H*LL NO!!http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/02/boom.gif

And yes, I vote...but I have to wonder if it really makes a difference.

Why have a poll?  This is like asking, "Is the sky on a cloudless, sunny day blue?"  You already know the answer.

It's never affected me dramatically, unless they're, like, hoarding all the cure for AIDS and cancer or something... so I guess they're alright.

Maybe not "Hell No!!!" but definatley "No".

When I vote, it isn't: "Who better represents my country", it is: "Who is least likely to f*ck up my country".  ::)

NO WAY, McVEIGH!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tank.gif

Actually, I do "trust" the government under Dubya...I trust the government to do the crookedest, sleaziest, greediest, most inhumane things they can possibly get away with!!!

(OK, "crookedest" isn't a word, I just used it for rhythm's sake.)

H3ll No!!!




Cat

And we think democracy is some kind of ideal government that we need to export to (i.e. impose upon) other "non-democratic" countries...

ISTM  that a lot of people have a very schizoid view of democracy: on the one hand it's something worth fighting, even dying for; on the other hand, everybody ends up with an extremely jaundiced view of politicians... 'cause, let's face it, the people we all elect are the ones whose only qualification is that they're good at being elected: competence, trustworthiness etc. play absolutely zero role in who wins.

NO WAY, McVEIGH!



That was tasteless.  Completely and utterly tasteless.

That was tasteless.  Completely and utterly tasteless.

Well, what did you think I meant by that, then, eh?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/grommit.gif

Well, what did you think I meant by that, then, eh?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/grommit.gif


Doesn't matter to me.  What would possess you to use that man's name?

Once again we disagree Sister Morphine.  I don't see what was tasteless about it.

[quote author=

Well, I think it's tasteless.  What next.....a Mohammed Atta reference?  And you don't need to tell me we disagree "again".  It think it's understood at this point.


Thats fine. 

I'm not sure exactly what Max meant by using McVeigh's name, but I don't really see anything specifically tasteless with it. I think he was just making a joke, though joking with a name like McVeigh may be seen as semi-tasteless by some people.

Hell No

No, all politicians are corrupt regardless of affiliation. Unfortunately we have no choice
but to deal with those we put in office. Politicians are supposed to serve the people,
but all they do is serve themselves.

How can, we the people, trust a government that doesn't trust the people it governs.
they continue to try to pass laws that infringe on the freedoms of the people because
they don't trust the people to behave in a manner they deem correct. They feel that
people cannot govern themselves so they over govern the people.

I think 'democracy' here in America, under Dumbya and Tricky Dick Cheney, applies mostly to rich 'fat cats' like defense contractors, oilmen, and Donald Trump types...They almost always get whatever the h*ll they want from our government, while the 'little guy' either has to deal with health/welfare/social reform programs being cut or even done away with...and when Democrats raise taxes to fund those programs, people complain and cry 'unfair'

American government is Catch-22 in action, d*mned if they do, d*mned if they don't.

What exasperates me is I know that will never change. Even though I vote.

No.

I don't trust the Canadian Government at all.  Never have, and probably never will

government is so huge. by and large i trust the library system, the park system, i think most police officers genuinely want to keep the peace although there are a few bad eggs, stuff like that.

I'm not sure exactly what Max meant by using McVeigh's name, but I don't really see anything specifically tasteless with it. I think he was just making a joke, though joking with a name like McVeigh may be seen as semi-tasteless by some people.

It's a pun. McVeigh rhymes with Jose, but if I said "No way, Jose!," one of you libs would jump on my azz about my anti-Latino agenda!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/poke2.gif

Anyway, I think touchy people with no sense of humor are far more likely to bomb federal buildings than those who hang out down the pub cracking dirty jokes!
;D

It's a pun. McVeigh rhymes with Jose, but if I said "No way, Jose!," one of you libs would jump on my azz about my anti-Latino agenda!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/poke2.gif

Anyway, I think touchy people with no sense of humor are far more likely to bomb federal buildings than those who hang out down the pub cracking dirty jokes!
;D



Actually, I can guarantee you that NO ONE would do that because that's a commonly used saying.  Everyone's used it at one time or another.  However referencing the Oklahoma City bomber?  TASTELESS.

As for your last comment..............I'll just ask you never to respond to me again or reference anything I say or quote anything I say.  Ignore every post I make in this forum.  It'll be as if I've never said anything.  Let other people who can respond to me without insulting me do the talking.  I've had it up to my eyeballs with you finding some way to put me down.  It's getting to the point now where I want to report the posts to a mod.  You can't talk to me without putting me down.  Enough is enough.

Actually, I can guarantee you that NO ONE would do that because that's a commonly used saying.  Everyone's used it at one time or another.  However referencing the Oklahoma City bomber?  TASTELESS.


Quiet you's.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sign5.gif

Government isn't trustworthy. I don't know and can not know everybody in the government, thus it is impossible for me to trust the Government as a whole. Trust must be earned, like respect.
Do I think the Government for the most part is there to maintain law, order and stability? Yes.
Do I think there are certain shady aspects of the Government which if I were in power would not exist? Yes.
If I were in power would there be shady aspects, just in other areas? Yes.

Trust in Government is down to your personal prerogatives.
If one is interested in seeing the Government do X, Y and Z and X, Y and Z happen to be the policies that the Government is persuing, then one is far more inclined to trust the Government.

As for your last comment..............I'll just ask you never to respond to me again or reference anything I say or quote anything I say.  Ignore every post I make in this forum.  It'll be as if I've never said anything.  Let other people who can respond to me without insulting me do the talking.  I've had it up to my eyeballs with you finding some way to put me down.  It's getting to the point now where I want to report the posts to a mod.  You can't talk to me without putting me down.  Enough is enough.

