Boycott 2006/2008 Elections

[Back]

Everyone who voted for Gore then Kerry in 2000 and 2004, everyone who voted democrat in the Congressional elections from 2000 to 2004...

Lets boycott 2006 and 2008.

The system is flawed. Redistricting, electronic voting, voter disenfranchisement, absentee balloting, the electorial college... its all flawed. The vote is being tweaked.

Boycott to demand a fair vote!

[Ebondale]

Thats uh.. kind of why Kerry lost.

Young people not voting.

Bad idea.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Thats uh.. kind of why Kerry lost.

Young people not voting.

Bad idea.

Let's see.. yup I just double checked the results.

Kerry lost because Bush WON.

[Ebondale]

Bush "winning" is a black mark on American history.

Kerry winning would not have been much better since he is Bush's cousin and was also Skull & Bones.

I wish we had a candidate that was a champion of American values and integrity.

[Terminator X]

Republican people suck.

[Terminator X]

That being said, there would still be enough votes to bypass a no-vote if everyone stayed home (which is not much different than what happened once upon a time in Ohio.)

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Terminator X
Republican people suck.

Absolutely, and don't even get me started on Condi. Black female republicans have got to be out of their god damn minds.

[Terminator X]

I don't know how I feel, if I feel, about specific races of Republicans. To me, the republican race, as a whole, generally sucks.

[radamanthys]

I'm republican... I don't suck!

Get the religious right outta my party. The bible doesnt belong in the lawbooks. They're giving us a bad name. Hell... we have a religious right president who spends like a liberal. Think i'm happy? No.

Trust me. A good number of us Republicans are just as pissed about how things are going as anyone else.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by radamanthys
I'm republican... I don't suck!

Get the religious right outta my party. The bible doesnt belong in the lawbooks. They're giving us a bad name. Hell... we have a religious right president who spends like a liberal. Think i'm happy? No.

Trust me. A good number of us Republicans are just as pissed about how things are going as anyone else.

You are exempt from all suckage on the account of your humble altered crafting-apron donations to the party :smilegrin:

Carry on.

- The Termite

[Ebondale]

Glad to hear that some Republicans still have their heads screwed on right, radamanthys.

I honestly believe that all of the events of the past few years are leading to a climax that will allow the Constitution to be replaced by Martial Law and I do NOT want to see Americans lose their freedom.

General Tommy Franks said in an interview with Cigar Aficionado that in the event of another large-scale Terrorist attack he foresees a declaration of martial law. The government wants to put RFIDs into U.S. currency. The Patriot Act.

The list goes on and on and the Republican Party has done nothing but attempt to undermine or circumvent the Constitution for six years.

The point of all of this is that people need to be unified in a decision. If we are given two puppet Presidents to choose from once again in 2008 then Americans need to stand up and DO SOMETHING about it and backing down and "boycotting voting" is not going to solve anything.

[Edited on 12-7-2005 by Ebondale]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by radamanthys
Get the religious right outta my party.

"Amen" bro. Even though I'm well to the left of center, I probably wouldn't have a huge problem with the Republicans being in power if the evangelicals weren't either. It's the stench of organized religion that is unbalancing the political process, not liberal saboteurs.

The whole controversy about selling Plan B over the counter-and the hand that the evangelicals had in influencing government policy-has made me even more apprehensive of the bible thumpers' influence.

God has no place within the walls of government. Deal with it.

[xtc]

Backlash must be drinking again, I can bet PB will support your venture to have Democrats boycott the election in 2006/2008.

Look at Venezuela the other parties boycotted and Hugo Chavez won with a big majority again. The more I see that guy the more afraid I get, I really think he is off his rocker and will eventually become a dictator. This time he has accused his opposition of being paid mouth pieces for the American Government.

[radamanthys]

Republicans... why are the political ones against social freedom, when they're all for economic freedom?

Democrats... why are they *vice versa*

If a party were to be against both, they'd be destroyed- as that's what most people are fighting against.

