I've been out canvassing in my blood red home area and I'm not certain which worries me most, all the people who are voting the way they've always voted (straight party ticket with no attention paid to issues) or those younger voters who like Obama but will probably not show up on election day.
I've been out canvassing in my blood red home area and I'm not certain which worries me most, all the people who are voting the way they've always voted (straight party ticket with no attention paid to issues) or those younger voters who like Obama but will probably not show up on election day.
I'm always annoyed by people who unthinkingly vote a for a party, as opposed to a candidate.
I'm also bothered by people who have a deep personal attachment to their party, even as their own personal values more closely mirror the other party, so that they could never consider voting for the candidates more likely to try to do things their way.
I'm not particularly bothered by the fact that younger people tend to vote less. They tend not to be responsible for families, property or businesses, and so they tend not to have much at stake. The less stake someone has in the outcome, the less likely they are to make an effort to do anything about it.
I am annoyed, however, by people who do have a stake in the outcome yet fail to participate, either because they don't see themselves as having a stake, or because they just can't be bothered.
__________________
Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
I've been out canvassing in my blood red home area and I'm not certain which worries me most, all the people who are voting the way they've always voted (straight party ticket with no attention paid to issues) or those younger voters who like Obama but will probably not show up on election day.
According to Real Clear Politics, Indiana is +5%points red anyway, so it does not matter much if Obama slips there. Of the 50 states, only 6 are going better for the GOP compared to the 2004 electoral results, and all (except New Hampshire) of those are in solid states anyway. Surprising that Obama is enjoying a lesser lead in Massachusetts compared to the Kerry result, but it is the other way around in Texas. If one compares the RCP averages to 2004 electoral results, Obama has tipped Colorado(9 electoral votes), New Mexico(5), and Iowa (7). Virginia (13) has gone from a 8.2% win by Bush to a tie this time around.
Considering the local son (and daughter) electoral votes, Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona are solid red, over 10% points lead for the GOP. Likewise, Illinois, Hawaii, and Delaware are solid blue. Not much chance of anyone on the major tickets losing a home state.
Anyway, you seem to be doing a good job at canvassing, since Indiana is (as far I can see) the state which has posted the largest drop for the GOP, a 20.7% win for Bush in 2004 should be contrasted to a 4.7% lead by McCain now.
Never having heard of this site, thought it might be an interesting read. Certainly promotes itself as a neutral observer in things, but a cursory glance of topics and discussions shows this site is pretty much in the tank for Obama. Let's look at a few of the top articles, for example:
Thus proving you didn't look at how they dealt with the Democrat's speeches, proving you really don't know what being bipartisan is.
You seemingly have a lot of time on your hands for how busy you have said you are.
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
The fact that you honestly believe that parents cannot control their children seriously scares me. The fact that you are not alone scares me more.
Many bad parents do make it common, but that doesn't mean children are uncontrollable.
Haha...what!? You REALLY think that parents can prevent their children from having sex? Really?
I don't really have an argument here. If nothing else, I think that Palin is the exception which proves my point--unless, of course, you're arguing that Palin encouraged her daughter to have a baby out of wedlock, which is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
As has been previously mentioned, she is backing abstinence. She can't even say she can get it to work.
She's backing abstinence. She was (for all we know) abstinent until marriage.
Her daughter is not backing abstinence. Her daughter was not abstinent until marriage.
See, both of those positions were entirely self-consistent.
Parents are not responsible for the actions of their children, period. It's great that in your family, your parents gave you a strong sense of morals and successfully steered you away from bad things. This won't happen in every family, though. I know that I've done things my parents have told me not to do, and so have most of my friends and siblings. Some kids do almost everything their parents say, some go out of their way to do the opposite. Where they fall depends on many factors. But it's not at all fair to blame actions of children on their parents, especially if it's something like having sex where there are clearly many external factors at work.
the fact that it occurs to you is certainly an insight into how you view reacting to thoughts different than your own.
Ouch, only totally untrue. I don't put anyone on ignore here, and I have a number of friends that do put people on ignore, including people I really don't consider close to "trolls". I really don't understand why people do, so by your repeated ignoring of my posts while replying to other posts that seemed to ignore the points I had made confused me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimaldi
Which brings up the media bias issue again. It's more of a topic for a whole separate thread (as opposed to this one, focused on Palin), but the overwhelming evidence is that the media is liberally biased, and everyone admits it but the media and liberals. You can claim perception isn't reality all you want, but who determines what is extreme in terms of the political spectrum? Public opinion! The public determines what is mainstream and extreme, so if the public thinks the media is extreme and biased, how can you argue? People have been fooled/brainwashed? Polls are biased? Maybe, but in the end, the power to make the decision belongs to the people, and only the people. The liberals will post their articles saying it's not true, or that the media is actually conservatively biased, but it will never be believed or gain traction outside their party die-hards because it's patently ridiculous, and everyone else knows it.
