I didn't vote because I have serious issues with Obama and Mccain. I do not believe it is right to support someone that I consider to be the lesser of two evils (or to vote against one canidate). Also, I believe voting is a right, but it is not my duty as an American citizen. I have exercised my right of choice today by choosing not to vote.
Did anybody else choose not to vote? If so, what was your reason?
I strongly considered this course.
In the end, I acquiesced and voted. I just didn't vote for either McCain or Obama for potus.
uabfanman Wrote:I didn't vote because I have serious issues with Obama and Mccain. I do not believe it is right to support someone that I consider to be the lesser of two evils (or to vote against one canidate). Also, I believe voting is a right, but it is not my duty as an American citizen. I have exercised my right of choice today by choosing not to vote.
Did anybody else choose not to vote? If so, what was your reason?
I thought about not voting, but there were other things going on I cared about besides the presidential race. I had two main goals:
1) Write in "none of the above" for the representative race since Spencer Bachus is running unopposed so I can give my vote of no confidence in him
and
2) Vote yes on the rainy day fund for AL.
I voted and agree with your assessment that it is a right, and not an obligation.
oldblazer79 Wrote:I strongly considered this course.
In the end, I acquiesced and voted. I just didn't vote for either McCain or Obama for potus.
If I had been more educated on some of the third party canidates I may have choosen to vote for one of them. Also, I didn't know enough about the other issues such as Amendment 1 and the senator race to place an educated vote.
I voted. I also wrote in Richard Scrushy for Congress, because I severely dislike Spencer Bachus.
What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
I can respect that and I would respond by saying that there is not one singular issue or vote that will ever sway me. Actually for me it has always been about which of my options do I most agree with. I will never agree with anyone all of the time but which most represents my views. I can see how with Spencer you have a problem since there is no option.
Having worked in politics, it is much more about compromise than being dogmatic on singular issues. Just my opinion. That said... I agree with Spencer most of the time.
BTR Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
I can respect that and I would respond by saying that there is not one singular issue or vote that will ever sway me. Actually for me it has always been about which of my options do I most agree with. I will never agree with anyone all of the time but which most represents my views. I can see how with Spencer you have a problem since there is no option.
Having worked in politics, it is much more about compromise than being dogmatic on singular issues. Just my opinion. That said... I agree with Spencer most of the time.
I may agree with him a lot, but he stepped way over the line on this. And the problem is that since the Dems don't put up a challenger he gets what is essentially free reign to do what he wants. It wasn't just that he voted for the bail out. It was that he voted for the Senate version with all the pork after expressing concern about it. He knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
Of course he now has another four years so maybe he can earn my respect back. He just lost a lot of it with that move.
Copperblazer & I have relatives who fought for the right to vote so we felt obligate to exercise that right.
I was not enamored with either of them but I kind of liked the MILF.
I feel right or wrong if you don't vote, don't bitch.
I will support our president regardless of where I cast my vote.
LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
I can respect that and I would respond by saying that there is not one singular issue or vote that will ever sway me. Actually for me it has always been about which of my options do I most agree with. I will never agree with anyone all of the time but which most represents my views. I can see how with Spencer you have a problem since there is no option.
Having worked in politics, it is much more about compromise than being dogmatic on singular issues. Just my opinion. That said... I agree with Spencer most of the time.
I may agree with him a lot, but he stepped way over the line on this. And the problem is that since the Dems don't put up a challenger he gets what is essentially free reign to do what he wants. It wasn't just that he voted for the bail out. It was that he voted for the Senate version with all the pork after expressing concern about it. He knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
Of course he now has another four years so maybe he can earn my respect back. He just lost a lot of it with that move.
Spencer was re-elected for the Constitutional TWO year term. He will, like the other 435 members of the House, have another election in 2010 to do this all over again. I would like to see this changed to a four year term with half elected every two years similar in concept to the way the Senate is elected to six year terms with 1/3 elected every two years (35 were up for election this year including Alabama's Jeff Sessions) on a rotating basis.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
I can respect that and I would respond by saying that there is not one singular issue or vote that will ever sway me. Actually for me it has always been about which of my options do I most agree with. I will never agree with anyone all of the time but which most represents my views. I can see how with Spencer you have a problem since there is no option.
Having worked in politics, it is much more about compromise than being dogmatic on singular issues. Just my opinion. That said... I agree with Spencer most of the time.
I may agree with him a lot, but he stepped way over the line on this. And the problem is that since the Dems don't put up a challenger he gets what is essentially free reign to do what he wants. It wasn't just that he voted for the bail out. It was that he voted for the Senate version with all the pork after expressing concern about it. He knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
Of course he now has another four years so maybe he can earn my respect back. He just lost a lot of it with that move.
Spencer was re-elected for the Constitutional TWO year term.
Oops, still got presidency in my head.
And actually I was just looking through his contributions from PACs and I found some very interesting things. He is taking a lot of money from some credit companies including a whole lot of payday loan companies like advance america and ace cash express. In addition, he's taking money from the Visas and Discover Cards, pawn shops, etc.
No wonder he voted for the bail out with such a stake in this kind of business. He has some really slimy people backing him. The more I read the sicker I get.
http://thehill.capwiz.com/thehill/bio/fe...=2007-2008
BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
my biggest disagreement with Spencer is [to me] he violated the basic premise upon which our country was founded
FREEDOM
which [until recently] included the freedoms to make poor choices and [if it happens] to fail.
No one, no entity should be too big/small to fail. I've done so in the past.
If my businesses fail, who the H#LL is gonna' give a DAM# about them besides me and my family?
No one should expect our government to
insure success.
We have too many [in this country] who expect the government to take care of their needs and wants.
I wrote in my name [against him] yesterday.
If I had the financial resources required, I'd oppose him in 2 years. He no longer has my trust or support.
As of 5 Nov. 08, 4,775 Americans had lost their lives in the service of this country (Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom).
That is why I voted yesterday.
I voted. It's my chance to have my say. Who's reponsibility is it to educate me on the candidates and issues on the ballot? Mine. I wrote in three names yesterday. They won't win. It doesn't matter. I've lodged my protest.
It may be both maudlin and cliche, but people died so I can vote. I believe that, and I take it very seriously.
we all have our issues
2,974 people died on September 11, 2001,
and not one more of our citizenry has been killed on our own soil [by jihadists] since.
To my thinking, Bush chose correctly in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Too bad we didn't have the political will or intestinal fortitude to rearrange Syria and Iran while we were at it.
The jihadists will return when they perceive an advantage.
oldblazer79 Wrote:The jihadists will return when they perceive an advantage.
+1
Suppose there's another terrorist attack. Do you honestly think Obama wouldn't respond? Just a feeling, but I think he'd be a helluva lot more hardball than Al Gore would have been in '01.
MC Blazer Wrote:As of 5 Nov. 08, 4,775 Americans had lost their lives in the service of this country (Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom).
That is why I voted yesterday.
My point was: This type of sacrifice transcends politics. As long as there are Americans willing to die in service to their/our country, I WILL VOTE.
Smaug Wrote:Suppose there's another terrorist attack. Do you honestly think Obama wouldn't respond? Just a feeling, but I think he'd be a helluva lot more hardball than Al Gore would have been in '01.
He better step it up and/or stay the Bush course with respect to actively protecting this country, because he doesn't get any but
one with me.
"One" strike on American soil, on his watch, and I am gonna throw him right under the bus.
If he gets us through 4 years I'll give him the props he'll be due, but if he drops the football, just once, then to absolute hell with him.
These are people's lives at stake.
Who cares what his "response" would be. We don't need to have anything to respond to. That's the point.
Smaug Wrote:Suppose there's another terrorist attack. Do you honestly think Obama wouldn't respond? Just a feeling, but I think he'd be a helluva lot more hardball than Al Gore would have been in '01.
he would respond,
but I have
serious doubts he would respond in a manner I would consider appropriate.
that is just one of the issues I had with his candidacy.
oldblazer79 Wrote:Smaug Wrote:Suppose there's another terrorist attack. Do you honestly think Obama wouldn't respond? Just a feeling, but I think he'd be a helluva lot more hardball than Al Gore would have been in '01.
he would respond,
but I have serious doubts he would respond in a manner I would consider appropriate.
that is just one of the issues I had with his candidacy.
Like bombing 20,000 innocent Iraqis so he could have a "Shock and Awe Party"? The move on Afghanistan was correct, he only we had finished the job. I believe this will be Obama's first priority, secondly will probably be the pull-downs in Iraq.
oldblazer79 Wrote:we all have our issues
2,974 people died on September 11, 2001,
and not one more of our citizenry has been killed on our own soil [by jihadists] since.
To my thinking, Bush chose correctly in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Too bad we didn't have the political will or intestinal fortitude to rearrange Syria and Iran while we were at it.
The jihadists will return when they perceive an advantage.
Just because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States doesn't mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the reasons behind said lack of attacks. Now, I think we should have gone into Afghanistan, don't get me wrong. However, you cannot show me a causal relationship between the war in Iraq and the lack of terrorist attacks in the United States. Coincidence != causation.
mixduptransistor Wrote:oldblazer79 Wrote:we all have our issues
2,974 people died on September 11, 2001,
and not one more of our citizenry has been killed on our own soil [by jihadists] since.
To my thinking, Bush chose correctly in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Too bad we didn't have the political will or intestinal fortitude to rearrange Syria and Iran while we were at it.
The jihadists will return when they perceive an advantage.
Just because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States doesn't mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the reasons behind said lack of attacks. Now, I think we should have gone into Afghanistan, don't get me wrong. However, you cannot show me a causal relationship between the war in Iraq and the lack of terrorist attacks in the United States. Coincidence != causation.
nor can you prove these military actions are not the reason for lack of another jihadist attack.
coincidence? maybe. I think not.
If you did not vote, I would challenge you to watch the HBO documentary Section 60 Arlington National Cemetary. It is a non-political/non-partison doc interviewing families/friends of American service persons buried in the Iraqi/Afghan wars section of Arlington. You recieve the families stories and the service persons back story. Very moving.
And again, there are absolutely no politics or stances on the wars taken involved.
mixduptransistor Wrote:oldblazer79 Wrote:we all have our issues
2,974 people died on September 11, 2001,
and not one more of our citizenry has been killed on our own soil [by jihadists] since.
To my thinking, Bush chose correctly in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Too bad we didn't have the political will or intestinal fortitude to rearrange Syria and Iran while we were at it.
The jihadists will return when they perceive an advantage.
Just because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States doesn't mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the reasons behind said lack of attacks. Now, I think we should have gone into Afghanistan, don't get me wrong. However, you cannot show me a causal relationship between the war in Iraq and the lack of terrorist attacks in the United States. Coincidence != causation.
Tell that to the millions of voters who think that just because a Republican is in the White House that all the problems in the financial world are solely the fault of Republicans.
I realize and am very thankful for the lives that were sacrificed to give me freedom. I am not an idiot. People did not die so we could vote. They died so we could have freedom. The greatest freedoms we have is freedom of choice. I excersized my freedom yesterday by choosing not to vote. I do not and will never feel guilty for making that choice. If I could not make that choice, then I would not be free.
People say all of the time that it is your civil duty to vote. I agree partially with this statement. If you feel strongly convicted to vote for a canidate or issue- then vote! However, in some cases I believe it is one's civil duty not to vote. Ex: you don't know enough about the canidates and issues, you are seriously conflicted over who to vote for, you decide you can't give your support to the canidates running, or when you vote solely along party lines without even knowing who you are voting for.
Sadly, this election (and every election) has been decided by voters who don't even have a clue as to what or who they are voting for. If you don't believe me, look up the interview Howard Stern did in Harlem that shows how uneducated some voters are. In my opinion it is more patriotic for these people or people who feel like myself to make a choice to not vote.
Hey, you asked the question.
So, you chose not to vote. Rationalize it any way you think you need to, I guess.
I really think the genius, George Carlin's opinion is called for in this thread. Not saying I agree with it, but he does have a point.
Quote:"You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they're elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.
....I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain", but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.
I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill
Memphis Blazer Wrote:I really think the genius, George Carlin's opinion is called for in this thread. Not saying I agree with it, but he does have a point.
Quote:"You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they're elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.
....I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain", but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.
I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
This is funny and he does make an interesting point, but I personally believe you have the right to complain whether you voted or chose not to.
You do have the right to complain, either way. You just don't have the right to be taken seriously if you failed to do something about it when you had the opportunity.
Smaug Wrote:Hey, you asked the question.
So, you chose not to vote. Rationalize it any way you think you need to, I guess.
I am not trying to rationalize it. I am simply responding to yours and others post that send this message "You should feel guilty for not voting because you disgrace our country and the people who fight to protect that right." Like I said, I don't feel any guilt or regret about my decision, therefore I do not need to rationalize my decision. However, I am defending those people who may feel guilt because society has told them that they are not patriotic if they don't vote.
Many of you are so close minded.
Please quote me where I used the words "guilt" or "disgrace". I didn't put you on the defensive. You did.
My wife didn't vote. However, she was home all day making pumpkin and pecan pies for a church thing. I got to eat some, so I thought her sacrifice was worth it.
Grammar-Nazi Wrote:My wife didn't vote. However, she was home all day making pumpkin and pecan pies for a church thing. I got to eat some, so I thought her sacrifice was worth it.
Any time a sacrifice is made in the name of deliciousness, I can respect that.
Smaug Wrote:Please quote me where I used the words "guilt" or "disgrace". I didn't put you on the defensive. You did.
You didn't and neither did anyone esle, but that is the message that you and others (not to mention the media) send out when you bring up the "soldiers have died so you can vote argument". One of my main points is because society pressures Americans into voting, it leads to voters placing uneducated votes, voting for someone they do not support, or voting when they are seriously conflicted over the canidates or issues just because they feel it is their duty.
So, who's responsibility is it to resolve those issues in your mind before you go into the booth?
Vote. Don't vote. It's all the same to me. Remember, though, as you inhale to rail against your politician of choice, that you had the opportunity to speak up when it mattered, and didn't.
Smaug Wrote:So, who's responsibility is it to resolve those issues in your mind before you go into the booth?
Vote. Don't vote. It's all the same to me. Remember, though, as you inhale to rail against your politician of choice, that you had the opportunity to speak up when it mattered, and didn't.
You are exactly right that it is the voters fault. It would work perfectly if everyone did, but the reality is a lot people don't. Many people voted for Obama just because he is black, and many people voted for Mccain because he is white. That is the sad truth. People who shouldn't vote will always do it because they feel like they have to. That is my point and I'm done.
uabfanman Wrote:Smaug Wrote:Please quote me where I used the words "guilt" or "disgrace". I didn't put you on the defensive. You did.
You didn't and neither did anyone esle, but that is the message that you and others (not to mention the media) send out when you bring up the "soldiers have died so you can vote argument". One of my main points is because society pressures Americans into voting, it leads to voters placing uneducated votes, voting for someone they do not support, or voting when they are seriously conflicted over the canidates or issues just because they feel it is their duty.
Never said they gave their lives so you can vote. But they have set the bar for sacrifice. Gathering info, reading, making a difficult decision, and standing in line are easy in comparison.
LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
You seriously wasted an afternoon writing him a letter?
Nothingfaced Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:BTR Wrote:What is the problem with Spencer? I think that those who dislike him are certainly a minority.
My problem with him is that he is my rep and voted for the bail out. I sent him a letter telling him I could no longer support him as my candidate since he now represents the interests of business and not the people. Unfortunately, there was no other candidate so I had to do a write in.
You seriously wasted an afternoon writing him a letter?
Better to complain to your representative versus wasting an afternoon spouting off your opinion on a meaningless message board.
