One of the main reasons I thought the war was a bad idea...

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:05 pm

sixstop wrote:
flint_the_dwarf wrote:I agree with Misty. The government is trying to create a general state of apathy in its citizens and that's pretty sad. But they're succeeding, which is even more sad.
Oh no, financial fraud, political scandal, and impeached president who perjured himself, as well as just being a moral degenerate has nothing to do with apathy.

The last republican president being out of touch and not knowing what a grocery scanner was, being foolish enough to raise taxes, that has nothing to do with apathy.

the liberals filibustering the nomination of America's 1st potential Latino/american supreme court justice, that has nothing to do with apathy.

If you're both saying that the government is intentionally instilling a sense of apathy in its citizens, i'd have to disagree & wonder what you base that on.

The way i see it the citizens are becomeing apathetic because of the STUPID politicians they've had to put up with for 15 years.

Ahh the classic conservative response, when recieving criticism, attack the democrats...

I'm an independant and like to point out flaws with everybody though, so I guess I'm not really one to talk...

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:16 pm

SSJVegita0609 wrote: Ahh the classic conservative response, when recieving criticism, attack the democrats...

did you not even read my post? O_O

oh, and unless youre using new math, thats "7" years ahead. were going on a few months of occupation, and only a couple of month of actually assault.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:25 pm

I just vote for whoever best represents my views, irregardless of party. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever, it doesn't matter - and frankly, that's the way it should be.

The "wasted vote" is pure nonsense. Just because your father voted Republican, or your mother voted Democrat, does not mean YOU have to - especially to preserve the merging two party system.

As for the president, I REALLY don't want to be here if he gets re-elected. Not to say that I will leave, but I don't think the nation can handle four more years of his crap.

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:27 pm

sixstop wrote: did you not even read my post? O_O

Yes, and I was joking...

oh, and unless youre using new math, thats "7" years ahead. were going on a few months of occupation, and only a couple of month of actually assault.

uhhh, say what?

MistyCaldwell · Post by **MistyCaldwell** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:44 pm

I think people are apathetic because of the culture. I believe media reflects, not instills. If people actually cared then they would seek out information instead of getting spoonfed. People actually LIKE labels like right wing and liberal. They like being classified and not having to think for themselves.

I think the government sees that and gets away with the crap it does because people just don't care in the first place. I actually start the blame going after the end of the second world war myself...baby boomers make me shudder.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:44 pm

kthulhu wrote:I just vote for whoever best represents my views, irregardless of party. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever, it doesn't matter - and frankly, that's the way it should be.

i'd like to add that along with what the cat said, i also choose by who has the most potential to be a great president. this can be seen by the ppl he chooses for his campaign and the way he runs it. this can also be seen by how he lives his life and just how driven he is to lead the nation.

nevertheless, the majority of the times i've voted was for the underdog.

/end

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:35 pm

just because i swing towards a political orientation sure doesnt mean i vote straight ticket.

I voted democrat for the Georgia governor, although he lost pretty badly.

It later turned uot he cooked some of the books of the state government budget. . .so maybe it was a good thing. . .

You have the right to free speech, you have the RESPONSIBILITY to expect hostility when you use it.
You have the right to be pro choice, you have the RESPONSIBILITY to live a life where you'd never have to make it.
you have the right to safe health care, you have the responsibility to pay for it.
you have a right to own a gun, you have a responsibility to commit time and effort to make sure its used correctly.

but this is getting off track.

if you're going to burn Bush (heh burning bush) for acting on bad intelligence, you'll have to burn ALL of congress for signing the bill that allowed him to act unilaterally to protect US interests. You'll also have to go back and burn Bill Clinton for having and using the same intelligence for his breif campaign on Iraq.

I have yet to see anything substantial enough to make me believe i was intentionally lied to. You gotta come with something more concrete than a dated report, and a speculation from a democratic hopeful.

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:51 pm

I do blame the section of the government that supported the war effort. But it wasn't the WHOLE government.

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:57 pm

BTW, I think you're misinterpreting the article I posted's nature. Its stating that now that Saddam is out of power he is no longer a mad dictator, he's become something more dangerous to the US, a mad and powerful terrorist. He can now freely live a life of war crimes, he no longer has to worry about being invaded, because he no longer has a country. All he has now is a potential terrorist network that could make al queda look like the hardy boys. In this respect, you can't lay anything on Clinton, because he didn't invade Saddam's country and set him lose like we've just done.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:05 pm

oh, well, in that case, he'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to harbor him and his plans.

sure they may not like the US, but if Saddam carries out an attack and we find syria knew, or habored him or his kids, or whatnot? Or any other country?

How many of them do you think will risk a US invasion just because they dont like us?

i think that danger is overstated.