Reading Politics

This is why I do not vote.

Then quit your bitching. If you do not vote, you had no say nor did you even participate in what had and has been going on, made no attempts to stop what you hate, and have no right to even begin to complain.

If you don't like Bush, vote for Kerry or Nader. It doesn't matter, just vote. Cast your opinion into the pool. As we saw with the 2000 elections, just a handful of votes can make a big difference, and you not casting yours immediately should strip away your right to complain. You made no attempt to keep Bush out of office, or should you have not been eligible around 2000, you apperantly aren't going to make any attempt to keep Bush out of office.

Casting your opinion is often synonomous with voting. Right now, what have you done? Cast your opinion, obviously supporting Kerry (who out of the three is the biggest "whiney rich kid", but I'm not talking about who you are voting for). If you cast your opinion every where else but not in the voting booth, isn't that hypocritical?

It's sad. You are given a freedom most others in the world aren't. Lets think about all those chinese people and how much they would love to cast their vote on which "whiney rich kid" gets to rule them rather than be trounced upon by the red army T-72 tanks.

It's because of people like you saying "well, I'm going to complain about an office I made no attempt to stop and not vote" that America has the lowest voter turn out compared to any other country. Our percentages are horrible and embarassing, and these coming from the damn country that invented modern fucking day democracy. Do us a favor, if you are going to bash and complain about politics and politicians, go do something about it and vote. If you aren't, dig yourself a hole and fall in it.

The only thing that truly depresses me about this election is I won't turn 18 in time to cast my vote, but you'll be damn sure when congressional elections come 'round, you can find me at the nearest voting booth.

Fond memories

Look young one. Don't ever tell me to quit bitching about anything. Go suck on your thumb, and learn to respect your elders before you speak non-sense.
Eljefe, we are going to learn a new word today, and the word is OPINION. Oh what a great word in America! However, this is what I witnessed in one or two of the reponses from my original post.
When someone does not respect or appreciate ones differences in OPINIONS, instead of debating, they tend to try and tear down that individuals right for feeling how he/she feels on certain issues.
What I wrote about in my original post; Well..Well..Well was my OPINION. Now I am catching all kinds of B.S. for expressing my own OPINION. (Note the 57%) So go ahead and down rate my post because in one or two lines I stated I probably will not vote. Is November already here?! Hum, no so save it Eljefe. I am weighing my options right now. I am watching my potential candidate. Until then you dig your hole, and please trip over your tongue when falling into it.

obviously supporting Kerry (who out of the three is the biggest "whiney rich kid",

Enough said. You obviously don't know much about what is currently going on.

This is why I do not vote.

That is the reason I am receiving such a ridiculous score. Not for the substance of issues I brought to light, no I am getting flak for being honest enough to express my own OPINION. For telling the NAO community "This is why I do not vote." Oh I voted before, in previous elections. Maybe I should have put will not, instead of do not vote. Then juveniles like you would fully understand before speaking gibberish.
So, Eljefe, I read some of your past sniffling posts. You tend to talk about things you really do not know much about. Still I am mature enough not to blast your ratings because I do not agree with what you said. You are a habitual line stepper. I am going to refrain from telling you to quit bitching. Oh wait, damn too late. I guess I stepped over the lines. Oh well.
Do not dictate to me what I NEED TO DO. Son, you still live at home. Your responsibilities are nil. Learn to show some respect when grown folks are talking, and do not assume anything until you know everything.
Last, you know nothing about my political past and whom I voted for in the 2000 elections. You were what 11 or 12 then. Please. Spend some time as an independent adult before you come knocking on my door telling me what I can or cannot bitch about.
Oh, and yeah you may be right, yes it is probably hypocritical expressing my views and then not casting my vote in November. However, it is also hypocritical, being 17 and never voting before, yet talking like you know something about life.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

This post was edited by havananights on Aug 30, 2004.

Enough said. You obviously don't know much about what is currently going on.

Let's take a look at the facts here. Kerry is a businessman, Kerry is married into the Heinz family. Kerry's accecible income greatly exceeds that of Bush, therefore making him the whiney rich kid. Now, let's take another at what I said, being "biggest". Now lets let google inform us about some new words today:

Biggest: greatest in size of those under consideration

Only: and nothing more

So, how exactly does that statement prove I know nothing of the situation?

