Obama Chooses Joe Biden as VP

[Professor S]

Game, I can see our differences in conservative belief then, and you're pretty much the exact opposite of me.

I'm very fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and you flip that, but please don;t state that when it comes to the economy Obama reflects a conservative nature. Our founders believed in individuals, not a collectivist government.

Personally, I don't believe the US government has much of anything to do with social issues. That is for the society that the goevrnment protects to decide, at leat to a point.

My social issues:

1) Abortion - No abortions after the 4th month. If the mother's life is in jeopardy after that time, then the doctor decides which is more viable if a coice must be made (which will likely be the mother). The point is, once a life is declared a life, they are all equal. Life is life.

2) Stem-Cell Research - I love it, just not from embyos. All the promising advances in this research come from areas other than embryonic stem cells, such as umbillical (sp?) cord stem cells. This is an abortion fight by proxy, and wile I'm moderate on abortion, the idea of creating the first steps of life for the intention of destroying it kind of sickens me.

3) Gay Marriage - If gay marriage threatens hetrero marriage, then marriage is a very weak institution. The truth is the anti-gay marriage ban is just a way to socially separate gays from straights. Its silly this is such a huge issue in politics.

4) Immigration - Forget the illegal immigrants, and go after the employers... HARD. If no one was hiring illegals, there wouldn't be so many here because there would be no reason for them to cross over. Until there is a solution that centers on businesses hiring the illegals, all this talk is nothing but lip service.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

1) Abortion - No abortions after the 4th month.

2) Stem-Cell Research - I love it, just not from embyos.

Why not set up a program that harvests aborted stem-cells, seems like a win-win to me

Originally Posted by Professor S

3) Gay Marriage - If gay marriage threatens hetrero marriage, then marriage is a very weak institution. The truth is the anti-gay marriage ban is just a way to socially separate gays from straights. Its silly this is such a huge issue in politics.

agreed. from a social standpoint, marriage is just an institution between two people. never understood the opposition to gay marriage other than ignorance and discrimination.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

agreed. from a social standpoint, marriage is just an institution between two people. never understood the opposition to gay marriage other than ignorance and discrimination.

I don't have problems with civil unions between 2 people, I just have a problem with calling it marriage. It mostly has to do with my religion though, how I see it, marriage is moral, homosexuality is immoral. Mixing the two is a perversion of what it originally means.

As for my stance as being pro life, to me its just common sense. I don't believe people should have the right to kill their own children. Of course there are special circumstances that I can sympathise with, but unless the child poses a health threat to the parent, or has no chance of coming out medically sound, then I'm against it.

My question would be, where do you find the contradiction in the one liner you quoted? They're completly different subjects.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I don't have problems with civil unions between 2 people, I just have a problem with calling it marriage. It mostly has to do with my religion though, how I see it, marriage is moral, homosexuality is immoral. Mixing the two is a perversion of what it originally means.

A definition is simply semantics. I would think, at the very least, in an effort to project a fair and equal image, that you would extend the term "marriage" to the homosexual community. After all, in my eyes, a "homosexual union" is equal to a "marriage."

You are still entitled to your belief that homosexual marriage is a "perversion of what it originally means." However, defining it as a "union" or a "marriage" is simply semantics, and in this golden day of age I personally feel we should treat everyone on common, equal terms.

To get philosophical, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Originally Posted by TheGame

homosexuality is immoral

You have my attention, and so I ask, what religion do you practice? I have gathered that you believe in some form of Christianity. (I myself was raised Roman Catholic).

Just so you know, it is fairly accepted amongst the scientific community that homosexuality is a biological predisposition (a completely natural one) that is either the result of literally, a "gay-gene," or some psychological predisposition in the developmental years.

I'd love to start a side-thread and argue morals, especially morals pertaining to biological occurrences. Here's some light reading to consider, just some food-for-thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Originally Posted by TheGame

My question would be, where do you find the contradiction in the one liner you quoted? They're completly different subjects.

