That's what the Corporations, etc. count on.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/eyeroll.gif)
RedEye wrote:Ah-Ha! So, you don't want to vote, you just want to complain. Every non-voter is a voter for whatever it is they don't like. Maybe the system is flawed, but if you don't vote, you can't even hope to change things.
That's what the Corporations, etc. count on.
I wouldn't agree with that as stated, but I think the disagreement might be more in the definition of the word "wrong" than anything else. Personally I'd characterise a bloody stupid choice as the wrong one. I've seen some wrong choices made at election time in the past.RedEye wrote:The People are never "wrong" that way. They might be mis- or non-informed, they might be mean-spirited, they might even be stupid; but in a democracy they can never be WRONG.
That's the first time I ever thought someone's depiction of Barack Obama was funny.
I've seen her decribed as "VPILF", which honestly makes me wonder about the ethics of the person making the comment in the first place for quite a few different reasons. I had actually heard of Palin before she had been chosen by McCain, and have opinions about her which I am not going to share here as they would make liberals' toes curl, never mind conservatives'.vrikasatma wrote:For awhile, her sobriquet on Digg was "MILF." I won't translate because this is a PG-13 site, but think about 20-something computer troglodytes and use your imagination.
I think you mean something different. New Zealand's been unicameral since Sid Holland sent the "Suicide Squad" up to the Legislative Council to vote themselves out of existence and we've done reasonably well since then.vrikasatma wrote:We've seen what happens to nations when they go unicameral, it always fails.
I stand corrected. I didn't know about New Zealand.Midnight wrote:I think you mean something different. New Zealand's been unicameral since Sid Holland sent the "Suicide Squad" up to the Legislative Council to vote themselves out of existence and we've done reasonably well since then.
*nods* I know I said it before, but I'll say it again: I don't think the Republicans are counting on McCain winning. This is almost exactly what they did with Reagan/Bush Sr.; they screwed up the economy, then let the Democrats come into the White House and fix it. Then in 2000, Bush Jr. moved back in and screwed up the economy all over again, so now the businessmen are ready to go back to business and let the Democrats have to fix it. The McCain campaign is just one great big distraction designed to A) keep themselves from having to concede defeat, B) distract Americans while they're cleaning out the safes and shredding all the evidence, and C) force the Democrats to piss money away on a reelection campaign that could have otherwise been spent on worthy causes. McCain's age is already an issue -- they know he won't be able to run again in 2012, and even if he does, his failed 2008 election will keep him from doing so (the same way 2000/2004 kept Gore/Kerry from trying again).vrikasatma wrote:After eight years of CheneyBush, the GOP don't have their work cut out for them, the writing's on the wall. They don't have a snowball's chance. 2008 will not be a Red Election. The way I'm seeing it is McCain and the GOP are running only because they don't want this election to look like a slam-dunk anointing ceremony. And it shouldn't be. We've seen what happens to nations when they go unicameral, it always fails. The Neocons had their day in the sun and look where it got us. You don't have to look any further than the day's headlines.
To get involved in government is to perpetuate it. If democracy is 'people rule all' then mutual policy is called for, not the faux idealisations of sensationalised figureheads. You know we anarchists are right.Terastas wrote:I can't take it anymore. That whole "both parties suck" notion? That's propaganda. All the meat puppets to the corporations and the special interest groups want you to believe there is no such thing as a decent politician because that will reduce the chances of you going out and voting for one.
Instead the fate of our nation was left in the hands of people that chose George W. Bush because they'd "like to have a beer with him."
So please, spare me your "all politicians suck" garbage. If it weren't for those kind of sentiments, we'd have a Nobel Peace Prize recipient in the White House instead of Pinky & The Brain. A government corrupted from top to bottom; that's what apathy gives you.
Don't like the government?
Get involved in it.
Still don't like the government?
Get more involved in it.
Don't feel like getting involved because American Gladiators is on?
*shrugs* Sucks to be you.
I heard some early rumblings that the Repubs might field Jesse Ventura for their 2012 candidate.Terastas wrote:McCain's age is already an issue -- they know he won't be able to run again in 2012, and even if he does, his failed 2008 election will keep him from doing so (the same way 2000/2004 kept Gore/Kerry from trying again).
The sad thing is that Michael Palin (my hero) probably would be more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, and that's even taking into account the fact that he's British and therefore ineligible.
Hey, dude. With all due respect, if you want to see what anarchy (in the sense of life without government) is really like, go take a look at Somalia.Wselfwulf wrote:To get involved in government is to perpetuate it... You know we anarchists are right.
Anarchy is just a catch phrase used by angsties, emos and motorcycle gangs. Really, if you think anarchy is the way to go, I pity you.Uniform Two Six wrote:Hey, dude. With all due respect, if you want to see what anarchy (in the sense of life without government) is really like, go take a look at Somalia.Wselfwulf wrote:To get involved in government is to perpetuate it... You know we anarchists are right.