Okay, here's the thing-- People thinking that there's a political bias is interesting, but does not prove that there's a political bias. Signs of a political bias prove that there is. Lots of people have looked into it. It's actually a thing people do. Links to places that say that people THINK there's a political bias will be categorized in the same pile as studies about people who THINK that I'm a feminazi, or people who THINK that I'm a republican.
So, let's look at some of this. I have real life things to do too, so let's just pick somewhere I've been hanging out near lately that's super conservative.... like George Mason University. Their law school is something like 4th most conservative law school in the country-- I think they're just behind Brigham Young. What'd they find? "evidence of liberal bias-bias" --- http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6802141.story
Now, I don't think the book is closed on this one. I think that the bias might change from election to election, candidate to candidate. I think that some organizations are more biased than others. So I welcome studies from various elections, various media sources, etc, that actually look at what has happened, rather than what people THINK has happened.
But it's certainly something to discuss rather than something to dismiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimaldi
As for Chelsea Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, there's a difference between his statements and many about Palin and her daughter. Limbaugh is not a reporter/journalist, he's an entertainer. When published, he's obviously in the "opinion" or "editorial" section....no one believes he is an unbiased source of information. Journalists, though, who claim objectivity, publish smears about Sarah Palin's daughter, child, etc. as "news" when there is no evidence to support any of it.
I agree that Limbaugh is not a reporter or a journalist, and that as such, his offensive "joke" about Chelsea reflects badly upon him more than others. That's why I didn't open with it. That's why I opened with John McCain saying incredibly offensive things about Chelsea Clinton. Because it reflects badly upon him more than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latenight
I don't know if I would call it "good enough" medical care. Mccain himself has stated that he would have died had his cell mates not taken care of him.
Careful reading. I did not claim that the medical care was "good enough" as in "I need health insurance. The kind of care McCain received in Vietnam would be good enough for me!"...... I claimed that the medical care was "good enough so that he would survive". Not survive well, as his inability to raise his arms above his head would indicate. But he was not being taken care of at all before then......
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
Haha...what!? You REALLY think that parents can prevent their children from having sex? Really?
I don't really have an argument here. If nothing else, I think that Palin is the exception which proves my point--unless, of course, you're arguing that Palin encouraged her daughter to have a baby out of wedlock, which is absurd.
Yes, I know for a fact that parents can prevent their children from having sex. It just tends to take more work than most parents are willing to put in, which of course isn't their fault, right? They can't be responsible for actually instilling behaviors in their children! That's for society to do!
If that is how you are proving your point, you are saying that Palin proves that if you can fake being a parent, your children will not listen to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs
She's backing abstinence. She was (for all we know) abstinent until marriage.
Her daughter is not backing abstinence. Her daughter was not abstinent until marriage.
See, both of those positions were entirely self-consistent.
Yes, and here is another problem with many parents. The "do as I say, not as I do" clause. Now, what she is saying, is that everybody should teach their children to be abstinent until marriage. What she does, is that she says it's fine if that doesn't happen. Whether or not she actually did that herself is irrelevant in this case; it's her position to everybody else versus what her own family does. This would be hypocrisy. She tells everybody that's the way it should be, but she can't do it. So either she is backing a policy that is impossible to use, or she's too incompetent to do it herself. Either way, it makes her a hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs
Parents are not responsible for the actions of their children, period. It's great that in your family, your parents gave you a strong sense of morals and successfully steered you away from bad things. This won't happen in every family, though. I know that I've done things my parents have told me not to do, and so have most of my friends and siblings. Some kids do almost everything their parents say, some go out of their way to do the opposite. Where they fall depends on many factors. But it's not at all fair to blame actions of children on their parents, especially if it's something like having sex where there are clearly many external factors at work.
You are saying that how a child is raised has no regard on how they act. I must wonder what it is like in your world, absent of the joys of actually knowing psychology. Knowing how children of age 2 can actually be suicidal from parental neglect that the parents themselves cannot see, but are too proud too admit it is happening. I have done things my parents have told me not to do. Everybody has. It is the severity of the actions that matters. Despite all the chances I had to do those actions, I knew I shouldn't, and because of the parenting I had received, I had no reason to get back at my parents.
These views tend to be the 'conservative' values that are often talked about. It is blatantly obvious that Gov. Palin is not capable of doing these. You are giving her an excuse, saying that it is unfair to expect parents to actually be parents, and to take accountability for doing a bad job, that it must be everybody else's fault. I only hope that others see how this is an undercurrent to our current society, and how it is at fault for many of the problems we see, because that attitude is taken to more than just the family.
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Hate to break the news to you, but, whether you like it or not, a child's decision making abilities are a direct representation of how they were raised. Just because people think they did a good job raising their children doesn't mean they did, and the fact that her daughter couldn't wait until after high school, as well as the fact that she wasn't even using proper precautions, means her parents screwed up somewhere. And yes, I'm well aware that 'it's more common these days', but if you are going to be the VP, you should be held to higher standards.
Certainly, how a child was raised has some influence on how they act, arguably even a substantial amount of influence on the decisions that they make, but you cannot attribute every single aspect of every single decision ever made by an adolescent directly to their parents. Those who speak in absolutes are seldom correct in their assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
If you are going to run for the high offices, you should know, with any amount of research, that everything you have done that can be exploited, will be. If you are not prepared for that...it's your own damn fault.
Yeah, I'm sure that she knew all along for her entire life that she was eventually going to be up for VP, and made all of her decisions accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
Yes, I know for a fact that parents can prevent their children from having sex.
Then I know for a fact that your facts are factually ineffectual. Contrary to what you're getting at, adolescents don't operate solely on the premise that they were raised to a higher standard and therefore should avoid all temptations and experimentations. We learn from our mistakes. I have learned a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
They can't be responsible for actually instilling behaviors in their children! That's for society to do!
Oh, society...don't get me started on this...I've got like 30 credited hours in psych, ethics, philosophy, and lifespan. Not to mention my past in speech & debate...but I know that you like a good argument...perhaps a bit too much, in fact, and I'm sure you would argue to the death about such things as nature vs. nurture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
Yes, and here is another problem with many parents. The "do as I say, not as I do" clause. Now, what she is saying, is that everybody should teach their children to be abstinent until marriage. What she does, is that she says it's fine if that doesn't happen.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
I only hope that others see how this is an undercurrent to our current society, and how it is at fault for many of the problems we see, because that attitude is taken to more than just the family.
I actually kind of agree with you there. Blame is the hot potato of our society.
__________________
Some men aren't looking for anything logical. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
"more trust to manage National Security"
Obama 35%, McCain 50%, McCain +15
"Is Palin prepared to serve as President if McCain became unable to serve as President for some reason"
Overall 45% Yes, 46% NO.
Among Republican 74%.
Among Men 49%.
Women Voters 41%.
Gallup details, released on Sept.3
Republican Men Aug1-28 Obama 7%, McCain 89%
Republican Men Aug30-Sept1 Obama 6%, McCain 90%
Republican Women Aug1-28 Obama 8%, McCain 85%
Republican Women Aug30-Sep1 Obama 7%, McCain 90%
Democrat Men Aug1-28 Obama 74%, McCain 18%
Democrat Men Aug30-Sep1 Obama 82%, McCain 13%
Democrat Women Aug1-28 Obama 74%, McCain 15%
Democrat Women Aug30-Sept1 Obama 82%, McCain 13%
Independent Men Aug1-28 Obama 35%, McCain 51%
Independent Men Aug30-Sept1 Obama 42%, McCain 47%
Independent Women Aug1-28 Obama 41%, McCain 42%
Independent Women Aug30-Sept1 Obama 46%, McCain 39%
Basiclly, Palin is not winning over women voters; she only helped McCain to gain support among women of his own party, while lost support among men&women outside of Republican.
If Democratic wants to do something, I think they should use Hillary in someway...
__________________
"Agh, that's roping milk." -Mr. R. Johson, October 22nd, 2008
Yes, I know for a fact that parents can prevent their children from having sex. It just tends to take more work than most parents are willing to put in, which of course isn't their fault, right? They can't be responsible for actually instilling behaviors in their children! That's for society to do!
Um, no. That's for their children to do. When it comes down to it, when you're 17, you can make a ton of choices, and while upbringing obviously has a great deal to do with how those choices are made, it's just entirely absurd to say that parents can entirely control children of that age.
I don't really know how to proceed from here, as you're making fundamentally ridiculous statements without any sort of support or evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
If that is how you are proving your point, you are saying that Palin proves that if you can fake being a parent, your children will not listen to you.
