[Kazan]

/me *****slaps bobboau for his first comment in this thread

[Zarax]

/me agrees with Kazan this time...

[Joey_21]

Originally posted by mikhael
My free will allows me to exercise my inbuilt ability to call you a moron for doing somthing that is blatantly stupid.

Not voting, when you have the right to do so, is stupid.

And my free will grants me to do the same for the exact opposite reason. There is no validation behind either points of view. You cannot supply a valid reason for bashing people for not voting nor can I find a valid reason for bashing you for voting. It is simply a choice to accept or reject.

[mikhael]

I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant disregard for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Don't you realize its your exact attitude that lets people like Bush get into power (or conversely, let Clinton get into power)? If you don't protect your rights, no one will.

If you can't see the "valid reasons" in that, you must live in a narrow little world where everything is kind and good and right and no one ever does evil and nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is selfless and charitable and kind.

[an0n]

You reap what you sew..........

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by mikhael
I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant disregard for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Don't you realize its your exact attitude that lets people like Bush get into power (or conversely, let Clinton get into power)? If you don't protect your rights, no one will.

If you can't see the "valid reasons" in that, you must live in a narrow little world where everything is kind and good and right and no one ever does evil and nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is selfless and charitable and kind.

The question is, how can you vote if you don't support ANY of the parties?  Because it's not recorded as a protest vote, but as a vote of support.

[Joey_21]

Originally posted by mikhael
If you can't see the "valid reasons" in that, you must live in a narrow little world where everything is kind and good and right and no one ever does evil and nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is selfless and charitable and kind.

Or in a world where I am a student who is just too busy to pay attention, get involved, take up interest, or to just give a fark in general (even though some say I should).

Originally posted by aldo_14


The question is, how can you vote if you don't support ANY of the parties?  Because it's not recorded as a protest vote, but as a vote of support.

Nicely pointed out. Traditionally the Republican or Democratic parties dominate the elections and hardly ever do any other parties make a breakthrough.

[Zarax]

Damn, you're forgetting one most important thing:
You don't only vote a person, you vote a political program!
You may not like who your politics, but if they follows a program that you can consider good then vote them!
Politics is not de facto ad personam, but is a complex network of people and ideas, which goes much deeper than your single candidate(s).

[mikhael]

I suppose you could cast a vote for a nonsense person (we do have write ins here), but that's really a non-vote, Aldo.

Here we vote for candidates, not for parties (though generally that distinction can be pretty thoroughly blurred). I've got at least five candidates to pick from during the next congressional election for my state. We've got an independent (no party), a green, a republican or two, a democrat or two, and usually (though not always) a socialist. My votes usually get cast based on the record of the independents, greens and democrats, though I've voted for a republican or two in my day, because of his/her priorities.

Also, if you're not voting out of protest that's reasonably valid. That vote is better used picking the least of all possible evils though. Not voting isn't an effective protest because it doesn't remove support from anyone, it just refuses to grant support. By voting, you declare the person you voted for to be the least bad alternative, which is all you can really ask for in a democratic (of any stripe) system.

Finally, if your options are so bad that you cannot in good consience pick any of the alternatives, you take the next logical step in a democratic system. You run for office yourself.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by mikhael
I suppose you could cast a vote for a nonsense person (we do have write ins here), but that's really a non-vote, Aldo.

Here we vote for candidates, not for parties (though generally that distinction can be pretty thoroughly blurred). I've got at least five candidates to pick from during the next congressional election for my state. We've got an independent (no party), a green, a republican or two, a democrat or two, and usually (though not always) a socialist. My votes usually get cast based on the record of the independents, greens and democrats, though I've voted for a republican or two in my day, because of his/her priorities.

UK system, you vote for a candidate who can be independent or representing a party.  The candidate with most votes wins the constituency (voting region).  The more constituency a party holds, the more seats it holds in the House of commons.  the party with the majority seats forms the Government.

Scotland is slightly different - there's also a proportional system where parties can also win seats on the basis of a second preference vote - i.e. the proportion of nation-wide votes rather than constituencies won.  the only problem is that the winners of these seats have no ward (constituency) to represent...making their overall validty debatable (who are they speaking for?)

However, in general, the MP you vote for will toe the party line, rather than listen to the people.  This is how Labour has so far pushed through several measures which the public does not want - because their majority MPs toe the party line.

So it basically becomes a party vote, and i presently don;t support a particular party.  The SNP is probably closest, but even then i'm not certain enough to say that's my choice.

Originally posted by mikhael
Also, if you're not voting out of protest that's reasonably valid. That vote is better used picking the least of all possible evils though. Not voting isn't an effective protest because it doesn't remove support from anyone, it just refuses to grant support. By voting, you declare the person you voted for to be the least bad alternative, which is all you can really ask for in a democratic (of any stripe) system.

