Huh, but I thought the reason you couldn't vote for Obama was that he was a "dirty, dirty" liar?

But it's perfectly fine for McCain to do it? I think this indeed smacks of the same thing Tuek's article talked about.

Seriously, still with the "LIBRUL MEDIA" meme? Anything to back that up besides, you know, poll numbers that say McCain is behind?

No no no, thats just the sprinkles on top of the horrible candidate sundae.



Good god, if you are seriously unaware of the liberal bias of the media, you have your head completely under a rock.

Well, really, there is a liberal bias to TV media and a conservative bias to radio media. It's not as huge as Republicans want you to believe, and Republicans want you to ignore that they have radio in one of Gore's locked boxes, but it is real.

Added a poll just for kicks!

First vote, woo!

Second! Mmm, apathy.

I wasn't aware that there -was- a difference between tactical and strategic.... I looked it up in a thesaurus and apparently they're synonyms. When McCain commented that "Senator Obama clearly does not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy" my entire dorm burst out laughing.


If everyone in the nation voted for whom they didn't want to win just because their "vote doesn't count", then we'd have the election would be pretty boned. Vote for who you want to win. Also, one of the things that I have a hard time with are the voters who say "I'm not going to vote for X because he's in the Y Party." Seriously...? Also, apathy is terrible. Get off your ass and vote, even if it's between a giant douche and a crap sandwich (See: South Park) because the democracy depends on people actually going out and doing something. <40% turnout is just wrong.

For the record, I think that all politicians are terrible. One of the best solutions to the energy/global warming crisis would be to pull out the corn to ethanol subsidy. Ethanol is a shitty fuel, period. The process by which it's being made is less efficient and more expensive than gasoline, yes, even at 4.50 USD a gallon. Take the money that -would- have been spent on that subsidy and make a fuel efficiency x-prize. Everyone wins. Better yet, dial back the gas subsidy and use the money saved to help fix the investment meltdown. Supply and demand will cause Detroit to get it through their thick skulls that maybe fuel efficiency and innovation will help save them from the overseas corporations that are currently years ahead. If local vehicles are better than the overseas options, more people will buy said USA made vehicles and the economy will receive stimulus. Demand for gasoline will go down because of economic forces, causing people to waste less and dump less CO2 into the atmosphere. More money is obviously needed to save the housing and financial areas of the country. Alternatively, this money could be used to improve mass transit systems nationwide. Again, seems like a win/win, even if the price of living goes up a bit, though it probably won't since people who can afford to take mass transit/bike/carpool/alternative transportation will do so and end up not spending any more (and even probably less) by being more efficient. Plus, with fewer vehicles on the road, the roads and whatnot might need less maintaining.... yeah.

Anyways, I'm done. I hate politicians.

I've voted every time that I've been old enough to do so. But I'm not deluded enough to think that my vote is going to count for anything in this state

Couple points:

Ethanol is a renewable energy source. It grows out of the ground. That all by itself trumps the rest, especially in light of how many Arab oil fields have already peaked. Anything that means using less oil while fuel cell technology is honed and disseminated is a good thing--which itself is still a patch to buy time for finding better ways to harness natural forces, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. The key here is to avoid economic collapse. If fuel cell or purely electric cars don't become feasible in our lifetimes, we'll live to see it. We won't run completely out of oil, but if it becomes scarce enough that it can't be used to facilitate global transport of goods, we're all screwed. Cutting agricultural subsidies isn't a good solution by any standard.

Detroit is already aware of supply and demand. It's not like they haven't hired any economists with a high school education. They do display improved fuel efficiency and innovation every year. Some companies happen to do it better. Moreover, foreigners tend to have a lower standard of living, which makes foreign labor cheaper by default. Furthermore, there are already substantial prizes offered for various technologies. The research just isn't there yet, and there's not enough manpower to really speed it much more, because supply and demand says the labor market prefers corporate and service careers over scientific ones. If you want to fix that problem, the solution is more readily available scholarships for above-average students to get masters and doctorate degrees in hard science. No one wants to talk about that, though. It's more politically expedient to create opportunities for poor people to go to college so they can get their bachelor of arts in communication and go work in corporate America.

We all have the great privilege to vote.

We don't have the right, mind you, but the privilege.

Why don't more people take advantage of that?

Sure, you vote, but how can you not care or be interested?

How the can any aware person interested in their own future not be interested in politics and consequently, voting.

Statistically, it's a majority that don't care. Welcome to America.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Woah woah woah, I didn't think the first VP debate was until October?

And when it comes to apathy/not voting, I have to say that the electoral college kind of screws over a lot of places. I am vehemently pro-Obama, but I live in Kentucky. There is no possibility of Obama taking Kentucky, at all, so it's hard to shake the feeling of having a useless vote.

