gvg

Quag: i just feel that mandatory voting in some form is better. In fact, some areas where it's not even enforced still see a higher voter turnout simply because it's a 'law' and people follow laws. And think about this: it is, by law, mandatory NOT to litter. You can still do so, but you pay a fine. I see no reason that instead we should pay those who don't litter and not pay those who do. I understand that it's a different situation, but you see what I mean don't you? http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Compulsory_voting This website is good for both sides =) And UtF: If you don't pay the fines, then you break the whatever the law about not paying fines. Thus you would then be punished for not paying your fines, not for not voting. And anyway, if you don't wish to vote, don't register! Simple. Avoids the issue completely. And no, not wanting to do something is not an excuse for not doing it. Is it excusable not to do jury duty if you're called because you don't want to? is it ok to not tell the truth in a court of law because you didn't want to?

Maurice: People do vote based on their favorite talking head anyway. Think about it. TEA PARTY. There were several interviews done with supporters of the Tea party, many of whom are seniors, and they were asked why they support the destruction of medicare, SS etc. One lady said: Oh.... I guess I don't agree with that. Look at that. I guess I'm not tea party. Huh. (Something like that, im just summarizing) The people who most often don't vote are: Busy younger adults/ middle aged adults (seniors vote more. Why? They have more time on their hands) People like Carlin who are definitely intelligent enough to vote, but feel that not voting is the better option (for whatever reason) Those who cannot vote b/c their job/school/work etc. schedule doesn't allow them to These are the people we WANT voting more often. I think that those people who are most often voting are many times (though obviously not always) the people that everybody is most worried about. For instance, think about seniors. (Please note: I'm not putting down seniors at all. I'm just using them as an example) Many seniors have slightly xenophobic/homophobic/etc. viewpoints. Why? That's the time period they were brought up in. It's not their fault entirely. But since seniors are more likely to vote than younger registered voters, their voice is most often heard. Why did republicans win so much in the past midterm election? Because more seniors lean republican, and seniors are most likely to vote in midterm elections than younger voters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303925_2.html) Other examples: Those who know nothing about the political process, like many (in my opinion) in the Tea Party movement, are most effected by the ideas given by fear-mongerers, like Glenn Beck (who borders on insane) and Bill O'Reily (who's simply a jack***). "Obama isn't a US citizen! Muslims/atheists/etc. want to get you!" so on and so forth. They listen, they're afraid, they vote as their TV masters tell them to. Meanwhile, those who actually know what they're doing can't vote, or (as Carlin did) choose not to vote. Not good. I really think that mandatory voting will actually get more people who KNOW what they are doing to vote. And if we expand the number of voting days (just an idea), more people will have a chance to vote. So, I look at it differently. And remember: If you really don't want to vote, but don't want to pay the fine, then write in your vote or something for someone who could never win. Or vote third party. Also, we can make it so that it isn't mandatory to register as a voter, but if you do, it is mandatory to vote. Then, those who don't wish to vote technically don't have to. Also, I know the reason it was made. But it is so flawed that it has BECOME outdated. It needs major change. I mean, think about it. There have been president's who didn't win the popular vote, but won the electoral college vote, and became president. How is that a democracy??????? Quag: I hate hurting the poor, as I'm sure you know. I obviously don't know how the thing would be carried out. But it seems to have worked elsewhere. And again, if a poor person doesn't want to vote but doesn't want to pay the fine, then don't register. or (I don't know if this is possible, but it should be)unregister.

