Improving the gene pool of the American People....

OP
Bester

Bester

<font color=blue><B>Grand UberSoke, Sith-jutsu Ryu
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
848
Reaction score
55
Location
Everywhere
Yes Feisty, you, because you DID vote, have the right to complain about the results and the obligation to work to make those changes you desire.

Complaint without a plan of action and the effort to put it into effect is pointless.
Complaint without having taken action previously is meaningless.

As I have stated clearly on a few occations, my ire is not directed at those who did get involved, and it is not directed at those who will continue to be involved.

It is solely directed at those who did nothing, and now complain about how things turned out.

There were 50-60 million possible voters who did not vote. Unified, They could have elected any of the third party candidates. If only 10 million more had lifted their fat, lazy, sheeplike hind ends from their couches and voted for Kerry, Bush would be currently ordering boxes from Uhaul.

There were just as many people who did NOTHING as who voted for either Bush or Kerry.

Those people deserve what they got, what they get, and what they have.

But, I will say it again, since some people do not understand this language I speak.
- If you voted, complain away, brag away, but continue to be involved.
- If you did not vote, shut up and either get involved, or let the rest of us continue to think for you.

The Bushies now have a clean sweep. Rep. President, House and Senate. If the economy does not improve, if Iraq drags on or escalates, if society continues to disintegrate, who can you blame?
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Bester said:
As I have stated clearly on a few occations, my ire is not directed at those who did get involved, and it is not directed at those who will continue to be involved.

It is solely directed at those who did nothing, and now complain about how things turned out.

There were just as many people who did NOTHING as who voted for either Bush or Kerry.

Those people deserve what they got, what they get, and what they have.

But, I will say it again, since some people do not understand this language I speak.
- If you voted, complain away, brag away, but continue to be involved.
- If you did not vote, shut up and either get involved, or let the rest of us continue to think for you.

Fine. We're in agreement. But why do you think any here fall in that category of those who didn't vote? Peachmonkey worked his butt off for weekis prior to the election. I was at the polls at 0545 and handing out literature before they opened. I took an hour break to get aspirin and to vote at my own precinct.

Are you screaming at the wind here or do you have someone in mind when you offer your jeremiad against the apathetic? I can't think of anyone here that would fall in that category.


Regards,


Steve
 
OP
Bester

Bester

<font color=blue><B>Grand UberSoke, Sith-jutsu Ryu
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
848
Reaction score
55
Location
Everywhere
"Are you screaming at the wind here or do you have someone in mind when you offer your jeremiad against the apathetic?"

Yes.
 
R

raedyn

Guest
Although there were several non Bush/Kerry canidates for President, they weren't all on everyone's ballot, right? So myabe I want to vote for person X but he's not on my ballot in my precinct. With touch-screens and punch cards I don't believe there's exactly a write-in option.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
15,907
Reaction score
478
Location
Michigan
raedyn said:
Although there were several non Bush/Kerry canidates for President, they weren't all on everyone's ballot, right? So myabe I want to vote for person X but he's not on my ballot in my precinct. With touch-screens and punch cards I don't believe there's exactly a write-in option.

Mr. Badnarik ( Libertarian ) was on all Ballots in All 50 States.

Mr. Nadar was on 30, had a bunch in court, and could have won up to 40 states. As you only need 270, not having 10 ten states that have small electoral votes, would not have hurt him. Given that many of those states were also very deep for one candidate. It might have been an issue of bang for the buck, or return on investment.

Yet, the Libertarian Party spent the money and was on all Ballots, hence the problem with the debates, etcetera.
 
OP
Bester

Bester

<font color=blue><B>Grand UberSoke, Sith-jutsu Ryu
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
848
Reaction score
55
Location
Everywhere
hardheadjarhead said:
And those would be, specifically, who among us here?


Regards,


Steve
As I said - Those who did not vote. I refuse to ID them as I do not wish to get spanked again for picking on folks. Those ANers are thin skinned enough for me to want to out the traitors publically. If you must have names, read through the lists and see who indicated they didn't vote, and really had no valid excuse. (Ballot issues, not eligible, not US Citizens, etc are NOT those I have issue with. Those who worked the campaigns are NOT those I have issue with.)
 
M

Mathusula2

Guest
hardheadjarhead said:
progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance...

I really find it interesting that the Dems are constantly reminding others of their "tolerance"... just so long as they don't have to tolerate a conservative opinion.

Not that other parties aren't hypocritical, it's just that this particular point is so quickly and loudly touted as a positive Democratic belief.

Oh, and for the record, I voted for 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and multiple Independents... so I guess I can have my say...

To Bester: In my experiences, the voices of those who didn't make the effort to vote yet complain are very annoying because they are often the most ignorant. Just an observation.
 

heretic888

Senior Master
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
2,723
Reaction score
60
Mathusula2 said:
I really find it interesting that the Dems are constantly reminding others of their "tolerance"... just so long as they don't have to tolerate a conservative opinion.