I'll be voting, regardless.

Okay kids, time for a pop quiz!

1. Explain the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
2. Was our country founded as a country of majority rule?
3. Can you imagine what our country would be like today if the majority did rule?
4. Aren't you glad Majority doesn't rule?

For those who missed it!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36859/presidenti...ate-sep-26-2008

Shall I quote Amendments XV, XIX, and XXIV? All of them begin the same way: "The right of citizens of the United States...".

Voting is a right. A majority of Americans simply choose not to exercise it.

Not voting is a right too. If I don't feel like getting up that Tuesday morning to decide who will be leading my country for the next four years, I can do it.

This is never a good argument. Yes, all the major stations carry bias. This has been shown, conclusively enough. All it means is that anyone who treats any of them as some sort of noble, objective, incorruptable source of information is behaving foolishly.

There are many organizations that claim to be purely objective, but nothing really is. It's better to accept that nothing containing a human element can be so, and act accordingly.

I watch Fox News, I watch CNN. I have Air America on my presets in my car right next to the local conservative news stations. Especially in the case of radio, both see the other as raging liars. Neither of them are, and they both are, because truth itself winds up in the eye of the beholder. If law school has taught me one thing, it's that everyone, everyone no matter how pure and just they believe their actions to be, is a liar to someone else. Especially lawyers. We go to school for years to learn to do it better than everyone else, even if we don't think we're doing it.

The scariest thing out there to me is the "fairness doctrine" which wants to regulate political air time on the radio. The state (small "s") stifiles diverse view points. I've always felt that moral conflict is essential to the process, as ugly as it can be. The most dangerous thing in the world is uniform thought, because it excuses almost any atrocity. In the United States, both sides are guilty of encouraging this. Conservatives often preach neoconservative economics like they are established fact. Liberals smother opposing viewpoints on college campuses, if not almost explicitly, than with dersisive attitudes and a culture that treats such dissent as "ignorant". Because of where I live, I see more of the latter, but in other places, it works in the opposite direction.

My little soap box aside, and speaking purely from a strategic stand point, the Dems lose more people because of their own comments and attitudes as a campaign than the Republicans can gain on their merits. I gape in awe at how effectively they alienate anyone outside of their core demographic. For the case in point? You make a comment about Fox News. Dems love to rip on fox news. But, regardless of what they think, Acrune showed off the viewing statistics. Those are real people watching it. They aren't dumb or ignorant because of it. But when someone indirectly treats them as such with comments about Fox News, do you think they evalutate and agree based on a snide comment? Of course not.

The natural response is "Yeah you". Republicans try to portray them as out of touch elitists who want to control your lives with their privilidged, ivy league friends. And they don't even have to work for it. The "cling to guns and bibles" comment. Decrying Palin as a "small town mayor" (especially when Obama is not a wealth of experience, even in a relative sense). Those comments alienate people. Real people. Smart people. People who vote.

If you (and I say this in a general sense) wants to convince someone of the value of an idea, making snide, smarmy remarks about other people's values is not a very good place to start. At all.

Sorry, I missed this way way earlier. I'm not sure how it's relevant to anything I posted, but it is certainly relevant to me. As an accounting student, I've never heard of anything like that. I don't think you're wrong, but could you help me find information on this? You may know what to Google better than me, heh. I'm trying to find something, but not having much luck. I'm wondering what it takes to qualify as a family and such.

No, no, no, dear. You see, the U.S. Constitution has those to prohibit the limiting of voting right due to any skin color, religion, gender, or other protected status. There's no provision whatsoever that United States citizens are guaranteed the right to vote in national elections.

Please see:
We need a Constitutional Right to Vote in National Elections

Ever stop and think that maybe that kind of turnout is not the failure of the people, so much as the sign of a failing system that was supposed to reflect the will of the people?

America faces many of the same, quite solvable problems year after year after year, because even when the will of the people is clear, that desire is filtered through God knows how many chokepoints where a minority of self-interested individuals are more than capable of twisting things to their own benefit.

There are Americans left and right who want nothing but good for this country but can't in good conscience vote for the hacks that our system thrusts to the top of the lists, or (those like myself) who won't vote because it is quiet support of a horrible system...yet these people aren't listened to, only yelled at.

"Can't bitch if you don't vote!" "Unless you vote you don't have anything to say."

Well, maybe I do. Maybe I think voting in this system is not only pointless(electoral college, party system) but a sort of quiet assent. Sorry, I thought about things and your opinions aren't mine.


Gtfo, jerks!

Edit: Err..not really pointed at you, Tervic, FYI.