Can McCain still win the election?

[All Seeing Eye]

you are retarded.

Better a retard, than a Chris Jericho fan.

Oh Noes!

[TM]

That makes zero sense.

[All Seeing Eye]

That makes zero sense.

Like you being a Jericho fan, makes zero sense.

ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!

[DREAM BUSCEMI RAPE BEAR ETC]

man you got zinged tm.

[Rabid Monkey]

I don't know guys, Missouri and North Carolina haven't been called yet according to some sources. It's anyone's game!

[DREAM BUSCEMI RAPE BEAR ETC]

once mccain comes into power the US will be a fascist nation!!!!! HEIL MCCAIN! MEIN GOTT I HATE DER JUDEN.

[Mickrulz]

Yes. I think Mcain can still win the election!

[Secondtooth]

once mccain comes into power the US will be a fascist nation!!!!! HEIL MCCAIN! MEIN GOTT I HATE DER JUDEN.

I hope that's a joke you're trying to make there..because if not, you might be one of the......

[solis]

I don't know. I think he may still have a chance..

[DREAM BUSCEMI RAPE BEAR ETC]

I hope that's a joke you're trying to make there..because if not, you might be one of the......

no joke. mccain is disturbingly right of centre. if in power he will declare war on iran and enlist tha nations youth for war and mindlessly slavery in service of their nation. just like hitler, america's fetishistic national pride is it's most grotesque and easily abused trait. mccain is a nazi.

[Eblis O'Shaughnessy]

Something must be wrong with the time zone settings on my profile, for the posts I'm seeing this late in the day, or something.

I will say that McCain's concession speech was well done and far classier than his typical supporters could ever hope to be.

[TM]

fuck i got zinged

[Top Cat]

I will say that McCain's concession speech was well done and far classier than his typical supporters could ever hope to be.

Agree with this, he conceded in a gracious and magnanimous fashion.

Next question: Can McCain still win his 2010 Senate election? Oh yes, this thread still lives.

[Rabid Monkey]

From what I understand, he will have a very hard time. Really, though, he wanted the Presidency. With Obama winning, there's a very slim chance than McCain will be able to become president, ever. There's a chance (admittedly a small one) that he simply won't run for re-election again, especially if it looks to be a hard-win campaign.

[FF1WithAllThieves]

Well, McCain is pretty old, and politics are stressful. I think his doctor might tell him not to run (not that that'll change anything). There's no way we're gonna have legitimate discussion of this for two full years, though. Not very much to talk about.

[Red Arremer]

Yes, he can! 8D

Sorry for the lame joke, but I couldn't resist.

[Ceidwad]

I don't know if this will be frowned upon by mods because it's nearly a month old, but I've been flicking through old threads and noticed that I didn't reply to this. TC and duo, I understand if you don't want to continue discussing this, because let's face it, the topic's pretty dead. But just for the sake of argument anyway, and because I find this an interesting subject......

It is perfectly reasonable to use science in order to argue against God if you are making scientific claims for the existence of God. For example, the argument from "irreducible complexity" or things along those lines are attempting to use scientific findings to prove the existence of God. Likewise, the claim that God must exist as He created the world, aside from being a poor argument, is also directly testable using science. If proponents for ID wanted a theological discussion on evolution then, by all means, the discussion should be held on a theological basis. But if they discuss science then science must come into it.

I accept that, but that's not really what Duo was saying. Duo was saying that discussing creationism in science classes would be taking religion out of its acceptable context. I pointed out that if he was going to argue that, then in order to be consistent he would also have to argue against Dawkins too. I'm perfectly OK with people using scientific arguments against God's existence, even if I don't think science makes religious belief obsolete. (I'm also fine with the alternative view that science and religion have their own contexts and should not exceed those, but you can't have your cake and eat it!)

Some of the claims of ID are falsifiable and have, accordingly, been proven false. However, the major claim - that God or some higher power created the universe and everything in it - is entirely untestable and thus unfalsifiable.

Not necessarily. If you prove that the universe has no beginning (an idea that existed in scientific thought for a while in the form of the Steady State theory of the universe) then for me you disprove God's existence, at least as far as creationist thought is concerned, since the act of creation implies that creation happened at some point, which would be inconsistent with said theory. Pantheism wouldn't necessarily be affected by such findings, but then it has little to do with creationsim or ID. They are both falsifiable, but are vague and flexible enough to avoid being falsified by most potential criticisms.