Libby Verdict is nigh...

[CaptainBallz]

Word on the street is that we could see the verdict today.

Can I get a "guilty"?!

[LuvSox]

Can I get a "guilty"?!

Yes you can (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2927810)

[CaptainBallz]

Yes you can (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2927810)

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rock:
:rock:
:rock:
:rock: :sexyparty: :yippee: :worship: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Goose]

Word on the street is that we could see the verdict today.

Can I get a "guilty"?!

Next up, por favor, a Mr. G.W. Bush and a certain Dick-head Cheney.

If the Republicans can censure Clinton for lying about a fucking blowjob, why are these two still unscathed after their little "fibs" costing thousands of lives and putting this country into uncontrolable debt?

[CaptainBallz]

Next up, por favor, a Mr. G.W. Bush and a certain Dick-head Cheney.

If the Republicans can censure Clinton for lying about a fucking blowjob, why are these two still unscathed after their little "fibs" costing thousands of lives and putting this country into uncontrolable debt?

You got it. This lines them up. The court finds Libby obstructing to protect Cheney. Now it's off to prove what exactly Cheney needed protection from. We all know the answer already, but the walls are closing in...

Unfortunately, Cheney will be dead before that case gets to trial, but the scrutiny will taint whatever isn't already thoroughly tainted about this administration, their purposes, and their entire rationale for this buttfuck of a war.

Scooter Libby: "HE GONE"!!

[1951Campbell]

...why are these two still unscathed after their little "fibs" costing thousands of lives and putting this country into uncontrolable debt?

Because we don't have a viable, courageous anti-war party in America, we only have the Democrats.

This Scooter Libby business is just bread and circuses for the blogosphere. The verdict today won't save a single American soldier's life. Wake me when the discourse surrounding the War moves away from Scooter and whatever panty-waisted, non-binding, "please sir, may I have some more" resolution is being floated today and towards de-funding and withdrawal, now, of the troops.

[CaptainBallz]

Because we don't have a viable, courageous anti-war party in America, we only have the Democrats.

This Scooter Libby business is just bread and circuses for the blogosphere. The verdict today won't save a single American soldier's life. Wake me when the discourse surrounding the War moves away from Scooter and whatever panty-waisted, non-binding, "please sir, may I have some more" resolution is being floated today and towards de-funding and withdrawal, now, of the troops.

I agree with the general sentiments of this, but I do find it highly, HIGHLY important to indict these people as the criminals they are, WHILE forcing Dems and the raising chorus of skeptical Repubs to do what's necessary to choke off any funding that could go towards escalation.

The Libby indictment (and whatever ones follow) and Congress' actions are both incredibly necessary at this point of the game, IMHO.

[1951Campbell]

I agree with the general sentiments of this, but I do find it highly, HIGHLY important to indict these people as the criminals they are, WHILE forcing Dems and the raising chorus of skeptical Repubs to do what's necessary to choke off any funding that could go towards escalation.

The Libby indictment (and whatever ones follow) and Congress' actions are both incredibly necessary at this point of the game, IMHO.

It's a way of appearing to do something while affecting no change whatsoever.

[CaptainBallz]

It's a way of appearing to do something while affecting no change whatsoever.

From the extreme pessimist's point of view, it might seem so, but there's always change.

[maurice]

Until Congress de-funds, it's all for show. If they continue to do nothing meaningful, W will refuse to withdraw, and the '08 election will be REAL interesting. At 1st thought, it will be another GOP slaughter in Congress, as the war becomes increasingly less popular. On 2nd thought, a Dem Congress that does nothing to stop the war while passing some lefty legislation won't have a leg to stand on.

It certainly makes for an interesting primary. McCain is the biggest fan of escalation. Clinton refuses to go anti-war. Obama talks a good game but does nothing meaningful. Edwards at least admits that he fucked up and currently lacks the power to do anything meaningful, unlike the 2 sitting U.S. Senators running against him.

[CaptainBallz]

Until Congress de-funds, it's all for show. If they continue to do nothing meaningful, W will refuse to withdraw, and the '08 election will be REAL interesting. At 1st thought, it will be another GOP slaughter in Congress, as the war becomes increasingly less popular. On 2nd thought, a Dem Congress that does nothing to stop the war while passing some lefty legislation won't have a leg to stand on.

It certainly makes for an interesting primary. McCain is the biggest fan of escalation. Clinton refuses to go anti-war. Obama talks a good game but does nothing meaningful. Edwards at least admits that he fucked up and currently lacks the power to do anything meaningful, unlike the 2 sitting U.S. Senators running against him.

Neither party is worth supporting anymore ever...

[cbotnyse]

Bush will Pardon him on the last day of his term.

[SABRSox]

Bush will Pardon him on the last day of his term.

Most likely, but that's his right, like it or not. Justice was served today, and hopefully we'll get the rest of these bastards too.

Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.

This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

Now THAT'S a Speaker...

[BFC]

And to think...these D-bags weren't even ELECTED.:eek:

[StockdaleforVeep]

Next up, por favor, a Mr. G.W. Bush and a certain Dick-head Cheney.

If the Republicans can censure Clinton for lying about a fucking blowjob, why are these two still unscathed after their little "fibs" costing thousands of lives and putting this country into uncontrolable debt?

misinformed is different from lieing

and just in general, what politician has never lied?

[StockdaleforVeep]

Until Congress de-funds, it's all for show. If they continue to do nothing meaningful, W will refuse to withdraw, and the '08 election will be REAL interesting. At 1st thought, it will be another GOP slaughter in Congress, as the war becomes increasingly less popular. On 2nd thought, a Dem Congress that does nothing to stop the war while passing some lefty legislation won't have a leg to stand on.

It certainly makes for an interesting primary. McCain is the biggest fan of escalation. Clinton refuses to go anti-war. Obama talks a good game but does nothing meaningful. Edwards at least admits that he fucked up and currently lacks the power to do anything meaningful, unlike the 2 sitting U.S. Senators running against him.

regardless of who wins, more will be sent before troops are sent back

Look at every vietnam president, they all promised to bring troops home, then after election, they surge the troops

[BFC]

and just in general, what politician has never lied?

pc9y5ayeeb4

[StockdaleforVeep]

pc9y5ayeeb4

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/10/28/george.carlin/story.bill.ted.jpg
"had wooden teeth, chased moby dick"
"...thats captain ahab dude..."

[1951Campbell]

And to think...these D-bags weren't even ELECTED.:eek:

^^^Was 11 in 2000. :rolleyes:



;)

[1951Campbell]

misinformed is different from lieing



You think they did their due diligence? :rolleyes:

[StockdaleforVeep]

You think they did their due diligence? :rolleyes:

You believe the world was dumb enough to believe the lie and not stop us?

