|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:33 pm
I.Am With Jury duty, honestly, I think that dodging your civic duty is wrong. Do you know why we have jury duty? So that our courts are more fair than they would be otherwise; A jury of your peers. And if you want a jury of your peers, should you ever be falsely accused of a crime, you really have a duty to accept your being called to be a juror for someone else. But besides that, jury duty isn't even decided by voter registration, except in four states: Quote: * Jury duty is often given a reason for not registering to vote. * In reality, only four states currently use only voter registration (VR) roles for jury duty: AL, AR, MS, MT, some don't use voter registration at all, and others use many lists. And the election isn't rigged; Bush was elected president the second time with a -small- popular minority, because of how complicated our election system is. Now, if you want to protest the system, with electoral votes and whatnot, be my guest, but that doesn't mean it's rigged. (Sorry, I hate conspiracy theories.) And there are perfectly good, if possibly outdated, reasons for the electoral system; Namely, that it ensures that small state's concerns won't be swamped by what the more populated states want. The reason voting for Stephen Colbert's such a big thing, is that Stephen Colbert is a comedian who was, jokingly probably, trying to run for President at the beginning of the election. There's a big difference between voting for Colbert and voting for, say, the Green party. Because Colbert isn't a politician at all, and has no real stances; He's a joke. See the Rhino Party; A party in Canada that succeeded in showing popular dislike of all parties. Sorry I don't see it as you do. To me it's just a waste of time, I have no civic (?) duty, I was just born here and that's all. To me, courts aren't always fair (if so, some murderers and other criminals wouldn't be back in socity in the first place). You believe what you want and i'll believe what I want. Still won't vote so it's pointless trying to make me do so. You really thing the government actually cares about people?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:44 pm
No one's trying to force you to vote xd But I really do think the government officials do care, because they themselves are citizens, their families are citizens, all of their loved ones live in this country and yes, I think that if not for anything else, they would care for the people they love.
Courts aren't always fair, but I feel like I'm a fair person, and if I duck out of it, then maybe someone who isn't as fair will take that spot. I have as much sympathy for people who have been victims and the jerks are still on the streets as the next person, and I have very little faith in the justice system, I just personally don't mind jury duty because it's my chance to make it a bit better and have it work the way it should, if only just a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:00 pm
Sure the system's not perfect; But the point is, a jury is much more fair than what we had before. And being born here is -why- it's your civic duty; If you and everyone who thinks like you are just like, "Well, the system sucks, I'm gonna sit back and complain about it," nothing will ever change. The system will keep on sucking. And your bitching about it will do nothing more than turn you into a bitter old woman.
And no, I don't think that politicians care about me, honestly. They just care about my vote. And I'm very emphatic about my dislike of politicians in general. But that doesn't mean that they rig elections. I dislike politicians, but I dislike conspiracy theories even more; Just because a person you like got elected doesn't mean there's some dark cabal that chose him at birth. Sometimes things just work out differently from what you'd like, and I personally think that conspiracy theories are just modern superstition and fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:06 pm
lymelady Courts aren't always fair, but I feel like I'm a fair person, and if I duck out of it, then maybe someone who isn't as fair will take that spot. I have as much sympathy for people who have been victims and the jerks are still on the streets as the next person, and I have very little faith in the justice system, I just personally don't mind jury duty because it's my chance to make it a bit better and have it work the way it should, if only just a bit. I was on a jury for a murder 2 case, and Jesus, there were some idiots on the jury with me. They wanted to convict the guy because "he just seems like he did it." What part of "beyond a reasonable doubt" don't you understand? And others were like "duhhh....I dunno....whadda you think?" The defense and the prosecution told completely different stories, with nothing conclusive either way. I hope that guy appreciates that I argued myself blue in the face to let him walk. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:04 am
It is true that neither McCain or Obama are great candidates, especially for social conservatives. McCain is against abortion, but has not taken a firm stand on it. Obama is much worse. He is for partial birth abortions, he supports killing babies that were born during abortions, etc. Here's the thing. Pro-lifers need to support McCain for the reason that a few of the supreme court justices are getting up in age, and the one that is most likely to retire from the bench is John Paul Stevens, who was born in 1920, and is now in his upper 80's. Stevens is Pro-Choice. If Obama is president, he will replace Stevens with another pro-choice judge. If McCain is president, he may pick someone who is more pro-life. If a pro-life judge replaces Stevens, then there will be more pro-life judges on the bench than pro-choice ones, which would allow for some great pro-life victories at the supreme court level. Think about it. Think smart. Pro-life people must vote McCain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:56 pm
The problem is, you're looking at it from a, "Pro-Choice or Pro-Life" point of view. Everyone here cares about issues that aren't abortion too, you know. Gay rights, the war in Iraq, the economy... There's a lot of concerns. And abortion, honestly, isn't going to change much in the near future, no matter who's elected.
I'm not going to vote in McCain just because he -might- make a change to the justices, which -might- result in an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Not when I disagree with him on so many other things, which will simultaneously be majorly damaged by his election.
Although, honestly, my biggest problem with McCain is that he's not a good leader. He's boring, and he's not going to get a significant amount of the nation to follow him; Obama's got that, at least. -If- McCain gets voted in, and that's a big if, it'll be because of people who don't like him, but like Obama even less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:19 am
I was really impressed with Obama when he made his Illinois run. I remember seeing him on TV and thinking he seemed to be a genuinely nice guy. But I think the Dems made a mistake in having him.