I think taking an anti-gay marriage stance is taking a passive role in society that hinders the social progress of humanity. Maybe a better comparison would have been to point out that you are pro-life but think the US should be involved with the rest of the world. You said:

Originally Posted by TheGame

I think that America should be proactive about war and squash problems before they get to big

I think wars are about as anti-Christian as you can get. Ignoring the Old Testament, the New Testament gets all preachy about loving thy neighbor and not killing people. The invention of the "terrorist" is 21st century fear-mongering by our United States government. True story. I don't know, I can't outright attack you because I am pro-life and pro-some wars, like World War 2 and the Civil War, but I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. And it's not just you, it's Bush, McCain, and a whole lotta other Republicans.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I think wars are about as anti-Christian as you can get. Ignoring the Old Testament, the New Testament gets all preachy about loving thy neighbor and not killing people. The invention of the "terrorist" is 21st century fear-mongering by our United States government. True story. I don't know, I can't outright attack you because I am pro-life and pro-some wars, like World War 2 and the Civil War, but I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. And it's not just you, it's Bush, McCain, and a whole lotta other Republicans.

Terrorism is not a 21st century invention at all. Its been around for centuries, if not longer. The British boarded up churches filled with women and children and then burned them down. Just because it was the military, doesn't make it any less of a terrorist act.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

The IRA operated for decades in the 20th century, as did the PLO, Hamas and any number of fundamental islamic groups in reaction to their advancing culture and technology.

To say that terrorism is an invention of the 21st centuries ignores both history and logic. Are there elements that want to exploit terrorism? Sure, but I think they've failed completely. I don't know any American who operates out of fear of terrorism, but it is a clear and present danger. Should we simply ignore the fact that there are people trying to kill civilians? There is a difference between fear and pragmatic awareness of a real situation.

Statements like the ones you've made about terrorism are only an excuse to pretend it doesn't exist or can't effect us. To do so would be to invite more attacks, and thats common sense talking, not fear.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Terrorism is not a 21st century invention at all. Its been around for centuries, if not longer. The British boarded up churches filled with women and children and then burned them down. Just because it was the military, doesn't make it any less of a terrorist act.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.

The IRA operated for decades in the 20th century, as did the PLO, Hamas and any number of fundamental islamic groups in reaction to their advancing culture and technology.

To say that terrorism is an invention of the 21st centuries ignores both history and logic. Are there elements that want to exploit terrorism? Sure, but I think they've failed completely. I don't know any American who operates out of fear of terrorism, but it is a clear and present danger. Should we simply ignore the fact that there are people trying to kill civilians? There is a difference between fear and pragmatic awareness of a real situation.

Statements like the ones you've made about terrorism are only an excuse to pretend it doesn't exist or can't effect us. To do so would be to invite more attacks, and thats common sense talking, not fear.

See...in my opinion, terrorism is an ideal. It is an abstract. It is not a clear-cut thing and there is no solution for it. And, what defines someone as a "terrorist" becomes a complex argument. I believe that there are clear-cut "acts of terorism" but actually defining a "terrorist" is a difficult task.

Let me remind you that this war in Iraq is a "War on Terrorism." What a load of bullshit that is. I wonder how many American people, even today, understand why the Al-Qaeda targeted us on 9/11.

Our current administration painted this wonderful image. "They are attacking us because we have freedom, and we are a democracy!" And thus, we deemed the Al-Qaeda "evil" terrorists and we are the White Knights of Freedom (never mind the thousands of civilian casualties we inflicted from bombing Iraq). One topic never discussed in American politics is did we have the 9/11 atacks coming. I'd say yes. Was it moral or right of the Al-Qaeda to kill thousands of Americans? No. But, the attack was not random, and in a way it was probably not all that surprising (aside from the execution, which was clever and surprising).

The Al-Qaeda are not upset because we have freedom and Democracy, they are upset because of our involvement in the Middle East. Our pre-Iraq involvement. It seems like we are perpetuating the terrorism problem by continuing our involvement with Iraq. It seems very cyclical in nature. We "create" the terrorist who wants us out of the Middle East, we stay in the Middle East for oil, the terrorist gets upset and attacks us, and we "wage war on the Terrorist" and get more oil.

Our government, on the heels of 9/11, used the terrorists as a reason to go to war with Iraq. Iraq had WMDs...they were helping out the Al-Qaeda! They were aiding those terrorist bastards who wanted to take away our FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY! Talk about massive propaganda. And thus, the American public was at least 50/50 for this "War on Terrorism."

This still negates the fact that terrorism is an ideal. You yourself just illustrated that over the span of hundreds of years terrorism has always existed. Terrorism, like racism, stems from ideals and beliefs. There is no cure for terrorism. There is no war that can be waged against a terrorist. There will always be someone who stands against the status quo.

Presumably, this War on Terror is a War to Get Oil, not a war to smash an ideal.

