ForumGarden

anastrophe wrote: no, they're not. reread.


The actual numbers are 60.5%

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2004-results.html



you are.


Not all the time. More right than wrong.





you have in other posts. that's why i take umbrage with your 'canada cares, the US doesn't' approach. frankly, canadian infatuation with american politics is indicative of little more than an inferiority complex in my opinion. just about anywhere you go online, there are canadians prattling on about american politics. nobody talks about canadian politics. why? nobody cares.


We don't have to prattle on about Canadian politics because it is far more open than America when it comes to putting them on the spot with reporters having access to them everyday that parliament sits.

Americans do not have that kind of access to their leaders through the news media. In Canada we do not select the chosen few to ask questions of our leader such as the news conferences that are called by the Whitehouse. Don't forget why it is called the White House.



i've never lived in canada. not interested. nothing there. i was born here, and barring unforeseen circumstances, will surely die here. i love my country, right or wrong. hate the sin, lover the sinner, so to speak. when it's wrong, i don't hesitate to criticize it, though apparently you've missed my posts here to that effect.


We got the cutest little igloos in the world. Our sled dogs have been trained not to bite tourist's tires. And we give you the fair exchange rate on American dollars. It's not like TJ here.

Apparently I have missed your rantings against the government.

Do you ever travel out of the country? Your words sound like you'll never, ever, ever leave the states. Travel does expand one's horizons. Knowing you, you'll probably make sound like I was homebound.



my family's history can be traced back to the tenth century in england. one side of my family, of course. there's a bunch of french and german dudes mixed into it, basically northern european mongrel. the other side has no history before the late 1800's, as they were mountain dwelling peasants in greece, though yaya was athenian, but we have no written history of her side of the family that i'm aware of.



it's entirely possible somewhere back in the mists of time, that you and i are related. as the saying goes, you can choose your friends, but not your relatives. ain't it the truth.


I know that I was told that there is Greek in my Canadian side of the family. The French were from Normandy. You were pre-Norman English? There is no doubt about our being family back in the mists of time. We are all descended from the same people. Some just took longer to get here. Have the Greeks set up some kind of geneology on the web yet?

I can't tell you why 40% didn't vote. I can tell you why I didn't vote. I couldn't, in good conscience, offer that much approval for any of the candidates. I am getting to the point where I refuse to support a two-party system. Yes, I could've given my vote to several other candidates on our ballot, but I didn't support their policies either.



Some of us think that just as no choice is a choice, no vote is a vote.

A Karenina wrote: I can't tell you why 40% didn't vote. I can tell you why I didn't vote. I couldn't, in good conscience, offer that much approval for any of the candidates. I am getting to the point where I refuse to support a two-party system. Yes, I could've given my vote to several other candidates on our ballot, but I didn't support their policies either.



Some of us think that just as no choice is a choice, no vote is a vote.


Thank you for replying.

1 down. Umpteen million to go.

A Karenina wrote: I can't tell you why 40% didn't vote. I can tell you why I didn't vote. I couldn't, in good conscience, offer that much approval for any of the candidates. I am getting to the point where I refuse to support a two-party system. Yes, I could've given my vote to several other candidates on our ballot, but I didn't support their policies either.



Some of us think that just as no choice is a choice, no vote is a vote.
Well, I voted. I won't say who I voted I for, but I'd be willing to bet you can guess, based on my political stance. (Those of you that know it.)

I have to agree with A Karenina, in that no vote is a vote. If the politicians see that so many don't, they SHOULD (not saying they do) take that as a sign that none of the choices are appealing.

However, my reasons for voting are a bit different: I think that a vote simply reserves my right to complain!

BabyRider wrote: Well, I voted. I won't say who I voted I for, but I'd be willing to bet you can guess, based on my political stance. (Those of you that know it.)
i voted also. for bush. while holding my nose. if i'd had to have rendered a vote for kerry, however, i'd have had to don a hazmat suit.





I have to agree with A Karenina, in that no vote is a vote. If the politicians see that so many don't, they SHOULD (not saying they do) take that as a sign that none of the choices are appealing.
the only problem with that is that it just emboldens to pols to become ever more weasely - hey, the voting-eligible don't care, and those who vote hold their nose while voting - i think i'll vote myself another raise!





However, my reasons for voting are a bit different: I think that a vote simply reserves my right to complain!
i always maintain, however, that until voting becomes mandatory (which i do not believe it should), then complaining is a right we hold regardless of whether we exercise the right to vote. i recognize the smiley above, but i hear people far too often say 'if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain'. well, bollocks i say! the right obtains regardless....

anastrophe wrote:



i always maintain, however, that until voting becomes mandatory (which i do not believe it should), then complaining is a right we hold regardless of whether we exercise the right to vote. i recognize the smiley above, but i hear people far too often say 'if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain'. well, bollocks i say! the right obtains regardless....I always like to hear what you have to say Anastrophe!

I personally HAVE to vote to have ANY type of political discussion with my family. I should have amended my comment with "at any discussion that my father, grandfather, or aunt are involved in."

"Hazmat suit"!!!! You crack me up!!!

anastrophe wrote: the only problem with that is that it just emboldens to pols to become ever more weasely - hey, the voting-eligible don't care, and those who vote hold their nose while voting - i think i'll vote myself another raise!


Excellent points, as always.



I don't think I would influence a politician whether I voted for him, his opponent, or none of the above. It takes a special kind of (non)character...or is that (un)character? Hmmm...anyway, it takes a slimey human being to be a career politician.



What it might do is communicate with all the other potential voters who are not quite thrilled with our options. If those disenchanted voters began to band together, it's possible that a whole new movement might come of it. Of course, this hoped-for party would disintegrate just like every other party in our history...but that's the point, really. We go round and round.



But I'm pretty firm, ok outright diggin' in my heels stubborn about loudly voicing our wants. Being active to whatever degree we can is the only way we have of containing our own politicians.



And, as I've often said before...women, you have the golden opportunity to voice your opinion to your legislators every month ~ loudly, stridently, and with no holds barred. And it will make your mates happier, too.

(This idea was shamelessly stolen from a humorous feminist book - Kiss My Tiara).

I don't, but I do think it is divided amoung the haves and the have nots. The haves are moving the jobs over seas so that they can make even more profit. When will they realize that in their search for more and more profit, soon no one will be able to BUY their products? If you put your consumer base out of work, in ANY country, the consumers stop consuming.


Well said.

That is really the problem. Moving jobs out to maximize the profits. For every job that they move out the money should be put to general taxes instead of the ledger books of the corporations that are causing untold damage to the economy, people's lives, their families. Let the government put these profits into the education of the citizens.

Guess some people are too busy drinking their Pina Coladas by the shores to see what they are doing to others. It'll be nice when the Allies get out of Iraq and start focusing on the problems that are at home. They may think that they are sharing their industrial expertise with the world but they aren't. They're just making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

capt_buzzard wrote: The Catholic Church helped G.W back into office.
Really. Is George Bush Catholic, or is the Catholic church just Republican?

I think it's to the point where everyone is voting against everyone else, as opposed to voting for someone.