Whoah, wait a sec, why did you infer I was talking about you?
???

That was tasteless.  Completely and utterly tasteless.


Oh, Hell.. looking at this thread now, it's all gone downhill from here.

Maybe it was tasteless, but was this really a battle that needed fighting?

Hell No.

Oh, Hell.. looking at this thread now, it's all gone downhill from here.

Maybe it was tasteless, but was this really a battle that needed fighting?
I thought it was sorta funny. then again, I've been suffering from schadenfreude lately. Call it a fetish.

The mcveigh case is really really interesting to me.

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/ward/030507.shtml

he was actually very distrustful of the government also, a lesson he learned from his time in the military. What he did was utterly repugnant, but his correspondence with gore vidal brings up some interesting points -- why is the exercise of violence by individuals so wrapped in taboo, but the exercise of violence by the state is usually deemed to be acceptable, even when it's utterly unjustified? (like in iraq?) the victims are just as innocent, and just as dead.

There's an amazing movie called "the net" that gets all into the Unabomber and why there's this understood prohibition on ever even mentioning his name. The movie's theory is that there's a lot more at work there than just offended sensibilities -- it's a kind of cultural meme that's a way for the system to protect itself from revolutionary violence. It's a very sophisticated point the movie makes.

http://www.othercinemadvd.com/net.html

I don't even trust the state government here in New Jersey...Republicans cut the state budget, screwing over our state's most vulnerable residents(low income individuals, children, and senior citizens)as well as looking the other way when big business does not do a damn thing to make their pollution-spewing factories adhere to any sort of clean air/water standards(and isn't it ironic that Christine Todd Whitman,an ex-governor of the Garden State and a GOP member is involved with the EPA?)and people who work hard to earn their keep, sometimes by working two jobs, get p*ssed off when Democrats have to raise taxes.....

And d*mned if both New Jersey gubernatorial candidates(Doug Forrester and Governor Jon Corzine) didn't conduct one h*ll of a nasty campaign to tear each other to shreds with last year's election!

I thought it was sorta funny. then again, I've been suffering from schadenfreude lately. Call it a fetish.

The mcveigh case is really really interesting to me.

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/ward/030507.shtml

he was actually very distrustful of the government also, a lesson he learned from his time in the military. What he did was utterly repugnant, but his correspondence with gore vidal brings up some interesting points -- why is the exercise of violence by individuals so wrapped in taboo, but the exercise of violence by the state is usually deemed to be acceptable, even when it's utterly unjustified? (like in iraq?) the victims are just as innocent, and just as dead.

There's an amazing movie called "the net" that gets all into the Unabomber and why there's this understood prohibition on ever even mentioning his name. The movie's theory is that there's a lot more at work there than just offended sensibilities -- it's a kind of cultural meme that's a way for the system to protect itself from revolutionary violence. It's a very sophisticated point the movie makes.

http://www.othercinemadvd.com/net.html



Thanks for the popmatters article. I just scanned it 'coz it's pretty long. I bookmarked it to read at my liesure. I suspect McVeigh was a stooge for a much bigger conspiratorial force.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=155

Now listen you guys, and you know who you are: I do not defend Timothy McVeigh.
It shouldn't be necessary for me to say so, but I anticipate the accusation!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/ear.gif

No, all politicians are corrupt regardless of affiliation. Unfortunately we have no choice
but to deal with those we put in office. Politicians are supposed to serve the people,
but all they do is serve themselves.

No, this is definitely not the case.  There are a lot of politicians who only went into politics to help others, and who have great ideals of making the world a better place.  The problem is that we, the electorate, are unable to tell which is which, and vote for people based on all the wrong criteria.  So it tends to be the scum that gets to the top rather than the cream (if you see what I mean).

No I don't trust the federal, state, or local government much at all.

I think there are a lot of good people out there who genuinely want to help people and make their state/city/town a better place, but sadly they are overshadowed by the corrupt and the inept.

Yeah, I trust 'em to make mistakes, break promises and do the exact opposite of what the people want.

No, this is definitely not the case.  There are a lot of politicians who only went into politics to help others, and who have great ideals of making the world a better place.  The problem is that we, the electorate, are unable to tell which is which, and vote for people based on all the wrong criteria.  So it tends to be the scum that gets to the top rather than the cream (if you see what I mean).



A problem in America is ballot interference and voter intimidation by the Republican party. It depends state by state, county by county. You don't see it in Massachusetts because the state is not a swing state and has a relatively educated and conscientious population. Massachusetts always goes Democrat for federal offices, same with California. This was not the case in Ohio and Florida where the Republicans perpetrated massive fraud and intimidation before and on election day. Then there are states such as Oklahoma. Not a single county in OK went for John Kerry in 2004. I would not expect Kerry to win Oklahoma. However, there are several counties in OK with a high population of Native Americans, who tend to vote Democrat. In New Mexico, there was a huge swath of "blue" for the liberal urban areas and the Native American areas amidst "red" for the rural and suburban white areas. Oklahoma has a similar demographic setup (Oklahoma is a bit more of a cultural wasteland, there is no "Santa Fe" of OK!), so it just did not make sense that not a single county would go for Kerry. No proof here, just suspicions. It's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.

My faith in the ability of many regions across the country to be able to hold fair and honest elections without intimidation, meddling, monkey business, and illicit disenfranchisement by Republicans has been thoroughly shaken!