2004 elections

[ConCor]

Originally posted by genocidal
yeah i'm sure it was legitimate to give arms to fundamentalist religous group and allow them to slaughter as many people as they want just because we didn't like the jerk running afghanistan at the time

note location

[Elendili]

What if nobody went voting?

[Jerome Scuggs]

Originally posted by genocidal
yeah i'm sure it was legitimate to give arms to fundamentalist religous group and allow them to slaughter as many people as they want just because we didn't like the jerk running afghanistan at the time

the only thing im reading out of that post:

Originally posted by genocidal

[Mr. Peanuts]

Originally posted by Elendili
What if nobody went voting?

they would re-elect

[Elendili]

there goes plan A

[XsTaC]

Anyone like me and hate the country they live in?

[The Crimson King]

No, nobody likes you.

And furthermore: please people, take your ubiquitous naive head out of your collective anus. Let him whose country has a sparkling record in international politics and actions (let the upscale third world countries who can't really do shit anyways stand up now) cast the first stone.

Lookie here, chuckles. We're just trying to preserve democracy. If you have a problem with war over ideology, or -- god forbid -- LAND (read your European history books again and see why this is funny to me) -- like I say, maybe your knowledge of history is a little shaky.

Really it gets down to a value judgment. If you think (1) ideals are worth fighting for; and (2) democracy and reasonably limited freedom are worthy ideals, well then, guess what? You don't have a problem with the USA.

Unless your world view is tarnished by nationalism, overcompensation, and a misguided (in my view) desire for unified and complete global government (and if you want to debate why that's a bad idea let me know. . my argument will analogize world government / national governments with the US federal / state system.

Oh, sorry, I know that was hard to grasp. Read it again.

Anyway, just checking in cause someone on chat posted this thread as an example of people being stupid. . .


Ever cynical,

tCK

[Ephemeral]

Originally posted by ÆNIMA
...if you're not going to vote...then you had better not complain about whatever president we get after that.

Although I usually agree with ya ÆNIMA, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
After paying taxes for 4 decades, I feel I have the right to bitch whether or not I vote.

[Adeon]

Originally posted by Ephemeral
Although I usually agree with ya ÆNIMA, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
After paying taxes for 4 decades, I feel I have the right to bitch whether or not I vote.

You really don't if you're of age. Vote, lose, then complain. Otherwise, pay your taxes another couple decades and remain content.

[Facetious]

I understand why my vote counts in local elections, but how does it matter for president, considering I live in Virginia (unfortunately), and no matter what I vote, the Republican candidate is just going to run over everybody?

[Jerome Scuggs]

mrs. robinson

its that mindset which lets him win :P

[Ephemeral]

Originally posted by Adeon
You really don't if you're of age. Vote, lose, then complain. Otherwise, pay your taxes another couple decades and remain content.

Sorry, my opinion is that being a 'good citizen' is more than simply voting. Being a 'good citizen' includes contributing to society in many ways, including paying your taxes and voting. Therefore, I believe it is a legitimate approach to 'protest' the candidate selection by not voting and still retaining one's right to free speech.

Additionally, is 'guilting' people into voting a 'good' thing? Is it possible that doing this would cause more uneducated people into the voting booth, which in turn might be worse than not having them vote at all?

[Ephemeral]

Originally posted by Facetious
I understand why my vote counts in local elections, but how does it matter for president, considering I live in Virginia (unfortunately), and no matter what I vote, the Republican candidate is just going to run over everybody?

Well, a couple of thoughts about this...

Originally, there was much debate about whether or not to let everyone vote in America, the thought being that only the educated should have this right. Of course and ultimately groups of people were denied this right, such as women and blacks.

Also, the originators of the Bill of Rights choose to follow a more ‘Roman’ style of democracy as opposed to a ‘Greek’ style of democracy. This meant the American democracy is one of representation instead of a traditional ‘majority rules’. I believe this was done partly to address the issue above, where the feeling was that the general populace was not capable to understanding the complexities of the various issues. By electing ‘lower level’ representatives who are supposed to have a better understanding their constituencies, we are supposed to be represented better.

[genocidal]

Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs
the only thing im reading out of that post:

would you like to make a big deal out of my ss alias, mr. big debater? please spare me the stupid and incessant whining that all debaters give about rhetoric and real world implications. i've read the books, i know the philosophy. my ss alias means jack diddle shit, fuckhead, so go fuck a tree or something you little bitch.

[Jerome Scuggs]

You seem angry about the world. Perhaps you should punch a pillow or something.

I'm just pointing out a humourous ironicism. No need to go genocidal.