Not that other parties aren't hypocritical, it's just that this particular point is so quickly and loudly touted as a positive Democratic belief.

The proper response would probably be something along the lines that its because the typical "conservative" position is usually quite ethnocentric, exclusivistic, and elitist.

Sure, "liberals" have their own elitist rankings, too. Everyone does. Its pretty much human nature at this point to qualify things into hiearchies (i.e., this is "better" than that). Nothing really wrong with that.

Main difference is that "liberals" base their hiearchies on "tolerance" and "non-tolerance". Yup, hypocritical. But, much preferable to the "everyone that is pro-gay is a moral deviant" or "everyone that doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell" or "everyone that believes in socialism is unpatriotic".

Unfortunately, because of their emphasis on "tolerance", liberal-types tend to be much more prone to attacking individuals rather than positions.

Laterz.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Kaith Rustaz said:
Just a clarification here: Bush did NOT bring us here, we allowed ourselves to be brought here. Without the support of both houses of Congress, Bush can not do much. It is not fair to blame all the ills of this nation on 1 man, bufoon though he is.

The President only has the powers we, and our voices in Congress give him. There are checks and balances. The War in Iraq could not have been launched without the support of Congress. When you say "George Bush is killing our troops" you really mean "Our Congress and our President are killing our troops."

Check the records and you'll see that Congress has basically allowed these abuses to happen, and "We The People" just gave them bonus points to do it again by reelecting and expanding their control.

Not everyone supported this war. I've voted for Senator Paul Wellstone. He voted against Iraq. He died two weeks later...after he was nine points ahead of his Republican challenger.

Wellstone says no to Iraq resolution
Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent
October 3, 2002 WELL03

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Paul Wellstone said Wednesday that he is ready to vote against any plan to allow the United States to launch unilateral strikes against Iraq, but he indicated that he would support the use of force if it's approved by the United Nations.

"I do not believe we should do it alone," said Wellstone, D-Minn.

He said he will oppose President Bush's request to use all means necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Wellstone acknowledged that the plan is widely popular in Congress and said it's likely to be approved by a wide margin. He called it "a life-or-death question for people" and added: "I'm not 38, I'm 58. And at this point in my life, I'm not making any decision that I don't believe in."

Wellstone, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is expected to be among the first to give a speech when the Senate formally begins its debate on Iraq today.
His staff was putting the finishing touches on his speech last night. After agonizing over the issue for weeks, Wellstone broke the news to some of his staff members Wednesday morning. "We'll just let the chips fall where they may," he told them.

His position, which ends a long guessing game on Capitol Hill, carries political risks. On Nov. 5, Minnesota voters will decide whether to elect Wellstone to a third term. His Republican opponent, Norm Coleman, is backing the president, and some observers had speculated that Wellstone would end up backing Bush for political considerations.

Wellstone said it would be a lie, "with a capital L," to say that he has not thought about how his position will affect the Senate race, which is in a virtual tie, according to the polls. But in the end, he said, he had little choice.

"With five weeks to go, at the end of 12 [years] in the Senate, of course I wonder what the effect will be," he said. "To me, this is the personally and intellectually honest decision, and that's the one I should make. And I don't really think I have any other choice but to make it, because how could you do otherwise? It's a life-and-death question."

Minnesota's other senator, Democrat Mark Dayton, has yet to announce how he'll vote. Last week he accused Bush of trying to force Congress to vote too quickly, and he said he wouldn't make a final decision until it's required. A head count of the 10-member Minnesota delegation last week revealed five members were opposed and five were undecided.

"These are times that try our souls," Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., one of those who remains undecided, said Wednesday. He said decisions to send young men and women to war are decisions that weigh heavily on members of Congress, adding: "Over this weekend, I will be praying for the wisdom of Solomon."

Wellstone, at times emotional, offered a preview of his speech during an interview in his Capitol Hill office. He is expected to say that "acting on our own might be a sign of our power" but that "acting sensibly, in concert with our allies and with bipartisan congressional support, would be a sign of our strength."

Wellstone called the president's plan "a profound mistake" and said he will outline the consequences of it during his speech.

"What he's asking for is what worries me the most," he said. "I don't want this to be open-ended right now."

In his speech Wellstone is expected to call Saddam "a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors and remains an international outlaw."
In the interview he said the United States should call on the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution that focuses on disarmament and puts arms inspectors on the ground in Iraq. If that goal is not achieved, he said, then the resolution should make clear "there will be consequences, which include the use of appropriate force."

He said that whether the United States acts alone or as part of an international coalition is "a night-and-day difference" and that the United States should first insist on "all of the diplomatic heavy lifting."

"That's what statesmanship is all about," he said. If the United States acts alone against Saddam, it will "enable him to unite a coalition against us," he said.

Wellstone opposed the Persian Gulf War in 1991, but he said he has voted to support military action in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

"To me, it's always the last option, and that's still my belief," he said.

"We're talking about a lot of sons and daughters, a lot of Minnesota sons and daughters that could be in harm's way. And I think it's extremely important for the United States to do this the right way, and not the wrong way."

While the Senate is likely to give Bush strong support, Wellstone said "the dynamics could shift" if the debate goes on for a week or two and more senators begin hearing from constituents. Wellstone staff members said calls and letters are running overwhelmingly against unilateral military action in Iraq.

The issue was on the minds of many Minnesotans who talked with Wellstone Wednesday. During a brief meeting in Wellstone's office, Wilbur Liebenow, a retired civil engineer from Shoreview, told the senator that launching preemptive strikes against Iraq would simply "stir the pot," adding: "Once we do it, what do we do then?"

During a teleconference call with journalism students at the University of St. Thomas, Wellstone responded to a question on Iraq by saying the cost of a war would be "enormous" and put "a great strain" on the U.S. economy.

Wellstone said the Iraq issue is drowning out debate over the economy, mental health issues and other legislation that he's trying to advance. While Dayton and others have suggested that the timing of the debate is partly driven by a White House desire to swing the election toward Republicans, Wellstone said he hopes that's not the case.

"Would I rather the focus be on putting corporate crooks in jail? Yes."

upnorthkyosa
 
T

TonyM.

Guest
I voted, but the choices were pretty much what the South Park boys said.
 
5

5 hand swords

Guest
Bester said:
If you did not vote in this last election, or any election you do not deserve that right.

You gave it up.


If you voted for someone who lost, complain all you want. You tried.

It is those lazy, worthless slobs who will complain about everything, but do nothing that need to STFU.

Did you vote heretic?
If not, then be quiet sheep.
No.
Learn that when confronted with 2 false choices I can chose not to validate them.
Or would you prefer I shoot you in your arm or your leg?
 
5

5 hand swords

Guest
5 hand swords said:
No.
Learn that when confronted with 2 false choices I can chose not to validate them.
Or would you prefer I shoot you in your arm or your leg?
If you did not vote on this last question you do not deserve that right.

You gave it up.


If you voted for the arm shot like those other losers who lost, complain all you want. You tried.

It is those lazy, worthless slobs who will complain about everything, but do nothing that need to STFU.

Did you vote heretic?
If not, then be quiet sheep.


By the way the Leg Shot won the vote and so quit complaining and hold still so I can hit you
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Mathusula2 said:
I really find it interesting that the Dems are constantly reminding others of their "tolerance"... just so long as they don't have to tolerate a conservative opinion.

Not that other parties aren't hypocritical, it's just that this particular point is so quickly and loudly touted as a positive Democratic belief.


This is a good point. I have problems with Democrats/liberals who tout "political correctness," and am open in my opposition to them. But then, as you note, Republicans do the same thing. They simply call it something else...like blasphemy or heresy.

When we speak of toleration, however, we need to understand the meaning of the word. Hating a behavior or form of speech isn't intolerance. Taking active steps to suppress that behavior or speech IS intolerance. Both sides espouse freedom, and then attempt to restrict the freedoms of others. I would suggest it is a matter of degree.

We've seen the following in the last decade on both Left and Right sides of the issue, listed below. It is a partial list to be sure, but note I oppose all of them:

The Left.

Suppression of "hate speech."
Legislation of "hate crimes."
Banning of adult pornography by fringe elements of the feminist Left.
The restriction of the sale of firearms and accessories.

The Right

Criminalization of sexual behavior among consenting adults both Gay and straight.
Suppression of obscenity.
Banning of adult pornography by elements of the Christian Right (odd allies to the feminists, note).
Criminalization of recreational and medicinal marijuana use.
The banning of marriage or civil unions for a certain segment of society.
The attempt to deny birth control pills to women, even those that are married.
Activism intended to recriminalize adultery.
Efforts to limit the ability of couples to divorce.
Active job discrimination directed at Gays.
Attempts to suppress other religions by the Christian Right.
The active suppression of stem cell research.
The attempts to have "Creationism" taught in public school science classes.
Censorship efforts regarding book availability in public libararies (Harry Potter, series, The Catcher in the Rye, etc).
Active suppression of sex education materials and topics in schools.

Now...we can all say we are intolerant of intolerance. Or we can say we're intolerant of intolerance of intolerance. We can carry that on to absurd levels, or we can try and weigh the levels of freedom our toleration/intolerance allows/restricts and place personal responsibility for our actions at the other end of the scale.

When I do this I find the Right end of the argument woefully lacking.


Regards,



Steve


http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/diatribes028/diatribes563-583/diatribes576.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/condom.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_news.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/condom.htm
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
5 hand swords said:
No.
Learn that when confronted with 2 false choices I can chose not to validate them.
Or would you prefer I shoot you in your arm or your leg?
Personally, Neither.
I'd like to write in that you shoot Mickey Mouse.

And yes, that was a viable option, to write in a vote for Mickey Mouse. :)
 
Top