Furious1Auto Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) I wounder if your favorite candidate will get the chance to run for the chair, I know mine was blocked, but as long as we get the best of the rest I guess that is better than nothing! Edited February 17, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 What does this have to do with Ford Motor Company discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford??-LOL! Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 What does this have to do with Ford Motor Company discussion? Exactly!! What is with all this political crap on the forum??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlRozzi Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think some political discussion is ok because political agenda and ideology definitely affect business. Conservative agenda with free trade got us a shrinking U.S. auto industry, UAW buyouts, and lots of foreign owned auto plants. Liberal ideology further hurts the U.S. industry with environmental/pollution controls on autos and forced mileage ratings, limiting consumer choices. Maybe Richard Jensen can set up a dedicated link for all this political talk though, separate of specific car talk. I think it is good to have a little of it or a place for it because when somebody (like me for example!) gets frustrated with the world, we have a place to vent or at least get other's opinions. It helps, believe me. For example, NO way do I want a Chevy Volt. NO Way, NO How. Keep that thing in the Chevy showroom. However, I like Ford's EcoBoost idea. Nice one Oval Master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 For example, NO way do I want a Chevy Volt. NO Way, NO How. Keep that thing in the Chevy showroom. However, I like Ford's EcoBoost idea. Nice one Oval Master. Why whats the big deal, personally I'm looking at getting my next car as something thats more practical and gets better MPG, but I'm keeping my 06 Mustang GT as my Fun/Weekend car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would like to see McCain. He is a centrist politician and the most likely to get Dems and Reps to agree on things. I don't want to see the other 3. Huckabee would be too much like another Bush. Obama is too inexperienced and far too left. Hillary is capable, but with all the issues regarding Muslims, having a female is not a good idea right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 As far as I'm concerned, there are only two choices, Clinton and McCain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkFive Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 As far as I'm concerned, there are only two choices, Clinton and McCain. Have to agree with you on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I'm hoping for a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket ;-) It amazing how far right the Republicans go (and far left Democrats go) to get their parties nomination, by the general election they are back to being centrists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explorer4X4 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Obama or Huckabee. My family is Republican, but that doesn't mean we always vote Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Clinton. I hate her with a passion but i will not vote for Obama or McCain. I WANTED Romney in office, but well, thats not gonna happen so here we are.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think from a foreign policy perspective, Obama would be the best selection: a non-white man, raised partially in a Muslim dominated country (Indonesia), even if he isn't Muslim, and a family from Kenya. From a domestic issues perspective, I think Clinton would be the better choice. She would undoubtedly surround herself with the same or similar advisors that surrounded her husband. And while she is free-trade oriented, the Clinton legacy is about walking a fine, diplomatic line that isn't all or nothing - something that I would want to see more of. I have the most respect for McCain. Although I don't agree with him on several issues, at least he hasn't changed his mantra 20 times in the last 2 years. I believe him to be a capable leader and only the future courtship with the Christian right will tell me how genuine he might be as a President. The fact that the conservative Christians like the Southern Baptist Convention, Limbaugh and Coulter hate him leads me to believe that he might be a good President. I have great respect for Huckabee, but I'm sorry, evolution is not some optional thing to "believe" in. Belief in the toothfairy doesn't make it real and non-acceptance of evolution doesn't mean it never happened. The problem is that we, as a nation, are slowly losing our ability to reason through problems and be pragmatic - and that's what will keep us viable longer term. I know taking this one issue as a proxy for his effectiveness is a bit disingenuous of me, but it highlights what I see as the biggest problem in this country: understanding that an issue/problem/topic is deeper than a single source, reference, talking-point and is in fact complex - and that simplistically dismissing or accepting and then sticking blindly steadfast in your position on certain issues does a disservice to everyone. It's not just a religious issue, but religion helps highlight the exact problem I see as critical to us overcoming some of more crucial problems that are far more broad than religion v. non-religion, eCO v. economy, restaint v. free-choice, tax v spend, good v. bad - which is how we like to neatly package things in society. It's time to grow up as a nation, and I don't think Huckabee can help that happen. The other three candidates - despite their entrenched political positions I believe at least have a fighting chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehaase Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would like to see McCain. He is a centrist politician and the most likely to get Dems and Reps to agree on things. I would like McCain if he weren't a bigger supporter of the disastrous Iraq War than even George W Bush is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 evolution is not some optional thing to "believe" in. Belief in the toothfairy doesn't make it real and non-acceptance of evolution doesn't mean it never happened. Marvellous. The problem is that we, as a nation, are slowly losing our ability to reason through problems and be pragmatic - and that's what will keep us viable longer term. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books/14...&ei=5087%0A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 McCain has already told Michigan and the upper Mid-West that the jobs are not coming back, so get over it. Go find work somewhere else like Kustard Kone. I don't think he cares about the upper Mid-West in the vote in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) I have great respect for Huckabee, but I'm sorry, evolution is not some optional thing to "believe" in. Belief in the toothfairy doesn't make it real and non-acceptance of evolution doesn't mean it never happened. The problem is that we, as a nation, are slowly losing our ability to reason through problems and be pragmatic - and that's what will keep us viable longer term. So you aren't going to vote for a guy because you disagree with his view on a scientific theory? That ranks right up there with the guys who wouldn't vot for Romney because he's a Mormon. If you're voting for someone because of their religious background or lack thereof, you're voting for the wrong reasons. Do you even consider his policies? Did you know he wants to reduce poverty and increase funding for schools? Evolution is truth? Really? Can you prove it? Were you there? There isn't complete