so... i'm not gonna vote.

Locked
User avatar
schnozzle
buyin' gear
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:55 am
Location: Lost Angeles
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by schnozzle » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:37 am

syrupcore wrote:Yes, I mean joe republican and jane democrat. the Heritage Foundation and similar orgs are the architects of divde and conquer strategies. make sure we're split on a few key issues (abortion, capital punishment...) and you've got yourself an army - and an enemy. Where can a pro-choice/anti-abortion voter go? gotta pick a side.
Will, can you clarify, I guess I'm not following you. Are you saying that you feel there's no difference between AVERAGE democrats and republicans, but that it's the Neocons that are creating the differences between the two parties at the moment? Because if so, I'd argue that if they're the ones running the GOP at the moment, then they define the party, especially if moderate republicans will support right-wing candidates (or candidates that seem pretty right-wing to me).

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:38 am

ubertar wrote:
sis wrote:Yo ubes- you missed my point. I did NOT say wing was sending a message, I said his planned abstenance speaks volumes. There is quite a difference. Please try to quote me accurately.
Yo, sis-- I didn't misquote you. I cut and pasted your quote right from your post. The rest were my own words. If I missed your point, it's still missing. What then, did you mean by, "and to abstain I think speaks volumes"? What does it say, and to whom? How idoes this differ from sending a message?

And please tell me why anyone would want a rusty trombone up their ass? I mean, this isn't band camp.
He's sending a message if he writes in Mickey Mouse. He's speaking volumes if he stays home on election day and chooses not to participate in what would be his first opportunity to participate in our democracy. The 85,000,000 abstainers in 2000 did not send a message, but they cetainly spoke volumes. And dude, if you've never had a rusty trombone, I highly recommend it. I hear the Bush girls like to tag-team! :twisted:

"New Federal Legislation Opens Bush Girls Wetlands to Public Drilling."

-The Onion.

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by ubertar » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:58 am

Semantics. To me, "speaking volumes" = saying a lot.
Ya know, speaking = saying, volumes = a lot.

Staying home says nothing. I think (?) we agree on that point. But maybe not. I have no clue what "speaking volumes" means to you. ???????????
The 85,000,000 abstainers in 2000 did not send a message, but they cetainly spoke volumes.
Huh? Sure, if you put words in their mouths, or assume you can read their minds. They didn't speak volumes. They didn't speak a single page. Not a paragraph. Nor even a word. Even Bush can grunt. Not these folks.
Now, does it say something about our society that so many people sat out the election (and I think this is what you're trying to get at)? Sure. What does it say? Who the hell knows!

if you've never had a rusty trombone, I highly recommend it. I hear the Bush girls like to tag-team!
I'd like to see that! Unfortunately, I've heard it's not true. It's actually Bush/Cheney who use the double headed rusty trombone. Or was it Ashcroft/Rumsfeld? Sorry for the mental images! :twisted:

awolski
buyin' gear
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:57 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by awolski » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:59 am

Come to think of it, I don't think it's legal to write yourself in like I suggested. I don't think Spiderman or Mickey Mouse are citizens of the U.S. either, so that rules those out, and in any case Mickey Mouse has some nasty connections with ex-Nazi war criminals.

I understand and respect the concept of feeling like you don't know enough about the issues to place an educated vote. In fact, if I am interpreting Wing's position correctly it's not really apathy, it's more like feeling oneself is not qualified to make an educated decision about voting. That's actually very conscientious. I respect that but I still think it's important to participate anyway which is why I made my original wisecrack about writing himself in.

It's just that so many people have done so much to ensure that we have this ability to choose our elected officials, it just seems to me like we owe it to them to use this right. A lot people are going to be uninformed and will vote anyway - why not just pick one issue that you feel strongly about, take a few minutes to see how the candidates feel about that issue, and pick the candidate you identify with?

comfortstarr
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by comfortstarr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:04 am

sissy_hankshaw wrote:If 'progressive' Minnesota can elect a former wrestler with no party affiliation from out of nowhere, the USA can certainly put a thoughtful consumer advocate in the White House, hell a truck driver- that's what this is supposed to be about, isn't it?
Good thing you used quotes around Minnesota. It's not that progressive anymore: gun-nut gov, might go to Bush.

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:24 am

ubertar wrote:Semantics. To me, "speaking volumes" = saying a lot.
Ya know, speaking = saying, volumes = a lot.