We need another political party (that has a backbone behind it) that would be the best of both worlds. Slightly more libertaran, without being so...unfeasable. Social AND economic freedom. (Idealism, meh.)

Are people smart enough to make their own decisions? The answer is clearly no. HOWEVER, is it the government's place to be making these decisons for people? I cast a much more emphatic no in that direction. Seatbelt laws... gimme a break. Just trying to scoop out a buck from the stupidity of the people. Drug laws, too. Hell, the ones most in favor of drug laws are the police lobbies, since drug laws create crime to bust.

</rant>

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
It's the stench of organized religion that is unbalancing the political process, not liberal saboteurs.Atheist zealots are no better or worse than religious zealots these days. The positive messages of the atheistic movement are just as negated by its overzealous constituents as in the case of religious movements.

Backlash, you know I :heart: you, but come on. Think this through. If you're going to organize a grassroots movement, have it be for a third candidate. Appeal to change instead of apathy.

[Wezas]

Old News.

Tamral did this years ago.

[Back]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by Ebondale
Thats uh.. kind of why Kerry lost.

Young people not voting.

Bad idea.

Let's see.. yup I just double checked the results.

Kerry lost because Bush WON.

You are both wrong. There is support from the General Accountability Office that Ohio was fixed. This article (http://rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&id=11529) breaks down this report (pdf) (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf).

[CrystalTears]

:lol: Asking Dems to boycott the elections cause they're fixed?! So that the Repubs win again?

OMG please explain to me the point, or at least tell me that this is one big joke and I just didn't get the punchline.

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
:lol: Asking Dems to boycott the elections cause they're fixed?! So that the Repubs win again?

OMG please explain to me the point, or at least tell me that this is one big joke and I just didn't get the punchline.

Good question. Why the hell would anyone boycott a vote? How the hell could it possibly benefit the boycotters? I raise this question because there have been people boycotting votes in the past year. Most notably Iraq and now Venezuela. What do they hope to gain? Is this some new challenge to democracy?

I think in Venezuela the boycotting parties are trying to claim that the vote there passed with only 12% of the registered voters actually voting and that makes it somehow illegitimate. I say thats a crock of shit. You didn’t vote. You lose. So sorry.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah... let's give the country to them again Backlash. Good call.. if you're a fucking anarchist.


Atheist zealots are no better or worse than religious zealots these days. The positive messages of the atheistic movement are just as negated by its overzealous constituents as in the case of religious movements.

-Latrin

You have no ground to talk, either way, but I can't believe you post bullshit like that. That's right up there with the Republican's idea that the Democrats have a "war on Christmas." So fucking ludicrous that the Republican party doesn't even buy it.

[Edited on 12-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Which side brainwashes children into hatred? Both.

Is brainwashing children into hatred bad? Yes.

QED.

p.s: How's the Battle of Rudolph going?

[Warriorbird]

Which side brainwashes children into hatred?

One.

If you seriously believe the other you've definitely seperated from the traditional perception of reality.

Not wanting creationism in the classroom and prayer before class only equals "hate" if you're a rabid zealot. Most atheists think it's just fine if people want to worship as they choose. They're free thinkers rather than reactionaries.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
p.s: How's the Battle of Rudolph going?

I hear O'Reilly may be calling for a boycott on Honda for replacing "We wish you a merry Christmas" with "We wish you a happy Honda-day".

[Back]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah... let's give the country to them again Backlash. Good call.. if you're a fucking anarchist.
[Edited on 12-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

Good. My point came across. Who what why when and how is boycotting any election going to help anyone but the people who ARE voting? Yet, there are examples of groups boycotting elections. I’m just trying to figure out why and if it is some kind of assault on democracy.

[Warriorbird]

Seems real handy for the Republicans. Fear, anger, hatred, and jealousy are their weapons. Much like the Dark Side I may add. We need a better candidate to shoot up their exhaust port.

;)

[Fission]

Boycotting is a way to appear to make a stand without expending any effort, like say, actually voting would take.

Guess which makes more of a difference, too.

[Wezas]

Mark Warner!