[maurice]

You think they did their due diligence? :rolleyes:

Sure. They received intelligence reports containing contrary evidence . . . then they ordered that the evidence be excised into footnotes, classified the footnotes, and pretended that the information didn't exist. When somebody had the nerve to point out that the information existed . . . well, that's how we got the Libby case.

This is the MO of the W administration: reach a conclusion - suppress or belittle unflattering evidence - personally attack anybody who points it out. We've seen this time and time again: Iraq, torture, habeas, wiretapping, DHS, . . . .

[StockdaleforVeep]

Sure. They received intelligence reports containing contrary evidence . . . then they ordered that the evidence be excised into footnotes, classified the footnotes, and pretended that the information didn't exist. When somebody had the nerve to point out that the information existed . . . well, that's how we got the Libby case.

This is the MO of the W administration: reach a conclusion - suppress or belittle unflattering evidence - personally attack anybody who points it out. We've seen this time and time again: Iraq, torture, habeas, wiretapping, DHS, . . . .

personally? Im glad saddam is gone

[maurice]

Me too, but it's time to go. I'm not too thrilled about the other stuff I mentioned.

Creating massive deficits + shitting on the constitution = lots of pissed off libertarians.

[Efilnikufesin]

personally? Im glad saddam is gone

Why, how does this help America?

[Efilnikufesin]

You believe the world was dumb enough to believe the lie and not stop us?

No, more like in Shock and aww.. They felt bad fr us because of 9/11.. Bush took his scam and ran with it.

[CaptainBallz]

Sure. They received intelligence reports containing contrary evidence . . . then they ordered that the evidence be excised into footnotes, classified the footnotes, and pretended that the information didn't exist. When somebody had the nerve to point out that the information existed . . . well, that's how we got the Libby case.

This is the MO of the W administration: reach a conclusion - suppress or belittle unflattering evidence - personally attack anybody who points it out. We've seen this time and time again: Iraq, torture, habeas, wiretapping, DHS, . . . .

personally? Im glad saddam is gone

Is that seriously your response?

Are you trying out to be a fluffer in the Fox News green room or something? I think you'd get the job.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Is that seriously your response?

Are you trying out to be a fluffer in the Fox News green room or something? I think you'd get the job.


i have no desire to even attempt a rational counter argument because i dont need more flaming wars with either dems or people who could be found clinically insane due to thinking buildings fell due to the govt conspiracy and the moon is made of bbq spare ribs. So yes, im glad saddam is out, and so are the many who were enslaved under his regime.

[Efilnikufesin]

Is that seriously your response?

Are you trying out to be a fluffer in the Fox News green room or something? I think you'd get the job.

They are not allowed to think.. They must just agree with what the Fuhrer States.. Saddam Bad.. can't give a legit reason, he was just bad.

[1951Campbell]

You believe the world was dumb enough to believe the lie and not stop us?

I think the world did not believe the lie, but lacked the will to stop us.

[1951Campbell]

They are not allowed to think.. They must just agree with what the Fuhrer States.. Saddam Bad.. can't give a legit reason, he was just bad.

:jagoff:

[Efilnikufesin]

:jagoff:

I have to say.. that has to be the most intelligent thing you have said in this thread..

Now care to answer the question of how Saddam in Power hurt America? Or do you want to give me the Same BS I have heard from all the NeoCons?

[CaptainBallz]

i have no desire to even attempt a rational counter argument because i dont need more flaming wars with either dems or people who could be found clinically insane due to thinking buildings fell due to the govt conspiracy and the moon is made of bbq spare ribs. So yes, im glad saddam is out, and so are the many who were enslaved under his regime.

I'm not here to flame... I tend to butt out when it turns into that, but I will not pretend it doesn't irk me a bit when, in the face of glaring bullshit and manipulation, people on your side of the argument will throw out a slight-of-hand line such as "I'm glad saddam's gone" or "He gassed his own people!" as an attempt to justify that which is undeniably wrong on every rational level.

These are the same people that seem to always forget that Saddam was the US's butt buddy in the Middle East and half of the atrocities that occurred under his regime happened ONLY under permission from the same people that hold power in this country right now. This usually doesn't seem to bother the apologists, but it does show a lack of consistency.

And please don't come back with, "Well, we needed him as our ally, AT THE TIME"... Because, no, WE didn't need shit. So, my question is, if you're glad that Saddam's gone because of the atrocities that occurred under his regime, should you not also want gone the people that had a heavy hand in encouraging and allowing those atrocities to occur? Is your moral stance not so much about atrocities occurring as it is about who's performing them?

[Efilnikufesin]

I'm not here to flame... I tend to butt out when it turns into that, but I will not pretend it doesn't irk me a bit when, in the face of glaring bullshit and manipulation, people on your side of the argument will throw out a slight-of-hand line such as "I'm glad saddam's gone" or "He gassed his own people!" as an attempt to justify that which is undeniably wrong on every rational level.

These are the same people that seem to always forget that Saddam was the US's butt buddy in the Middle East and half of the atrocities that occurred under his regime happened ONLY under permission from the same people that hold power in this country right now. This usually doesn't seem to bother the apologists, but it does show a lack of consistency.

And please don't come back with, "Well, we needed him as our ally, AT THE TIME"... Because, no, WE didn't need shit. So, my question is, if you're glad that Saddam's gone because of the atrocities that occurred under his regime, should you not also want gone the people that had a heavy hand in encouraging and allowing those atrocities to occur? Is your moral stance not so much about atrocities occurring as it is about who's performing them?

Very Well Said.. :thumbsup:

[1951Campbell]

I have to say.. that has to be the most intelligent thing you have said in this thread..



Efilnikufesin, your grasp on reality is tenous at best, you reading skills are sub-elementary school (as evidenced by attributing the Saddam argument to me when it was in fact Stockdale), and you're allergic to backing anything up with facts or logic.

As such, I'm not going to address your posts in this forum anymore, so don't waste your time addressing mine.

[Efilnikufesin]

You must be a NeoCon as well.. since I asked you a question and you spin it as if I asked StockDale.. You decided to butt your nose in where it did not belong..Now you are attempting to sound intelligent, when you could not be further from it.

You have brought nothing to this topic, or at least I have failed to see anything that can be considered a rational thought. Just childish attempts to sound like you know what you are talking about.

From this and other threads, thank you for the majority of posters and ask you not to come into the Politics forum if you have no idea what it is you are talking about.. Which as stated before has been shown way to many times before.

Thank you the Educated public of SoxnitheCity

[CaptainBallz]

Thank you the Educated public of SoxnitheCity

:rolling:

Rule #1 of expressing intellectual superiority on a message board: No glaring typos/misspellings.

:shrug:

[SABRSox]

Yikes. Well, I'm a liberal, and I'm glad Saddam is out of power. That guy is a war criminal, and while his execution certainly should have been handled better, there's no denying he deserved to die.

That being said, we had no business going into Iraq and removing him from power.

[Efilnikufesin]

:rolling:

Rule #1 of expressing intellectual superiority on a message board: No glaring typos/misspellings.

