Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Can you imagine John McCain trying to figure out a Wii?

I would pay upwards of five dollars to see that.

Anyway, I think what Obama was getting at with those comments is that he expects to experience swift-boat style misinformation campaigns from unofficial surrogate groups of the Republican party. I would hate to see that kind of thing from McCain's camp, especially after he got the same treatment in 2000 when Bush's cronies spread the "McCain fathered a black baby" rumor.

And you know what? I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm going to vote for him with great enthusiasm in November. But I also think he just might be the Antichrist. Guy comes from absolutely nowhere to the presidency (let's face it, he's going to win), semi-mysterious background, super charismatic, cult-like following from his most extreme supporters (YES WE CAN). I don't really think he is, and in fact I kinda doubt the whole Antichrist thing (wasn't Nero the Antichrist or something?), but he really does fit most of the criteria.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Snopes knows about the antichrist thing.

It really makes me mad, the kind of crap people say in e-mails like this. Here's another one I read the other day where people are speculating on what Obama "really" meant when he accidentally said he's visited 57 states (apparently, the Organization of the Islamic Conference happens to have 57 member states) when he obviously meant to say 47. Come on... Bush says stuff like that every day and gets a free pass beyond people making (mostly) innocent fun of the way he talks.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

I'll save all of the Anti-Christ speculation right now.
It's Martha Stewart.
You know why "they" all say it's a man? It's because "they" were all in a patriarchal system where women weren't allowed to do anything so that automatically assumed anyone with that much power had to be a man. Think about it.

Seriously, though, if what I've heard is true, the guy behind "Swiftboat" are going to come at McCain, guns blaring.[1]
Also [2].

My stepdad (Vietnam vet) gets REALLY mad when he sees this stuff. He didn't like "Swiftboat Vets", either.
In his opinion, no service member (or civilian) should ever go after another serviceman unless they've done some horrible crime.
He even has me doubting whether or not these men are actually veterans.

When they can prove to me that McCain wasn't drugged up or otherwise coerced in the "appearances" they claim happened, then I might believe that he willingly accepted preferential treatment. He DIDN'T take a "free pass" that the Vietnamese offered him when they found out his dad was an admiral (such a deal would have given them a political bargaining chip).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Kaza...WHA?

Bush has been branded a complete and utter moron because of his "Bushisms."

Free pass my... uh... patootie.

_________________

When Bush makes one of his pronouncements, people don't care anymore because they've come to expect that sort of thing from him. He has a reputation for being a bumbling public speaker. Not so for Obama. People pounce all over him for gaffes like this because he is viewed as a good speaker, so when he says something like 57 states, people will say, "Aha! Not such a brilliant speaker after all, are you?"

It's just petty ridiculousness, and I think the only people who will buy into it are the ones who already hate Obama and wouldn't vote for him anyway.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

That's still a free pass compared to charges of wanting to set up a caliphate, I think.

Frank Caliendo needs to work on an Obama impression.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Look, there are nuts out there who think crazy stuff about Obama.

Same for Bush. There are those who think he is responsible for 9/11, for example.

Let's not pretend Obama is getting picked on any more than any other high-profile political candidate we've seen.

And let's please not accuse people of being racists for choosing to criticize his policies.

For example:



Wow. I know some posters here are pro-choice, but even they must blanch at the thought of killing a baby who has survived an attempted abortion.



I think he may be afraid of being called a racist if he did so. Charles Barkley is one thing, that guy can handle being the butt of a joke. But Obama and the people surrounding him seem to see the KKK in every corner.

_________________

cough cough

_________________

I am always extremely suspicious of claims that "candidate X voted against proposed law Y". When proposed law Y is something that is obviously good, the reason for voting against it often has nothing to do with the Y part of the law but with a rider that was attached or some clause that was unreasonable. Obama did not vote against the principle of the law; he voted against the law itself. It is not enough to know that Obama voted against the law; we need to know why he voted against it. Of course, opponents (and their supporters) using things like these in their campaigns always leave that part out because it would usually defuse their argument.

"Candidate X voted against law Y" without any further elaboration is usually biased spin-doctoring that borders on outright lying, because although it doesn't say anything that is technically untrue, it invites listeners to draw blatantly false conclusions.



Perhaps that "similar bill" didn't have whatever it was Obama had objected to?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

The point of an induced labor abortion is basically euthanasia. If a baby will live a terrible, painful, short life, then an induced labor abortion is called for. These are only legal when there is a general medical consensus that this is the best route. Because induced labor abortions often occur in the third trimester, the baby is viable for life outside the womb. The spirit of the induced labor abortion is to prevent a great deal of pain for the baby and a great deal of emotional pain for the mother. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the spirit for the abortion to continue even when the baby exits the womb. Should it be legal? That depends on what you think of induced labor abortion in the first place. If you believe it should be legal, than this law naturally does not follow.

_________________

There needs to be a website or something where people in Congress can explain why they voted a certain way for a certain bill. Because you're right, "Candidate X voted against (or for) law Y" is too vague.

Mandatory Congressional blogs! Genius!



I don't want to turn this into a debate on abortion, but the idea of "We tried to kill you and failed, so now we're putting you out of your misery" is horrible to me.

_________________

And the alternative isn't horrible?

Also, if I'm reading Lunar Jesty's post right, it's not really "We tried to kill you and failed"; the fetus emerging alive is the expected outcome. The problem, and the reason that such an abortion would be necessary, is that the child is not viable whether it is born or not. To me, it sounds like a rather horrible thing no matter what you do. Still, a short horrible life sounds a lot better to me than a slightly longer horrible life.

In any case, I think saying that the law would "protect" infants in such a case is a gross mischaracterization, because, if you ask me, it doesn't really protect them from much because they're going to die anyway. So it looks like there was indeed some mischaracterization in that statement; it was just in a different part of that statement than I expected.

Now I'm not saying that everybody should agree with my opinion. What I'm saying is that "Obama voted against this act that would protect infants" is likely to provoke a different reaction in somebody than actually knowing all the facts would, even if they do feel that such abortions should not be legal. Feeling that induced labor abortions should not be legal requires some thought; feeling that "Obama wants to kill live infants and that is bad!" does not. The guy who wrote that "Obama voted against this law" statement doesn't want you to think. Don't buy into that.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

I've been looking for the exact text of the proposed legislation, but so far no luck. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

I think everyone involved in this conversation here has been spouting off about things we have unclear information on, myself included.

The main point of argument seems to be whether

A.) These babies can survive outside the womb or

B.) they will die anyway, so this is just euthanasia.

Until we get the actual text, I don't think we'll settle that question.

But here's one thing to recognize: There's at least one example of a child who survived an attempted abortion and is living a normal life. So it does happen.

_________________

This is apparently the full text. I have to admit I'm confused as to why the section numbering skips (1, 5, 10, 15, 90), and the end mentions an amendment that doesn't seem to actually appear anywhere, so maybe it isn't actually the full text even though it said "full text" when I clicked on it. I dunno. In any case, this is probably the best we're going to find.

In any case, it looks like the law doesn't say anything other than what we basically thought it said. (Of course, you can read it yourself to be sure. It's a very short read.)

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Hmm, you're right... the proposed law is vague, but I would still vote for it if I had the chance. I have a very hard time creating a line between "human" and "not human" in the progression of an unborn child. But one thing everyone seems to agree on is that once the child has been born, it's no longer subject to being aborted.

I've been thinking about the euthanasia argument made by LJ, and I have to disagree. There are children born with terminal diseases every day. As far as I know, we don't just kill them once it's clear they probably won't live a "normal" life.

Just because this child is unwanted, we should kill him right off? I say no.

In other news, the Supreme Court ruled against Washington D.C.'s gun ban today. It was a 5-4 decision.

In my opinion, this is good news. The gun ban did nothing to lower D.C.'s murder rate, as they were ranked seventh in the nation for murder in 2006. All the law did was take guns out of the hands of those who obey the law. I'm waiting for Obama's reaction to this. McCain's was positive.

_________________

Obama is all over the place on the issue of gun control, which is one of the things I like least about him. He does support the rights for individual cities and states to decide if they want to ban guns, so I'm guessing the response will be wishy-washily negative.

_________________

I don't think gun ownership does anything to increase proactive self-defense, much less lower crime rates, despite the propaganda to the contrary. Still, despite some unconvincing propaganda coming from the other side, I think it's somewhat bigger than banning guns. It's larger societal problem. There shouldn't be a need to go to crime because the legitimate avenues are blocked. DC is a city steeped in local corruption (apples don't fall far from the tree) and poverty. Politicizing and overemphasizing gun violence distracts from the true issue that rotting urban communities need better community organizing.

Gun control is a smart idea at its core though, the three West Oakland hoods who ran up on my girlfriend and I two weeks ago all had guns which were most likely obtained legally at some point. Cutting off the supply would have meant that they probably wouldn't ever have guns come to them at all. The argument that a large black market would spring up in the absence of legal guns is a sensationalist spin. And it's certainly fallacy to argue that criminals don't already care about all laws if they intend to break specific ones.

It's my feeling that most people who advocate gun deregulation live in already safe, sterile, rural/suburban areas or have something to profit from the weapons industry.

And NAFTA, and public campaign financing, and FISA.

And somehow Romney was labeled a flip-flopper, while Obama gets a free pass from the major networks, at least.

That might change, I guess. And I hope.



No, it's not.

What criminal intends to rob a convenience store or assault/kill someone but blanches at using a gun in the committal of these crimes because it's against the law to do so? That's a ridiculous thought.



Uh, there already exists a black market for guns. I guarantee it would get larger if there were some sweeping ban on guns nationwide. See: Prohibition.

Look, I don't own a gun, and don't really plan on ever doing so. It's the principle that matters, in my book.

And no, I don't profit in any way from the gun industry.

_________________

Okay, so I guess I didn't totally tie up my argument here. Someone who robs a convenience store/commits a violent crime isn't going to have access to the black market unless they already have serious connections to it. The black market would marked up
too high for street thugs. And also, the prohibition of alcohol doesn't compare to the prohibition of guns. Not only are they two very different commodities, the demand for booze was so much higher and widespread than guns will ever be.

Either way, it's wholly secondary to my original point. Gun control is a red herring in general. The problem is that there is not enough effort to assist American poverty, which is why crime is so high in the first place.

'bout time.

I guess they should have put up more signs telling the thugs and drug dealers that it's illegal to kill someone with a handgun in DC.

This presidential election is interesting. The NRA has endorsed McCain (I think), but they aren't giving him an A+ rating.

I, too, want to see Obama's take. I seem to recall him saying something like he was against guns but also against the DC ban or something like that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Let's look at the UK. It's been illegal to carry a weapon there since 1953, so it's a fairly good test case, yes? According to this BBC piece, "a recent UN study (showed), England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for 'very serious' offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed."

In America, violent crime rates have been diving since 1995, while Britain's have been skyrocketing. Somehow these criminals are able to get guns despite laws against doing so. The cost can't be prohibitively expensive.

Of course, the other aspect is that even if these criminals aren't using guns in their muggings or home invasions or whatever, they don't need to, since there's no fear that the citizens they're assaulting will be carrying.



We need to define "poverty." Poverty in America is not poverty in Africa or South America. In America, poor people can get Welfare and Medicare and homeless shelters and soup kitchens galore. Not to mention there's always an entry-level job at McDonald's or Walmart... a way for ANYONE to get a start at a good life. I worked as a janitor and newspaper boy for years, getting good work experience and a work ethic.

Now I realize there are those who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs who can't do these things, but in my opinion, most everyone can. That's what's so great about America.

[/soapbox]

_________________

*popping in for a second*

You'd be surprised, though. People who live in the more city sprawl can have access to these, but there's people out there in the super rural areas that are just living in beyond squallor, but are used to it/are mountain folk. Granted, there's not NEARLY as many genuinely horridly off people as there are in the rest of the world, but we do have pockets of our own.

*pops out again*

_________________

Okay, I'm going to change gears here on this discussion: what do you think could alleviate inner-city violence?

But that's just it, most of those mountain folk are darn proud of their lifestyle. There's a kid from West Virginia in one of my classes this semester, and he's a strange one, but proud of it. I don't think he'd take a "better" lifestyle if you gave it to him for free.



Part of the problem is that it's a cycle now. Kids are born into it, see no other way to live but through violence, and that's that. We need to break that. Breaking up gangs seems to help. Salt Lake City used to have a big problem with gangs, then about ten years ago they really started cracking down on them and now there's hardly one at all. A focused police task force can do wonders there.

In other ways, it's the culture. There are plenty of inner-city kids who try to make a life for themselves; they work hard at school, get a job, apply for college... but then their friends and neighbors hate them for "selling out." That's got to stop.

_________________

See, the thing about gangs is that its a mindset too. Inner city kids want to be apart of something where they feel loved. A Gang usually shows them a form of platonic love but would easily sell them out for a few bucks, but thats all they see when they look for it. Their parents are probably working and don't have time for them, so they look elsewhere for it.

What would be a good start is both after school activities that are actually fun, and then a crackdown on gang violence, so that way our next generation of kids grows up with these after school activities, and todays kids who are already in gangs can be persuaded to join said activities.

The idea is to just waste the kids time after school so they don't have time to hang out with bad people.

_________________

Why the hell would kids want to hang out in school after it's over when school is so terrible in the first place? Who actually, earnestly enjoyed their time in school? Primary education in the United States is just daycare with tons of arbitrary rules only in place to condition people to lack critical thinking in order to be subordinate to authority.

...How old are you? : /

_________________

Oh, I don't know, I'd say 95% of everybody that went through school.

_________________

oooooh, you're SUCH A REBEL

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Really, Mike. Can you change your arbitrary stance against education or at least articulate it with some information to back it up?

Seriously.

_________________