as being opposed to them, HAS been studied, and even has a name, though I have forgotten what it is).

With the inability to prove these things, we are free to make up our own opinions, safe in the assurance that we can never be proven wrong. With the inability of these issues to have direct and immediate impact on us, any opinion we form on these subjects will not impact us substantially whether right or wrong, which differentiates these mental models from things like being able to predict the trajectory of a projectile headed in our direction. So there is no penalty for being wrong, nor any substantial reward for being right, and therefore we can argue back and forth over these things incessantly.

Worse, since there is no substantial cost or benefit, the perceived benefit of being RIGHT!!!! is sufficient justification to discount data that doesn't fit the model. When it comes to driving a car, discounting data that doesn't fit the model would be downright tragic. When it comes to politics, discounting data means not needing to admit that you're wrong on ANYTHING. You aren't wrong, the data is.

So what should we do? Figure out what the basis of our opinions are, and explain that basis. If people feel that your basis is correct, they will agree with your opinions. If people feel that your basis is base-less, then they will not agree with you. Nothing more can be achieved than that. However, the basis of your opinion is not so much external facts as it is personal views and experiences. After all, if you are discarding data that doesn't fit your model, external facts are pure garbage, because only the facts that fit the model are included, which is inherently biased. Therefore, the question has to be: What is your model, and how did you come by it? In many cases, people don't even want to know the answer to that. If you were opposed to Obama simply because of his race, would you admit it, or would you find something else you didn't like, and put forward that item? Nobody is the bad guy in their own narrative. So even understanding our own model is a huge hurdle. Forming a model that you can articulate to the world, is higher still.

Thus, I concluded that this debate can never be resolved, nor will any debate on politics. We can't find a common base of truth, and nobody really wants to address their own personal models.

[Shaggy Hiker]

By the way, there is a solution to the previous dissertation which I think is possibly viable, but it would take considerable effort: Accept ALL data as fact until it can be conclusively dismissed. This would necessarily leave most questions unanswered.

[DeanMc]

More people than you would think shaggy. LaLiLuLeLo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo#The_Patriots)

[Shaggy Hiker]

I knew that somebody would understand you, but that person certainly wasn't me, so I decided to say it with hyperbole.

[DeanMc]

Actually I you had a pretty witty statement there and you know know who the LALILULELO are.