But, hey. Terrorism is ancient. The Pilgrims were terrorists (die Native Americans!). Christians are terrorists (let's wage war agains the Pagans!). Or, maybe it was the Native Americans or the Pagans that were terrorists.

Acts of terrorism are as old as time. You listed a bunch of examples. Hell, how about Unit 731 and the Japanese and German experiments during World War 2. Or concentration camps. Or Prisoners of War.

It is the current US Administration that has taken the tall order of defining who is the terrorist. And they've done a good job (/sarcasm). And, I actually think they have struck fear in the hearts of some Americans.

But...the bottom line is...regardless of what War you start, who you oppress, who you kill, someone will always rise to the challenge and execute an Act of Terror. I assure you, there WILL be another act of terror, people will die, and it will be a tragedy. You can't stop it. As history has indicated. Unless you want to ignore history.

------------------

By the way...I don't know any Americans who operate out of fear of terror either. But, immediately after 9/11 people sure were rattled. It took a major war, several trillion dollars spent, 4000 American casualities, a huge increase in gas prices and THOUSANDS of Iraqi casualities for the American people to realize that maybe this war isn't about terrorism.

[Professor S]

KG, I think your views on terrorism and why we were attacked show a general lack of understanding that many have when it comes to the Middle East.

We've been attacked by middle eastern terrorists since the late 60's, not just since the original Gulf War. The main contention between the West and the Middle East is not oil or Americans on some sand dune somewhere... its that they feel their culture is under assault from Western culture. They feel that our culture was and is slowly attracting more and more away from the word of Allah and towards that of a more moderate/progressive view of islam. This is why those organizations tend to hate the Saudi's and Jordan almost as much as they hate us. To them the song "I Kissed a Girl (and I liked it)", is just as devastating as a tomohawk missile, if not moreso.

We're talking about a group of people who have no areas of compromise. They believe that the US and Israel are to be destroyed, not negotiated with. Israel attempted for YEARS to negotiate, and every time they gave a little they were rewarded by esclalated attacks.

Fundamentalist terorrists find honor and salvation in death. Their view of their religion is one where death is held higher than life, and the only true path to glory is dying while killing the heretics. They strap bombs to the mentally handicapped and pregnant women and target people waiting for a bus, not military or political targets. There is no objective, there is only the continued fight to the death.

Now you could just ignore everything I've written here as racism, but know that my opinion does not come from ignorance, but an accute observation and study of this situation over many years. my opinions have only become more harsh and polar the more I've learned.

I'm always saddened when I hear equivocating arguments like yours, failing to see issues that are simple as they are, and instead complicating them with ethnocentric opinion based on an assumption that the cause must be something a Western mind can relate to. Sometimes understanding is irrelevant, inconsequential and impossible, and there is only the recognition of the enemy and the need to defeat that enemy.

If you want a clear definition of terrorism, here it is: When the specific target of the action is not military or polticial, but instead simply meant to cause fear (hence, terrorism). Using this definition, 9/11 was an obvious terrorist attack. The insurgency in Iraq is not, as it is specifically aimed at our military for a specific outcome aimed at the target party. That doesn't make them right, it just means they're not terrorists, just as the Nazi's were not terrorists.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I think wars are about as anti-Christian as you can get. Ignoring the Old Testament, the New Testament gets all preachy about loving thy neighbor and not killing people. The invention of the "terrorist" is 21st century fear-mongering by our United States government. True story. I don't know, I can't outright attack you because I am pro-life and pro-some wars, like World War 2 and the Civil War, but I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. And it's not just you, it's Bush, McCain, and a whole lotta other Republicans.

I'm not being suckered into a religious belief debate. I've tried it long ago, and not going to allow this thread to go there. However, I'll mention that I am a christian.

As for sciences "discovery" that people are pre disposed to being homosexual.. My reply to that is according to my beliefs humans are pre disposed to being evil and immoral. The people who I feel do the "right thing" are the ones who fight such tendancies, and/or recognize that they're doing something wrong and ask for forgiveness for their sins and try to change.

That's what I believe, and for the sake of this thread I'll plege the low road and not fight it. And say I will not acknowlege any further attempts to prove I'm wrong because of where it will take things. I'll read it, just no further acknowlegement.

[Professor S]

Game, I won't argue with you on your stance on homosexuality. Instead I'll simply tell you my point of view.

I've had a friend since childhood who always had a rough time. He never seemed comfortable in his own skin, but he dated occasionally and we just thought little of it. Three of us went to college together, and the reasons for his uncomfortability became pretty evident. He stopped dating, and pretty much became reclusive, and was often VERY defensive about jokes pertaining to his sexuality. We knew he was gay, but couldn't say anything. How do you tell a friend "Dude, you're gay. Go bang dudes and stop killing yourself."

He came out after college, and thank God he did. He was so much happier, and it wasn't until after talking to him that we discovered he was suicidal when he was in the closet.

To me, sexuality is not a choice for 95% of people. We are the way we are, and to fight it simply hurts ourselves terribly as our sexuality is a huge part of our identity. My friend could not choose to be straight any more than I could choose to be gay. I am what I am, and he is what he is, and no amount of hoping and praying and fighting can change this for most people, IMO.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Why not set up a program that harvests aborted stem-cells, seems like a win-win to me.

If its privately funded, ok, but not funded by the government. The danger is in the global marketplace, where there could be "phetus farms" with government money involved. In much of the world, people are still a commodity ot be trafficked, and I'd hate for our tax dollars to somehow get involved. Embryonic stem-cell research is a swamp that I don't think we should wade in.

The truth of the matter is embryonic stem-cell research has no real future. If it did, private money would be in it, and there is none. Public money should follow private, as that is where the true promise lies... investing in stem-cell research that shows promise and not just political bluster.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Game, I can see our differences in conservative belief then, and you're pretty much the exact opposite of me.

I'm very fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and you flip that, but please don;t state that when it comes to the economy Obama reflects a conservative nature. Our founders believed in individuals, not a collectivist government.

Personally, I don't believe the US government has much of anything to do with social issues. That is for the society that the goevrnment protects to decide, at leat to a point.

My social issues:

1) Abortion - No abortions after the 4th month. If the mother's life is in jeopardy after that time, then the doctor decides which is more viable if a coice must be made (which will likely be the mother). The point is, once a life is declared a life, they are all equal. Life is life.

2) Stem-Cell Research - I love it, just not from embyos. All the promising advances in this research come from areas other than embryonic stem cells, such as umbillical (sp?) cord stem cells. This is an abortion fight by proxy, and wile I'm moderate on abortion, the idea of creating the first steps of life for the intention of destroying it kind of sickens me.

3) Gay Marriage - If gay marriage threatens hetrero marriage, then marriage is a very weak institution. The truth is the anti-gay marriage ban is just a way to socially separate gays from straights. Its silly this is such a huge issue in politics.

4) Immigration - Forget the illegal immigrants, and go after the employers... HARD. If no one was hiring illegals, there wouldn't be so many here because there would be no reason for them to cross over. Until there is a solution that centers on businesses hiring the illegals, all this talk is nothing but lip service.

So bizarre we have the same opinions on a vast majority of the issues, and choose to vehemently defend the two different candidates.

Could this two party system be broken? Are American politics bizarre and worthless? /rhetorical questions.

And to some of the other people here: stop using your religion as a backdrop for who you choose to vote for. Religion is something to live your life by, not rule a nation by, and it's certainly not something you should try to put onto other people by using your right to vote to put in someone who may not be the best one for the job simply because he will continue to propagate your own religious beliefs.

It is incredibly selfish and egotistical, and the reason I hate so many voters.

I remember back in high school in an engineering class were were talking about the Bush/Kerry election, and I stated that I was for Kerry. Some other guy there was like, "Man, you're for the gays?!" And I -still- hear shit like that -every day-.

I wanted to punch him, and everyone else I hear saying stupid things like that, in the face.

PS: Does it not bother any of the people here that are supporting McCain that if he DOES win, it will be because of the people I just described? Some of you have some pretty decent reasons for supporting him, but there are not NEARLY enough of you to vote him in. If he wins it will be because of super-right wing, bible thumping, gay-hating, racist, bigoted people. Because there are -a lot- of those people.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

So bizarre we have the same opinions on a vast majority of the issues, and choose to vehemently defend the two different candidates.

Well i think that comes down to fiscal differences (I'm a supply-sider, which is trickle down without all the spending that ruins it) and a confusion between federalism and states rights.

Social issues are for people, and at the most, states to decide. Thats why I'm against Roe vs. Wade, which is not law, but legislation from the bench. I'm not anti-abortion, I just don't believe it's a federal issue, and overturning RvW would return that decision to the states.