I never said jail would be the punishment. There is another form: Fines and penalties and the like. The term mandatory in this case is slightly misleading. You don't have to vote. You just have to pay not to vote. And you can't fight that, because it's paying for something you believe in =) (i.e. not voting) And in response to others: First off, I think mandatory voting would get people more involved in the political process. This then makes an educational type change; people start to learn about the issues, slightly because they feel they have to. In fact, in many countries, they have 'mandatory voting' on the books, but nothing gets done to enforce it. But even then, it's shown that these nation's have a higher voter turnout rate, and more political involvement. (TThis is a good website, i believe, for both sides of the issue: http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm) And obviously, by the way, if you have an acceptable excuse (for ex. sickness, death in the family, etc.), you are excused. Now, i do agree with the test thingy that I think Quag brought up. if you don't know the pres., then why the hell should you vote? I get that. i suppose that can fall under a good excuse, which is (to put it bluntly): extreme political stupidity. Probably sounds harsher then I meant it to be. Also, it would definitely need to go hand in hand with voting change. WTF are we still doing with the electoral college system? It allows candidates to focus on a few key sttates (like texas and california) and not care what anyone else thinks. It's very true that some votes don't count. it's a bad system. May have worked in the past, but it needs to change: only the popular vote should be the measure of who wins. And UtF: Back to the anarchism huh? =) I know we were through this a lot already on the 'new gov.' forum (forget the actual name), but I will be brief: 1. Anarchy is selling the idea of a sort of utopia. i don't trust utopias. Communism promises a different sort of utopia, and look at how well that's done. 2. I would argue that (as of my current 9th grade ss pre ap edu.), the period that was closest to anarchy (after prehistory of course)was dark age/medieval europe. Lot's of decentralization, manors all over the place, so on. While I realize that that is not true anarchy, i can't help but wonder: this is one of the most decentralized things the world has seen. And it sucked, plain and simple. I don't see how more decentralization would be better, unless at some point it righted itself, which I highly doubt. Government keeps order and, if run properly, protects freedoms. You think in an anrachaic (is that right?) society, there would be any end to discrimination of sexual, racial, and religious minorities? Or the disabled? Or women? Our government has made sure that such things have slowly left, and are still slowly leaving, our society. Lack of any rules against it, and it will run rampant. And economically: Trusts, Monopolies, etc. All the bad things that come with them, like crappy labor conditions and slave labor. These things would make a return. Why? Nothing to stop it. nothing to keep it in check. You can say that people just won't use/work for it, but money talks. Loudly. And it makes everyone shut up. (Dawh said this, correct?) And i guarantee you that in that society, people would do anything for the right price. I always say the freer the market the less free the users. A true,lazzie-faire, unregulated, unchecked, 'free' market is basically impossible, because it destroys itself. Our gov. has kept the free market running, and has improved it. (don't you like being able to have a small business?) OK, I'm done. Not too brief, but I'm sure I couldve continued =) One final note on third parties: 1. I say abolish all parties. (From Washington: "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796." Right as usual =)) Candidates should run on what they believe, not that of the party. (I would love for an independent to run this country, though personally, if i was old enough, I'd vote for Obama. Not b/c he's a democrat (which as someone noted is another name for 'slightly more left republican'), but because i agree with his viewpoints, and I think that now that he won't have to worry about being too extreme to be reelected, he'll actually try. i could be wrong. But i dunno..... 2. However, if the party system stays, I'd love to have third parties, like the green party, rule. But not all third parties are good. The US Constitutional party clearly states that it wishes to bring a Christian theocracy (what a lovely idea) to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States). Hell, it places much of its party platform on the bible. I know its just one party, but one must be careful with third parties.................

Personally, I go by what a ancient greek political figure said: (Not a quote, I don't have the exact wording) If one does not participate in government, does not try to make society better, then they are useless to their country and countrymen. I follow that idea. I thin it's a civic duty to vote, and personally, I wish that we had mandatory voting here in the US. I agree with Quag. Spoil the ballot. Or vote for a third party. Of course, i hate political parties but that's another issue....

I just thought it was interesting really.

No, what is it?

http://www.dmso.org/articles/information/muir.htm This supports it too, slightly, but I guess you are right. Really because it tried to sell me stuff. I don't like that =)

These too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPYj4HPudCk The main part is from 4:00 to the end. But i think all of these should make christians think =)

http://www.northstarorders.net/video/650SSOO/dmso/?pco=L650M414&eco=L650M413 I wouldn't be surprised if this was real (damn Big-Pharma =)), but I dunno...

http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html Answer your question? =)

You do realize that that video set all of its predictions for late 2009 and early 2010? It's the 4th of April 2011. And... it hasn't happened. Would it ever? Wouldn't surprise me. What he said about the Fed and the Owners is common knowledge to those who actually think. Straight from the mouth of George Carlin: "The country was bought and paid for long ago." Hell, it's probably not just the US, but I can't say anything for other nations. Overall, though, it sounds like a lot of scare tactic BS. I am still skeptical.

The first part of their own disclaimer: Disclaimer: DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS WEBSITE! The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factualityor implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make everyeffort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manuallyreview each and every one of the more than 20,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis. etc. etc. I am skeptical. Has this ever been independently proven? if this is true, that would be quite odd. But I don't know. A random generator? Seems a bit fishy. And I can't find anything else on the internet (I'm not looking extremely hard, I'll admit, since I'm a bit busy, but still....)

