What annnoys you more?

[hamsterfang]

An acquaintance of mine told me the other day that he doesn't despise what the people of his opposing political party think and do as much as he despises those who have no real opinions whatsoever and are quite apathetic when its comes to politics. What do you all think? Just something to chew on...

 

[BuddyLee]

..."If the opinion is right, (the people who don't hear it) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." --On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

Chew on this.

 

[soul4sale]

An acquaintance of mine told me the other day that he doesn't despise what the people of his opposing political party think and do as much as he despises those who have no real opinions whatsoever and are quite apathetic when its comes to politics. What do you all think? [B/]

Apathy is worse than afiliation but better than extremism.

 

[hamsterfang]

Apathy is worse than afiliation but better than extremism.

Well said.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't mind the people who are apathetic - I just wish they'd stay out of it instead of pretending they know what they're doing.

I also don't mind people who have a different political opinion than I do. I just want them to have a factual, logical argument and not spew some emotional silliness based on figments of their imagination and what they wish happened, rather than what did happen.

Gay marriage is a good one:

Those opposed say it's a religious thing, not a government thing. Then George Bush turns around and talks about a Constitutional Amendment, proving that it is, indeed, a government thing. I haven't heard one single factual, logical argument yet against gay marriage.

This war in Iraq is another good one:

Those opposed live in some fantasy world where Saddam Hussein was a reasonable, sensible friend of the world and there was no terrorist activity over there until we showed up. I haven't heard one single factual, logical argument against going into Iraq and waging war on terrorists around the globe.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't mind the people who are apathetic - I just wish they'd stay out of it instead of pretending they know what they're doing.

I also don't mind people who have a different political opinion than I do. I just want them to have a factual, logical argument and not spew some emotional silliness based on figments of their imagination and what they wish happened, rather than what did happen.

Agreed. I find neither annoying. I'm fascinated by politics and have been for many, many years, but to some it is as interesting as watching golf is for me.

 

[Oz]

The United States is all about people having opposing views. Even apathy is fine as long as the person is informed enough to "not care."

What kills our system is when people are totally uninformed. Then they go to the polls on election day and cast their vote based on some TV piece they saw that weekend, or a radio commercial they listened to on the way to the polling place.

 

[J.South]

Am I on the right site This doesn't sound like a Somd.com forum

 

[SamSpade]

Am I on the right site This doesn't sound like a Somd.com forum

Why?

 

[SamSpade]

What kills our system is when people are totally uninformed. Then they go to the polls on election day and cast their vote based on some TV piece they saw that weekend, or a radio commercial they listened to on the way to the polling place.

That's what scares me about Hannity's "Man in the Street" schtick he does on Thursdays. He usually refers to them as "the kind of person with the power to cancel your vote". He usually asks simple questions, such as who is the vice-President, who's running on the Democratic ticket, who is the VP Democratic nominee (*MOST* people can't answer that one at all, encouraging him to tell them that the candidate's name is Stew Ped). If they say they're for Bush, he usually doesn't grill them, although I haven't heard a single Bush supporter who couldn't answer all the questions. The Kerry supporters often don't know Kerry's full name, or whether his name is "Kearney". Many don't know that he is even a Senator.

THAT is scary. I know it's true in EVERY election - and it's my opinion that stupid ads are aimed at the stupid voter who doesn't know any better. But it bothers me a little that maybe as many as 10 - 20 million votes will be cast by people who haven't the faintest idea of what they're doing.

 

[J.South]

That's what scares me about Hannity's "Man in the Street" schtick he does on Thursdays. He usually refers to them as "the kind of person with the power to cancel your vote". He usually asks simple questions, such as who is the vice-President, who's running on the Democratic ticket, who is the VP Democratic nominee (*MOST* people can't answer that one at all, encouraging him to tell them that the candidate's name is Stew Ped). If they say they're for Bush, he usually doesn't grill them, although I haven't heard a single Bush supporter who couldn't answer all the questions. The Kerry supporters often don't know Kerry's full name, or whether his name is "Kearney". Many don't know that he is even a Senator.

THAT is scary. I know it's true in EVERY election - and it's my opinion that stupid ads are aimed at the stupid voter who doesn't know any better. But it bothers me a little that maybe as many as 10 - 20 million votes will be cast by people who haven't the faintest idea of what they're doing.

To be fair most of the public only had about a year or so to get to know the dems...And if you lived in Southern MD you know slow people are everywhere

 

[SamSpade]

To be fair most of the public only had about a year or so to get to know the dems...And if you lived in Southern MD you know slow people are everywhere

I'm sorry, but a *YEAR* is an enormous amount of time to get to know a candidate. A congressman is only IN OFFICE for two, and the President, for just four. If someone can't make an informed decision in a whole year, they shouldn't vote - it's not *marriage*, for pete's sake.

In other countries - England, for example - the entire campaign season is a matter of *weeks*, not months and years. Maybe we should do that.

 

[J.South]

I'm sorry, but a *YEAR* is an enormous amount of time to get to know a candidate. A congressman is only IN OFFICE for two, and the President, for just four. If someone can't make an informed decision in a whole year, they shouldn't vote - it's not *marriage*, for pete's sake.

In other countries - England, for example - the entire campaign season is a matter of *weeks*, not months and years. Maybe we should do that.

I agree with you...southern md is a place where the whole fast lane concept escapes people

 

[Ken King]

A congressman is only IN OFFICE for two, and the President, for just four.

Aren't Senators Congresspersons? Don't they still serve for six years?

J. South, you must be hanging with the slower crowd because it isn't like that with those I hang with.

 

[SamSpade]

Aren't Senators Congresspersons? Don't they still serve for six years?

(Ahem). "Representatives" then. Although you and I both know that "Congressman" is almost always used to describe someone elected to the House; even Webster's goes so far as to say that.

 

[Ken King]

(Ahem). "Representatives" then. Although you and I both know that "Congressman" is almost always used to describe someone elected to the House; even Webster's goes so far as to say that.

Yep, but you and I both know that our Congress is made up of both Representatives and Senators regardless of what Webster says.

 

[Larry Gude]

Your friend may not have the confidence...

...of his thoughts to make judgements about people he opposses but he comfortably makes judgements, harsh ones, about people who don't oppose or conflict with him in any way?

Certainly this matters more or less depending on the issue.

Florida 2000, the 'stolen' election, is a matter where being wrong is profoundly dangerous to us all. It tears at the very foundation we all stand on.

Taxes, on the other hand, is rather a matter of opinion.

Abortion is a critical issue.

The death penalty leaves more room for being wrong.

Iraq is important.

The environment leaves plenty of room.

The given issue matters very much as to whether it is better to be wrong or not invloved.

 

[Llwynog]

I'm sorry, but a *YEAR* is an enormous amount of time to get to know a candidate. A congressman is only IN OFFICE for two, and the President, for just four. If someone can't make an informed decision in a whole year, they shouldn't vote - it's not *marriage*, for pete's sake.

In other countries - England, for example - the entire campaign season is a matter of *weeks*, not months and years. Maybe we should do that.

Agreed! There is way to much time for finger pointing; he said, he said, they said, who said; slander; and sound byte garbage. We roll our eyes and say I don't have time for this. If they were forced to by time constrants to get to the point. Voting would be so much easier.

 

[Kyle]

... I haven't heard one single factual, logical argument yet against gay marriage. ...

It ruins the garter toss.

 

[vraiblonde]

It ruins the garter toss.

Ahhhhh....:lightbulb: