Angry memo

[hudy]

Just not a p0ker fan in general. If gamb|ing I like blackjack. Euchre is similar to Hearts. Look it up on google or this link http://www.coffeebreakarcade.c...s.htm

THere is a version known as bid Euchre but I don't like that as much

I used to like south park alot, but I don't really watch tv anymore. More of a video game/net junkie.

[vicki]

I don't like games where it's all luck, i.e. blackjack. I like games where you can strategize and manipulate the other player like in hold em and cribbage.

[hudy]

I don't believe blackjack to be that much a game of luck. If you play correctly the house only has like a 1% advantage. But all games of chance involve luck, that is what makes em so fun!

[SDRonEbay]

This is why I stopped discussing the electoral process, politics and politicians, the economy and how one person plays a part on all the aforementioned. I got a headache debating some guys on DNE before I realized that this system doesn't work better when we, the voters, argue. We, the voters, are controlled better when we argue amongst ourselves.

http://www.that dead forum/showthread.php?t=72356

OH! BTW, their language filter is not as tidy as ours. So the filth flew a little.

[Rockenreno]

Many "informed" people get their information from mass media sources. Who are writing these stories? Journalists. While the strive for the least bias is often achieved, American journalism CLEARLY has a bias which is often times liberal. While that bias may not be as extreme as that of Fahrenheit 9/11 and such, it is still there. People's perception is based on the lenses and frames of the person writing the article. If your argument is that people are being charged up with propaganda from such movies, then you have to accuse them of getting the same treatment, in smaller doses, from mass media.

I can agree with that.

Saying that someone shouldn't vote and telling them not to vote is the same to me, with slightly kinder wordning. I think it IS necessary to encourage it. I don't believe in a pluralist model of democracy in which only rich and brilliant White males rule and make all the decisions. Functional representative comes when a factions of DIVERSE (be it ethnic, socioeconomic, education level etc. etc.) come together and vote and decide how they want to be represented. It's clearly obvious that the majority of educated people in the United States are predominantly wealthy. The higher up on the economic scale, the more inclination towards conservatism. If only the educated voted, then of course, there will not be a good representation of the people.

He never said they shouldn't vote. He said they shouldn't be encouraged to vote. My interpretation of this is that if you don't know anything about the candidates (such that your choice would be essentially a random decision), then people should not be telling you to vote. Let me clarify again: I'm not saying that the person should not become informed and vote, that would be good. I am saying that if the person has no desire to be informed about the politicians in the slightest sense, then they should not vote.

You're going based on circumstantial evidence. Who is to say that someone who is willing to take time out of their schedule to register, answer questions, then show up AGAIN come election day to cast their votes isn't going to at LEAST try to find out who they are voting for and why they are voting. Common sense tells me that if I am wasting opportunity costs in registering then showing up to vote, I will at least know a decent amount about both candidates, otherwise I won't vote. Natural filtering out of those who really aren't interested. But that does not mean that encouragement should end.

I agree, people should make the effort to become informed and vote. I think you misinterpreted Jesda here again. He's saying that if you aren't informed and don't want to take the time to be informed then you should not vote. I agree with him here. And by informed I don't mean you have to know everything, just do a little research or even watch one of those (completely useless because they don't actually say ANYTHING) debates.

Noone suggested guilting and coercing anyone to vote. Someone said before that the encouragement of voting isn't necessary, I simply disagreed. Decisions made by politicians DO affect the lives of people whether they know it or not. Granted, there are checks and balances in the system to keep any single party from gaining too much power, but there are still policies passed under certain administrations that wouldn't have gone through in others. Therefore the party in office is important and votes, be it informed or not, could swing the election either way. Sure Kerry sees Iraq as a threat but a multilateral approach in dealing with terrorism (which is a global problem, not middle eastern based) is definitely the way to go.

A lot of the voting drives don't encourage "informed voting", they just care about voting. This sends the message (to me at least): "Vote in the election, even if you know and care nothing about it." Some voting drives DO encourage informed voting. They should all be that way, otherwise it's counteracts any good informed voters are doing.

You can have a functional government regardless of how many people vote. Both candidates and their cabinet are capable of ruling otherwise they wouldn't be in the election. The point is, who should rule and who will be representative of the American people?

Eh, so nitpicky we are...

Cheap appeal? Hardly. You clearly missed my point. My point is that I am sure white men back in the day saw minorities and women as ignorant and uninformed which is why they weren't given voting rights until the 70s. Had everyone else believed that ignorant people should not have rights and should not vote then our society in which we live today would be a hell of a lot different

I'm going with Jesda here. That was a cheap appeal to emotions. My personal opinion (MY opinion, doesn't have to be yours) is that the most racist people are those who typically call others racists. These are the people who claim "you can't ignore racism to make it go away, you have to proactively tell whites they are mean to minorities, etc". Through my life experience, I have found that by simply not discussing race, racism is avoided. I don't care what color you are as long as you don't blame me for some slavery 150+ years ago. I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from our mistakes. I am saying people should move on and just accept people for who they are. The past is to be learned from, not dwelled upon.

I can't believe I just spent 10 minutes typing this up. I'm gonna go shower and play some cribbage. Good day.Good plan. I'm tired, maybe some food and TV for me before I hit the homework.

[vicki]

You know what would make the world a good place?

If everyone chilled the hell out, smoked some Mary Jane, jammed to Floyd, made some love and hugged some trees.

I basically just outlined my weekend plans with a frisbee tournament in between. Wooty woot.

[gabossie]

[QUOTE]Many "informed" people get their information from mass media sources. Who are writing these stories? Journalists. While the strive for the least bias is often achieved, American journalism CLEARLY has a bias which is often times liberal. While that bias may not be as extreme as that of Fahrenheit 9/11 and such, it is still there. People's perception is based on the lenses and frames of the person writing the article. If your argument is that people are being charged up with propaganda from such movies, then you have to accuse them of getting the same treatment, in smaller doses, from mass media.

I can agree with this for the most part, but I think there is easily as much conservatively biased media as there is liberal. In particular, FOX (granted, it's far from being all new channels, but it makes up a huge portion of the segment)

He never said they shouldn't vote. He said they shouldn't be encouraged to vote. My interpretation of this is that if you don't know anything about the candidates (such that your choice would be essentially a random decision), then people should not be telling you to vote. Let me clarify again: I'm not saying that the person should not become informed and vote, that would be good. I am saying that if the person has no desire to be informed about the politicians in the slightest sense, then they should not vote.

This is more what I was aiming for. People should MOST CERTAINLY be encouraged to become informed and vote. The fact of the matter is though, that most campaign drives put absolutely no emphasis on the informed part of the vote, and they go as far as trying to GUILT people into going to the polls. That is what I don't want, completely uninformed people going to vote because someone has convinced them to, or guilted them into it simply because it's a "civic duty". It's you're duty to cast in informed vote, not to simply vote for the sake of voting.

Cheap appeal? Hardly. You clearly missed my point. My point is that I am sure white men back in the day saw minorities and women as ignorant and uninformed which is why they weren't given voting rights until the 70s. Had everyone else believed that ignorant people should not have rights and should not vote then our society in which we live today would be a hell of a lot different

I'm going to have to side with Jesda on this too. You are correct to a certain point, but fundamentally this argument is flawed. We are not by any means discriminating against any race, sex, religion, etc here. minorities and women were PERCIEVED as being uneducated, unintelligent, etc. and this is why they weren't allowed to vote. The people we speak of here, are those that infact ARE VOLUNTARILY uneducated in terms of who and what they may be voting for.

[vicki]

Points taken. I'll have to disagree and stand by my original take on the matter. It's funny how you're saying people shouldn't be encouraged to vote but yet you're advertising it on your sig.

[The Mic]

where do you get the idea that the affluent and the educated are mostly made up white males?

[vicki]

Simply by observation. Look at congress. Those with wealth and political pull in this country are predominantly white.

[MinisterofDOOM]

She's right. People will deny it to their deaths, but she's right.

You can't just say, "you're dumb... you know nothing about politics so don't get out there and get informed and register to vote because your voice doesn't matter because it is ignorant and flawed."

That's exactly the oposite of what I meant. What I am trying to say is, if you intend to uphold your most important duty of voting, you also have a duty to make an effort to become familiar with what you are voting FOR. I in no way mean that if you don't know, you should just go away and not try.

[The Mic]

I don't believe in a pluralist model of democracy in which only rich and brilliant White males rule and make all the decisions. Functional representative comes when a factions of DIVERSE (be it ethnic, socioeconomic, education level etc. etc.) come together and vote and decide how they want to be represented. It's clearly obvious that the majority of educated people in the United States are predominantly wealthy. The higher up on the economic scale, the more inclination towards conservatism. If only the educated voted, then of course, there will not be a good representation of the people.

ok this here is whats iffy for me. What i get from you is:

White males, are predominantly rich & educated Minorities, predominantly aren't rich and educated , but should vote anyway.

im probably wrong, so am i?

[vicki]

No I am basically saying that those who are ruling now are white males and that minorities (educated and uneducated) need to vote as well in order to increase the diversity of views, opinions, and representation.

I'm an upperclass Asian female, dude. Do you really think I'm for white male supremacy? :p

[The Mic]

lol, i didnt say you were for white supremacy. Its just that last sentence of the paragraph i quoted you as saying "If only the educated voted, then of course, there will not be a good representation of the people." to me anyway, it seems that you are implying that educated is synonymous to white.

[s13sr20chris]

i feel there should not be a right to vote. i think everyone should have to apply for citizenship when they become an adult or live with some non-citizen status. it would not be a test of intelligence but rather of effort. then i feel that votes should only be one per land owning houshold. that way the vote is proportional to the vested interest without giving priority to the rich. am i gonna get flamed for that? oh well

[Jesda]

Again, the thread is lost in false claims. No one is advocating the removal of anyone's rights. The suggestion is to quit nagging the masses to vote. If they want to, they will. There's nothing to be gained by well-funded voter turnout campaigns. Sounds great on paper, doesn't transpire as intended in reality -- like Marxism.

Registering is as easy as calling (or electronically visiting) your local GOP, DNC, secretary of state, or county elections office. Its not hard, its not challenging, its not intimidating.

[vicki]

I love the throwing out of political philosophy in order to sound intelligent.

[Jesda]

Sarcastic insults! Thats the spirit.

[vicki]

Haha it's better than being an elitist arse. Sometimes I wonder how you've ever acquired the holyer than thou attitude considering how you're a 22-3 year old still sucking on mommy's tits.

[Jesda]

I love this, keep it up!

[NY94J30]

Who says you have a right to vote?

[gabossie]

Hey, come on now children. Stop the bickering before Dad has to come in and pull out the belt.

[w1ngzer0]

Haha it's better than being an elitist arse. Sometimes I wonder how you've ever acquired the holyer than thou attitude considering how you're a 22-3 year old still sucking on mommy's tits.

you have no room to talk goth one

[gabossie]

No one is advocating the removal of anyone's rights.

Except S13sr20chris, welcome back to post colonial America. I don't own land, but I feel I'm far more qualified to make an educated vote than many people that do own land.

Who says you have a right to vote?

Technically, it's not even a right, it's a civic DUTY to be an educated voter, part of being a citizen of this country. Some choose not to perform their civic duty, whether it be by abstaining from the vote, or casting an uneducated vote.

[Rockenreno]

Haha it's better than being an elitist arse. Sometimes I wonder how you've ever acquired the holyer than thou attitude considering how you're a 22-3 year old still sucking on mommy's tits.

You're no older and you are perhaps more elitist than Jesda. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

BTW I am definately a bit elitist, so you don't need to tell me.

[NY94J30]

I think you missed my point, people are talking about a right to vote - a right is not an abstract thing, a right is a guarantee. There is no right to vote grounded in the Constitution. Which is to say that that privilige can be abridege for any legitimate governemnt purpose that is not specifically proscribed by the constitution (i.e. poll tax, race, geneder, etc). This is to say that qualification on the basis of informedness is within the realm of possibility.

That said, who's to determine the threshold of ignorance. Theres a myriad of issues that draw people to the voting booth, who's to say that some are more important than others. If I vote for GWB b/c God told me to, or for Kerry b/c I like Heinz ketchup, how is that ay different - under a theory of representative interests - than voting on the basis of their positions on health care or double taxation of dividends? Ignorance and priortities are the most subjective of things.
Modified by NY94J30 at 12:37 AM 10/15/2004

[The Mic]

sr20chris, you should just stop posting altogether and sell your comp, so you can spend more time shopping at the Piggly-Wiggly or the General Store or wherever you go to get the feed for your crops…

[gabossie]

You're right, I DID miss your point. And a very good point that is. Honestly, I had never thought about it that way (I hate when I have to admit things like that). Ignorance, or education is a VERY difficult thing to measure. Although, my argument was more based in the idea that any REASON to vote based in your own opinions is better than voting based on others opinions, or completely randomly. Honestly, GOD told me to vote for GWB, in my opinion is uneducated. Now, if you vote for him based on his religious views and "merits", that's another thing.

[Rockenreno]

If I vote for GWB b/c God told me to, or for Kerry b/c I like Heinz ketchup, how is that ay different - under a theory of representative interests - than voting on the basis of their positions on health care or double taxation of dividends? Ignorance and priortities are the most subjective of things.

touche, good sir, touche.

[AZhitman]

Good stuff.

I hope, for the sake of this thread that we can:

Keep it non-partisan (so far so good)Keep Jesda's/Vicki's lover's quarrel in the kitchen (where it belongs)Keep it above board and civil (also, so far so good).

BTW, brilliant post, NY. Well done.