Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?

[basicxman]

Originally Posted by Cooley744

Personally: GO MIKE HUCKABEE

COLBERT/HUCKABEE

Mr. Colbert, give FIRST the "Colbert Bump" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

Why should the government be involved in FIRST? Let FIRST be a private organization and leave the feds out of it. Unless you want your tax rates to be through the roof, please separate FIRST and State.

McCain/Romney '08.

Regardless of your position on taxes, government spending on education (or anything else), or your personal preference on the next president, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is asking who is the best president for FIRST. It's not asking who should be the next president, or whether it's right to spend money on FIRST.
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.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Regardless of your position on taxes, government spending on education (or anything else), or your personal preference on the next president, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is asking who is the best president for FIRST. It's not asking who should be the next president, or whether it's right to spend money on FIRST.
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.

I personnally agree with jaybee to some extent. However, I agree with lil' lavery more. CD is not the place to start such a political debate. Then again, I don't think that CD is a place for this thread. But, as long as it is in chit-chat I don't mind.

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.

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.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

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.

I'm curious as to why not funding FIRST is good for FIRST? I'm not saying you can't participate in the conversation here, but rather than bringing up generic political ideology, discuss the benefits and harms of each candidate directly engaging in FIRST.
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?

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'm curious as to why not funding FIRST is good for FIRST? I'm not saying you can't participate in the conversation here, but rather than bringing up generic political ideology, discuss the benefits and harms of each candidate directly engaging in FIRST.
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?

That depends on what you define as the "Best". If you define "Best" as "giving taxpayer dollars to FIRST", then I suppose Clinton or Obama would "Best". If you define "Best" as "verbally supporting FIRST within the parameters of being Constitutional and allowing American citizens the freedom to do what they want with their money", then a Conservative would be "Best".

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).

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

Why does NASA need to sponsor teams? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say "Taxpayer dollars should go to robotics clubs"? Hell, where does it give the Federal Government power on education? What is the legal basis for federally funding FIRST?

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

That depends on what you define as the "Best". If you define "Best" as "giving taxpayer dollars to FIRST", then I suppose Clinton or Obama would "Best". If you define "Best" as "verbally supporting FIRST within the parameters of being Constitutional...

You obviously favour a constructionist approach to the U.S. constitution; but you know what I find particularly puzzling about that mindset? Your entire legal system (Louisiana excepted) is based on a common law tradition that treats every law as a living document, subject to reinterpretation over the ages. Why is the constitution absolute, and yet every other law subject to the case law that follows it? (You can have principles which you hold strongly, while still allowing the nuances of interpretation to be modified over time as the society changes.)

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?

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

...and allowing American citizens the freedom to do what they want with their money", then a Conservative would be "Best".

You seem awfully sure that this is a good thing. Recall what happened recently when American consumers were given the opportunity to take out high-risk and/or multiple mortgages on their homes, especially at low rates? You can't assume that a good citizen is necessarily a good investor, and you can't assume that what's good for the individual is good for the society.

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?

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

I believe the government has the privilege of protecting its citizens. $275 million going to saving American lives from terrorist attacks is worth me paying 8% sales tax and 4% income tax. Forcibly sponsoring something that can and should be privatized is not.

You're concerned with terrorists? Why, exactly? After all, your chances of dying because your health care system doesn't guarantee you substantial medical care in mundane, yet pervasive scenarios like car accidents or diabetes should do far more to strike terror into your heart. At those pitiably low tax rates, your government needs to put its limited resources toward blue-chip causes like citizens' health and education, rather than pursuing vendettas in Western and Central Asia.

[tagger]

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?

It originally was a conservative idea, but things change =P. Saying that I don't think its too surprising saying that I picked Ron Paul. Not only do I think hes just a great choice in general, but on topic I'd have to say one of the best things FIRST does is glorify the mind. The mind expresses who you are as an individual. You can see how teams came together and worked out together as individuals putting their ideas in one for a common goal. Their robot is basically an expression of their team and each individual on the team. It isn't a group, moving without thinking, acting without reason, or doing without knowledge, its individuals each with their own mind and soul accomplishing a common goal. I believe Ron Paul's platform covers the belief that every single person deserves to be treated as a breathing, thinking, capable individual, and that no one has the right to put their needs over theirs.

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.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You're concerned with terrorists? Why, exactly? After all, your chances of dying because your health care system doesn't guarantee you substantial medical care in mundane, yet pervasive scenarios like car accidents or diabetes should do far more to strike terror into your heart. At those pitiably low tax rates, your government needs to put its limited resources toward blue-chip causes like citizens' health and education, rather than pursuing vendettas in Western and Central Asia.

Leave it to a Canadian to be able to articulate the idea of "priorities" and describe American politics better than any Yankee could. Listen to the Canuck, guys.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You're concerned with terrorists? Why, exactly? After all, your chances of dying because your health care system doesn't guarantee you substantial medical care in mundane, yet pervasive scenarios like car accidents or diabetes should do far more to strike terror into your heart. At those pitiably low tax rates, your government needs to put its limited resources toward blue-chip causes like citizens' health and education, rather than pursuing vendettas in Western and Central Asia.

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Leave it to a Canadian to be able to articulate the idea of "priorities" and describe American politics better than any Yankee could. Listen to the Canuck, guys.

I'm more concerned about deer and cars, than terrorists.

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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jaybee1405

That depends on what you define as the "Best". If you define "Best" as "giving taxpayer dollars to FIRST", then I suppose Clinton or Obama would "Best". If you define "Best" as "verbally supporting FIRST within the parameters of being Constitutional and allowing American citizens the freedom to do what they want with their money", then a Conservative would be "Best".

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).

Personally, I'd prefer to not invade sovereign nations and waste billions upon billions of taxpayer's dollars to oust a dictator who had nothing to do with the terrorists of 9/11.

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.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Cory

Personally, I'd prefer to not invade sovereign nations and waste billions upon billions of taxpayer's dollars to oust a dictator who had nothing to do with the terrorists of 9/11.

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.

I just got him to drop the war in the middle east and other political debates and you bring it up again? Here, below is a link for a thread that I started so that you can all have the debate that you want without posting in the wrong thread.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...957#post711957