Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid- The Draft May Be Back.....

Page 4 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Pandora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,684
Location: Townsville

11 Aug 2007, 7:39 am

Postperson wrote:
so if large numbers of asylum seekers turn up on one's shore, claiming their lives are in danger, what does a country do?

just admit unlimited numbers of alleged asylum seekers or go to war?
Well, let's see how you would go if you were in a country where you were constantly persecuted because of your race, colour or religion or were constantly at risk of being blown up.


_________________
Break out you Western girls,
Someday soon you're gonna rule the world.
Break out you Western girls,
Hold your heads up high.
"Western Girls" - Dragon


gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,193

11 Aug 2007, 9:49 am

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Why haven't the Yanks got compulsory voting anyway? We've had it since I can remember; if you are on the role, it's vote or get fined.


It's a litmus test. If someone is too stupid to care or figure out how to go about it, we don't want their vote anyhow.

(Yes, I'm kidding)


Quatermass wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
The choice not to vote is as much an expression of political will as going to the ballot box.


Apathy, more like.


Unfortunately, yes. That's precisely how such an action would be interpreted, without some sort of highly organized and vocal movement behind it.

A better option for someone who really doesn't care which major candidate wins, is to vote for someone who actually comes close to representing one's own views.



Pandora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,684
Location: Townsville

11 Aug 2007, 10:02 am

That's what we do in Australia when we vote for an independent.


_________________
Break out you Western girls,
Someday soon you're gonna rule the world.
Break out you Western girls,
Hold your heads up high.
"Western Girls" - Dragon


gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,193

11 Aug 2007, 10:04 am

Pandora wrote:
That's what we do in Australia when we vote for an independent.


Yeah, that's what I was getting at.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

11 Aug 2007, 10:49 am

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Proves my point. By exercising your so-called right and freedom not to vote, you are depriving your country of the possibility of electing someone who might actually make a difference. I've thought maybe Australia should go down the same path, but I then realised (with the help of my sister who works for the Electoral Commission) that if we went down your path, the same idiots would get in every time, and it would be pointless having elections. Next thing would be a dictatorship, then closely followed by revolution, then anarchy would result. Maybe if America had some of those so-called rights and freedoms withdrawn, then maybe they would realise how lucky they really are.
No, you are depriving the nation of an ill-informed vote. Do you think the people at the margin are the best educated, most thoughtful voters? NO! They tend more to be half-retarded people who can only be bothered to watch American Idol and who can't grasp half of the issues at hand. Their only role would be to be the idiotic slaves of whatever idea is popular. I agree absolutely with gwenevyn's joking comment, knowledgeable people tend to vote less knowledgeable don't, and in all factuality, I would want an oligarchy if such were not a threat to human liberty.
Quote:
There may be others, but to me, they are not necessarily 'freedoms' or 'rights', possibly they could be privileges that people have taken to be rights.
That really depends upon what one considers a right. If anything the right not to vote has the strongest claim as it relates directly to the power of an individual over their body and actions.
Quote:
Here, we may complain about some things, but at least we don't go out and blow our neighbour's heads off because they are playing their music too loud, we can make sure that whoever we vote for will get elected fairly, and that we can still have a laugh and not take ourselves to seriously.
Apart from that, unfortunately, we still have to send troops to tin-pot wars when we are told. Wish we didn't have to, but agreements are agreements, no matter how bad they are.

We don't blow our neighbor's heads off either. I would call it a naive stretch to claim that there is no corruption in your politics though. We like to laugh over here and most people here don't take themselves too seriously.



UncleBeer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 901
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland

11 Aug 2007, 11:11 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
There may be others, but to me, they are not necessarily 'freedoms' or 'rights', possibly they could be privileges that people have taken to be rights.
That really depends upon what one considers a right. If anything the right not to vote has the strongest claim as it relates directly to the power of an individual over their body and actions.

Hear hear. Someone gets it.



gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,193

11 Aug 2007, 11:15 am

UncleBeer wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
There may be others, but to me, they are not necessarily 'freedoms' or 'rights', possibly they could be privileges that people have taken to be rights.
That really depends upon what one considers a right. If anything the right not to vote has the strongest claim as it relates directly to the power of an individual over their body and actions.

Hear hear. Someone gets it.


Yes, but if nobody hears your reasons for it, you're sure to be lumped in with the ignorant masses of non-voters.

I still think that an organized movement is the only way for such a tactic to be effective as a means of protest.

(edited for typo)



Last edited by gwenevyn on 11 Aug 2007, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Malachi_Rothschild
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 382

11 Aug 2007, 11:24 am

It's not like the popular vote directly decides which candidate wins the election anyway. If it did we might see more people voting in the States. I'd certainly take my own vote more seriously. I don't like the bipartisan system. The democrats and republicans have too much power. Whenever one is in the office the other knows they'll be back there soon. And so much of the decision-making is influenced by lobbies representing industries that only have their own interests in mind. Even the US gov't is in business, providing weapons for the world. It's good for business that conflict be provoked. We've just commited to quite a bit of military "aid" to Israel and Egypt. I really don't want to know what Bush & Co. are planning for the ME.



UncleBeer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 901
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland

11 Aug 2007, 11:29 am

gwenevyn wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
There may be others, but to me, they are not necessarily 'freedoms' or 'rights', possibly they could be privileges that people have taken to be rights.
That really depends upon what one considers a right. If anything the right not to vote has the strongest claim as it relates directly to the power of an individual over their body and actions.

Hear hear. Someone gets it.


Yes, but nobody hears your reasons for it, you're sure to be lumped in with the ignorant masses of non-voters.

You refer of course to the pseudo-intelligent, ultra-superior rock-throwers: those who see fit to belittle how their fellow citizens choose to cast their one vote (or not).

There's a considerable element of alienation in most modern electorates. Too often that plays out merely by folks not voting, but that's still a valid protest, as political strategists see this and struggle madly to figure out how to get the abstainers off their duffs and into the polling place. As I say, it's a valid expression of political will.

That said, I've expressed my franchise these last six presidential elections by voting third party. :D



Nan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,403

11 Aug 2007, 11:33 am

It won't work. Once they start forcing people to go who are not already military, there'll be riots. Especially the upper middle class/rich kids who haven't had to do diddly in their lives except ask daddy for more money.



gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,193

11 Aug 2007, 11:33 am

UncleBeer wrote:
gwenevyn wrote:
Yes, but nobody hears your reasons for it, you're sure to be lumped in with the ignorant masses of non-voters.

You refer of course to the pseudo-intelligent, ultra-superior rock-throwers: those who see fit to belittle how their fellow citizens choose to cast their one vote (or not).

There's a considerable element of alienation in most modern electorates. Too often that plays out merely by folks not voting, but that's still a valid protest, as political strategists see this and struggle madly to figure out how to get the abstainers off their duffs and into the polling place. As I say, it's a valid expression of political will.


Valid, yes. I don't dispute one's right not to vote. Truth be told, I've exercised it several times.

Quote:
That said, I've expressed my franchise these last six presidential elections by voting third party. :D


:D



gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,193

11 Aug 2007, 11:36 am

Nan wrote:
It won't work. Once they start forcing people to go who are not already military, there'll be riots. Especially the upper middle class/rich kids who haven't had to do diddly in their lives except ask daddy for more money.


I've thought the same about other issues in the past, but what I've noticed is that Americans are far more attached to safety and stability than you'd think, from the violent and impassioned way that many of them talk. We're willing to sit passively and flap our yaps. That may not be such a bad quality though.

I agree that it won't happen, but not for fear of rioting. Just bad press.



Nan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,403

11 Aug 2007, 12:53 pm

gwenevyn wrote:
Nan wrote:
It won't work. Once they start forcing people to go who are not already military, there'll be riots. Especially the upper middle class/rich kids who haven't had to do diddly in their lives except ask daddy for more money.


I've thought the same about other issues in the past, but what I've noticed is that Americans are far more attached to safety and stability than you'd think, from the violent and impassioned way that many of them talk. We're willing to sit passively and flap our yaps. That may not be such a bad quality though.

I agree that it won't happen, but not for fear of rioting. Just bad press.


Oh, I don't think the powers that be care whether there are riots or not. Quite frankly, they're so cut off from the unwashed masses that they don't have a clue or give a damn.

I just think there would BE riots. Probably on or near college campuses.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

11 Aug 2007, 1:20 pm

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Yeah, that's right the 2002 one with 88 killed and the one after that. Also funny is the thing that if Bush senior had done the job properly in the early 90s, Junior wouldn't have had to go in in '03. All they needed was a CIA agent to go in disguised as an Iraqi national, pose as a cameraman for Al Jazeera and hide a high powered rifle in the telephoto lens of his camera (the CIA have such devices, surely). All he would have had to do is get one shot off while Saddam was in a crowd and BANG, no more trouble and no reason to fight the latest conflict. Unfortunately for a lot of soldiers (US and others) nobody thought of it, and the war went ahead. Who knows, maybe the Cole might not have been bombed, and the WTC might still be standing, but we will never know, will we...

Maybe Junior could explain, but whether it'll be intelligible will be anyone's guess.

You’re not that aware of the history of Iraq/Mesopotamia are you? If anything the US took a long time to realise that allying with despot regimes and warmongers such as Saddam, Savimbi, Contras, etc just because they happen to say they were opposed to a something that was some how related to the USSR at the time, wasn't a good idea.

Al-Qaeda assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance for the Taliban, two operatives, posing as journalists with a camera, which was actually a bomb.



Flagg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,657
Location: Western US

11 Aug 2007, 1:21 pm

Pandora wrote:
Flagg, are you saying flags should be burnt or not be burnt?


Banning flag burning is a violation of the first amendment.


_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!