:shrug:
Oops.. Yeah that looks almost as bad as Stock reasons! :thumbsup:

Spelling is my #1 downfall.. Even with the new Mozilla.

[Prope]

i have no desire to even attempt a rational counter argument because i dont need more flaming wars with either dems or people who could be found clinically insane due to thinking buildings fell due to the govt conspiracy and the moon is made of bbq spare ribs. So yes, im glad saddam is out, and so are the many who were enslaved under his regime.
It's not....

[SABRSox]

This political forum is tearing us apart.

I like that.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/db/100px-Simp_agnes.gif
"Your feelings are ugly and wrong."

[Efilnikufesin]

It's not....

But God told me and Bush it is.. So it must be true.. :rolling:

[StockdaleforVeep]

I'm not here to flame... I tend to butt out when it turns into that, but I will not pretend it doesn't irk me a bit when, in the face of glaring bullshit and manipulation, people on your side of the argument will throw out a slight-of-hand line such as "I'm glad saddam's gone" or "He gassed his own people!" as an attempt to justify that which is undeniably wrong on every rational level.

These are the same people that seem to always forget that Saddam was the US's butt buddy in the Middle East and half of the atrocities that occurred under his regime happened ONLY under permission from the same people that hold power in this country right now. This usually doesn't seem to bother the apologists, but it does show a lack of consistency.

And please don't come back with, "Well, we needed him as our ally, AT THE TIME"... Because, no, WE didn't need shit. So, my question is, if you're glad that Saddam's gone because of the atrocities that occurred under his regime, should you not also want gone the people that had a heavy hand in encouraging and allowing those atrocities to occur? Is your moral stance not so much about atrocities occurring as it is about who's performing them?
his support of terrorism and adhering to death to Israel like most of the arab world is why its good he is gone

[StockdaleforVeep]

But God told me and Bush it is.. So it must be true.. :rolling:


Right, and when was the last good president you voted\supported?

[CaptainBallz]

his support of terrorism and adhering to death to Israel like most of the arab world is why its good he is gone

So why not the cry to "liberate" Saudi Arabia?
Instead, we get this circle jerk,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpphotoessay/part1/images/10-v2869-07-mrscheneywithkingfahdogsaudiarabia-398h.jpg

:shrug:

They're freedom haters, too...

[StockdaleforVeep]

So why not the cry to "liberate" Saudi Arabia?
Instead, we get this circle jerk,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpphotoessay/part1/images/10-v2869-07-mrscheneywithkingfahdogsaudiarabia-398h.jpg

:shrug:

They're freedom haters, too...

They support israeli\palestinian peace

[Prope]

They support israeli\palestinian peace
So that's all it takes?

It doesn't matter about how they treat the women over there or political suppression?

This may be too pinko-leftist for you but, "if one person isn't free, then nobody is free."

[CaptainBallz]

They support israeli\palestinian peace

So now that's what this is about??

[StockdaleforVeep]

So that's all it takes?

It doesn't matter about how they treat the women over there or political suppression?

This may be too pinko-leftist for you but, "if one person isn't free, then nobody is free."

And the other evils are the islamic reform and the al queda movement in the region who are more strict than the saudi monarchy. Saudi education is open to all citizens of the country and world. US treated and to a degree treat women like shite here, but it took time for us to evolve to where we are now

[StockdaleforVeep]

So now that's what this is about??

Well in the issue of saddam, he supported the conflict and rewarded families of hamas for suicide bombing cultural centers of israel

[CaptainBallz]

Saudi education is open to all citizens of the country and world. US treated and to a degree treat women like shite here, but it took time for us to evolve to where we are now

What's a few thousand more years for the Saudi's??? They'll catch on.

Well in the issue of saddam, he supported the conflict and rewarded families of hamas for suicide bombing cultural centers of israel

Sure he did, with fatty fat checks to boot for families of suicide bombers... Sooo, that's why were in Iraq, now?

Really, there are numerous, NUMEROUS directions to look in if we want to see who's been prolonging the Israeli/Palestinian issue-- they fall on both sides and it's probably the absolute definition of "eternal clusterfuck".

The entire Arab world isn't necessarily fond of Isreal and, yes, Saddam erred on the side of the Palestinians. So where does our saving grace come into the "increasing the peace" equation by invading Iraq, killing more Muslims, enraging the Muslim world, and increasing terrorism in the region in the process?
All good intentions aside, it really hasn't worked all that well....so if nothing else, one might be able to safely say that maybe, possibly, the idea was... I dunno... fucking retarded and ill thought out.

[Efilnikufesin]

Right, and when was the last good president you voted\supported?

Wait don't tell me.. you are one of those who thinks your vote matters :rolling:

Stop, Stop I can't stand it.. I'm crying from laughing so hard.. People actually still believe this bullshit.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Wait don't tell me.. you are one of those who thinks your vote matters :rolling:

Stop, Stop I can't stand it.. I'm crying from laughing so hard.. People actually still believe this bullshit.

Bush made it in office by slim margins didnt he?

Shouldnt you be living off the grid somewhere? Why are you even here

[Efilnikufesin]

Bush made it in office by slim margins didnt he?

Shouldnt you be living off the grid somewhere? Why are you even here

Bush made it is because of a scam.. the 2000 election proved the people vote does not matter. Then comes 04, where we given a choice.. Shoot yourself in the foot or stab yourself in the foot.. Wow, great choices.. Nether was fit to run this country.

To think you make a difference by voting is laughable.. The electoral college itself was set up so that you and me could not influence who was out leader, Hamilton didn't think we be smart enough to make a wise decision...and when in fact it was set up to keep those in power, to stay in power. If they were to get rid of the electoral college then maybe your vote would matter.

Correct me If i am wrong but my guess id your a Christian NeoCon?

[StockdaleforVeep]

Bush made it is because of a scam.. the 2000 election proved the people vote does not matter. Then comes 04, where we given a choice.. Shoot yourself in the foot or stab yourself in the foot.. Wow, great choices.. Nether was fit to run this country.

To think you make a difference by voting is laughable.. The electoral college itself was set up so that you and me could not influence who was out leader, Hamilton didn't think we be smart enough to make a wise decision...and when in fact it was set up to keep those in power, to stay in power. If they were to get rid of the electoral college then maybe your vote would matter.

Correct me If i am wrong but my guess id your a Christian NeoCon?