That's entirely unfair. You're assuming that Palin "faked" being a parent? That's exactly the type of biased, political BS that I'm embarrassed to be part of as a Democrat. There's a failed war, a failed economy, and blatant corruption that can be attributed directly to Republicans and we're going after her for being a "fake parent"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
Yes, and here is another problem with many parents. The "do as I say, not as I do" clause. Now, what she is saying, is that everybody should teach their children to be abstinent until marriage. What she does, is that she says it's fine if that doesn't happen. Whether or not she actually did that herself is irrelevant in this case; it's her position to everybody else versus what her own family does. This would be hypocrisy. She tells everybody that's the way it should be, but she can't do it.
She can do it. For all I know, she did it. Again, parents aren't responsible for the decisions of their children. Unless the parents dedicate their lives to following their children around the town at work, school, and with friends, it is impossible to prevent them from having sex. Her daughter's actions have NOTHING to do with her mother's actions.
If Bush's daughter is a Democrat, does that make him a hypocrite? If Obama's children supported the war in Iraq, would that make him a hypocrite? This makes no sense.
I think we can safely assume that Palin taught her daughter to be abstinent until marriage. It didn't work out. I don't know why it didn't work out and I don't care to, that's a private matter for her. But believe it or not, there are PLENTY of reasons to have sex in high school despite parents' objections. And again, this doesn't reflect hypocrisy in the parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
You are saying that how a child is raised has no regard on how they act.
I am? Perhaps I should just stop typing and let you tell me what I'm about to say, because clearly you know what I'm saying better than I do.
(If you're wondering, I think that it has an effect on how they act, but you're saying that any actions of the children can be attributed to parenting. This is simply not the case.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
I must wonder what it is like in your world, absent of the joys of actually knowing psychology. Knowing how children of age 2 can actually be suicidal from parental neglect that the parents themselves cannot see, but are too proud too admit it is happening. I have done things my parents have told me not to do. Everybody has. It is the severity of the actions that matters. Despite all the chances I had to do those actions, I knew I shouldn't, and because of the parenting I had received, I had no reason to get back at my parents.
Good for you. Why does that mean that Sarah Palin's daughter must come to the same conclusions?
I honestly don't care whether or not you obeyed your parents in what you thought were the important times. It's entirely irrelevant. The fact is that kids disobey their parents, and they do it often. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's daughter did so in such a way that she ended up pregnant. And then, of course, she made the mistake of being the daughter of McCain's VP pick, which means that every decision she makes is somehow interpreted as a political stance of her mother...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
These views tend to be the 'conservative' values that are often talked about. It is blatantly obvious that Gov. Palin is not capable of doing these. You are giving her an excuse, saying that it is unfair to expect parents to actually be parents, and to take accountability for doing a bad job, that it must be everybody else's fault. I only hope that others see how this is an undercurrent to our current society, and how it is at fault for many of the problems we see, because that attitude is taken to more than just the family.
Haha. No. I think it's unfair to expect parents to have perfect children. Sometimes kids get pregnant out of wedlock. Sometimes they do drugs. Sometimes they steal things or hurt one another. All of these are usually avoided by good parenting, but the fact is that there are a lot of reasons why people do these things other than bad parenting. Sex feels good. Drugs feel good. If you steal things, you have more things. Temptation is just that, temptation, and I think it's unfair to lay any crimes of minors at the feet of their parents.
What's an undercurrent to our current society is the media's obsession with personal lives, be it Sarah Palin's daughter or Jamie Lynn Spears or the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Whatever fills 24 hours. Meanwhile, we've got a failing war and a failing economy and people are complaining about a 17 year old whose boyfriend didn't pull out in time. It's sad.
Yes, I know for a fact that parents can prevent their children from having sex. It just tends to take more work than most parents are willing to put in, which of course isn't their fault, right? They can't be responsible for actually instilling behaviors in their children! That's for society to do!
Of course you are correct!
Of course there are countries in which parents manage to enforce that the great majority of daughters do not have children out of wedlock, or indeed premarital sex! It just takes concerted effort on the parents part, and a society which is helps parents to enforce such demands.
Places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria spring immediately to mind.
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.
You'll note the trends reported at that link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by link
From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).
So, 5 months of positive press vs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by link
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.
1.5 months (June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008 is the period rated) where McCain has better (less negative) press. Oh course, he's only 15% better during this time, while Obama was 28% better during the previous 5 months.
And let's look at one of the examples of "negative" press on Obama:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Couric
“You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?”
That's not negative press...that's a softball question to give Obama a chance to further explain a position that he's being attacked by Republicans on. That's a free opportunity, from a sympathetic reporter, to get on record to shore up an area he's taking damage on.
