|
|
saden1 08-29-2008, 10:21 PM No it is not difficult to understand your point. The political machinery on both sdes of the fence is in high gear searching out percieved weakness, and the exploitation of same.
I am not sure if "experience" trumps "change" or not. Your call
Ideally, we need a leader that possess's experience, judgement, etc, etc. While I am impressed with neither, I will end up voting for the one who I feel will do the least damage
Experience vs Change? What does that mean?
Qualify "least damage."
Experience vs Change? What does that mean?
Qualify "least damage."
Mccain's platform of experience
Obama's platform of change
Least damage=least damage done to our country by either of our prospective Presidents
IMO it is a shame this is the best we can field.
GTripp0012 08-30-2008, 10:43 AM The script goes something like this:
Obama: "We need change! Change, and hope!"
General Audience: "Sounds good! But what kind of change? What are we changing TO?"
Obama: "Just change. And hope too, don't forget the hope."
Liberals: "Can't argue with that, change is good! Long as we go somewhere, who cares where it is, right?"
Conservatives: "Change is scary. That nice looking old white man looks more reliable."
Obama: "pssst...change! (and hope)"
McCain: Unavailable. Currently having some soldering work done on his iron lung.
Obama: "We're hopeful FOR change! And the change will bring us hope!"
General Audience: "I don't know, still not sure what's changing or what it's changing to.
Liberals: "YEAH! We'll just hope that the change takes us where we want to go! We'll hammer out the specifics later."
Conservatives: Unavailable. Too embarrassed to comment.
McCain: "I'll give you change! How does a 44-year old woman as VP sound?!"
Obama: "Um...well, we don't really want THAT kind of change."
General Audience: "So what kind of change is good?"
Obama: "Don't know, but we know it's not that kind of change. It's change, just different."
Liberals: "Woohoo! Change! And hope!"
Conservatives: "Yowza! She's hot AND she's got a gun!"Greatest. Post. Ever.
GTripp0012 08-30-2008, 10:52 AM Palin is also batshit crazy...no abortion in case of rape and incest!I'm not a hard line pro lifer in the slightest, but do explain why this is a "batshit crazy" position given the implication from the religious right that Abortion is a form of Murder.
Given that implication, the next step in logic tells us that two moral wrongs would not make a right.
GTripp0012 08-30-2008, 10:57 AM According to the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People) the mean life expectancy for males is 75.29 years.Don't forget to mention that the mean life expectancy for any male who lives to (at least) age 72 is much higher than that.
This is not a whole lot different from arguing that the mean football team finishes 8-8, so the 7-3 Colts have little chance at the playoffs.
Schneed10 08-30-2008, 10:59 AM According to the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People) the mean life expectancy for males is 75.29 years. There's a good chance McCain might not make it through his first term. He has roughly 50/50 chance though his cancer complicates things. Oh never mind, I'm sure he has great genes and he'll get the best care money can buy to extend his life.
Poor math, Saden.
If you were asking what is the life expectancy of a male baby born today, the answer would be 75.29 years. But we're not, we're asking what is the life expectancy of a 72 year old who has a healthy heart, is not and has never been overweight, who eats healthily and gets exercise.
The life expectancy on a person with that profile is a lot higher than 75.29.
Life expectancy stats factor in the chances of someone being shot in the head, dying in a car accident, eating like crap and clogging their heart, drinking heavily, etcetera etcetera. Given that McCain does none of those things, those factors go out of the equation for him, and the LE number goes up.
saden1 08-30-2008, 11:20 AM I'm not a hard line pro lifer in the slightest, but do explain why this is a "batshit crazy" position given the implication from the religious right that Abortion is a form of Murder.
Given that implication, the next step in logic tells us that two moral wrongs would not make a right.
Oh that explains it. She's a pro-life Christian so it's OK to have vulgar and unreasonable religious beliefs?
Two wrongs? What is wrong is imposing your religious beliefs on others through legislative means.
saden1 08-30-2008, 11:23 AM Don't forget to mention that the mean life expectancy for any male who lives to (at least) age 72 is much higher than that.
This is not a whole lot different from arguing that the mean football team finishes 8-8, so the 7-3 Colts have little chance at the playoffs.
McCain is the Colts? Couldn't he be the 6-3 Lions or 10-6 Browns?
saden1 08-30-2008, 11:30 AM Poor math, Saden.
If you were asking what is the life expectancy of a male baby born today, the answer would be 75.29 years. But we're not, we're asking what is the life expectancy of a 72 year old who has a healthy heart, is not and has never been overweight, who eats healthily and gets exercise.
The life expectancy on a person with that profile is a lot higher than 75.29.
Life expectancy stats factor in the chances of someone being shot in the head, dying in a car accident, eating like crap and clogging their heart, drinking heavily, etcetera etcetera. Given that McCain does none of those things, those factors go out of the equation for him, and the LE number goes up.
I am wrong in my assessment. He he has better chance of making it out of his first term than I gave him credit.
GTripp0012 08-30-2008, 11:30 AM Oh that explains it. She's a pro-life Christian so it's OK to have vulgar and unreasonable religious beliefs?
Two wrongs? What is wrong is imposing your religious beliefs on others through legislative means.
What's vulgar and unreasonable to you could be simple common sense to someone else, and to argue that your position should be considered the higher authority in all disagreements is beyond ignorant, it would be arrogant and utterly pathetic.
Which is why, to avoid such a situation, I feel you would be wise to master the skill of arguing based on implications. If the implication is "abortion=murder" (which is something I don't even necessarily agree with, but a lot of very intelligent people do), then you can't act like the people who believe this are inherently wrong. To do so would be batshit crazy.
|