Im a moderate with leanings towards conservative. I do not vote party, i vote belief. Was raised roman catholic, still practice to a degree and no, never met father o'fondle and i have not condemned people to hell for their beliefs, hell i talk with val dont i ;)

Let me guess, you are either some overeducated liberal who if he managed to get into college, you saw all the liberal propaganda that infuse our college institutions and felt that after that, it opened your eyes to all of the "lies" in the world and then joined up with a few liberal groups and clubs that sat around and did nothing but associate Republicans with evil and nazi'ism while listening to Rancid and other punk or metal bands that delib attempt to target politics to sell records so you could identify with a "anthem" for your angst and then eventually dropped out because you saw the BS that school was or because you lost aid from parents or govt and naturally lashed out against them

OR

Everything i said above but you are anti party and think by all the personal research you have done and been told about, you know how the world really works. Point is, there are extremes of the left, right and middle. You are an extreme elitist to say the least, all that would be left is to associate a party with you and that you are incapable of associating any of these beliefs in the real world because lack of self esteem and confidence so you are forced to reside in the internet world where you think people care or want to know your "knowledge" when all we want to know is why you have such incomprehensible beliefs. This will probably be the last commentary i will give to you on any of the forums here. Do not bother to reply, you will though because you feel the need to justify yourself to the internet public so you can tell your mother, psychiatrist or social worker that you had social interaction and that you are special and that you stood up for yourself. I am done with you, i used to have the philosophy to not judge and to admit that i could be wrong and others could be correct, but for you, i will make an exception, i know 100% you are wrong
on all counts

CLOSED

[SABRSox]

Wait don't tell me.. you are one of those who thinks your vote matters :rolling:

Stop, Stop I can't stand it.. I'm crying from laughing so hard.. People actually still believe this bullshit.

From that comment, it sounds like you've never voted in your life.

[fquaye14ten]

i haven't voted. what's your point?

[SABRSox]

i haven't voted. what's your point?

aXc7_7DAoIk

Seriously, voting is the most important duty an American citizen has.

[fquaye14ten]

i can see why you'd say that.

i don't tend to agree....however whether you are of your belief or mine, you can certainly see why someone might believe their vote didn't count for much, can't you.

[SABRSox]

i can see why you'd say that.

i don't tend to agree....however whether you are of your belief or mine, you can certainly see why someone might believe their vote didn't count for much, can't you.

Well, the problem with the "my vote doesn't count argument" is that when a great number of people think that way, then it actually does count. Besides, considering how polarized politics are today, there are many, many cases where every vote does in fact count.

That and all the people dying overseas in wars, protecting this country and your right to vote, etc., etc.

[fquaye14ten]

they are also dying to protect my right not to vote

[fquaye14ten]

but in all seriousness, "right to vote" is such a minimal part of the ideal of "freedom" that the wars we fight purport to protect.

Our three fundamental Lockean rights described in the dec of ind. are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore it seems to me that the fundamental goals of war are

a.) making sure our lives as americans are not in danger

b.) making sure our constitutional rights are not jeopardized by outside forces (among those, the right to vote, sure, but that's just one in a cornucopia of constitutional rights guaranteed)

c.) preserving the fluid social and economic class system in which we live

therefore, the right to vote is no more a duty than being a member of a civil liberties group who works to preserve each and every other constitutional right, and the right to vote seems a minimal concern of those fighting for this country

[SABRSox]

they are also dying to protect my right not to vote

See, ask most soldiers, and they'd probably say that voting isn't a choice, but a civic duty.

[fquaye14ten]

see, i could have sworn that paying our taxes were a civic duty...i could have sworn voting was a choice

[fquaye14ten]

by the way see above and you'll notice i have a much less glib response to justify my point of view

[fquaye14ten]

if i told you that being a member of the aclu was a civic duty you'd probably go tell me to fuck myself, but it really is no less than the argument you seem to be making

[fquaye14ten]

and finally, i'm a relativist in terms of ethical and moral matters---i don't think there's a right answer to any of the major social issues facing the nation. therefore why should i feel obligated to make a completely arbitrary and meaningless choice (in my eyes, at least) rather than leave the decision making to the politicians, who have more carefully studied the ramifications of their decisions?

[SABRSox]

Well I'd counter that the founders of the country, and those who wrote the Constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, believed that the most integral part of the democratic process was the popular vote.

[Efilnikufesin]

Well, the problem with the "my vote doesn't count argument" is that when a great number of people think that way, then it actually does count. Besides, considering how polarized politics are today, there are many, many cases where every vote does in fact count.

That and all the people dying overseas in wars, protecting this country and your right to vote, etc., etc.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything.. But, how was Iraq threatening his country and going prohibit my right to vote? they are dying overseas for a profit.. its just that simple.

[Efilnikufesin]

Well I'd counter that the founders of the country, and those who wrote the Constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, believed that the most integral part of the democratic process was the popular vote.

Jefferson believed in the common man, such as you or I. He was the only one, Hamilton got his way to make sure that the ones who were in power, would stay in power.

[fquaye14ten]

Well I'd counter that the founders of the country, and those who wrote the Constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, believed that the most integral part of the democratic process was the popular vote.

which is why they created the electoral college?:rolleyes:

[Efilnikufesin]

which is why they created the electoral college?:rolleyes:

I never thought I would say this.. But, you are correct.

[fquaye14ten]

the first step to learning is beginning to recognize genius. congratulations, you're on the right track

[CaptainBallz]

and finally, i'm a relativist in terms of ethical and moral matters---i don't think there's a right answer to any of the major social issues facing the nation. therefore why should i feel obligated to make a completely arbitrary and meaningless choice (in my eyes, at least) rather than leave the decision making to the politicians, who have more carefully studied the ramifications of their decisions?

This sounds more like a matter of slave vs. master mentality. Why would you think that "politicians" have a more inherent capacity to understand the issues than you? Do you believe that politicians, by their acts of politicking, gain infinite knowledge of all things?
Their sole existence revolves around trying to sway voters. How do you figure you're helping by ceding your power to someone else, thereby narrowing the actual scope of representation critical for a democracy to remain, well, a democracy?
Your attitude leans more towards a servile role in a fascism. To each his own, I guess, but I'd recommend exploring other options.


Reminds me of that line from A Bug's Life:

"Ants are not meant to serve grasshoppers. I've seen these ants do great things, and year after year they somehow manage to pick enough food for themselves and you. So who is the weaker species? Ants don't serve grasshoppers! It's you who need us! We are a lot stronger than you say we are... And you know it, don't you?"

[fquaye14ten]

i don't mind that...render unto caesar and so on.

that doesn't mean that caesar is right, it just isn't a concern of mine.

i'm going to keep on keeping on regardless.......

i don't tell people they ought to read literature...don't tell me i should care about politics

[1951Campbell]

and finally, i'm a relativist in terms of ethical and moral matters---i don't think there's a right answer to any of the major social issues facing the nation. therefore why should i feel obligated to make a completely arbitrary and meaningless choice (in my eyes, at least) rather than leave the decision making to the politicians, who have more carefully studied the ramifications of their decisions?

:rolling:

Also, fquaye, you throw the word "arbitrary" around a lot in political discussions. You can say the choice between, say, having a war in Iraq or not is an "arbitrary" choice, based on arbitrary factors. I don't think it is, but even if it is--it still has a shit-ton of real-world implications for people in the real world. That's why the "who cares, it's all arbitrary and meaningless" dog doesn't really hunt.

[CaptainBallz]

i don't mind that...render unto caesar and so on.

that doesn't mean that caesar is right, it just isn't a concern of mine.

i'm going to keep on keeping on regardless.......

i don't tell people they ought to read literature...don't tell me i should care about politics

Yet you continue to pay taxes, drive on roads, breathe air...

All political and done for you because other people weren't nearly as obtuse.
Campbell's 100% correct, you can choose to cede your life to others, but that by no means makes any of it arbitrary.

[fquaye14ten]

i'm saying to me the decision to vote for, say, Bush or Kerry would be an arbitrary decision. I'm neither for nor against the war in Iraq, because I have by no means enough information to purport to make a decision on that grand a scale. I'm neither for nor against abortion, neither for nor against welfare or increased government spending on the schools. I'm neither for nor against capital punishment, gun control, supply-side economics, health care, or teaching birth control over abstinence in public schools.

Therefore selecting between the candidates in the last election would have certainly been a completely arbitrary and meaningless choice FOR ME.

If you do have strong opinions, by all means vote, because there are real world applications, but don't tell me that it's somehow more sacred for me to make a completely meaningless choice between two candidates than for me to say "I'll leave this to people who actually have opinions that they've carefully considered"

[fquaye14ten]

Yet you continue to pay taxes, drive on roads, breathe air...

All political and done for you because other people weren't nearly as obtuse.
Campbell's 100% correct, you can choose to cede your life to others, but that by no means makes any of it arbitrary.

It's a matter of arbitrary for me. I'm not saying these things are meaningless. I'm just going to trust that my legislators know what they're doing, since I have an understanding that my personal knowledge on politics and policy is extremely limited comparatively

[fquaye14ten]

and campbell, when did I ever say "who cares?"

I said "I don't care."

I've batted around these serious issues in my head for a very long time. I was extremely politically involved as a younger kid. Now I've come to a point when I have had to come to the grips with the facts that I don't really think there is an answer to the big issues that seperate the two parties (and despite what you seem to champion, this is a two party system).

So, yes, I don't care. I think people should care, IF THEY CARE. But to say because someone doesn't have dyed in the wool partisan opinions is an indictment on them or the country as a whole is troubling to me.

[1951Campbell]

i'm saying to me the decision to vote for, say, Bush or Kerry would be an arbitrary decision. I'm neither for nor against the war in Iraq, because I have by no means enough information to purport to make a decision on that grand a scale. I'm neither for nor against abortion, neither for nor against welfare or increased government spending on the schools. I'm neither for nor against capital punishment, gun control, supply-side economics, health care, or teaching birth control over abstinence in public schools.

Therefore selecting between the candidates in the last election would have certainly been a completely arbitrary and meaningless choice FOR ME.

If you do have strong opinions, by all means vote, because there are real world applications, but don't tell me that it's somehow more sacred for me to make a completely meaningless choice between two candidates than for me to say "I'll leave this to people who actually have opinions that they've carefully considered"

You don't have enough information? :rolleyes:

It is admirable to be Socratic and recognize that which you don't know, but it's kind of folly to take it to such an extreme.

[fquaye14ten]

I don't....put yourself in the position of the president. Do you end the war or not? Do you involve yourself in this or that conflict?

Now imagine you have to make that decision only based on the information filtered through the sludge factories that are the American media.

You're goddamned right I don't have enough information to say "THE WAR OF IRAQ MUST END" or "BUSH IS HITLER"

[1951Campbell]

I don't....put yourself in the position of the president. Do you end the war or not? Do you involve yourself in this or that conflict?

Now imagine you have to make that decision only based on the information filtered through the sludge factories that are the American media.

You're goddamned right I don't have enough information to say "THE WAR OF IRAQ MUST END" or "BUSH IS HITLER"

So no amount of reason or intuition could ever lead someone who is not a legislator or President to overcome a perceived lack of information? You seem to shy away from making decisions because you don't have all the information. Well, this is life, no one has all the information.

[fquaye14ten]

this is just how I feel, Campbell.

I'm glad you feel differently. Congratulations. I'm not trying to argue that people shouldn't vote. Quite the opposite. I'm just taking exception to the argument that people who don't vote are "Shirking their most sacred of civil duties"

[CaptainBallz]

So no amount of reason or intuition could ever lead someone who is not a legislator or President to overcome a perceived lack of information? You seem to shy away from making decisions because you don't have all the information. Well, this is life, no one has all the information.

Except me, of course...:D

I think fquaye has a healthy distaste towards the political landscape as it is now, I just disagree with allowing that to turn into ambivalence. There's people across the spectrum trying to open up the political process to more diverse views than "corporate right vs. corporate middle" and, for the most part, have been succeeding. We've seen many more Greens and Libertarians given ballot spots for local and state elections.
What needs to happen is for people to actually VOTE to get those people into local/regional offices and begin the process of legislating the widening of political choice in this country.
Doing absolutely nothing can only do nothing. Fuck it, don't vote for D vs. R for president.. leave it blank for all I care. But it hurts more than it helps to not support those people that ARE actually trying to alter the landscape that has made you so ambivalent in the first place.

[fquaye14ten]

i don't have ambivalence about the way politics effects the world. I just have ambivalence whether a democrat or republican wins office.

surely campbell, of all people, you can agree with that ambivalence

[1951Campbell]

this is just how I feel, Campbell.

I'm glad you feel differently. Congratulations. I'm not trying to argue that people shouldn't vote. Quite the opposite. I'm just taking exception to the argument that people who don't vote are "Shirking their most sacred of civil duties"

Fair enough.

[1951Campbell]

i don't have ambivalence about the way politics effects the world. I just have ambivalence whether a democrat or republican wins office.

surely campbell, of all people, you can agree with that ambivalence

I can see where it comes from, yes.

[CaptainBallz]

You're too concerned with being logically right. Realizing there aren't answers there was a good step in the right direction.

There will be an answer...someone finish it.

Let it Be.

(took a while for mother mary to come to me..:D )

[fquaye14ten]

i'm not concerned with being logically right except on the issue of whether or not I should vote.

my main thing is that I don't feel strongly that either side of the main arguments b/t libs and conservs are right or wrong.

Essentially what it boils down to is if a war WERE unequivocably wrong, I would absolutely vote against it. But I don't know that that's the case, and I don't trust myself to have a strong opinion on it, since I'm woefully underinformed, by necessity.

Therefore, since I don't have a strong opinion about the war, why should I vote for, say Kerry over Bush with the war being the reason I justify that vote? I shouldn't---that would just make it an arbitrary decision, and fundamentally worse than not voting at all...a coin flip is worse than a no-vote is essentially what I'm saying.