At least now you're fighting science with science, rather than puppies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimaldi
You'll note the trends reported at that link:
So, 5 months of positive press vs:
1.5 months (June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008 is the period rated) where McCain has better (less negative) press. Oh course, he's only 15% better during this time, while Obama was 28% better during the previous 5 months.
And let's look at one of the examples of "negative" press on Obama:
That's not negative press...that's a softball question to give Obama a chance to further explain a position that he's being attacked by Republicans on. That's a free opportunity, from a sympathetic reporter, to get on record to shore up an area he's taking damage on.
Two comments-- If you're comparing press coverage of Obama and McCain during the primaries, you're comparing apples to chairs. Obama was locked in a neverending dramafest, and McCain really wasn't doing a whole lot during the end of that period. Once the race was solidly Hillary/Obama, and once the Republicans had decided, there was just a lot more to say about the Dems.
The thing I linked to points out that the major networks didn't make many opinion statements--- other than Fox, the networks were making 1 or 2 solid opinion statements a night, combined. Let's look at the full context of that example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by link
Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC
Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS
Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC
So, the first one is quite pro Obama, and the last one is pretty negative Obama. They might or might not each be true, but that doesn't matter here. The middle is kind of wishy washy.
This is a guess, completely unsubstantiated--- but do you think maybe it was a typo? that maybe that was meant to be "neutral"?
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
Well, not quite exactly.
Spears was at the time the star of a TV show very popular amongst impressionable teen girls. Palin was, and is, not anything like a role model for that demographic. The possible effects of the two teen pregnancies are very different in magnitude.
Wait... Palin was the daughter of a governor of a state - and like it or not, immediate family of our elected officials are subject to a higher standard. It may not have been national news, but it may have been news in Alaska.
As soon as they step on the dais with mom or dad, they become public figures. If they'd rather avoid that status, they shouldn't let their face to be used to promote the family. But if they choose to put their face out there, they become assailable.
I've been out canvassing in my blood red home area and I'm not certain which worries me most, all the people who are voting the way they've always voted (straight party ticket with no attention paid to issues) or those younger voters who like Obama but will probably not show up on election day.
I nominate those who don't even register to vote...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
Yes, I know for a fact that parents can prevent their children from having sex.
Eh...like following them everywhere they go? Including to every class at school? Or were you not aware that sexual intercourse can be accomplished just about anywhere?
Or maybe you were thinking of chaining them up in the basement?
Quote:
You are saying that how a child is raised has no regard on how they act.
No, he's saying it is not a controlling factor, and that it can be overridden by many other factors. And I'd say that love and hormones are fairly strong factors.
No matter what parents do, children are not robots, and they can and do depart from even the strongest programming.
Now, what most confuses me is that THIS is the "issue" upon which the left has seized as its main attack on Palin: the behavior of another person!
I mean, there are a number of things for which her candidacy might be attacked, things which are actually legitimate causes for concern. But no, THIS is where you make your bets...
I guess this is why Obama could try to claim the moral high ground by saying that families should be left out of the debate. Because he, like anyone with a shred of common sense, knew that there would be no shortage of people to take the low road for him.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Well, it was a lose-lose for him anyway. If he says nothing, he's supporting it and he's a horrible person. If he tells people to back off, he's just pretending to be the good guy. Of the two, I think I'd rather be accused of the latter.
Well, unfortunately, it seems that people think that the only way to control people is with direct action, instead of, I don't know, possibly training their thoughts like parenting is. Yes, chaining to the basement will work, following them everywhere they go will work...but that's just stupid. The fact that that is the only counter-argument presented either means people are being either daft or impudent.
Obviously, mrbiggs, we will never agree, and will just have to agree to disagree. However, it does scare me that many people seemingly cannot think beyond the physical, and think that the only method of control are the heavy handed ones. That things should just be accepted, because that's how society is. If you really wonder why things don't get much better, I do believe you have your answer. Because, in the end, it isn't your fault, right?
Because, obviously, a child that has conduct disorder, that turns into anti-social disorder when they are an adult, doesn't have to blame anything on their parents. It's the child's fault they were mentally messed up.
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Last edited by Shi no Tenshi; 09-06-2008 at 08:16 PM..
I nominate those who don't even register to vote...
Of about 30 people we persuaded to register, one was older than me and had NEVER registered to vote. Never.
There are also times when I wonder if I'm doing a disservice by encouraging these people to vote. If they are this disassociated from the process, they maybe they'll decide who to vote for by flipping a coin.
Maybe allowing people to self-select who votes increases the likelihood that the voters are intelligent, informer voters.
Linear Mode