Look young one. Don't ever tell me to quit bitching about anything. Go suck on your thumb, and learn to respect your elders before you speak non-sense.

I respect those who earn my respect. Sure 'elders' are given more leeway that peers, but you must earn it first.

Now, on to your opinions. You make a big mistake in your argument. Esentially, in a debate, points are not opinions, but how one ties points together however, are. Can you predict the future? No. Can I predict the future? Probably worse than you. But essentially, in a debate, it is the war between opinions, since (given that one has equally represented the points) points really cannot be disputed to any worthwhile degree. What is disputed is how the points relate to each other. All I did was take apart your points and give you my opinion.

Still I am mature enough not to blast your ratings because I do not agree with what you said.

I don't rate down posts I don't agree with. If you get access to my rating histories, you'll find that I have rated up posts posted by mcclaincausey, whom if you read my 'sniveling' posts is my exact opposite on nearly every issue maybe except for the fact that we both hate corrupt politicians, merely because I thought his posts were very well put together and well presented (and fun to spar with). I personally rated down your post not for you opinions, but because your post is hypocritical because you did not equally represent Kerry in your argument, it is hard to follow, and not a good read. Hell, I missed the not vote part the first time I read it.

Oh, and yeah you may be right, yes it is probably hypocritical expressing my views and then not casting my vote in November. However, it is also hypocritical, being 17 and never voting before, yet talking like you know something about life.

Just because you are older doesn't mean you are privy to information I can't get my hands on. I can form my own opinions on life based on the same facts fed to you, and right now my opinions are based on views widely accepted by your peers, not mine. Sure you may have live through more years that me, but that doesn't automatically make what I say null and void to what you say. With age may come wisdom, but not intelligence.

Fond memories

Let's take a look at the facts here. Kerry is a businessman; Kerry is married into the Heinz family. Kerry's accessible income greatly exceeds that of Bush, therefore making him the whiney rich kid. Now, let's take another at what I said, being "biggest". Now let’s let google inform us about some new words today:

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal where it explained the difference of wealth between Kerry and Bush. The Heitz fortune is estimated at 3.2 billion dollars. Bush's wealth is estimated at 13 million dollars. Kerry's wealth is far greater. Kerry married into wealth. Bush inherited the majority of his wealth. As mentioned by one affiliate:
'The Kerry’s would be the richest couple ever to live in the White House and with wealth comes responsibility. Their assets should be disclosed to the voters so that they can assess whether there are any potential conflicts of interest. Since the Kerry campaign is proposing to raise tax rates on the upper middle class, most people would probably like to know whether the Kerry household uses tax-avoidance techniques to avoid paying its "fair share."'
I feel you miss my point. I never said Bush was a whiney rich kid and Kerry wasn't. I labeled the majority of politicians as overgrown whiney rich kids, which they are. They throw away our tax dollars and cut other resources out. Why, because it isn't their money. Think about this. If you worked hard for your wealth, I mean you built your wealth from scratch. Won't you be somewhat more cost conscience with your investments than someone who is handed wealth? Of course. You earned your money. Tax dollars is like free money to most politicians. So they blow budgets and then they resort to cutting education and law enforcement funds.

Just because you are older doesn't mean you are privy to information I can't get my hands on. I can form my own opinions on life based on the same facts fed to you, and right now my opinions are based on views widely accepted by your peers, not mine. Sure you may have live through more years that me, but that doesn't automatically make what I say null and void to what you say. With age may come wisdom, but not intelligence.

Good point, and with experience comes knowledge.

Editors Note: I would like to apologize because my original post Well..Well..Well was hastily put together. Yet I enjoy the amount of responses to this particular post. Educate the people.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

This post was edited by havananights on Aug 30, 2004.

Tax dollars is like free money to most politicians. So they blow budgets and then they resort to cutting education and law enforcement funds.

I agree with you on that. One of the biggest problem I have with conservatives (even though I would considder myself as such) is their misuse of federal surpluses (well, politicians in general mishandling). I think the idea of the tax rebates to be rather stupid, because from many accounts the people who really need a tax relief don't fit in the bracket for the rebate. That money could have been better spent, say, on education (primarily it should be spent raising teachers salaries).