If you have strong feelings about a candidate, sure, you owe it to yourself to vote. If you don't, I really don't think you should be criticized for "being a coward," or "unamerican"

[fquaye14ten]

i meant what i typed

[CaptainBallz]

i'm not concerned with being logically right except on the issue of whether or not I should vote.

my main thing is that I don't feel strongly that either side of the main arguments b/t libs and conservs are right or wrong.

Essentially what it boils down to is if a war WERE unequivocably wrong, I would absolutely vote against it. But I don't know that that's the case, and I don't trust myself to have a strong opinion on it, since I'm woefully underinformed, by necessity.

Therefore, since I don't have a strong opinion about the war, why should I vote for, say Kerry over Bush with the war being the reason I justify that vote? I shouldn't---that would just make it an arbitrary decision, and fundamentally worse than not voting at all...a coin flip is worse than a no-vote is essentially what I'm saying.

If you have strong feelings about a candidate, sure, you owe it to yourself to vote. If you don't, I really don't think you should be criticized for "being a coward," or "unamerican"

fquaye, you've painted yourself into such a corner that it's amazing you can even get out of bed in the morning. Life is chock to the gills with gray areas and moral/ethical/logical conundrums, that if dwelled on long enough would prevent even the most dedicated of people from putting right foot in front of left every morning.
Just because the ultimate Platonic TRUTH hasn't jumped out at you and slapped you in the face, doesn't mean that you lack any form or reasoning skills or any sort of internal moral/ethical gauge to make the determination that something such as, say, a war of choice is either a) cool or b) gay.
As a person with pretty strong opinions on something as wholly subjective as music, I would think that opinions wouldn't be so hard for you to come by, especially once charred babies and impoverished underclasses are involved. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think those things are that hard recognize and form opinions on.

To me, it just sounds like excuses being made for a general ignorance that you've chosen to maintain (which from what I know about your academic undertakings, isn't necessary or excusable), just so that you can stand aloof and not really have to make that defining decision of who you are and what you stand for. So you've decided to let others do it for you.
I'm no ultimate authority, and you are certainly allowed to do what you will, but your stance is by no means noble.

[maurice]

I've repeatedly expressed my dislike of Gore and Kerry but, as a A.B.B. voter, I voted for both of them. Nader told us that W = Gore, but I think the past 6 years show that he was terribly wrong. Gore / Kerry + a GOP Congress could not possibly be worse than the results of 6 years of W with a GOP Congress.

IMO, it's ridiculous when people who didn't vote say "I didn't vote for him." Yeah, but you didn't vote against him either. My vote might not amount to a hill of beans, but at least I have the balls to pick a side and participate in the process that makes our flawed system better than most.

[SABRSox]

fquaye, you've painted yourself into such a corner that it's amazing you can even get out of bed in the morning. Life is chock to the gills with gray areas and moral/ethical/logical conundrums, that if dwelled on long enough would prevent even the most dedicated of people from putting right foot in front of left every morning.
Just because the ultimate Platonic TRUTH hasn't jumped out at you and slapped you in the face, doesn't mean that you lack any form or reasoning skills or any sort of internal moral/ethical gauge to make the determination that something such as, say, a war of choice is either a) cool or b) gay.
As a person with pretty strong opinions on something as wholly subjective as music, I would think that opinions wouldn't be so hard for you to come by, especially once charred babies and impoverished underclasses are involved. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think those things are that hard recognize and form opinions on.

To me, it just sounds like excuses being made for a general ignorance that you've chosen to maintain (which from what I know about your academic undertakings, isn't necessary or excusable), just so that you can stand aloof and not really have to make that defining decision of who you are and what you stand for. So you've decided to let others do it for you.
I'm no ultimate authority, and you are certainly allowed to do what you will, but your stance is by no means noble.

You win the thread.

[Prope]

Bush made it is because of a scam.. the 2000 election proved the people vote does not matter. Then comes 04, where we given a choice.. Shoot yourself in the foot or stab yourself in the foot.. Wow, great choices.. Nether was fit to run this country.

To think you make a difference by voting is laughable.. The electoral college itself was set up so that you and me could not influence who was out leader, Hamilton didn't think we be smart enough to make a wise decision...and when in fact it was set up to keep those in power, to stay in power. If they were to get rid of the electoral college then maybe your vote would matter.

Correct me If i am wrong but my guess id your a Christian NeoCon?
http://www.ars.pl/images/filmy/big_lebowski.jpg
"Fucking nialists"

[StockdaleforVeep]

i'm not concerned with being logically right except on the issue of whether or not I should vote.

my main thing is that I don't feel strongly that either side of the main arguments b/t libs and conservs are right or wrong.

Essentially what it boils down to is if a war WERE unequivocably wrong, I would absolutely vote against it. But I don't know that that's the case, and I don't trust myself to have a strong opinion on it, since I'm woefully underinformed, by necessity.

Therefore, since I don't have a strong opinion about the war, why should I vote for, say Kerry over Bush with the war being the reason I justify that vote? I shouldn't---that would just make it an arbitrary decision, and fundamentally worse than not voting at all...a coin flip is worse than a no-vote is essentially what I'm saying.

If you have strong feelings about a candidate, sure, you owe it to yourself to vote. If you don't, I really don't think you should be criticized for "being a coward," or "unamerican"

So if you dont have strong feelings for a candidate and dont vote, how can one complain about the current administration or their actions therein? Not voting is like a cop out "I didnt choose him, so dont blame me"

[Prope]

Im a moderate with leanings towards conservative. I do not vote party, i vote belief. Was raised roman catholic, still practice to a degree and no, never met father o'fondle and i have not condemned people to hell for their beliefs, hell i talk with val dont i ;)

Let me guess, you are either some overeducated liberal who if he managed to get into college, you saw all the liberal propaganda that infuse our college institutions and felt that after that, it opened your eyes to all of the "lies" in the world and then joined up with a few liberal groups and clubs that sat around and did nothing but associate Republicans with evil and nazi'ism while listening to Rancid and other punk or metal bands that delib attempt to target politics to sell records so you could identify with a "anthem" for your angst and then eventually dropped out because you saw the BS that school was or because you lost aid from parents or govt and naturally lashed out against them

OR

Everything i said above but you are anti party and think by all the personal research you have done and been told about, you know how the world really works. Point is, there are extremes of the left, right and middle. You are an extreme elitist to say the least, all that would be left is to associate a party with you and that you are incapable of associating any of these beliefs in the real world because lack of self esteem and confidence so you are forced to reside in the internet world where you think people care or want to know your "knowledge" when all we want to know is why you have such incomprehensible beliefs. This will probably be the last commentary i will give to you on any of the forums here. Do not bother to reply, you will though because you feel the need to justify yourself to the internet public so you can tell your mother, psychiatrist or social worker that you had social interaction and that you are special and that you stood up for yourself. I am done with you, i used to have the philosophy to not judge and to admit that i could be wrong and others could be correct, but for you, i will make an exception, i know 100% you are wrong
on all counts

CLOSED
Efilnikufesin:
:owned:

[StockdaleforVeep]

i can see why you'd say that.

i don't tend to agree....however whether you are of your belief or mine, you can certainly see why someone might believe their vote didn't count for much, can't you.

Voting wins you valuable patronage

[Prope]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything.. But, how was Iraq threatening his country and going prohibit my right to vote? they are dying overseas for a profit.. its just that simple.
You, beat a dead horse?? No way....

[1951Campbell]

Voting wins you valuable patronage

Ah, a true Chicagoan. ;)

[Prope]

I think fquaye has a healthy distaste towards the political landscape as it is now, I just disagree with allowing that to turn into ambivalence. There's people across the spectrum trying to open up the political process to more diverse views than "corporate right vs. corporate middle" and, for the most part, have been succeeding. We've seen many more Greens and Libertarians given ballot spots for local and state elections.
What needs to happen is for people to actually VOTE to get those people into local/regional offices and begin the process of legislating the widening of political choice in this country.
I've been a fan of politics for a long time. I like debating, I like discussing, I like reading and watching. That being said; I have grown uncomfortable with the discourse in this country. All of the hyperbole and the attacks just do not do it for me anymore. I still vote, and keep abreast of issues, but rarely will I discuss it (outside of this forum at least, because there are good ideas being thrown out there - both sides). So I can see where fquaye might come from with his distaste.
Doing absolutely nothing can only do nothing. Fuck it, don't vote for D vs. R for president.. leave it blank for all I care. But it hurts more than it helps to not support those people that ARE actually trying to alter the landscape that has made you so ambivalent in the first place.
For awhile now, I've been thinking there should be the option of 'none of the above'

[1951Campbell]

For awhile now, I've been thinking there should be the option of 'none of the above'

That's an actual option in Nevada. :thumbsup:

[Prope]

That's an actual option in Nevada. :thumbsup:
Really?

I've been wanting to move out there (apparently a need for teachers), that plus legal prostitution. :thumbsup:

[CaptainBallz]

Really?

I've been wanting to move out there (apparently a need for teachers), that plus legal prostitution. :thumbsup:

That's what I call "The Perfect Storm"-- :clap:

I'm tellin ya.. Instant runoff voting. Demand it...

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

[1951Campbell]

Really?



Word.

George W. Bush * (R) 414,939 50%
John F. Kerry (D) 393,372 48%
Ralph Nader (I) 4,785 1%
None of These Candidates (Una.) 3,646 0%
Michael Badnarik (Lib.) 3,149 0%
Michael A. Peroutka (CST) 1,138 0%
David Cobb (Green) 837 0%

[CaptainBallz]

Word.

George W. Bush * (R) 414,939 50%
John F. Kerry (D) 393,372 48%
Ralph Nader (I) 4,785 1%
None of These Candidates (Una.) 3,646 0%
Michael Badnarik (Lib.) 3,149 0%
Michael A. Peroutka (CST) 1,138 0%
David Cobb (Green) 837 0%

Oh, David Cobb. We hardly knew ye!

[Efilnikufesin]

Efilnikufesin:
:owned:

:rolling:

The irony is amazing:rock:

[1951Campbell]

Oh, David Cobb. We hardly knew ye!

Hmm, a closet Green, are we?

;)

[Prope]

:rolling:

The irony is amazing:rock:
Explain how?

[Prope]

Word.

George W. Bush * (R) 414,939 50%
John F. Kerry (D) 393,372 48%
Ralph Nader (I) 4,785 1%
None of These Candidates (Una.) 3,646 0%
Michael Badnarik (Lib.) 3,149 0%
Michael A. Peroutka (CST) 1,138 0%
David Cobb (Green) 837 0%
not for nothing, but.....

...the case could be made that really NO candidate should be elected unless they have 51% of the vote.

[CaptainBallz]

not for nothing, but.....

...the case could be made that really NO candidate should be elected unless they have 51% of the vote.

dude!!! I got the Motts....

http://www.instantrunoff.com

This was a pretty massive thread on WSJ as well. IIRC, SoxEd floated a few alternatives around as well, that relied heavily on the 51% necessity. For reasons, I won't get into here, I prefer instant runoff.... and a paper trail while we're at it... and no more Diebolt machines...

[Efilnikufesin]

Explain how?

A 15 year old having his mommy help him write a response that was lacking anything remotely close to a rational thought .. The only thing he got remotely close is that I am not affiliated w/a party .. What he did was actually uneducated and childish. I actually was going to draw up a rebuttal but figured that since he showed his lack of education and maturity on the topic.. what is the point?

[StockdaleforVeep]

not for nothing, but.....

...the case could be made that really NO candidate should be elected unless they have 51% of the vote.

Why? In the real world, all decisions are made by simple majority

[fquaye14ten]

So if you dont have strong feelings for a candidate and dont vote, how can one complain about the current administration or their actions therein? Not voting is like a cop out "I didnt choose him, so dont blame me"

where have you seen me complain about bush?

[fquaye14ten]

fquaye, you've painted yourself into such a corner that it's amazing you can even get out of bed in the morning. Life is chock to the gills with gray areas and moral/ethical/logical conundrums, that if dwelled on long enough would prevent even the most dedicated of people from putting right foot in front of left every morning.
Just because the ultimate Platonic TRUTH hasn't jumped out at you and slapped you in the face, doesn't mean that you lack any form or reasoning skills or any sort of internal moral/ethical gauge to make the determination that something such as, say, a war of choice is either a) cool or b) gay.
As a person with pretty strong opinions on something as wholly subjective as music, I would think that opinions wouldn't be so hard for you to come by, especially once charred babies and impoverished underclasses are involved. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think those things are that hard recognize and form opinions on.

To me, it just sounds like excuses being made for a general ignorance that you've chosen to maintain (which from what I know about your academic undertakings, isn't necessary or excusable), just so that you can stand aloof and not really have to make that defining decision of who you are and what you stand for. So you've decided to let others do it for you.
I'm no ultimate authority, and you are certainly allowed to do what you will, but your stance is by no means noble.

you're missing my point.

'i'll leave it at that since i'm drunk.

for the record i feel like i'mmore informed than 99% of voters. i just hold my ethics to a higher standard than most as well

[fquaye14ten]

I've repeatedly expressed my dislike of Gore and Kerry but, as a A.B.B. voter, I voted for both of them. Nader told us that W = Gore, but I think the past 6 years show that he was terribly wrong. Gore / Kerry + a GOP Congress could not possibly be worse than the results of 6 years of W with a GOP Congress.