Finally, if your options are so bad that you cannot in good consience pick any of the alternatives, you take the next logical step in a democratic system. You run for office yourself. [/B]

that's a possiblity, but it is very rarely effective - as a single MP has little or no power in the grand scheme of things.  Whilst a few have made it in the Scottish paliament (one for the OAPs alliance party, and one against the closure of Stobhill hospital - where my Dad was in the cardiac ward last year), there's been little impact worth mentioning.

The additional problem is that standing requires a payment of £500, which is forfeit if you get less than a certain number of votes.

As such, there is no real way of criticising the curent government - with effect - without explicitly supporting a party over here.

[Ghostavo]

Although I don't have anything to say about the current american administration, nor should I, after seing that link, I felt obliged to say something about it.

People have the right to express themselves, and the most agressive party should be confined to a certain area... but it should not be taken entirely out of the event, but left near with the proper security arrangements...

Although I agree with the police rights to do what they did (although with a more peaceful aproch), their excuses pissed me off!!

I mean, just look at this for example....

20th paragraph:

"These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."

If this was the case, shouldn't the people suporting bush be put into a free speech zone? cut the bolded words and see...

And what this crap about "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States" being an offense? If the president would, I don't know... suddently step in your direction would be told to put your hands behind your back and walk away from him calmly while being aimed by a dozen of firearms from FBI and secret service agents?

What I'm going to laugh at in the next few months is that the people in iraq will probably have more freedom of speech than the americans themselves...

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Rictor


Yes, and boys have been known to grow up to kill people. Does that mean we should kill all the boys? Should be assume that all boys will grow up to be murderers?

Strawman! Boys that grow up to kill people are in no way relevant.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Zeronet

Strawman! Boys that grow up to kill people are in no way relevant.

Neither is the fact that some protests turn violent. The vast majority do  NOT turn violent, thus Bob's original point does not stand. Rictor did not introduce a strawman. He used argument by analogy (though, to be fair, it bordered on argumentum ad absurdum).


See, Aldo, here its possible for you to run as an independent and make a difference. When there's a balance between the two major parties, the independents end up with a huge amount of power, since they can throw the balance of the Congress in either direction. They're the people that keep the other parties honest.

[Blue Lion]

Uh.... cause I'm bored, mainly.

From Bobby

becase they were freely speaking while assembled
and not being shot, or imprisoned

Actually they were imprisoned. Being held away from the president and all.

and while yes I know most protests are not riots, the situation is such that it is more likely to happen in the middle of a protest than on a sunny day in the park.

So by this definition protests in general should not be allowed because they could possibly lead to violence.

From Drew

If your mad at Bush pressuring the system(Phreak) to move a group of protestors, you should VOTE HIM THE **** OUT. Its the governemnts perogative on this issue; if you dont like what the government is doing, KICK THEM OUT. The government is well within its range of authority on this issue.

It's very difficult for people to get a full picture of things when protestors are pushed aside and hidden. Media attention is given to protestors near the president. If the news shows nothing but supporters for the president it skews the image slightly.

[Ghostavo]

Actually, they were shot!!

See the 8th last paragraph:

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

[an0n]

Oakland residents, peaceful?

[Blue Lion]

Ask Raiders fans...... if any are left.

[JBX-Phoenix]

Nevermind.  I dont know why I participate in threads like these, or even this Forum for that matter.  I am tired of contending with a bunch of ****ing assholes who twist peoples words and actions out of proportion.

You all can goto hell.  I'm done with this forum and all its anti-American ideas.

Bye to all the people who have helped me over the years, the rest can do what I said above.

And no, Im not worried about getting banned, I couldnt care less.  If that happens I wont be tempted to come anymore.

damn that felt good

[an0n]

I realise I may just be being overly idealistic here, but it has always been my belief that any supposedly democratic leader, a peoples leader, should only ever ask of the people what he himself is willing to endure.

And considering he sent a few hundred thousand US citizens off to die in the Iraqi desert, I think the ****ing least he could trouble himself to do would be to listen to the pleas of the people upon whom his power both resides and relies.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by JBX-Phoenix
They were not imprisioned.  No one was keeping them from going home.

Not being allowed to go home isn't the definition of imprisoned. It's confinment. And lo and behold, forcing people to protest on a baseball field only is indeed confinment.

Listen, the government is completely within their rights to move possible hazards to the President away.

If the "possible hazard" is someone voicing their opinion with a sign, well then we have problems. I think people are taking the "imminent threat" matra a little too far. Political dissent is not a threat, well except to the people in power who are afraid of losing it.

Some of us Americans can get rather crazy when talking about politics.  With recent terrorism threats, and especially since 9-11, I am not surprised that the government is a little paranoid.

So people who assemble and protest should be treated like terrorists?

"When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Apparently protesting the government makes you a terrorist. Oh no, Bush might have to read a sign! And maybe the news will show people yelling at him, not for him!

I, for one, am 110% with Bush and I get pissed off when people do as they are doing here, but I recognize that it is within their right.

You're pissed off when people prostest something they don't like? Like how dare they?