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

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

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,443

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: 13,157
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 Maybe if America had some of those so-called rights and freedoms withdrawn, then maybe they would realise how lucky they really are.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: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
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: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,443

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: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

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: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
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: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,795

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: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,443

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: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,443

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: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,795

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: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
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
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
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!


The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

11 Aug 2007, 8:27 pm

I know about the Americans taken hostage by the Iranians in 1979 when the Shah was killed, and the Ayatollah took over, and then the US backed Iraq in the fight they had with Iran, but when you consider giving arms to a country (and a despot like Saddam) to fight another country that you are having a fight with, had to come around and bite you on the bum. Maybe people didn't know how bad Saddam was at the time, but surely the CIA, or MI5 or whatever could have been monitoring it. What about the Palestinian conflict then? The only real reason the Yanks are backing Israel is because of some ancient biblical promise (which we don't even know is factual anyway). AND the same goes for Mesopotamia (Babylon) whom Israel (then Palestine because Israel has only existed since 1948) have been fighting since biblical times (possibly legend, not necessarily fact because the Bible may only be a bunch of legends passed down and re-written to be used as a religious/political tool). Still, to me the paramount reason nowadays for the Americans to be there is the oil, I only wish they would come out and admit it instead of running off at the mouth about other issues like WMDs and human rights etc, which to me are only smoke and mirrors.

Oh, Flagg: while flag burning may be part of your amendment on free speech, here it is a gaolable offence, and is considered treason. You can actually be charged with sedition and unlawful disregard for authority. I doubt whether the cops in the 1960s would have thought it was part of free speech either, during those riots and the protests against the tin-pot war in Vietnam.


_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

11 Aug 2007, 10:56 pm

Quatermass wrote:
Hadron wrote:
*snorts* When will the US learn that quality not quantity counts in wars. They so need to give their current soldiers proper training, part of the mess is the style the American army presents itself in Iraq. If they were trained, like the british, in some form of diplomacy, half the attacks on their soldiers would not happen. I doubt this draft will actually happen though, its too politically unacceptable.


I hope not. And you're right, the Americans seem to think it's quantity over quality. There's American shooting, and then there is British shooting. Americans spray bullets all over the place hoping to hit a target. Brits take a little longer, but it's a couple of shots, and no more. And the British probably have more diplomacy. I'll bet the Aussies over there are making friends too, instead of barking for jumps.


Reminds me of an amusing newsclip i saw about aussie peacekeepers somewhere. An aussie squaddy runs up to a glass office door, yanks on it. the door stays obstinately shut. So the squaddie picks up a breezeblock and hurls it through the glass and steps through the hole. The guy immediately behind him grabs the doorhandle.. and pushes.. the door swings open.

As well as being volunteers, the british army has had a lot of experience dealing with "peacekeeping" activities in northern Ireland, pretty much the longest standing military operation ever. I suspect that the depth of ethnic mixixng in the UK leads to a slightly less "us and them" mindset.

Conscript armies invariably fall apart under stress and pressure. (Consider the Iraqi army itself.) Also, films like Buffalo soldiers are a great example of exactly how poorly indentured troops can perform.. and if the troops who volunteered dont want to be over there, then kids swept off the street... you get the idea.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

12 Aug 2007, 12:00 am

wiggerbeater wrote:
How do you figure the Democrats are going to win hugely in 08? Hilary is running away with the nomination, and she has a 50% disapproval rating nationwide. That is with all voters, not just Republicans. I would actually bet on the Republicans to win in 08. The Democrats have terrible candidates.


You know, I'm not just speaking about the presidential election. I think it's extremely likely to be a Democrat, though that wasn't primarily what I was talking about. The Democrats are going to make large gains in congress and the senate in 2008. The senate will be particularly interesting, and already worries the Republican leadership. Two thirds up the seats up for grabs are currently held by Republicans, several of whom appear weak.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

12 Aug 2007, 12:19 am

I doubt it'll happen, but I already have a few ideas of where to flee if the draft does start up and they for some reason decide they want me...Quebec, South Africa and Hong Kong all look good to me.