Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan arrested outside White House - Page 14

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**196** 09-26-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Well in terms of a national election it is not a very big number. Losing by 3,000,000 votes out of a total of nearly 118 million cast is not that big of a loss.

But yet it still is a loss.

I don't think that people should vote just because they feel they have a duty to do so. There is nothing wrong with being politically ignorant, there is no shame in it...but you shouldn't vote if you are! Like the "vote or die" crap..."Vote for Kerry/Edwards because Madonna says so"

So I feel, that the voter turn out should actually be less than what it is. I just think that some of the people who vote have no idea what they are doing or who they are voting for.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**197** 09-26-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

You do really live in a fantasy world don't you? I don't think you really believe all the polls are biased...even the conservative ones?

Chris

For the most part polls do really NO good. You only know the result after the election. I think it has been proven time and time again that these polls can rarely be relied on.

ShangriLaTroubl · #**198** 09-26-2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

But yet it still is a loss.

I don't think that people should vote just because they feel they have a duty to do so. There is nothing wrong with being politically ignorant, there is no shame in it...but you shouldn't vote if you are! Like the "vote or die" crap..."Vote for Kerry/Edwards because Madonna says so"

So I feel, that the voter turn out should actually be less than what it is. I just think that some of the people who vote have no idea what they are doing or who they are voting for.

I agree to an extent. Although there a lot of people who are not politically ignorant who don't vote, because they feel that whoever wins will not really represent them.

Vote or DIE is not a bad concept..But I agree that voting, if you are politically ignorant defeats the purpose. However, educating people and making them less ignorant is a great idea..People should WANT to be involved.

lbelle1214 · #**199** 09-26-2005, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't gone into space to actually witness the fact that the Earth is round, you've seen it secondhand through pictures.

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please.

ShangriLaTroubl · #**200** 09-26-2005, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

For the most part polls do really NO good. You only know the result after the election. I think it has been proven time and time again that these polls can rarely be relied on.

When a poll is close, they cant be relied on. But when you're talking 20% difference in some cases, it is quite reliable.

Chris

strandinthewind · #**201** 09-26-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I agree to an extent. Although there a lot of people who are not politically ignorant who don't vote, because they feel that whoever wins will not really represent them.

Vote or DIE is not a bad concept..But I agree that voting, if you are politically ignorant defeats the purpose. However, educating people and making them less ignorant is a great idea..People should WANT to be involved.

Interestingly, if the percentage of the ignorant voting public is accepted as true, then the concept that 3% is actual specifically mandated political clout is incorrect as that mandate was undoubtably due to luck of the draw rather than consciously selected voting for an issue.

ShangriLaTroubl · #**202** 09-26-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please.

Well things that come out of one's mouth can also be facts. It is possible to state FACTS, which in fact Michael Moore has done.

Chris

strandinthewind · #**203** 09-26-2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please.

I understood what you were saying, esp. when applied to the media's presentation. But, I think in that there are facts as well. Just like no WMD were found. It stands to reason that W would have loved to have been able to demonstrate they were there as his legacy depends on it and he almost lost the last election because of his "error." So, I think it is safe to rely on the reports that no WMD were found.

dissention · #**204** 09-26-2005, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

gldstwmn · #**205** 09-26-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

I know nothing about this woman like I said.

Then how can you say she doesn't speak for you?

lbelle1214 · #**206** 09-26-2005, 11:13 PM

Is it impossible to hide the things that you don't want found? Especially if you have warning that they are going to be looking? I agree that facts are also spoken, but I also believe that facts spoken are one's perception of the facts, subject to misinterpretation/distortion. Does that make sense? Sorry, ya'll...I'm trying to keep up AND make sense after being up for a VERY LONG time!!

lbelle1214 · #**207** 09-26-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Then how can you say she doesn't speak for you?

Because I'm the only one who can speak for me!

strandinthewind · #**208** 09-26-2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

Is it impossible to hide the things that you don't want found? Especially if you have warning that they are going to be looking? I agree that facts are also spoken, but I also believe that facts spoken are one's perception of the facts, subject to misinterpretation/distortion. Does that make sense? Sorry, ya'll...I'm trying to keep up AND make sense after being up for a VERY LONG time!!

You are making sense to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just agree only to an extent, which is cool.

lbelle1214 · #**209** 09-26-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

I can't help it....I just like you!!! Seriously

gldstwmn · #**210** 09-26-2005, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Ah, Rumsfeld.

Did you see the "just say no-to driving" speech this morning? We are ****ed.