Nice try, my friend. Let's try this again...

If I do not vote for either of the major-party candidates, then <b>I will not affect the outcome</b>.

This is a given; it is how things are in presidential elections. Tell me the last time we had a third-party President.


(I'm waiting.)

Okay. So, there are two choices then: vote for someone who isn't representing one of the two major parties, or do not vote at all.

But we already know that if I don't vote Republican or Democrat, I have no chance of affecting the election. Which is the same as if I don't vote at all.

If the effect is the same, why not do what's easiest?

I don't know about you, but <b>it costs me time</b> to go vote. I have to take off work, drive all the fucking way up to Maryland, vote for someone that <b>will not win</b>, drive back to Virginia and get back to work. We are looking at three hours. Now, hear this: <b>time is the only thing that you can NEVER get back</b>. Once it's gone, it is gone. I don't have any more time to spend doing things that are useless; I already spend enough time talking to you guys here. The three hours earlier that I'm done work, I get to go home and spend with someone I love. And when I'm laying on my death bed, I'm going to be happier that I did that instead of waste a day doing nothing.

Hahahahahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You think either of the big two give a shit about the little guy?

Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

Come on. It's not about swaying voters these days, it's about what they call "getting out the vote". Voter turnout is pathetic these days, and the big two know that they're missing the most votes from party members that just don't give a shit. So each party works with one or two key issues that spike interest in their party members. They would probably do better by getting on TV and going "Please come vote for me, you lazy shits. I really want to win and I can only do it if you guys come vote!" What was the turnout for the last Presidential election? I'm just guessing now but... 60%? Maybe that's being generous too. I can't be bothered to look it up.

Anyway, Republicans and Democrats don't give a shit about us guys that aren't convinced. They've both got <b>millions</b> of braindead followers and all they need to do is light a very very small fire under their asses. It's far less effort than convincing a skeptic that you really do mean well.

Trying to change anything by voting is like trying to tunnel through a mile of granite with your fingernails -- except that you only get one strike at it every few years. I refuse to play into the system's pretense of responsiveness to voters by pulling levers that won't do anything.

Ummm, Dave ... don't you live and work in Viriginia?

Why aren't you registered to vote there?

If I am mistaken and you live in MD ... polls are open from way early in the AM (some places as early as 6am) until usually around 8pm, which should still give you time to get there, get in, vote, and then go home.

I have nothing against not voting, but I'm voting in every single election I can --

Because having looked at the "street lists", the database of registered voters, part of the information on file is which elections you've voted in for the past n years, and I want to be seen in that database as one of the few "hard-ass" voters who actually goes every single time no matter what.

This in turn should get candidates to send me more information in the mail, and even out to shake my hand personally, if they are on their game.

I used to live in Maryland; I am still registered to vote there. I currently reside in Virginia, but my legal residence is in Maryland.

Regardless of when they're open, it's still a ~3 hour exercise, time which I would rather spend doing something useful.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, granted you can't get a third party guy elected because you vote for him. What I meant was that for every third party vote at least one of the big two knows he just lost a vote he thinks should have been his. If these were to add up then they would pay more attention.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Granted, this isn't that realistic these days, but if more people did vote it would change. With such low voter turn out the politicians know they can do whatever they want, as long as they still have their little core group. Bush, for instance, knows that he can take away our right to a lawyer or a trial, as long as he backs gun rights. He'll still have the NRA and associated votes. If gun lobbyist represented a smaller percentile then they wouldn't have as much power.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Like I said, vote in opposition to whoever I vote for, but vote. Until those percentages come up then the politicians will continue to do whatever the hell they want. A voting, politcaly aware public is a politicians worst nightmare. It means they actually have to try to represent us to keep their jobs.

Who mentioned a while back that there should be a "none of the above" option on ballots? Sounds good to me.

raises hand I think I mentioned that when I was in one of my obstructionist anarchist moods.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've heard of this idea. The problem is that we'd go through every potential candidate and a few more before anybody could voted in. Er... wait... I'm not sure if that's a problem or a bonus...

This is an outstanding point. I'll respond to it later, but I'm really busy at work now. But... awesome point.

If you can find the right guy with enough support, I think a third-party candidate could be successful. Look at Perot '92...had he not dropped out initially, I think he could have done some serious damage.

:rolleyes:

Why are they unable to control their distaste and/or want to make the Dixie Xhicks scared/think before they speak? Could it have anything to do with a recent addition to the Republican political ethos that merges any political dissent with lack of patriotism? Could it be the numerous right-wing talk show hosts that were whipping the Republican listeners into a frothe of fear and anger? Could it be that the radio stations that were organizing this villification just happen to be owned and operated by close Republican friends of the president?

Come on, bud. If Rush, O'Reilly, and plenty of Republicans across the country can call the antiglobalization rioters "liberal extremists", I can call Republican extremists Rethugnicans.

You still did not counter my position.

You know, it would if people were BORN REPUBLICAN!!! You see, membership in a political party is a choise of the member. The person believes the ideas of the party and generally agrees with the party platform. Therefore, disagreesing with a person because of their political party is the same as disagreement about a person's point of view.

This is different from racism in that race is an inate, inalterable characteristic of a person - and not a statement about the person's point of view.

Yes it certainly is - as is the deferment of any criticism of the president, credulous faith in his statements, and villification of his critics.