It was indeed a Brain den Google gadget. Though it only introduced me here. I could never figure any of them out, and so I never really went on the site =) What actually got me hooked (I guess you could call it, I go on here everyday =)) was when one day, I clicked on it and found this forum. Then, I discovered the others section, and in it, the Political thing that Izzy set up =) So, that's what it was for me. The answer is Izzy =) I have to say, this site did change my life. 'Specially that others section. I got woken up, really. Went from a catholic to an agnostic-atheist/atheist. My interest in Science, especially, exploded, and also, thanks to that politics forum, I found out I was quite the liberal =) And to your riddle, tiger, that was a good one. Couldn't muster up what bible school I had to figure it out =)

That is indeed a good viewpoint. I also found another good one, described in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. And hell, I'm proud to have broken that contract =)

That was WONDERFUL! Loved it!

That was pretty good, actually =) And he did bring up good points throughout it all. Does he have any other videos?

I disagree. the key is to vote liberal, you see =)

That outta work =)

I'm sorry =) Got a little carried away. i had just read some news about Wisconsin (their senate went ahead and passed the bill that got rid of the bargaining rights) and I was pissed, and then I arrived here and saw this... I do apologize, Brandon, if I have offended. Oh, and for the record... I'm a teensy bit too young to have a beer, so... =)

brandon, you really need to stop. Let me just explain something: THE BIBLE IS EPIC BULL**** Seriously. Did you not read anything I wrote? Open up a history book. A science book. How did you do in either of those subjects if all you can say is "Nope, not in the bible..."??? The Babylonians had a creation myth. They had a flood story. So did every frickin' civ. that lived near a river. Those that didn't???? Huh... No flood story!!!!! You really need to stop listening to a bunch of apologetic bull crap. There's a reason science is growing and religion is falling. It's called EVIDENCE! It's called EXPERIMENTATION! Sorry buddy, but religion didn't bring us cures, nor advancements in technology, nor knowledge... that was all science! You know what, I'll humour you. Instead of factual debate (you are entitled to your own opinion, but NOT to your own facts) let's get into a logical one. Let's start with this: If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God? That's called the riddle of Epicurus. How can you fight this? There no way. Another: Let's pretend for a moment that the devil is real. Now, he is the force for all human corruption and evil, correct? Wrong. Actually, that's a bunch of modern christian scare tactics. Really, in the actual bible, he is the accuser. And what does the accuser do? He asks all the tough questions of god. And how does good old man-in-the-sky answer?????? "I am the lord." That's it. No matter what he asked. How he turned out to be the modern figure he is today is besides the point. "I am the lord"??? Really? That's all god could come up with? Now let's assume he is the modern Christian version. WHY DOESN'T GOD SMITE HIS LITTLE A**? If god is so powerful, why can't he get rid of him? Or is god really not powerful enough to do that? But.. that would mean he isn't omnipotent... which isn't what the bible says... i could go on all day. the point is, you have to look. Your own religion contradicts itself! Christianity split so many different times (and Luther probably had the best reason to) because of so many different things: Does god belong to the select few or the masses? Icons or no Icons? Is Christ a god or not? etc. And then they went and killed each other!!!!! It's ridiculous. Open up man! IT'S SO FRICKIN OBVIOUS!

=)

Don't worry, you too Quag =) I forgot cause you changed your picture, but you were there =)

Oh, and where are the plants????? Ever notice that???? And you know, if you believe that the Bible is 100% factual, wake up. It was written by humans. there are two creation stories and multiple contradictions. In the Jewish bible there are thousands of commandments, elsewhere it says ten. Etc. Here are a couple of books for you to read: Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible God: The Failed Hypothesis The God Delusion (which I'm in the middle of now) And also, let me let you in on a little secret: I was born catholic. I was baptized and got my confirmation in spring of last year. Then in the summer of last year, I started to think. Especially after my religion teacher told me that anyone who voted for Obama had to pray for forgiveness. Give me a break. So, I thought. I realized: Science had no faults. I questioned this about my religion, questioned that. But not science. There was nothing to question; everything had evidence. there was no doubt, no dogma. I found this site soon after. It opened me up. And I found reason. (Well, gotta thank Izzy and Unreality for that one =)) I had a Jewish friend go through the same thing. And he's more hardcore atheist than I am. And there are many other examples. Especially in the honors science and math that I'm in (Sorry if it seems like I'm bragging, I'm not), there's a large supply of atheist, agnostic, deist, or very weak/questioning/changing theist. Most responses I get from religious people now, after I've shown them evidence or lack thereof, is "I'll see when I die." A fair answer, yes, and I feel partly the same way. But the whole point is this: Look around. Think. See the evidence. If you still have your reasons, well, OK. Iguess you see it differently. Rant over. Sorry people =)

Omega: James bond and Indiana Jones, in that order =)