![]() |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
If you feel McCain would be beneficial to FIRST, please explain how. In what ways will he help FIRST grow? What are his positions on education, science, and technology? Thanks, and let's keep this civil. If you feel like talking politics, feel free to give me a buzz on either AIM or via PM. I can express my views and you can express yours there. |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
Note to Jaybee: If you really want to talk about politics and how they affect things other then the FIRST, just make another thread just for that. |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Ok I won't drag this out any longer. What I was implying was that a Republican was the best candidate for FIRST because he would have a higher liklihood of not federally funding FIRST. I was actually a Romney fan (simply because of his fiscal views and experience), but since McCain is the lock to win the nomination, I voted him.
|
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
In other words, while you may feel a republican is the best candidate for America because he won't fund FIRST, how does that make him the best candidate for FIRST? |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
The latter was my basis for voting for McCain (although it can be argued he is not a true conservative, which is why I added Romney in my reply post). |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
Quote:
Britain's constitution is all common law, and Canada's is a combination of common law and special acts of Parliament: these are continually revisited and reinterpreted, and in Canada's case especially, offer very robust protections of individual and collective rights. Why is this approach so antithetical to many Americans' political views? Quote:
Reduced progress (compared to the present) is a likely effect of a highly libertarian society, such as the one that you appear to favour. This is in large part because the government would not be able to steer the course of society as a whole by making strategic investments in programs that might not survive in an environment of capitalist self-interest alone, but which are likely to have have long-term or wide-ranging benefits. Government is supposed to look out for your neighbours, because frankly, most people will frequently neglect their society if they can derive an immediate personal benefit. Incidentally, the freedom to control one's own funds is a libertarian idea, not a conservative one. Why do you conflate libertarianism with conservatism in this case? I would argue that Huckabee, Romney and McCain are no libertarians, and all unlikely to let citizens have appreciably greater control of their own finances than they already enjoy. Paul is the only libertarian, but he's worthless as an administrator, worse than worthless as a figure to be lionized, and too socially liberal to appeal to most conservatives. So maybe what it comes down to is this question: if you had a choice between donating an insignificant portion of your income to FIRST of your own accord, or having the government automatically make that deduction, which would you prefer? Assuming that you think FIRST deserves to be funded, and assuming that you're truly diligent enough to make sure that FIRST receives its share, it would probably better to let you make your decision on your own without interference. But what if you're like just about everyone in the world, and can't be bothered to micromanage your finances to the degree necessary to fund all of the many good causes that exist out there? After all, this is why you elect representatives; they're delegates who make these choices so you can concern yourself with the perils of daily life. And isn't it generally better that way? Quote:
|
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
Now this may sound "greedy", but I think it fits gracious professionalism perfectly. Gracious professionalism is helping others, not out of charity, not because you pity them, its helping them because you admire them. You see that spark in their mind, that thing that makes them human and you do what you can to help them, not for their sake, not because they deserve pity, but for your own sake. Because every single person has a set of moral values and a mind to interpret the world with. If you were to help them for any other reason than your own selfishness, then you are truly a horrible person. By helping them "selflessly", because you pity them, and not out of the "greedy" respect, you are basically saying that they are not human. That they are incapable of thought, unable to reason, and a lesser being than you. That is what I consider truly greedy. Ok a little bit of rambling and long bodies of text, but I felt that it fit the topic. Without the explanation I think it sounded a little to harsh =P. Hopefully it got my message across I could have probably worded it better if I wanted to spend more time over it, but seeing how its just a forum, I don't =P. Short version (tldr oh noes) : I chose Ron Paul, his platform supports the individual, not a collective group. When you do things for the good of all, its generally those of the mind that get screwed over so to say, and since FIRST glorifies the mind, Ron Paul = FIRST. |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
Mr. Colbert, give FIRST the "Colbert Bump" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
|
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
I think you'd find that if America had the choice, we'd be out of Iraq in an awful big hurry. My point here is not to incite a riot, but merely similar to Tristan's. If Americans had the choice of what to put their money to, nothing that didn't directly benefit themselves would get done, on the whole. That's why we are a democracy by representation-we trust our representatives that we elect to decide how to do things that we are too uninvolved, or uninterested in doing. |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
Quote:
More people annually are killed by deer than terrorism. And since 9/11, 190,000+ people have been killed because of cars in the United States alone. Every four weeks, the number of people killed by cars in the U.S. exceeds the total number of fatalities from 9/11. So if so, why fear terrorism? And how is a suicide bomber really any different than the nut-job serial killers here in the United Stattes who open fire in a [circle one] (school, church, bank, post office, highway, other) only to later shoot and kill themselves? They both cause a lot of deaths, and they end up being dead. The only difference is that once uses a bomb and the other uses a high-powered and/or automatic weapon. That's all. |
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?
Quote:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...957#post711957 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi