if you don't vote, don't bitch...

[collinwho]

The premise is that since HC can restrict political speech (they can, they simply choose not to), it is not your right.

 

 

I understand. My contention is that, due to the nature of free speech, it remains a right until it is actually restricted.

[allan grossman]

Wow, I'm really not expressing my point well, apparently. This thread is about political speech. You stated, in response to PW "The First Amendment only restricts Congress - you have no right to free speech here." My contention is that, in a private venue such as this, free speech is an implicit right unless otherwise prohibited/restricted. There are topics which are prohibited/restricted on HCBF (drugs, etc), if the discussion were concerning those topics, there would be no free speech, because there are rules in place restricting it. There are not rules in place restricting political speech on this forum, because of that, it is free speech.

Free speech only on selected topics isn't free speech - at least I don't think it is.

The bottom line here is that regardless of whether something's prohibited here the forum owner can simply delete or edit any post he likes, regardless of what rules might be posted. That's not free speech either - but it is a condition of using this venue

[allan grossman]

I understand. My contention is that, due to the nature of free speech, it remains a right until it is actually restricted.

Okay, I'm with you now. I think it's a privilege, not a right.

If admin deletes one of your post because he doesn't like the way you part your hair you really have no recourse

[Craig Vecchione]

It's not a binding opinion. It carries exactly the same weight as your opinion.

 

It's only binding in the other half of "bloody both, mate".

[Kindness]

I understand. My contention is that, due to the nature of free speech, it remains a right until it is actually restricted.

 

 

Not so. It is semantics at this point, but you simply don't have any rights to free speech on the forum. If your posts were edited in a manner that you felt "violated your right to free speech" you would not have any available legal recourse. The definition of a right is that someone else cannot take it from you. In this case, HC can take it from you anytime they want. It certainly is a privilege, it definitely isn't a right. Again, it's all semantics.

[Kindness]

I gotchya. And I respect that. My contribution to the whole process is to not vote in the Presidential elections. Other elections... sure. But I don't agree with the Presidential election system (for a lot of reasons that are outside the scope of this thread). By opting to not vote, I am demonstrating that I think the system is garbage.

 

 

I am with you 100% except for your belief that the whole process is garbage. I believe the politicians are garbage and the system prevents the garbage from being anything that moderately concerns me. Thus, my non-vote is a vote in favor of the system without being supportive of a particular politician.

[allan grossman]

I am with you 100% except for your belief that the whole process is garbage. I believe the politicians are garbage and the system prevents the garbage from being anything that moderately concerns me. Thus, my non-vote is a vote in favor of the system without being supportive of a particular politician.

 

 

Isn't your non-vote also a vote for the party whose platform you oppose?

[collinwho]

Okay, I'm with you now. I think it's a privilege, not a right. If admin deletes one of your post because he doesn't like the way you part your hair you really have no recourse

I could create multiple accounts like collinwho 456 and spam the forum . . .:poke:

[catphish]

Thus, my non-vote is a vote in favor of the system without being supportive of a particular politician.

 

 

Penn Jillete had a great radio show episode about the "power of the non-vote" in which he expressed the same idea, as well as the advantage of "staying off the political radar" until someone who is worthwhile actually comes along.

[catphish]

Isn't your non-vote also a vote for the party whose platform you oppose?

 

 

Not a problem if you oppose both platforms.

[jackcheez]

I'll bitch if I want to

I'll vote if I want to

I'll eat when I'm hungry

I'll drink when I'm dry

and if moonshine don't kill me

I'll live till I die.

[Kindness]

Isn't your non-vote also a vote for the party whose platform you oppose?

 

 

Platforms are marketing efforts strategically designed to capture a desired voting block. Generally speaking, I don't believe in platforms, I believe in human beings and critical thinking regarding issue spotting and problem solving. I have yet to see a politician I've supported as a human being. I've seen plenty I don't oppose, but I believe it is due to my lack of information about them.

 

My general point is, I find the position of president to be essentially worthless/disassociated with respect to everything of value in my life. Therefore, the election results hold no meaning for me.

[Kindness]

Penn Jillete had a great radio show episode about the "power of the non-vote" in which he expressed the same idea, as well as the advantage of "staying off the political radar" until someone who is worthwhile actually comes along.

 

 

Precisely. I don't expect anyone of that nature to want the position, but if that were the case, I'd happily vote for him/her.

[PaulyWally]

I am with you 100% except for your belief that the whole process is garbage. I believe the politicians are garbage and the system prevents the garbage from being anything that moderately concerns me. Thus, my non-vote is a vote in favor of the system without being supportive of a particular politician.

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that I believe the entire system/process is garbage.

 

I think the system, on the surface, is pretty good. But when you dig deeper, that system has rules/restrictions in place to allow only a certain selection of candidates to have any exposure to the public. Furthermore, it is a manipulation of the public.

 

And I know it's not a candidate's fault that some people are easily manipulated. But that's also not saying a whole lot about that candidate's integrity either. Furthermore, the design of the system helps protect that candidate from being called-out.

 

I think I'm babbling now. Bottomline... I don't think the idea is bad. I think the implementation is.

[allan grossman]

Precisely. I don't expect anyone of that nature to want the position, but if that were the case, I'd happily vote for him/her.

I understand the sentiment and have debated it many times. Ultimately the decision to vote is a personal choice but the pragmatist in me says that that if the disinterested abstain the majority wins. If there are enough abstensions then the majority who really isn't a majority wins

Which is my entire point - If everyone who was eligible to vote *did* vote in 2000 chances are pretty good that the the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened and nobody would have heard of 'snowflake babies'.

Nobody on any ticket believes exactly the same thing that I do either - but feel motivated to do my part to insure we don't see a repeat of the last eight years.

Of course, there are also people who think the last eight years have been good - and those folks tend to show up at the polls more consistently.

[Kindness]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that I believe the entire system/process is garbage. I think the system, on the surface, is pretty good. But when you dig deeper, that system has rules/restrictions in place to allow only a certain selection of candidates to have any exposure to the public. Furthermore, it is a manipulation of the public. And I know it's not a candidate's fault that some people are easily manipulated. But that's also not saying a whole lot about that candidate's integrity either. Furthermore, the design of the system helps protect that candidate from being called-out. I think I'm babbling now. Bottomline... I don't think the idea is bad. I think the implementation is.

 

 

I think we agree a lot more than we disagree. My point is that the system functions in a manner such that I can entirely avoid participation physically, emotionally and intellectually and have no fear regarding impact on me or my life. The system promotes disingenuous people, but also prevents them from having any real impact.

[PaulyWally]

Ultimately the decision to vote is a personal choice but the pragmatist in me says that that if the disinterested abstain the majority wins.

 

 

Personally, I am not "disinterested" in elections. The correct word would be "disgusted".

 

What does that say about me if I were to march off to the polls every 4 years, with complete disdain for the electoral process, and then go and utilize the very system that I have no appreciation for?

 

You cannot accomplish your goal if you go along with the very system you are against.

 

My goal is not DIRECTLY for a great President... my goal is for a more reasonable and impartial electoral system.

[PaulyWally]

The system promotes disingenuous people, but also prevents them from having any real impact.

 

 

Amen to that!

[lug]

My point is the people who didn't care enough to vote helped get us in this mess.

What mess? Oh, you mean that politically spun imaginary mess!

[xdamagexx]

i opened this thread and shoulda know betta. Its like i opened the door to the Coffee house with a bunch of old men chatn..

[Kindness]

Nobody on any ticket believes exactly the same thing that I do either

 

 

No one besides you ever will, but I would vote for someone that demonstrated an ability to identify and analyze issues and respond in a manner that person thought was most appropriate. My opinions on most subjects on which politicians must act are worthless, as I believe most people's are, as I am woefully uninformed with respect to the knowledge required to form an opinion on those topics. That is how the process works. I don't need to know anything about it because I cannot act on it and all I can do is put someone in place I trust to take a reasonable course of action; civic republicanism. Unfortunately that concept is dead in major US politics. Unless it makes a comeback (it won't), I have no use for the political process.

[allan grossman]

You cannot accomplish your goal if you go along with the very system you are against.

I do understand this, honest - I just disagree with it.

So how do you change the system? Nonparticipation won't change it - outside of insurrection that only way I can see to change things is to change them from within.

I agree that the system doesn't suck but the politicians do. When I'm appointed Emperor Of The Whole Damn World private campaign contributions will be made illegal.

I've said for years that PACs are the root of all evil. If there was no financial incentive to go into politics you'd have honest politicials

[allan grossman]

What mess? Oh, you mean that politically spun imaginary mess!

Yeah, that one.

[catphish]

If everyone who was eligible to vote *did* vote in 2000 chances are pretty good that the the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened and nobody would have heard of 'snowflake babies'.

 

 

But as you alluded to earlier, we'd just have different messes instead. As long as neither party can do too much in any direction the system is working as it was intended to.

[Kindness]

I do understand this, honest - I just disagree with it. So how do you change the system? Nonparticipation won't change it - outside of insurrection that only way I can see to change things is to change them from within. I agree that the system doesn't suck but the politicians do. When I'm appointed Emperor Of The Whole Damn World private campaign contributions will be made illegal. I've said for years that PACs are the root of all evil. If there was no financial incentive to go into politics you'd have honest politicials

The greatest political changes come from social changes. They don't come from within the political system itself. I am active every day in promoting social change. As my momma tells me, "Kindness Matters."