from eXiled
-
God....I guess I was probably returning videotapes. -
It fails to address the failure of the two party system that most of us admit is there. Granted we have not done anything meaningful to change it..."Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess -
that and the irony that the world blames the US for everything.Originally posted by Lohman446
edit: Is it Calvin who said everything that man does is corrupt (total depravity)? That seems contrary to "Americans blame everyone else"....though I agree that that is the case.Last edited by geekwarrior; 10-10-2008, 10:53 AM.Comment
-
Actually, I think that the two party system is part of what he is addressing. In some of the other 'politics-themed' threads, on various boards I frequent, all too often people trot out the "well, as long as we don't elect him" (leaning either way, of course).Originally posted by Lohman446
Calvin edit: Calvin generally held that original sin was a condition of how man inherited the Earth. Total depravity is the logical result of this inheritance. Sorta like 'since we started out with original sin with no choice in the matter, of course we act with total depravity.
In the context of this op-ed, I think "Calvinism" is being used a bit incorrectly.Last edited by SCpoloRicker; 10-10-2008, 11:16 AM.God....I guess I was probably returning videotapes.Comment
-
how can the author possibly generalize like that? I dont feel like the past 8 years will in any way disappear or be cleansed away just because there is a new president...or because I vote for a new president.
I would never feel responsible for a government officials decisions, even if I voted to put them in office. The reason for this is: When was the last time you were asked how you felt on an issue by an official? I dont feel represented, and since I'm not represented, what responsibility do I have toward any issues and the effects?
Allow me(the general public) the ability to effect or override their decisions and then I will share in the responsibility of the effects of those decisions. The way I see it now, candidates will say whatever they can to get elected, then they have free reign with no responsibility to truely represent the opinion of their people. Then when the next election year roles around they get their rhetoric prepared to make it seem like they were making decisions on our behalf.Comment
-
Sounds like Robespierre wrote that or someone who is similarly convinced that he knows what he does not.
Who is "we"? Got a turd in your pocket? Or is this a royal, "we"?
You are not the general public. You are an individual. You have the power to effect decisions, by contacting your representatives. If they agree with you and/or others agree with you, then the decision is effected. If you are alone in your opinion, what right should you have in dictating to the others?Allow me(the general public) the ability to effect or override their decisions and then I will share in the responsibility of the effects of those decisions.
A republic isn't about you or me, but us.God gave you a soul.
Your parents, a body.
Your country, a rifle.
Keep all of them clean.Comment
-
I didnt mean to sound like I was the general public, but just a member of it. What I meant by my whole post is that officials should have to represent the people who put them into office. They should have to actively gauge the opinion of the public(not just voters, but everyone in that area) they are representing and follow their public's opinion. If officials are not doing that, then are we(the public) truly being represented by the officials we put in office?
It seems like so much emphasis is put on voting as this great big thing where we can influence the system.....which IMO is just simply BS to get us to think we had an influence and shut us up till the next election year. How big of an impact can we have by voting when we are limited to the choice between two people(parties) for each position.
Watching the debates makes me sad, sad that we allow candidates to walk around the questions that are important to us. The candidates are too afraid of losing voters to simply and bluntly answer a question which could give us a real reason to vote for them.
This is all just my opinion...Comment
-
Admittedly so two party dollartics doesn't give us much in the way of a real choice for representation of our views as individuals. The cannidates present themselves in a way that is designed to appeal to the middle while still appeasing their support bases, with how divided the voting populous is there's very few with a choice left to choose...
Those who choose not are the ones who hold ignorance above freedom. Of course they are free not to choose, but I find it disgusting if they choose to develop opinions without voicing them on the ballot (sure do hear alot of complaining from people my age though). Full representation could only exist in a eutopian society. The few decide for the masses because they prefer not to choose for themselves I guess.
I seriously get pissed when people are anti voting. I here more and more people denounce it and complain but then again why should they?? The elections bring out the worst in people these days.Comment
-
At this point there is a good chance I do not vote for either main candidate. Does that make me wrong or evil? I have the right to chose something else if nothing before me is a good choice. Which throws things - eight years ago I was all for McCain, and I still beleive he would have done a far better job. That was eight years ago."Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr SuessComment
-
none but that's what the courts in America decide. Who gave them that power?Originally posted by Destructo6
Voting isn't about who you believe in any more. It's about the lesser of evils. If Ron Paul where to harvest a substantial portion of the popular votes, I'm talking 30% or more it may shock the mainstream parties into changing their strategy... but Ron unfortunately has no chance....Comment
-
IDK if that was directed to me, what I said could be considered anti-voting I guess. I'm not anti-voting, I have my absentee ballot pinned up to the wall in front of me, just waiting for the final debates to mark it and send it in.Originally posted by Thotograph
What I am against is the current system of campaigning, parties, and the wastefulness of government in general....along with a bunch more but those are the big 3. Being anti-voting is counter productive, limiting your own voice.
That being said, individually we dont have a voice, because we are forced to vote between 2 possible winners. If we dont vote for one of the two, we see it as a waste of a vote. My problem isnt with voting, its with everything surrounding the voting.Comment
-
to begin ; I am pro voting , but the fact is our votes don't count for squat , until the Electorial College is done away with , you know where our " chosen delegate's " go vote , only thier votes count
I was talking with my father the other day ( he lives in W Va ) " he said " the delegates for W Va have allready announced who they are voting for , without any popular vote being done ( let alone counted ) , so explain to me again how my vote countsComment
-
Closed. Direct political
Comment
Comment