McCain vs. Obama: Your Vote and Why

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by Udog

I went to Virginia Tech and talked with Michael Vick once. I cheered for him at football games, told my friends he was a good guy, and was at one time proud that he represented my school.

I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me if I ever get into politics.

You also didn't know what he was doing to those dogs, and could not reasonably be expected to know. Is that really the best rejoinder you could come up with?

[Udog]

Originally Posted by lowtech redneck

You also didn't know what he was doing to those dogs, and could not reasonably be expected to know. Is that really the best rejoinder you could come up with?

I'm sure if I were to go into politics the other party wouldn't care about such things as 'I didn't know'. That's a detail open for distortion. I can see the political advert now: 'Udog: Bad Viewz. Bad Newz.")

Silliness aside, I am *genuinely* curious to hear more about Obama's past associations. Do you have an article that I can use for enlightenment? The more objective the better.

Even though I'm inclined to believe that someone shouldn't be judged too harshly for exploring political views in college (especially considering that the atmosphere was very different back then), I'd like to hear more before taking that argument further.

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by Udog

I'm sure if I were to go into politics the other party wouldn't care about such things as 'I didn't know'. That's a detail open for distortion. I can see the political advert now: 'Udog: Bad Viewz. Bad Newz.")

Silliness aside, I am *genuinely* curious to hear more about Obama's past associations. Do you have an article that I can use for enlightenment? The more objective the better.

Even though I'm inclined to believe that someone shouldn't be judged too harshly for exploring political views in college (especially considering that the atmosphere was very different back then), I'd like to hear more before taking that argument further.

Well, for starters, his twenty-year association with Wright's church is pretty well-documented, and most applicable regarding McCains recent and tenuous connection with "the fundies." As for other connections, this would be a good place to start: Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

[tblood]

Originally Posted by toonia

[...] I lean towards McCain's position to reject partial birth abortions, but Obama's overall position on promoting sex education and contraceptives. My position is the earlier an unwanted pregnancy is dealt with the better. Both are limited in their support of gay marriage, which I support completely. The only limitation I support is in allowing specific religions to define marriage however they please in accordance with separation of church and state. [...]

It is really strange they're still stuck in the phase of acceptance/non-acceptance of gay marriage when recent developments are making possible stuff beyond that. Take a look here, for intance:



Reproductive biologists have described as "far-fetched" the idea that cloning technology might be used to help homosexual couples conceive their own children. The notion was floated by Dr. Callum MacKellar, a biochemist in Edinburgh, UK, who edits a journal on bioethics. He suggested nuclear transfer techniques pioneered in Dolly the sheep could eventually be used to create "male eggs" from one man that would be fertilised by the sperm of another. But many commentators dismissed the proposition as speculative and well beyond what was currently possible in biology. "To me there are important issues to focus on, but this is not one of them," said Professor Azim Surani of the Wellcome/CRC Institute of Cancer Research and Developmental Biology in Cambridge.

Female genes

Dr. Callum MacKellar, who runs a non-profit organisation called European Bioethical Research, claimed scientific advances could, one day, result in a homosexual couple having a baby that combined the DNA of both fathers. "It's theoretically possible -- if they were able to control the imprinting -- to have a child that's born as a result of having two fathers," he said. A "male egg" would be created by removing the nucleus from a female's donor egg and replacing it with the nucleus from a sperm cell. The new egg would then have male DNA and could be fertilised in-vitro by another sperm before being implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother. But Professor Azim Surani said there were significant obstacles currently preventing the idea from becoming a reality.

Narrow timeframe

He said that normal development in mammals required both male and female genomes because they had complementary information. "The studies we have done clearly show that there are some genes that are only active when they come from the mother," he said. "This is the phenomenon known as imprinting." He said scientists were a long way from understanding how the mechanism worked. "The genes have to go through the female germline. They acquire the ability to be switched on during the growth of the oocyte (an immature female reproductive cell) and there is a very narrow timeframe over which this can occur -- there is no other time when this process can take place." Dr. MacKellar conceded that there were major biological impediments to male-only conception but said: "The whole question of biology since Dolly the sheep is absolutely fascinating and it's the big question at the moment."

Reproductive cloning

The UK Parliament is about to vote on a Bill which, if passed, would permit cloning techniques to be used for therapeutic purposes. This would include the production of replacement cells for the treatment of degenerative conditions such as Parkinson's and heart disease. The legislative changes are based on recommendations produced by an expert panel led by England's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. Under the proposals, male-only conception would not be permitted because it is likely to be regarded as reproductive cloning. The cloning of farm animals has shown the technology to be extremely problematic and far too dangerous to be used to make a full-body copy of a human. But Dr. MacKellar claimed the Donaldson committee had not looked into the ethical issues raised by male-only conception.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Male-only conception 'highly speculative'

[Fiver]

(That's above my pay grade) + ('present' votes) = clinched it for me

[Udog]

Originally Posted by lowtech redneck

Well, for starters, his twenty-year association with Wright's church is pretty well-documented, and most applicable regarding McCains recent and tenuous connection with "the fundies." As for other connections, this would be a good place to start: Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

Thank you for the article. I found it to be a very interesting read and it did provide a bit of insight to how Obama operates. Since this has been in the news recently, I figured I might as well reply.

The issue, to me, seems that Obama used someone of questionable history and even morality to propel his political career. This isn't particularly surprising; Obama is far more cunning and sly than his angelic image would suggest. However, I don't see anything that would make me think Obama would condone Ayers' actions. I have little doubt the CAC records would have shown some connection, but from the sounds of the article, in Chicago they would cover up proof of a slight connection as much as a major one.

McCain has his own moral issues in his rise to political power. The difference, though, is that Obama's story is more open to sensationalism. McCain's campaign will likely continue to mention his full name, Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA, as they associate him with TERRORIST William Ayers. It's a very crude , but effective, trick that will exploit many white voters' poorly-defined but basic fear of Obama.

Reverend Wright didn't help with that, either. This too, though, seems to be a wash as pretty much everyone is having issues with their pastors. Can't any of these politicians have NORMAL pastors??

I think the more interesting story is Tony Rezko. If anything, that most closely resembles McCain's own scandal involving Keating. It's a shame that both stories are perhaps just a bit too complex for the general public, as I think they both offer more insight to each candidate's character in office than these other scandals.

Now let me know go into mournful INFP mode as I dream of a day when we get a candidate that is truly worth our vote.

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by Udog

Reverend Wright didn't help with that, either. This too, though, seems to be a wash as pretty much everyone is having issues with their pastors. Can't any of these politicians have NORMAL pastors??

That might be a contradiction in terms, hehe. Seriously though, when my parents made us hop around from church to church when I was younger, all of the pastors were, in my experience, not normal. And by not normal I mean that they were all slightly creepy in their own way.

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by Udog

Reverend Wright didn't help with that, either. This too, though, seems to be a wash as pretty much everyone is having issues with their pastors. Can't any of these politicians have NORMAL pastors??

It is my understanding that the pastor of the church that McCain attends is fairly normal...the problematic pastors are recent strategic endorsements. Its an unpleasant connection, but not nearly as much as a twenty-year association.