agreement in the scientific community about evolution, and scientists themselves know this. Not to mention that the entire scientific community that believes in evolution conveniently ignores the fact that the speed of light has been slowing down. http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml Edited February 18, 2008 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 Interesting there are more registered Democrats at this point and the republican McCain is leading, although this will change, I thought that it was interesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Interesting there are more registered Democrats at this point and the republican McCain is leading, although this will change, I thought that it was interesting! Not since there is really only one republican while the dems vote are divided between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Not to mention that the entire scientific community that believes in evolution conveniently ignores the fact that the speed of light has been slowing down The entire scientific community that believes in evolution ignores that C may be decreasing? Stupid statement. For example, I know a couple of PhD's that work in science that believe in evolution that have been ignoring the fact that C may be decreasing. They are successful in their fields, and blissfully unaware of C speed. One does genetic analysis, and has zero understanding of physics; the other does metallurgy, and has been ignoring physics developments, like the reduction in C as the universe ages. The speed of C has nothing to do with their demanding careers, so, yes, they have ignored that, and lots of other exciting facts about physics. Quantum entanglement? Neither of 'em know a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Evolution is truth? Really? Can you prove it? Were you there? Yes, evolution has been observed. Were you there when God created earth? How does that question remotely support creationism? Very odd........... http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples. There's no reason you can't believe in Evolution AND God....they are not mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Yes, evolution has been observed. Were you there when God created earth? How does that question remotely support creationism? Very odd...........http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html There's no reason you can't believe in Evolution AND God....they are not mutually exclusive. Exactly. Very nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) Yes, evolution has been observed. Were you there when God created earth? How does that question remotely support creationism? Very odd...........http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html There's no reason you can't believe in Evolution AND God....they are not mutually exclusive. Evolution has been observed? Yes, the evolution of a species adapting to its surroundings. Completely different than believing people were apes at one point and apes were less than apes at one point. The concept of God makes no sense if you believe in evolution. If you suppose that God also exists -is your God not all powerful? God can create things, but He had to create amoebas first and by chance they decided to evolve into other living things which eventually yielded apes which eventually yielded humans? You are free to believe what you want, just like I am free to believe what I want. Just think about it though .. if evolution and God both exist .. God sure isn't very powerful. To suppose that we were once apes makes it seem quite like there isn't much meaning or sanctity in life ... The only reason that people say you can believe in both is because they want to sit on the fence. The two concepts are obviously not compatible - people just try to make them be so we "all get along." Anyway, I am not turning this into an evolution debate .. this is about issues, and once again, voting for someone or not voting for them because of their beliefs is ridiculous. It's about the issues ... no one is going to hold a gun to your head and force you to believe something. And, even if they did, they can't get into your head without you wanting them to. That's why their policy stances are importand and their personal beliefs are not. Edited February 18, 2008 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Evolution has been observed? Yes, the evolution of a species adapting to its surroundings. Completely different than believing people were apes at one point and apes were less than apes at one point. The concept of God makes no sense if you believe in evolution. If you suppose that God also exists -is your God not all powerful? God can create things, but He had to create amoebas first and by chance they decided to evolve into other living things which eventually yielded apes which eventually yielded humans? You are free to believe what you want, just like I am free to believe what I want. Just think about it though .. if evolution and God both exist .. God sure isn't very powerful. To suppose that we were once apes makes it seem quite like there isn't much meaning or sanctity in life ... The only reason that people say you can believe in both is because they want to sit on the fence. The two concepts are obviously not compatible - people just try to make them be so we "all get along." Anyway, I am not turning this into an evolution debate .. this is about issues, and once again, voting for someone or not voting for them because of their beliefs is ridiculous. It's about the issues ... no one is going to hold a gun to your head and force you to believe something. And, even if they did, they can't get into your head without you wanting them to. That's why their policy stances are importand and their personal beliefs are not. And if their policy is that evolution is false, then they shouldn't be voted for, because quite frankly that means they are a religious extremist who should not be trusted with the seat of power in any nation....especially not the US. People are free to believe in both evolution and God, I do. There is no reason not to believe that the universe was not created by God...and by almost any definition, the big bang required a great deal of power. There is no reason to think that science and and evolution are exclusive... If you want to talk about things not making sense, you can talk about the bible examples of an omni benevolent good killing. I prefer to believe in my own way, and I choose to believe in evolution and God. To be realistic though, there really is a practical consensus on evolution. I see no reason not to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkFive Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) You are free to believe what you want, just like I am free to believe what I want. You are right about this. The only reason that people say you can believe in both is because they want to sit on the fence. The two concepts are obviously not compatible - people just try to make them be so we "all get along." Don't agree on this one. The stuff that makes up life is just too complex to not have a higher force involved. IMO - It is possible to believe in Evolution AND God. Edited February 18, 2008 by MarkFive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 And if their policy is that evolution is false, then they shouldn't be voted for, because quite frankly that means they are a religious extremist who should not be trusted with the seat of power in any nation....especially not the US. So any person who does not believe in evolution is a religious extremist? I don't believe in evolution, and that therefore makes me a religious extremist. Okay then. Call it as you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.