So I have this buddy of mine who talks crap about Bush all day and night. Now I understand you may not love the guy and I voted against him, but he is still our president so I respect him. He is not a good pubic speaker but I am sure he is a very intelligent man even though his public appearances make him look like a fool at times. So my friend talks crap day in and day out about him. The funny thing is he didn’t even vote in the election. His honest reason is that he said he did not want to get in the jury duty system. I informed him they changed that to be completely based off drivers license renewal rather than voter registration like in the past(what I was told). Also he said his vote didn’t matter here in Texas. How do I reply to the second part about his vote not counting? I see his point. But I still don’t agree.
if everyone who thinks like him stays home and doesn't vote....then his thought becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
People who can't be bothered to vote shouldn't bother the rest of us with their complaints. If it's broke, help fix it... don't bury your head in the sand, while running at the mouth. A person could choke. Keep D&D Civil.
I somewhat agree with you. Although I have voted twice for Bush, I strongly disagree with some (if not many) of his policies, but I do get irritated when I hear someone curse him or use some unflattering language to show his/her contempt towards Bush, I think it's somewhat disrespectful to the choice of the American people, whether you like it or disagree with it or not. Same thing during Clinton's reign, I was equally annoyed with the Republicans / conservatives that were rather displeased with Clinton and used deragatory language to describe him. But I guess it's venting and it's somewhat of an inherit characteristic of a democratic society, but I do find it personally annoying, that's just my opinion.
Idiots should not really excercise the right to vote. Its a common misnomer to believe that every vote regardless of intelligence behind it, is a worthy vote. I would rather have an well informed minority vote, rather than an ignorant majority.
Then you get interest groups deciding elections by the narrowest of margins, which leads to the increased importance of interest groups, which leads to extreme views and corruption. Better everyone voted even if they knew nothing... politicians would then have to appeal to the center, we wouldn't have so much money going in to suppressing and turning out the vote, and whichever way it came out, interest groups become marginalized because they are no longer the deciding factor (some guy who doesn't have a clue or a PAC is the deciding vote), and you get a better, more representative class of politicians. The further you distill the voter brew, the more toxic it becomes.
Tony Robbins? Jeff Skilling? But in actual truth, I don't really care for politicians who are professional public speakers. Most times they come off as not sounding genuine or they are well versed in dodging questions. As for dubya, I'm not the biggest fan, but I think his public speaking is one of his strong points due to the fact that he seems to be trying not to hide anything. He generally comes off to most viewers as someone who is trying his best to tell the truth. But then again, he has plenty of peons on his staff, who do more than make up for this deficit.