IMO, it's ridiculous when people who didn't vote say "I didn't vote for him." Yeah, but you didn't vote against him either. My vote might not amount to a hill of beans, but at least I have the balls to pick a side and participate in the process that makes our flawed system better than most.

like i said, i haven't ever said that.

so find a diff. argument against my not voting

[fquaye14ten]

This is the third most thorough yet of your few pwnings.

totally dude, the best pwnings are the ones that miss the point

[Prope]

A 15 year old having his mommy help him write a response that was lacking anything remotely close to a rational thought .. The only thing he got remotely close is that I am not affiliated w/a party .. What he did was actually uneducated and childish. I actually was going to draw up a rebuttal but figured that since he showed his lack of education and maturity on the topic.. what is the point?
So would you say your ego or your ignorance is larger?

[Efilnikufesin]

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/oa048.jpg

[CaptainBallz]

you're missing my point.

'i'll leave it at that since i'm drunk.

for the record i feel like i'mmore informed than 99% of voters. i just hold my ethics to a higher standard than most as well

Well feel free to sober up and clarify, because by reading through your posts, I'm still getting the same gist from you.

[fquaye14ten]

fquaye, you've painted yourself into such a corner that it's amazing you can even get out of bed in the morning. Life is chock to the gills with gray areas and moral/ethical/logical conundrums, that if dwelled on long enough would prevent even the most dedicated of people from putting right foot in front of left every morning.
Just because the ultimate Platonic TRUTH hasn't jumped out at you and slapped you in the face, doesn't mean that you lack any form or reasoning skills or any sort of internal moral/ethical gauge to make the determination that something such as, say, a war of choice is either a) cool or b) gay.
As a person with pretty strong opinions on something as wholly subjective as music, I would think that opinions wouldn't be so hard for you to come by, especially once charred babies and impoverished underclasses are involved. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think those things are that hard recognize and form opinions on.

To me, it just sounds like excuses being made for a general ignorance that you've chosen to maintain (which from what I know about your academic undertakings, isn't necessary or excusable), just so that you can stand aloof and not really have to make that defining decision of who you are and what you stand for. So you've decided to let others do it for you.
I'm no ultimate authority, and you are certainly allowed to do what you will, but your stance is by no means noble.

Ok Ballz you've missed the point up till now, so I don't expect you to get it in this post, but this is what I've been saying over and over and over again.

You line up the party line for the two political parties in the last election and I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION THAT EITHER'S LEGISLATION IS BETTER.

Period.

Go back and reread this post because you obviously missed it in your attempt to make a moral judgment about my ability to make a moral judgment

i'm saying to me the decision to vote for, say, Bush or Kerry would be an arbitrary decision. I'm neither for nor against the war in Iraq, because I have by no means enough information to purport to make a decision on that grand a scale. I'm neither for nor against abortion, neither for nor against welfare or increased government spending on the schools. I'm neither for nor against capital punishment, gun control, supply-side economics, health care, or teaching birth control over abstinence in public schools.

Therefore selecting between the candidates in the last election would have certainly been a completely arbitrary and meaningless choice FOR ME.

If you do have strong opinions, by all means vote, because there are real world applications, but don't tell me that it's somehow more sacred for me to make a completely meaningless choice between two candidates than for me to say "I'll leave this to people who actually have opinions that they've carefully considered"

Of course I have opinions on all those issues, but they come out on both sides.

Take abortion. My opinion is very centrist---I personally think abortion is a largely damaging activity, but I believe women ought to have the right to choose. However, since my opinions on the issue are as they are, whatever legislation on abortion is, I would not be opposed.

Sorry you disagree, but I'm done being polite with this. You can go fuck yourself ballz.

[CaptainBallz]

Sorry you disagree, but I'm done being polite with this. You can go fuck yourself ballz.

I can now, can't I, but since I'm more in the middle when it comes to fucking myself, I choose to do nothing.

fquaye, I got your point. I didn't miss a damn thing about it. Take this for example:
Take abortion. My opinion is very centrist---I personally think abortion is a largely damaging activity, but I believe women ought to have the right to choose.

You, sir, are pro-choice. Now, quit being a fag about it and say so.

[1951Campbell]

Play nice, guys.

[fquaye14ten]

I can now, can't I, but since I'm more in the middle when it comes to fucking myself, I choose to do nothing.

fquaye, I got your point. I didn't miss a damn thing about it. Take this for example:


You, sir, are pro-choice. Now, quit being a fag about it and say so.

Sure I'm pro choice...but that doesn't mean I support abortion. I'm pro the choice to speed, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go protest speed limits.

I'm against the legal bac limit being .08, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go protest that.

Pick your battles, and frankly I don't feel there's any battles worth picking.

So once again, eat my ass

[CaptainBallz]

Sure I'm pro choice...but that doesn't mean I support abortion. I'm pro the choice to speed, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go protest speed limits.

I'm against the legal bac limit being .08, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go protest that.

Pick your battles, and frankly I don't feel there's any battles worth picking.

So once again, eat my ass

Ummm, no? :confused:

So what if there was a candidate running for office that was a real knobber and built his platform around zero tolerance for all motorists on the road (meaning not 1 drink in the system) or who wanted to lower all speed limits to 35 mph? Would you maybe muster up the energy to vote against him even if there was someone else that you didn't necessarily worship, but who's plans weren't so lame? Or would that be weighing in too much?

[fquaye14ten]

then i'd vote against him because those are a higher priority for me than abortion (which is a zero priority for me)....maybe you don't understand the lowness of priority almost all major issues are for me.

sorry you disagree. but i've evaluated my ethics a lot more stringently than most people, i would estimate, so get the fuck off my nuts.

[CaptainBallz]

then i'd vote against him because those are a higher priority for me than abortion (which is a zero priority for me)....maybe you don't understand the lowness of priority almost all major issues are for me.

sorry you disagree. but i've evaluated my ethics a lot more stringently than most people, i would estimate, so get the fuck off my nuts.

You're lashing out again...

I'll be done with this, but just for future reference, when you post something like "I...leave the decision making to the politicians, who have more carefully studied the ramifications of their decisions..." in a politics forum, you're bound to have your nuts jumped on.

Just sayin'. Good day.

[fquaye14ten]

goodbye.

glad to see you're finally stepping off my cock :rolleyes:

[cbotnyse]

goodbye.

glad to see you're finally stepping off my cock :rolleyes:settle. We all know your hung like a lightswitch anyway. ;)

[CaptainBallz]

settle. We all know your hung like a lightswitch anyway. ;)

It's not that I was going out of my way, it's just that I have rather large shoes...

:shrug:

[fquaye14ten]

settle. We all know your hung like a lightswitch anyway. ;)

http://www.homeauto.com/_SiteElements/images/products/hlc/HLC1000_1500_front.gif

pr0n

[maurice]

like i said, i haven't ever said that.
so find a diff. argument against my not voting

I never said anything about YOU not voting. I guess booze makes you narcissistic.

If I wanted to talk about your "reasons," I would have jumped all over that "I'm so much more ethical than everybody else" BS.

[fquaye14ten]

booze makes me many things.