Would people have been up in arms if Natalie Maines said: "I am ashamed that Jimmy Carter is from Arkansas"? Of course not. This is my point. George washington was called a "jackass" by his critics - and this was while the Union could still easily fall. This president is not critically analyzed and many wingnuts think he is chosen by God. Why is "God King" such a horrible thing to call the president.

Wasn't a large swath of the media calling Bill Clinton "slick willy"?

If I said, "why would anyone believe somebody like that ReThugnican prick, Dave?", this would be an ad hominem attack. In this sense - instead of presenting an argument against your position, I am attacking your person.

If I said, "I call the rabidly jingoistic subpopulation of the Republican party 'Rethugnicans'." This would not be an ad hominem attack. I am not trying to counter an argument made by an opponent in a debate by calling them a name. I am making a sarcastic statement about a large group of people that may not necessarily exist - and may not necessarily be represented on this board. Using terms like "Rethugnicans" is sarcastic and disrespectful, but it is not racist.

This is an ad hominem attack. I am glad you are learning, Dave.

This is stereotyping. I guess you must be a racist, too - by your reckoning. If you say that black people all support the Rainbow coalition or that they all love watermelon because you've "seen it hundreds of times before", you must be a racist.

Funny. I love the irony in your post. I guess you do have a sense of humor.

I love how you equate a statement I made - directed at a certain subpopulation - with racism. What I love more is that you bring up these nasty little sterotypes to bolster your opinion. Who is really the racist here?

You looking in the mirror there, bub? I think I have been ready to accept any facts that are contrary to my opinion - I think I have expressed that across this board. If I disagree, I try to create a logical argument that supports my position. I am not perfect, and I am bound to occasionally make a faulty argument, but I don't just dismiss opposing points of view out of turn.

Maybe my math is off, but by my count, that makes 2 statements. I think I have typed at least a thousand words across this site - so I think about .2 % of my posted text has contained such horrible displays of racism and bad logic. I am terribly sorry for my rampant racism and ferocious stereotyping.

If the president is a liar, a bully, and a conveniently religious poltician - who leads like a king - who many think was chosen by God, is it wrong to call him such things? If a group of people in a political party associate vanadalism, and terror against an artist with their participation in political activity, is it wrong to call them on that?

I think you need to lighten up dave.

Care to back up your claims with arguments that clarify your position a bit, or is it enough for you to call me names, attack my intellect, and pidgeonhole my point of view? This statement reminds me of somthing about Pots calling Kettles black - I don;t know, maybe its just me.

What a great quip. You seem to have the whole pigeonholing thing down pat. Now you can move on to other logical fallacies.

Odd thing about sheep. They generally follow whatever the rest of the herd is doing. When it is time for war, the sheep jump to war. When it is time for peace, the sheep jump behind peace. When it is time for a tax cut, the sheep jump behind the tax cut.

Sheep don't usually have reasons for their positions. They just assume their role. Sheep don't usually fight. Sheep don't argue back.

What makes you think I am a sheep?

Jimmy Carter is from Georgia.

Oh for christs sake, people received death threats for criticizing ELVIS and any other celebrity or religion you can name. Big Deal. People in "show biz" have to please their public, or suffer economically. That's the way it works, when you're selling yourself. It's a law of economics that all whores are subjected to. Er..make that prostitutes. I have no fear of speaking out on anything to anyone. I'm not worried about the black helicopters and I'm not a whore (ladies please disregard) so why should I fear speaking my piece.

Not that this will matter to you, but I'm going to point it out anyway: you wrote exactly what I anticipated you would.

(What does that say about you?)

"Because other people are racist, it is okay if I am racist."

So how does this correlate to calling members of a specific political party "thugs" when that has nothing to do with their party line?

You're not saying "I disagree with most aspects of the Republican party line." You are essentially saying "Republicans are thugs", which is as silly as me saying "Democrats are rapists". It has nothing to do with anything.

Some Republicans are thugs; some Democrats are rapists. Saying all have a common trait (besides their political party) is laying the groundwork for racist thought.

<b>If</b> you said that. You didn't.

Actually, it's not. It is a statement of fact. An ad hominem attack is one that is used to discredit a person instead of their argument. Stating that I think you're an idiot has nothing to do with our argument; I was simply clarifying my position.

This is the big one that I knew you wouldn't pass up - which is fortunate, because your reasoning is ludicrous.

You are exhibiting a trait that is only exhibited by a certain sub-population of people. By identifying that trait, I can say that you are a part of that population.

To put it into the racism terms that I have been applying, it would be the equivalent of saying "You are black, so you must be a black person."

Is this clear? You jump in here and add yourself to the group; I just publicly identify it. If you stole a bike, I could safely call you a bike thief. This isn't stereotyping; it is a demonstrable behavior.

The examples I provided exist to demonstrate the line of thought that the racist mind follows. All three are, of course, demonstrably false.

Here is a good example of an ad hominem attack, however - implying that I am a racist. Whereas I said that your line of reasoning is the same type that is used by racists, you are clearly asking a rhetorical question to instill in other readers the notion that I am racist. This argument, too, completely misses the boat. The rest of the quoted post was written in such a way to show how absurd racist notions are, and to show how absurd it is to call one group of persons a collective name that has nothing to do with their similarity. But you just keep on thinking that was a clever twist of my words.

Because I don't believe any intelligent being could question views such as yours and still believe them afterward.