Staying home says nothing. I think (?) we agree on that point. But maybe not. I have no clue what "speaking volumes" means to you. ???????????
The 85,000,000 abstainers in 2000 did not send a message, but they cetainly spoke volumes.
Huh? Sure, if you put words in their mouths, or assume you can read their minds. They didn't speak volumes. They didn't speak a single page. Not a paragraph. Nor even a word. Even Bush can grunt. Not these folks.
Now, does it say something about our society that so many people sat out the election (and I think this is what you're trying to get at)? Sure. What does it say? Who the hell knows!

if you've never had a rusty trombone, I highly recommend it. I hear the Bush girls like to tag-team!
I'd like to see that! Unfortunately, I've heard it's not true. It's actually Bush/Cheney who use the double headed rusty trombone. Or was it Ashcroft/Rumsfeld? Sorry for the mental images! :twisted:
To speak volumes suggests a passive act, ie: "The Senator's inaction spoke volumes on his position on the issue." Whereas sending a message is a deliberate one, ie: "China's recent nuclear test was intended to send a message to the rest of the world that it is now a nuclear power." Therefore, the act of NOT voting only speaks volumes where the act of voting for a candidate who won't win is clearly sending a message. Semantics yes, but an important distinction nonetheless.

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:26 am

Ubertar wrote:Huh? Sure, if you put words in their mouths, or assume you can read their minds. They didn't speak volumes. They didn't speak a single page. Not a paragraph. Nor even a word. Even Bush can grunt. Not these folks.
And there's the distinction- it is not THEY who are speaking volumes, but rather their action, or lack thereof. It's a metaphor.

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:28 am

ubes wrote:I'd like to see that! Unfortunately, I've heard it's not true. It's actually Bush/Cheney who use the double headed rusty trombone. Or was it Ashcroft/Rumsfeld? Sorry for the mental images!
Oh dude. Must you?! :kotzen:

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by ubertar » Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:25 am

sissy_hankshaw wrote:
Ubertar wrote:Huh? Sure, if you put words in their mouths, or assume you can read their minds. They didn't speak volumes. They didn't speak a single page. Not a paragraph. Nor even a word. Even Bush can grunt. Not these folks.
And there's the distinction- it is not THEY who are speaking volumes, but rather their action, or lack thereof. It's a metaphor.

SMH
Sis, I know it's a metaphor. But to say "it speaks volumes" means it tells you something, that some information is being conveyed. I don't think that people not voting is something that can be clearly interpreted. It could mean one thing or it could mean another. Maybe they would support some other candidate. Maybe they don't care enough to vote. Maybe they're taking care of their sick relative and can't leave the house. Who knows why so many people don't vote? If there was a clear answer to the question of why people don't vote, it would speak volumes. It's not clear, so it doesn't. See what I mean?
Oh dude. Must you?!
Heh, heh. Sorry. :P

...and why would you vote for a rusty trombone, when you've got those big thumbs? Just a thought.
(We couldn't see where Sissy Hankshaw's left hand was from our angle, but the contented smile on her face spoke volumes).

User avatar
wing
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5375
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:00 pm
Location: brooklyn, ny
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wing » Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am

eric, i never said the remaining eligible 85M voters would vote for kerry, i said (or at least meant to say) that there is a supposed 30-40% that voted for nader in 2000, nader followers that without nader would otherwise supposedly vote democrat (read: kerry).

so if in case there is a close call in a larger state, like california or texas or new york (though we all already know who most of those states will go to), it can make a big difference. for instance, bush gets 50%/+1 in a state A. kerry got about 48-49%, with nader having a small portion. Now, let's pretend those 30-40% who voted for nader instead voted for kerry, you can see how it would dramatically change the gap to where either they almost tie or kerry takes the state with enough extra votes to have the popular vote in State A.

it has nothing to do with those who don't vote, really.

and can anyone seriously tell me whether or not it's true that bush might reinstate the draft? i don't know if it's a rumor or not, i can't find any good stories on it.

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:11 pm

ubertar wrote:Sis, I know it's a metaphor. But to say "it speaks volumes" means it tells you something, that some information is being conveyed. I don't think that people not voting is something that can be clearly interpreted.
Well, I guess we could split pubes all day long. Let's just say that you're wrong and I'm right. :lol:

Just kidding. Seriously, in the overall grand scheme of things I can report at least one fact, though empirical, about the American electoral system: there are at least 85 million people (that's a third of the population) who are, for whatever reason, disengaged from the political process. I hawe at times been one of them. I know there are 85 million reasons, but I have to believe that a big part of the reason is that when faced with the choice of a baseball bat to the head or being forced to eat a nice steaming plate of poo, most folks would chose "none of the above." Unless we are talkign about 85 million GG Allin's, of course. By the way, that's the language I want to see on the ballot. Talk about getting out the vote! Think of it as the ultimate vote of no confidence.