While he does look kind of lurch-ish (kinda like Kerry), he's a southerner, and will hopefully get us Virginia this time.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Wezas
Mark Warner!

While he does look kind of lurch-ish (kinda like Kerry), he's a southerner, and will hopefully get us Virginia this time.

I can't remember an election in which VA didn't go Republican for Presidency (through no fault of the Northern Virginians). Its sad to vote in a state where you can't really make a difference anyway. :(

[Hulkein]

lol @ all the cry babies.

Get your frustrations out, sport!

Signed,
EVAL REPUBLICAN

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Ebondale
I can't remember an election in which VA didn't go Republican for Presidency (through no fault of the Northern Virginians). Its sad to vote in a state where you can't really make a difference anyway. :(

It's true.

LBJ in '64

We make a difference. We just keep electing for democratic Govenors and hopefully in '08 there will be a tide turning.

[Warriorbird]

lol @ all the cry babies.

Get your frustrations out, sport!

Signed,
EVAL REPUBLICAN

Nah. I laugh more at the notion of spendthrift conservatives and theocrats with imperial dreams. There's something really funny about the country sinking under both those pieces of nonsense.

[Hulkein]

:baby:

[Warriorbird]

:blah:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Most atheists think it's just fine if people want to worship as they choose. They're free thinkers rather than reactionaries.Watch I can do it too:

Most religious people think it would be just great if we could all get along. They're lovers rather than haters.

[Warriorbird]

Except when they blow people up.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Most atheists think it's just fine if people want to worship as they choose. They're free thinkers rather than reactionaries.

So why is it lately that it's the atheists trying to remove anything religious from anthems and buildings?

It's a good idea. Backlash, boycott the elections! Same with the rest of you socialists! Boycott! Don't vote!

- Arkans

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Most atheists think it's just fine if people want to worship as they choose. They're free thinkers rather than reactionaries.

So why is it lately that it's the atheists trying to remove anything religious from anthems and buildings?

Because quite often the religious symbols have no place in said anthems and buildings.

Don't agree? Ask yourself how comfortable you would feel appearing before a court with Islamic law posted on the wall behind the judge. It's just a religious symbol, right?

Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

So why is it lately that it's the atheists trying to remove anything religious from anthems and buildings?

Because those buildings shouldn't be promoting one specific religion. We aren't all forced to be Christians no matter how some folks want us to be forced to be their sort.

Jesus, if anything, would be a Communist. The Republicans' Biblical analog would be the Pharisees.

Heard about any atheist terrorists or bombers lately?

Ready to swear on the Koran? I didn't think so.

[Edited on 12-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

"God" isn't about any one religion, so I don't see why saying anything with God on it is forcing you to believe in something.

NO religious symbols bother me, so I'm a bad person to put that question on. My boss has a menorrah in his office, I have a little Christmas tree on my desk.

If I see a judge with any kind of religious symbol behind him, I figure that's the religion he follows, more power to him. I'm comfortable enough in my own life and beliefs that I'm not so weak-willed that another symbol is going to suddenly force me to change religions, nor give me the need to tell people how or where to display their religious beliefs.

As long as he doesn't use his religious beliefs as his platform for his rulings, I see no problem with it. THAT is what separation of church and state is, not telling people they can't even show symbols of religions.

[Edited on 12/7/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

"God" isn't about any one religion, so I don't see why saying anything with God on it is forcing you to believe in something.

The Knights of Colombus are clearly a non religious organization then, right?

We have more than one judge on the Supreme Court (and are about to acquire another) and countless more on the Federal Bench who make decisions based on their religion.

I really can't fathom not believing that. It's critical to the party you voted for, CT.

Like Bush saying that he knew what church Harriet Miers belonged to and he was sure she'd, "Do the right thing." wasn't about religiously based decisions.

I don't even think Latrin would make that claim.

It's sort've funny. While we're "democratizing" Iraq they (and al'Qaeda) have helped the Republicans "theocratize" us. Will we reach some sort of realistic equilibrium or will we have Biblical law (like Koran law, only more bipolar)? Only time will tell. Though... to get an early start, all the women ought to stop commiting adultery. I'm sure the religious Republicans would love that whole stoning to death bit as a punishment.

;)

Pay per view on Fox? They could make millions. Very 'Running Man'-ish. Maybe they could get Arnold to make a cameo repudiating his original role. Maybe host?

[Edited on 12-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
My boss has a menorrah in his office, I have a little Christmas tree on my desk.

If I see a judge with any kind of religious symbol behind him, I figure that's the religion he follows, more power to him.

I have no problem with a judge having a Christmas tree, menorah, pentagram, Koran, or anything else religious on his desk. They have no place on or behind the bench, however.

It's the difference between your boss having a menorah on his desk, and lighting a 5 foot tall menorah in the middle of the conference room table before every staff meeting.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
It's the difference between your boss having a menorah on his desk, and lighting a 5 foot tall menorah in the middle of the conference room table before every staff meeting.

Jorddyn

Again, find the fanatics about being oppressed because that wouldn't bother me either. :shrug:

[Warriorbird]

So... you'd be fine with a judge making decisions based on Islam?

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So... you'd be fine with a judge making decisions based on Islam?

I believe I said that those that judge based on their beliefs is what's wrong. So no, I would not be okay with that. I've been talking all this time about religious SYMBOLS not being a threat to me.

If a Catholic judge out there decides and rules that there will be no more abortion because it's against his religion, and a Jewish judge rules that there will be no more consumption of pork as it's against his religion.. then yes, it would be a problem. They are completely different than lighting a menorrah before sitting down to a meeting.

Seriously, you would be pissed off if a Koran was sitting in middle of a conference table? Even if it was never used, never touched, never mentioned or referenced to, the mere sight would, what? Cause you to quit? Walk out?

[Warriorbird]

If it was in a six foot emblazonment on the wall (like Roy Moore's court) it'd bother me. A book? Probably not. A conference room isn't a government institution. If I felt I was being looked down on because I wasn't of whoever the hypothetical Muslim was's religion I'd be bothered.


[Edited on 12-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

On pondering this topic more, and discussing it with people more rational than myself, perhaps a boycott of a vote is a vote for election reform.

To say, a boycott of a vote is a vote that the process is broken. Not that democracy is broken, but to say that there is no confidence in the actual voting process.

Washington has spoken out about the recent Venezuelan poll as needing reform after major parties boycotted. What would Washington do if all non-republicans boycotted 2006/2008? Would they stand behind their claim that a boycott is proof of a faulty system?

[Wezas]

I hesitated in responding to your initial post thinking that the intent of this thread was a joke.

I'm hesitating now because I can't think of anything nice to say.

[ElanthianSiren]

Backlash.... wtf? Saying, "Let's boycott the vote to promote democracy is like saying let's fuck to promote abstinence." Do you honestly want to encourage a 2006 sweep of all offices by Republicans? Where are you going with this? Symbolic restraint might work if the Democratic party had the votes to spare; clearly, they do not.

Rad just became one of my board heroes.

I view a judge as a legal entity of the U.S. government, reflecting on said government when in the court room; in that way, while at work, they are above the personal freedoms of expression endowed to citizens, in the same way that nuns and priests are supposedly above the earthly delights of flesh. For that reason, I don't see draping a large display of your personal out of court beliefs as appropriate. That is my opinion, however.

-M

[Back]

What this thread is about is discussion on this recent practice of boycotting votes, what the intent behind it is, what it really means, and who is doing it, who is advocating it, and what the actual results are.

I agree, the practice to me seems absurd, as I have said in earlier posts. You snooze, you lose. Silence is assent.

But there is a very subtle undercurrent to all of it. A suggestion that a boycott is a vote of no confidence in a voting system, IF that voting system IS broken. Otherwise it could plainly be an assault on democracy itself.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Atheist zealots are no better or worse than religious zealots these days. The positive messages of the atheistic movement are just as negated by its overzealous constituents as in the case of religious movements.

Not really. There are few atheist interest groups. No atheist groups have the president's ear, nor can they influence government agencies. There is no coherent atheist national policy directive in place. Atheist groups have no politicians in their back pockets, and there are few lobbyists advancing the "atheist agenda".

Atheist overzealousness causes a ripple in the media, at worst. Right wing overzealousness causes well...most of the bad stuff that's happening to the country now.

Oh yes, anything that mentions God forces me to believe in something: a monotheistic God. Let's change it to "In a/some/all/the God(s) we trust" and I'll be happy. Zeus is just as legitimate a deity as the judeo christian god is; it's a 50/50 shot.

[Back]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Atheist zealots are no better or worse than religious zealots these days. The positive messages of the atheistic movement are just as negated by its overzealous constituents as in the case of religious movements.

Not really. There are few atheist interest groups. No atheist groups have the president's ear, nor can they influence government agencies. There is no coherent atheist national policy directive in place. Atheist groups have no politicians in their back pockets, and there are few lobbyists advancing the "atheist agenda".

Atheist overzealousness causes a ripple in the media, at worst. Right wing overzealousness causes well...most of the bad stuff that's happening to the country now.

Oh yes, anything that mentions God forces me to believe in something: a monotheistic God. Let's change it to "In a/some/all/the God(s) we trust" and I'll be happy. Zeus is just as legitimate a deity as the judeo christian god is; it's a 50/50 shot.

Thanks for bringing up that point again. It has nothing to do with this thread but to address it I just want to say this.

Christians all of a sudden feel like they are being singled out for their beliefs. Easily the majority, there suddenly seems to be a PRElash against any criticism about their faith. Perhaps it is fallout from 9/11, when America suffered a devestating attack from fanatical Islamists.

But think about it this way. I’m an American. I see religious extremists attack me. How do I now view religious extremists, no matter what denomination, in general? Dominant word: Extremist.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
Not really.I am not comparing religious groups to atheist groups, and I would find it surprising if you were suggesting that all religious and atheist groups are necessarily composed of zealots.
Atheist overzealousness causes a ripple in the media, at worst. Right wing overzealousness causes well...most of the bad stuff that's happening to the country now.What exactly do you mean by "most of the bad stuff"? If I assume you're not blaming war, murder, rape, theft, etc. on religious overzealousness, there really isn't that much left.

I also think you undersell the pervasiveness of atheist overzealousness in a general sense.
it's a 50/50 shot.No love for Hindus, eh?
Originally posted by Backlash
I see religious extremists attack me. How do I now view religious extremists, no matter what denomination, in general?You put your eggs on a skillet that is at an extreme temperature. They become cooked and scrambly and delicious. Do you then assume that putting your eggs on a skillet of any extreme temperature (let's say 0 K) will cause them to become cooked and delicious?

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
I see religious extremists attack me. How do I now view religious extremists, no matter what denomination, in general?You put your eggs on a skillet that is at an extreme temperature. They become cooked and scrambly and delicious. Do you then assume that putting your eggs on a skillet of any extreme temperature (let's say 0 K) will cause them to become cooked and delicious?

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Latrinsorm]

Bad comparison. Truth of it is American atheists are targets of extremists of faith no matter what denomination. Even other Americans.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Bad comparison.Here's why it's actually perfect. A Buddhist who takes his duty as a boddhisattva to an extreme level is not going to "attack" you, he's going to literally give you the shirt off his back. To view him as a threat along the lines of a bomb-carrying extremist is akin to viewing a cold surface as able to cook your eggs.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
We have more than one judge on the Supreme Court (and are about to acquire another) and countless more on the Federal Bench who make decisions based on their religion.

I don't think this is true, I think the left has deemed certain stances on certain issues "religious" like abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

I am vacilate from atheist to agnostic, to perhaps god could exist, but keep those wacko Christian fundamentalists away from me. I also am against abortion and embryonic stem cell research. If I was on the Supreme Court, I am sure the left media would deem me a member of the religious right because I went to church as a kid.

[Warriorbird]

because I went to church as a kid.

Hmm. Can you say that didn't effect your views? I don't think you can.