I feel you miss my point. I never said Bush was a whiney rich kid and Kerry wasn't. I labeled the majority of politicians as overgrown whiney rich kids, which they are.

I feel I did miss your point there.

Fond memories

Eljefe,
I apologize for being so critical of you. While you held your composure, I lost my cool in the middle of an honest debate. Totally immature on my part. I used words as my weapons. I definitely crossed the literature lines. Thank you my dear friend for showing me more than you know.
Havananights.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

This post was edited by havananights on Aug 31, 2004.

No problems here. We all lose our cool from time to time. I do have to admit that I came on a little strong with my origionationg post, so I apologize for that.

Fond memories

Lets think about all those chinese people and how much they would love to cast their vote on which "whiney rich kid" gets to rule them rather than be trounced upon by the red army T-72 tanks.

At least the tank is honest.

I admit, this time, there is a choice in the upcoming U.S. election. I know nothing about Kerry, but my knowledge of Bush is enough for me to urge all Americans to vote for the Johns, and if Kerry somehow manages to do a worse job than Bush, he will have my humorless congradulations.

But "the lesser of two evils" is a pretty crappy motivation, isn't it?

votes can make a big difference, and you not casting yours immediately should strip away your right to complain

I'm a supporter of voting as long as you are a supporter of society, but lets go over the logic of your statement.

All politicians are supposed to do exactly what they say they are going to do, and/or act according to a certain set of moral guidelines. A vote for them is basically saying that you:

a) agree with what they are going to do

and/or

b) have the same set of personal moral guidelines

Given these rules, if you vote for someone who wins, and once elected does not do what he/she said they were going to do, or does not act within their supposed moral guidelines, then you have a right to complain loud and clear.

If you vote for someone, but the other guy wins, you have every right to talk about how you disagree with them, but if they are doing what they said they would do, you can't say they are doing a bad job, because they are (theoretically) just doing what they were told to do by the majority. If they are not doing what they promised, it's really the role of the people who voted for them to give them shit.

BUT... what if you agree with neither candidate to the extent that, even if they did exactly what they said they were going to do, and acted totally true to their stated moral guidelines, you STILL thought they sucked?

Or what if you liked the ideals of one of them, but you knew that neither was really going to do anything close to what they said they would do?

If either of these were the case, your complaint would not be "so and so candidate sucks", but rather "the system sucks, it doesn't work, and all the candidates are carbon copy crapheads". Wouldn't it then be a bit hypocritical to complain about the system, then to turn around and continue to support and perpetrate that system by voting?

Now, granted, 99% percent of the people who didn't vote last election probably didn't put this kind of thought into it. The only thing hypocritical is the fact that they continue to support the system all the other ways: working, shopping, going to school, joining the army, paying taxes, etc.

It's too bad all the dissatisfied people don't have a worthy candidate to vote for.

--- (storytime)

The Simpsons, one of the Treehouse of Horrors:

Before the election, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton are abducted and replaced by an alien couple (Kang & Kodos) in disguise intent on taking over america. Before the vote however, they are revealed in their true form. One speaks confidently:

"well, what are you going to do about it? It's a two party system."

A crowd member replies: "maybe I'll vote for a third party candidate."

To which the alien says "Go ahead, throw your vote away! Bwahahahah!"

Kang is elected, and enslaves everyone. At the end, Homer says "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

Or what if you liked the ideals of one of them, but you knew that neither was really going to do anything close to what they said they would do?

That reminds me, have you ever noticed that seemingly no country in the world has a law which requires politicians to tell the truth or keep their campaign promises? We fine companies for misleading product ads, we require food companies to print a detailed list of ingredients and used food additives on every can of baked beans, and fraud or perjury are major crimes. But no such thing for false campaign promises or factually incorrect attack ads.
I know that a few years ago some French politicians attempted to create such a law, but were stopped by (then- and current) president Chirac and his lackeys. The US supreme court even ruled that the media must accept and broadcast/print any campaign ads, even if it's obvious that they're nothing but lies. (The reasoning was that people should be able to see it - free speech - and then decide for themselves how much of it they want to believe.)

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.