|
thomasribiere
Nov 2, 2004, 7:26 AM
Post #26 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
today is the day, so please go vote
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Nov 2, 2004, 10:49 AM
Post #27 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
It's 3:47 AM here in Arizona and I'm on my way out the door to put up campaign signs. I think you all know where I stand. This is where the rubber meets the rock. Go vote. 3 feet of penalty slack to anyone who doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Nov 2, 2004, 1:32 PM
Post #29 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: So you're only allowed to complain about the government abusing you if you chose for them to abuse you? Wow, you really are stupid. Dumbo. :roll: Trad, it's a commonly held principle here in the US, that if you don't vote, you don't really have a pot to shit on when it comes to complaining about the state of the country or what the president does. Because afterall, if you didn't give a shit enough to vote and have a say in who leads this country, how can you really justify complaining about it all? It's not that you're not allowed to, it's that you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously when the complaining is followed by 'but I didn't vote'.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 1:43 PM
Post #30 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Nice explanation, Dookie. It's difficult for Tradman to understand this mindset. A large part of his RC.com persona is bitchin' about the US, while never actually doing anything to improve the situation. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 2, 2004, 2:21 PM
Post #31 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Trad, it's a commonly held principle here in the US, that if you don't vote, you don't really have a pot to s--- on when it comes to complaining about the state of the country or what the president does. Wow, that's really odd. I guess things are a bit different here: if the government or anyone else for that matter abuses or exploits somebody, it's considered to be wrong whether or not the victim voted at an election several years ago - these are two entirely unrelated issues. Our law doesn't extend the right to behave badly to those who are unopposed.
In reply to: It's difficult for Tradman to understand this mindset. A large part of his RC.com persona is b----' about the US, while never actually doing anything to improve the situation. Now, this is interesting. Tell me bumblie, how do you suggest I improve "the situation" as you put it? (this should be good)
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Nov 2, 2004, 2:35 PM
Post #32 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: In reply to: Trad, it's a commonly held principle here in the US, that if you don't vote, you don't really have a pot to s--- on when it comes to complaining about the state of the country or what the president does. Wow, that's really odd. I guess things are a bit different here: if the government or anyone else for that matter abuses or exploits somebody, it's considered to be wrong whether or not the victim voted at an election several years ago - these are two entirely unrelated issues. I'm curious how you read your "abused' argument into my statement.
In reply to: To paraphrase (part of) Thomas' post, and give my opinion: If you don't vote, don't cry later when things don't go your way. What Thomas wrote:
In reply to: If you like none of the candidates, put an empty enveloppe in the box, tick both cases, cross out the ballot paper, do whatever you want, but please go vote. You will honor Democracy, this very democracy you want to set in Iraq. You will show the world that you care for your country, for its policy and especially its foreign policy, you will show teh world that you are not a herd of sheeps. See what happen in Kosovo : people boycott the elections and then are not represented. Should they cry thereafter? See what happen in Ukraine : eelctions are being manipulated. See what happen in Tunisia : Ben Ali is being elected for the 4th time with over 95% of the votes and no one says anything because this country is not too poor. See what... (Emphasis mine) The point I made (and you failed to understand) - is if you have a voice, and neglect to use it, you have very little ground to stand on, if the matter you refrained from using your voice in - didn't go the way you wanted. An example: You and a group of friends are going out to dinner - they ask you for your opinion on which restaurant to go to, and you decline to answer. They pick a restaurant you abhor. Since you refused to contribute to the choice of restaurant when you had your chance, you have no room to complain about their choice of restaurant.
In reply to: Our law doesn't extend the right to behave badly to those who are unopposed. On it's own, this statement absolutely stands - now, where's your context? - d.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 2:42 PM
Post #33 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Considering that you're a foreigner, I'm not sure there's much you can do. Then again the internal events in the US has very little impact on you, so the question is "why do you consistently bitch and moan about things that have practically zero impact on your life?" Isn't this a bit like regularly visiting neighbors down the block and telling them how their family is screwed up? In both cases, it's NOYB!
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 2, 2004, 2:45 PM
Post #34 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Your restaurant illustration nicely shows the flaw in your reasoning: the decision about who becomes president is not intrinsically related to the later abuses. For example, was going to war with Iraq mentioned in the 2000 election campaign? I don't think so. So then why abstaining from that election in some way imply the abdication of the right to comment on Iraq? A better way of using your analogy would be this: you're going to a restaurant with friends, and you nominate someone to decide which restaurant to go to. You refrain from voting. As well as choosing a restaurant, the elected leader then steals your money and beats you unconscious. Don't you have a right to complain about that?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 2, 2004, 2:50 PM
Post #35 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Considering that you're a foreigner, I'm not sure there's much you can do . Well stop complaining about me not doing anything you idiot.
In reply to: "why do you consistently b---- and moan about things that have practically zero impact on your life?" Aaaaaw, call the waaaahmbulance for bumblie, somebody's got an opinion again. You don't like me voicing my opinion? Tough. Stop whining you big baby. If you don't like what I say, killfile me. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Nov 2, 2004, 2:51 PM
Post #36 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Abu Nidal
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 2:57 PM
Post #37 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Another analogy would be the fair weather fan. Those people who become fans only after their team wins a championship lack the credibility among the tried and true. Jumping on the political bandwagon, even though you're too lazy to go spend a few hours to vote every few years is treated with a similar disdain.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Nov 2, 2004, 3:05 PM
Post #38 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: Your restaurant illustration nicely shows the flaw in your reasoning: the decision about who becomes president is not intrinsically related to the later abuses. For example, was going to war with Iraq mentioned in the 2000 election campaign? I don't think so. So then why abstaining from that election in some way imply the abdication of the right to comment on Iraq? A better way of using your analogy would be this: you're going to a restaurant with friends, and you nominate someone to decide which restaurant to go to. You refrain from voting. As well as choosing a restaurant, the elected leader then steals your money and beats you unconscious. Don't you have a right to complain about that? In this conversation, we now have two distinctly different threads of discussion: 1. Do you have grounds for complaining after you don't use your voice? 2. Do you have the right to complain when being mistreated? (by anyone) I completely agree with your point 2. You choose to ignore my point 1. - d.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 3:08 PM
Post #39 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: Considering that you're a foreigner, I'm not sure there's much you can do . Well stop complaining about me not doing anything you idiot. In reply to: "why do you consistently b---- and moan about things that have practically zero impact on your life?" If you don't like what I say, killfile me. :roll: I just wonder why you frequent a site and offer up opinions that have so little to do with your life over there in Scotland. Is it because you just like to whinge and moan? Could it be if you tried this nonsense on a UK site, where everyone is has basically the same info, you'd consistently get handed your ass for being full of shit? Here, you get to pull the "cultural differences" card. How convenient. :roll: That you respond to a civil explanation with Aaaaaw, call the waaaahmbulance for bumblie, somebody's got an opinion again. You don't like me voicing my opinion? Tough. Stop whining you big baby. speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 3:11 PM
Post #40 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: You choose to ignore my point 1 That's his MO... chastise your point, while never refuting it, and then change the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 2, 2004, 3:14 PM
Post #41 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: In this conversation, we now have two distinctly different threads of discussion: 1. Do you have grounds for complaining after you don't use your voice? 2. Do you have the right to complain when being mistreated? (by anyone) I completely agree with your point 2. You choose to ignore my point 1. Hmm. No, your assertion was that if you don't use your voice then you have no right to complain when you are mistreated:
In reply to: If you don't vote, don't cry later when things don't go your way. I'm saying that things not going your way and not voting are not intrinsically related. It's certainly possible to assert, as you did in your point 1, that you have no right to complain if you don't use your voice. But why would you be complaining unless you were being mistreated? And if you were being mistreated, as you agree wouldn't you have a right to complain? Why would only people who vote have a right not to be mistreated?
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Nov 2, 2004, 3:27 PM
Post #42 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: In reply to: In this conversation, we now have two distinctly different threads of discussion: 1. Do you have grounds for complaining after you don't use your voice? 2. Do you have the right to complain when being mistreated? (by anyone) I completely agree with your point 2. You choose to ignore my point 1. Hmm. No, your assertion was that if you don't use your voice then you have no right to complain when you are mistreated:[/quote[ Incorrect. [quote=tradman]It's certainly possible to assert, as you did in your point 1, that you have no right to complain if you don't use your voice. But why would you be complaining unless you were being mistreated? And if you were being mistreated, as you agree wouldn't you have a right to complain? "When things don't go your way" is not synonymous with "When you are being mistreated" A recent (real) example: The last city elections here, I declined to vote, for whatever reasons I've now forgotten. We ended up getting a slime bucket for mayor. While I'm not being mistreated - I'd still love to complain that Mr. Slime bucket is in office - 'cept, I don't really have a place to, because I refused to exercise my voice in the election. My point, as I made it on page 2 (10 posts ago?) still stands, independently of your misunderstanding.
In reply to: Why would only people who vote have a right not to be mistreated? Nobody has the right o be mistreated. I told you that 5 posts ago. - d.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Nov 2, 2004, 3:33 PM
Post #43 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: Nobody has the right o be mistreated. I told you that 5 posts ago. - d. What?! But I want to be mistreated! Why can't I?! :P
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 2, 2004, 3:33 PM
Post #44 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: We ended up getting a slime bucket for mayor. While I'm not being mistreated - I'd still love to complain that Mr. Slime bucket is in office - 'cept, I don't really have a place to, because I refused to exercise my voice in the election. Sorry, yes I see where you are now. You're saying that if you don't use your vote, then you can't complain about who's in power. But you can still complain about it if they do things that are wrong. So if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to complain in a vapourous, inconsequential way about vague things which don't affect anyone. Gosh, I wouldn't want to lose that right.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Nov 2, 2004, 3:37 PM
Post #45 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: So if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to complain in a vapourous, inconsequential way about vague things which don't affect anyone. Gosh, I wouldn't want to lose that right. You'd be surprised how many americans (myself excluded) cling to this vaporous inconsequential way every single day... I think they're called "drama queens" - and we have far too many of them. - d.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 2, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #46 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
We'll send you some after the elections, we've got loads. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
cosmokramer
Nov 2, 2004, 3:40 PM
Post #47 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: Just vote. Just go out and do it. WRONG! If you don't know the issues, stay home. If your political knowledge comes from Fahrenheit 9/11, don't vote. Just "going out and doing it" is completely irresponsible. That's like saying: If you want a car, just go get one. Don't shop around, don't INFORM yourself, just go out and do it. :?:
|
|
|
|
|
monkey_toes
Nov 2, 2004, 4:04 PM
Post #48 of 50
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 197
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just vote. Just go out and do it. WRONG! If you don't know the issues, stay home. If your political knowledge comes from Fahrenheit 9/11, don't vote. Just "going out and doing it" is completely irresponsible. That's like saying: If you want a car, just go get one. Don't shop around, don't INFORM yourself, just go out and do it. :?: Yep - this is equally true if your political knowledge comes from the swiftboat vets or any of the other "groups" for "truth". So if your political knowledge comes from those great phone calls from Wayne LaPierre (I always hang up on the dork) - at least do your own due dilligence first before making your mark. Yep I'm the NRA and I vote only not for the guy they wanted me to vote for. Quite honestly the only thing I'm really concerned about is that there is a decisive election victory - one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|