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
dirty
steve albini likes it
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Rockland, ME
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by dirty » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:15 pm

Wing, the draft stuff flying around has to do with a bill submitted by a handful of Representatives to make a point. Charlie Rangel of NY is the only one I can think of right now.

Their point is similar to Michael Moore's: no House members have their own kids over there. They DON'T actually want a draft (and it certainly wouldn't pass in the near future.)

So no, I think Bush is gonna do the exact opposite: try to win with as few men as possible, which can cause serious fucking problems, as he is demonstrating at present.

for the record, dude, I think voting at all, even if it's for nader, is better than not voting at all. Just make sure you think about it first. And whoever mentioned all the state and local races being really important, I wholeheartedly agree. You'll vote for people that actually live and work where you do. Which is nice, for those of us in the middle of nowhere....

good luck.

[edited for horrendous spelling...]

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:33 pm

wing wrote:eric, i never said the remaining eligible 85M voters would vote for kerry, i said (or at least meant to say) that there is a supposed 30-40% that voted for nader in 2000, nader followers that without nader would otherwise supposedly vote democrat (read: kerry).

so if in case there is a close call in a larger state, like california or texas or new york (though we all already know who most of those states will go to), it can make a big difference. for instance, bush gets 50%/+1 in a state A. kerry got about 48-49%, with nader having a small portion. Now, let's pretend those 30-40% who voted for nader instead voted for kerry, you can see how it would dramatically change the gap to where either they almost tie or kerry takes the state with enough extra votes to have the popular vote in State A.

it has nothing to do with those who don't vote, really.

and can anyone seriously tell me whether or not it's true that bush might reinstate the draft? i don't know if it's a rumor or not, i can't find any good stories on it.
Sorry Wing, didn't mean to imply that you said they were all likely Kerry voters. That just seems to be the prevailing theme. There is no evidence of that, at least not that I've seen. They could all be waiting for Michael Jackson to run for all I know.

About the draft, the only person I've ever heard even talk about it since 9/11 is Charles Rangell, likely engaging in a little impromptu fillibuster to rile up some folks. If Bush & Co. have plans to send you off to the desert to die, they're certainly being quiet about it. No big surprise, eh? My brother-in-law, a Marine Corps Sgt. tells me that in his opinion, the military has never been stronger, better trained or better equipped. He's been in for 15 years and he's seen a lot and served under 3 presidents. He says the prevailing attitude in the military now is that a draft is somewhat obsolete because we have such great technological superiority that numerical superiority is no longer the issue that it once was. A well-positioned expiditionary force can be more effective than an entire battalion if deployed correctly. He also says that any drill sargeant will tell you that an unwilling draftee makes thw worst kind of soldier and may hinder more than help. I remember having to register for selective service in the '80s or it was no money for college. That was a very tough time in my life.

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

comfortstarr
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by comfortstarr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:02 pm

sissy_hankshaw wrote:I know there are 85 million reasons, but I have to believe that a big part of the reason is that when faced with the choice of a baseball bat to the head or being forced to eat a nice steaming plate of poo, most folks would chose "none of the above." Unless we are talkign about 85 million GG Allin's, of course.

So you think most of those 85 million have considered the available candidates (including Nader) and decided none of them are to their liking? I don't think that's the case, I bet a very small percentage of non-voters have done that. In fact, I bet few could tell you the difference between Kerry's approach to health care and Bush's (or almost any other issue).

User avatar
wayne kerr
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3873
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:11 am

Re: so... i'm not gonna vote.

Post by wayne kerr » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:26 pm

comfortstarr wrote:
sissy_hankshaw wrote:I know there are 85 million reasons, but I have to believe that a big part of the reason is that when faced with the choice of a baseball bat to the head or being forced to eat a nice steaming plate of poo, most folks would chose "none of the above." Unless we are talkign about 85 million GG Allin's, of course.

So you think most of those 85 million have considered the available candidates (including Nader) and decided none of them are to their liking? I don't think that's the case, I bet a very small percentage of non-voters have done that. In fact, I bet few could tell you the difference between Kerry's approach to health care and Bush's (or almost any other issue).
Well, I guess the glass is either half full or half empty then. :wink:

SMH
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-Hunter S. Thompson

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests