Apathy and its consequences...

[Gato_Solo]

As the time for military action in the Persian Gulf draws nearer, I hear more and more about the anti-war protestors in the US and around the world. Those outside of the US can be, for the purposes of this thread, ignored. I have but one question for the US anti-war demonstrators. Where were you on election day, when your decision could've made the difference on who would be elected president? Those who took a stand, and made their decision at the ballot can be a powerful force, but those who did not are annoying. Every 4 years, it's every adult US citizens responisbility to vote for the candidates of their choice for our executive office. How many of us actually took the time to make that choice? How many wanted to make a difference? Less than 50% of the voting population has given us 4 years of policy, and, yet, the majority of the population is now 'up in arms' about the policy being made. My sentiments are this...You had your chance, and stood by and said nothing. Your lack of commitment has shown you to be shallow and self-serving. It was you, not the president, who put us in the position we are in now. You should be ashamed by your lack of conviction, and your petty complaints. Personally, I could care less who you vote for, and where your political interests lie, but now that the time to speak has passed, why do you complain? Your precious freedoms are at stake, and you do nothing. Your livlihoods are in peril, and you remain silent. Each election brings us closer to the end, and you wait until after you could affect change to make your stand. Is it because it's easier to let someone else make the mistakes, so that the blame falls on someone elses doorstep? Remember this next election day...If you let somebody else make your decision for you, then you have no 'right' to be upset when you don't get what you want.

 

[Gonz]

*Never missed an election*

 

[Squiggy]

Not everyone who disagrees with this war failed in their obligation to vote. I will scream my opposition to this war. And I'll do it proudly. And with deep conviction. But supporting our armed forces is apolitical. I need not agree with the policy to understand the sacrifices that are being made on my behalf. Once the war begins, my support of our armed forces will be unwavering. They didn't make the policy.

 

[Gonz]

Once the war begins, my support of our armed forces will be unwavering.

Unlike many, too many

 

[Astaroth33]

Democracy, even our bastardized representative form of it, works only when people participate.

Personally, I'd also like to see protestors stop and think about the issues they're protesting, and try to come up with valid ideas and workable solutions in addition to just creating a media spectacle.

 

[Squiggy]

Democracy, even our bastardized representative form of it, works only when people participate.

Which includes enlisting in the armed services during times like these.

Personally, I'd also like to see protestors stop and think about the issues they're protesting, and try to come up with valid ideas and workable solutions in addition to just creating a media spectacle.

I think many good ideas have been put forth as alternatives to what is about to happen. And a "spectacle" is the objective of a demonstration.

 

[flavio]

Gato - I think your logic that only the people against the war didn't vote is ridiculous. Also note that the majority of those who did vote didn't want the current administration.

 

[unclehobart]

I don't see where Gato said 'only'. He intoned no such thing from what I see.

 

[Q]

Yeah, I kinda got the impression it was "if the shoe fits"....

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I won't comment as i can't say that i understand exactly what Solo is attempting to say here. I know that he's another person who gave much consideration(more than most) to this situation because i remember specifically reading many of his posts on the subject in the early days. If i remember correctly Solo you were even at one point leaning to the other side or atleast giving much consideration to the entire debate. What i can say here though is that i sense a tune of duty, in that you will support this adminastration whether you like it or not because it's your duty. I don't know, i either need to ponder this more or i need more input for clarification. In any case i sense your frustration and i completely understand. You're not the only one.

 

[flavio]

I have but one question for the US anti-war demonstrators. Where were you on election day, when your decision could've made the difference on who would be elected president?

Stuff like the above quote made me think he doesn't believe people against the war voted.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I have but one question for the US anti-war demonstrators. Where were you on election day, when your decision could've made the difference on who would be elected president?

Stuff like the above quote made me think he doesn't believe people against the war voted.

The facts of the last presidential election speak for themselves.

1. What percent of the voting population voted?

2. How many of the folks now protesting actually voted?

Of the 2 questions, the second is the key. Those are the folks I'm addressing. By focusing on only what you want to see, rather than taking in the entire post, you cheapen what I said. Don't react...act. The power of government is fully in the hands of the people. If you wish to quibble over one or two sentences, then, by all means, quibble. It won't change the questions I asked one whit. President Bush was elected by less than 50% of the voting public, period. You can infer from that fact that only 3 or 4 of 10 protestors voted. Those are the people addressed. Perhaps you feel strongly because you're one of the 6 or 7 who chose to stay home, rather than exercise your right to vote. Either way, your post is off base.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Kind of feeling *Duh
coming on as i re-read the original post.

Have to concur with you 100% on this one.

 

[flavio]

President Bush was elected by less than 50% of the voting public, period. You can infer from that fact that only 3 or 4 of 10 protestors voted.

No, you can't infer that at all. I see absolutely no logic in your statement. You can't even infer that people who did vote for Bush are even necessarily for this war.

Did Bush advertise his intentions to invade Iraq when he was campaigning? If he didn't then your whole line of reasoning has no base.

 

[PT]

Hmm. Made sense to me. Perhaps you should re-read.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yes. It does. Perhaps you aren't thinking this all the way through. When you pull your head out, and read both my entire posts, in full, then you can make a coherent statement. It's not about what you think it is.

 

[Squiggy]

To be fair...I voted and I felt I was being accused of not having voted just because I oppose the war. I honestly had the impression that Gato"s statement , as written, declared that those opposing the war were the ones who didn't vote.

 

[flavio]

Pull your own head out and start using a little deductive reasoning. First of all, you CAN'T assume that many people who are against the war now didn't vote for Bush. Invading Iraq was not one of his campaign platforms.

If you have some proof to the contrary then by all means lay it out. Actually if you can manage to back up a single thing you said with any evidence then go right ahead.

All I see is conjecture and unwarranted leaps in logic.

 

[PT]

You see that alot, don't you flavio?

 

[flavio]

You see that alot, don't you flavio?

see what? Conjecture? I can't imagine how you missed it.