Apathy and its consequences...

[octal]

I voted on election day. My candidate didn't get elected, but I didn't figure he would. Furthermore, even the elected candidate of the last presidental election did not get to take office. Bush was not elected by our public, he was elected by the electoral college. In light of this fact, he took office because *that's how things have been.*

I've protested against the war despite the fact that I believe that Saddam should no longer be in power, but I protested because it is not America's task to free Iraq; it is the Iraqi's job to free themselves and if they need our help then I'm all in favor of it. War accomplishes little more than killing, even if it's for *the right reasons.*

As far as those right reasons go, what exactly are the *right* reasons? I hear two disjoint reasons, both being said to be *the only* reason. Bush tells us that we are going to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. Ari Fleicher tells us that Bush is sending us to war because Bush wants to get rid of Saddam's weapons. Our military is there to bring about a regime change. Although there have been numerous reasons along the way to this war, it would be nice if our government (and its spokespeople) were consistent in their explanations.

And what about the "Shock and Awe" display of force? The American public gets sold on that, and then we're given something else. Although there are reportedly fewer deaths than I expected, I am still waiting for SOME explanation why the war plans have been changed. Consistency...PLEASE!

Finally, having the right to vote also means you have the right to choose not to vote. I do have to say that people MUST exercise their right to vote, however even the people who don't vote still pay taxes. If they don't like how their tax money is spent, then they have the right to complain irregardless of their voting performance at the past election.

 

[Gato_Solo]

PT, sorry, I didn't read the whole discussion. Sorry, I wasn't really commenting on your statements. I'm a little behind on my reading. I was referring to Gato's orginal statement.

Unfortunately, I would have to say your assumption is that there is no correlation is flawed as well. The implicit assumption people are making is that there is a STRONG correlation between voting for Bush and favoring the war, and voting for Al and being against the war. In truth, there is probably a weak to moderate correlation between being against the war and voting for Al. Therefore, MY assumption and most likely correct assumption would be that there is not a chance in hell that there is a 50/50 split among the demonstrators. I can't give you an exact estimate, but if we knew the correlation we could give you a GOOD approximation. Of course, I quite confident you are wrong here. Sorry, there is a correlation, the only question is the strength of it. I know, I know, I said you were wrong for assuming a correlation, but I meant a strong correlation. I think common sense tells us there is some correlation, but certainly not enough to support Gato's orginal statement!

Back to square one. Looks like everyone is upset because I used the example of the anti-war protertors. Perhaps I should say this one last time, and hope everybody has enough comprehension skills to read this.

Everyone has the right to protest/complain about how the current government is operating...HOWEVER...if you chose not to vote, as 50% of the population did, then you are morally bankrupt in doing so. Government policies are set by the president and the congress, and they are elected by the people through their respective electoral college representatives. If you did not exercise your right to vote, then who's fault is it if you don't like the policies of your government? Comprende? Does everyone now understand, or are you all going to continue acting like complete knee-biters and argue over statistics?

 

[ris]

i'm not sure the residents could gather enough energy, the place was totally dead. i'm pretty sure that ris is norwegian for rice so why the heck would a town be named that? i didn't see 'pasta' 'potato' and 'noodle' nearby so its not a local carbo naming policy

 

[a13antichrist]

Probably a norweigian thing... They're not short of funny habits, that lot...

The question does beg to be asked though: why would you then name yourself "rice"?

 

[ris]

its a looooooooooong story

sadly its also very dull and has nothing to do with rice. i kept the ris wrapper and went to the town for a bit of a laugh (and i thought it would amuse people here). i went to oslo and discovered my namesakes for the first time in august but have been ris for many years.