His message of change sounds nice. But he's a total n00b politically. Only one term in the Senate under his belt and quite a good fraction of that time has been spent running a presidential campaign. I'm sorry...this move strikes me as being very power-hungry. I don't think he's a special new kind of politician...like everyone else, he says what his audience wants to hear.
I definitely think he can lose. Being that FAR left is going to make a lot of people freak out and vote for the lesser of two evils. AND there are people who feel robbed because Hill lost...to a n00b of all people. I think in the end, Hill had a better chance of the general election. She ended really strong in key states. But just could not overcome the Super Tuesday bump and the super delegates. There are a lot of sour grapes out there over the primary campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:32 am
Well, on the other hand, his being a "political n00b" is a good thing to a lot of people. He hasn't been in the politics business long enough to have been changed by it.
And I know there's some dislike of him. But, as has been said a lot, the media is in love with Obama, and a -lot- of people believe in his message of hope and change. It's going to be depressing when he is elected, and he never comes through with his promises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:39 am
lymelady No one's trying to force you to vote xd But I really do think the government officials do care, because they themselves are citizens, their families are citizens, all of their loved ones live in this country and yes, I think that if not for anything else, they would care for the people they love. Courts aren't always fair, but I feel like I'm a fair person, and if I duck out of it, then maybe someone who isn't as fair will take that spot. I have as much sympathy for people who have been victims and the jerks are still on the streets as the next person, and I have very little faith in the justice system, I just personally don't mind jury duty because it's my chance to make it a bit better and have it work the way it should, if only just a bit. I find that when in a position of power, people use it. Being a governing official entails many new openings with big businesses and many contracts to be made amongst friends. While they may care in the beginning, I think greed takes a toll on much of our government. Things like wars are big business, with multi-million dollar contracts to be thrown around. Is it in the best interest of the general American citizen to go across seas to fight a preemptive war that the rest of the world disagrees with? Who has more to gain from war, you, or Cheney who owns international reconstruction companies, or the folks at General Electric brining in huge pentagon contracts, funded by tax dollars? While some senators may truly care, it is too easy to corrupt this system with greed for me to believe that the government is always looking out for my best interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:40 pm
I.Am Well, on the other hand, his being a "political n00b" is a good thing to a lot of people. He hasn't been in the politics business long enough to have been changed by it. But that also means he probably doesn't know what he's doing (and that's why we need term limits in congress). I'm not saying Obama will NEVER know what he's doing. I'd take him more seriously if he waited until 2012 to try this. I have no doubt in my mind he'll bring change but my opinions in general as for what's best for my hypothetical children's future tend to be centrist socially to conservative fiscally. Obama never was my man to begin with. Like I said, I'm sure he's a very nice man...maybe. But being a nice person doesn't necessarily make a good president. To be honest I'm squeemish electing congress members to the presidency in the first place. I prefer governors or mayors or congress members with gubernatorial/mayoral experience. Congress acts as a unit. The Presidency, like mayor and governor, is a single position held by an individual. ^^>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:45 pm
...Experience doesn't mean you know what you're doing. XD And even within mayors and governors, there are plenty of people who have no idea what they're doing. People would certainly argue that Bush, with 6 years as governor before 8 years as President, still has no idea what he's doing.
Term limits would be nice, though; People shouldn't be allowed to serve 30 ******** years in Congress. o.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:31 am
Cyanna I was really impressed with Obama when he made his Illinois run. I remember seeing him on TV and thinking he seemed to be a genuinely nice guy. But I think the Dems made a mistake in having him. His message of change sounds nice. But he's a total n00b politically. Only one term in the Senate under his belt and quite a good fraction of that time has been spent running a presidential campaign. I'm sorry...this move strikes me as being very power-hungry. I don't think he's a special new kind of politician...like everyone else, he says what his audience wants to hear. I definitely think he can lose. Being that FAR left is going to make a lot of people freak out and vote for the lesser of two evils. AND there are people who feel robbed because Hill lost...to a n00b of all people. I think in the end, Hill had a better chance of the general election. She ended really strong in key states. But just could not overcome the Super Tuesday bump and the super delegates. There are a lot of sour grapes out there over the primary campaign. Being the President is not a one man job. Obama will have help. He isn't alone. He may lack the wisdom, but knowledge is there, at his finger tips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:32 pm
o.O But by that logic, it doesn't matter who's elected President, because they'll have help.
Really, I think people need to focus more on who's getting into congress; Those are the people who make the laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:12 am
I.Am o.O But by that logic, it doesn't matter who's elected President, because they'll have help. Really, I think people need to focus more on who's getting into congress; Those are the people who make the laws. You're right. It doesn't matter. We should stop thinking the Presidency is a one-man job with the interests of the American people at hand. He has many people to please in all his decisions, and I'm not just talking about Congress either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:38 am
I absolutely disagree there. While it's true that the President has advisers and such, it still comes down to the President making the decision. And he -should- have the interests of the American People first and foremost when making those decisions.
And while the President doesn't have nearly as much power as everyone makes it out to be, s/he is still the figurehead leader of the United States.
It's just preposterous to act like we should just pick a random guy off the street and swear him in, like the Presidency matters that little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
