The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That is, if you're legally entitled to.
If you don't vote, then you can't really complain when promises are inevitably broken.
If you don't vote you can't swear whenever they come on the TV or radio.
If you don't vote you're saying they can do what the heck they like.
Whilst it may seem entirely futile, if you don't vote you haven't even tried to do anything about it.
This morning I figured that the Government is a little like Top Cat. They'll place a shiny coin in your hand, and tell you how great they are, but just before your fingers close around it they'll snatch it away with that little bit of string attached to it that you never noticed.
Mind you, when the choice is between a smug, lying, patronising sycophant, a man that looks like a particularly greasy sexual pervert, and a ginger, alcoholic gnone (and face facts, ginger is an issue, that's why Labour never got in under Kinnock), then I can see why you'd be tempted not to...
If you don't vote, then you can't really complain when promises are inevitably broken.
If you don't vote you can't swear whenever they come on the TV or radio.
If you don't vote you're saying they can do what the heck they like.
Whilst it may seem entirely futile, if you don't vote you haven't even tried to do anything about it.
This morning I figured that the Government is a little like Top Cat. They'll place a shiny coin in your hand, and tell you how great they are, but just before your fingers close around it they'll snatch it away with that little bit of string attached to it that you never noticed.
Mind you, when the choice is between a smug, lying, patronising sycophant, a man that looks like a particularly greasy sexual pervert, and a ginger, alcoholic gnone (and face facts, ginger is an issue, that's why Labour never got in under Kinnock), then I can see why you'd be tempted not to...
Page:
Sadly I registered for a postal vote for back home while I'm here at uni.
That was before I gave up on the lib dems (though the cracks were already showing).
Too late to post it now *shrugs*.
And 'it'll make you feel better' is no better than any of the other phoney reasons ;^)
That was before I gave up on the lib dems (though the cracks were already showing).
Too late to post it now *shrugs*.
And 'it'll make you feel better' is no better than any of the other phoney reasons ;^)
I voted on Monday - God bless Goatboy and his colleagues.
Yo Duck, instead of wasting time on here why not go down and write something on your ballot paper.
It will make you feel better.
It will make you feel better.
Sure, the masses have power, they can make a difference.
But only you can make your vote, and yours is the only one you control.
Regardless of whether you consider yourself part of a mass.
Like I said, take yourself out of the masses, and the masses will elect exactly the same person.
You personally still make zero difference.
Edit: Hey, if we ever get a proportional representation system, do you think our spoiled votes will win empty seats in the commons?
Or maybe I could change my name by deed poll to 'F*** you all', surruptitiously register myself, and get myself elected.
Or is it just possible that a spoiled ballot even more hollow that a meaningless vote?
But only you can make your vote, and yours is the only one you control.
Regardless of whether you consider yourself part of a mass.
Like I said, take yourself out of the masses, and the masses will elect exactly the same person.
You personally still make zero difference.
Edit: Hey, if we ever get a proportional representation system, do you think our spoiled votes will win empty seats in the commons?
Or maybe I could change my name by deed poll to 'F*** you all', surruptitiously register myself, and get myself elected.
Or is it just possible that a spoiled ballot even more hollow that a meaningless vote?
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> But if your 'group' would make a difference, then you personally
> could drop out of that group, and they'd still make that difference.
> You're still irrelivant.
Yeah fine if you're actually the only one doing that. Assuming that you are though is what is irresonpsible and plain short sighted. Democracy isn't about the power of the individual - it's about the power of the masses. You are part of the masses and therefore have power. If you don't think people can make a difference go to China or North Korea where you really CAN'T make a difference and see how much you like it.
> But if your 'group' would make a difference, then you personally
> could drop out of that group, and they'd still make that difference.
> You're still irrelivant.
Yeah fine if you're actually the only one doing that. Assuming that you are though is what is irresonpsible and plain short sighted. Democracy isn't about the power of the individual - it's about the power of the masses. You are part of the masses and therefore have power. If you don't think people can make a difference go to China or North Korea where you really CAN'T make a difference and see how much you like it.
Sure, as a 'part of a larger group' of voters, your group makes a difference, and you can consider yourself 'part of that difference'.
But if your 'group' would make a difference, then you personally could drop out of that group, and they'd still make that difference.
You're still irrelivant.
The point remains that one vote, which is all you have, means absolutely jack.
For the record, I still would have voted for someone, had I actually supported anyone.
Spoiling a ballot still seems pretty lame, and quite possibly of even less 'value' as a statement than not voting at all.
But as I said, I resent the irrational whinings of people trying to come up with reasons for why my vote does mean something after all.
If you want to vote despite it's impotence, by all means do so. Hell, I would have done myself if I bought into any of them.
But save your fake arguments and don't try to ram it down my throat.
But if your 'group' would make a difference, then you personally could drop out of that group, and they'd still make that difference.
You're still irrelivant.
The point remains that one vote, which is all you have, means absolutely jack.
For the record, I still would have voted for someone, had I actually supported anyone.
Spoiling a ballot still seems pretty lame, and quite possibly of even less 'value' as a statement than not voting at all.
But as I said, I resent the irrational whinings of people trying to come up with reasons for why my vote does mean something after all.
If you want to vote despite it's impotence, by all means do so. Hell, I would have done myself if I bought into any of them.
But save your fake arguments and don't try to ram it down my throat.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> And 'if enough people voted..' doesn't either. I'm one man, I have
> one vote. And, in case you missed the message, it doesn't change a
> damn thing.
Sorry but that doesn't fly. Haven't you seen the advert for energy conservation, with all the people saying "what difference can one man make?"
The answer is that one man can't change everything, but you are part of the population of a country - you are more than one man. Imagine if in the war, people had said "I can't make a difference I'm only one man" instead of going out to fight? Thinking that you can't make a difference is just plain irresponsible. You DO make a difference, even though it might only be small - together we can make a BIG difference. But if we are all selfish and think "I can't do anything" then of course nothing will change or get done, will it? If you don't even try to change things then what use are you? Ok to complain that everything was useless if you tried, but just giving up before you've even started? Doesn't that make you feel like a complete waster?
And all that voter apathy does is encourage the parties to play the "lowest common denominator" card where they pull everything down to a base popularity contest to try and get the country interested again. Spoiling your ballot at least shows that you're not apathetic, but that you're disenchanted, that you at least have SOME opinion, even if it is that they're all cat-jockeys.
> And 'if enough people voted..' doesn't either. I'm one man, I have
> one vote. And, in case you missed the message, it doesn't change a
> damn thing.
Sorry but that doesn't fly. Haven't you seen the advert for energy conservation, with all the people saying "what difference can one man make?"
The answer is that one man can't change everything, but you are part of the population of a country - you are more than one man. Imagine if in the war, people had said "I can't make a difference I'm only one man" instead of going out to fight? Thinking that you can't make a difference is just plain irresponsible. You DO make a difference, even though it might only be small - together we can make a BIG difference. But if we are all selfish and think "I can't do anything" then of course nothing will change or get done, will it? If you don't even try to change things then what use are you? Ok to complain that everything was useless if you tried, but just giving up before you've even started? Doesn't that make you feel like a complete waster?
And all that voter apathy does is encourage the parties to play the "lowest common denominator" card where they pull everything down to a base popularity contest to try and get the country interested again. Spoiling your ballot at least shows that you're not apathetic, but that you're disenchanted, that you at least have SOME opinion, even if it is that they're all cat-jockeys.
Light wrote:
> If anything you're saying is something more than "God, I'm just
> so cynical" posturing of the terminally teen, then maybe
> I'd give you a little attention.
It's all reasoned.
Blair is a deceitful d*ck.
Howard is just as bad, only he wants to shaft public services too.
Kennedy made a good impression, but I can't bring myself to vote for someone whose policies so callously disregard the fate of vast numbers of innocent civilians. So in his own way, he's just as bad as Blair too.
On various TV spots, Kennedy has stated that he would have our troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, come what may. No vague intentions. Not sure what was in his manifesto, I may check later. But he's definitely made definite commitments to getting out by the end of this year. Obviously it doesn't count for anything unless he pulls off an upset to upstage Liverpool, Murphy and Greece combined. But nevertheless it's his party's principles, and that's what you're voting for.
I was under the impression that they didn't count spoiled ballots, which was the reason for my decision not to bother, but if you want to argue that it's better than not bothering at all, remember that low turnout gets much more attention, and raises more questions as to the state of democracy when so few have 'chosen' the elected government.
I don't particularly want an argument about which is the 'best' protest, partly because I'm not convinced either way myself (like I said, I chose not to in the belief that a spoiled ballot didn't count for ****).
But you can clearly argue both ways, that either one could be a more effective protest than the other. Spoil your ballot and nobody really cares, don't vote at all and people care, but aren't sure whether it's because you don't back anyone, or are a lazy b**** (or both!)
But what really irks me (at least when people try to rub it in your face) is all this sanctimonious 'it's your responsibility..' / 'then you can't complain..' bull****.
On a large scale, apathy is undoubtedly a problem.
But on a personal scale, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference whether one particular individual votes or not.
The closest ever result was a Lib Dem win ahead of the Tories by 2 votes.
In one freakishly close constituency, one of 660 (or thereabouts) seats, in one of I don't know how many elections run, even then, one man's vote doesn't change anything.
If you want to vote for symbolic or sentimental reasons that's fine. Some people are practical and where something has no practical importance, a private tolken ritual, don't feel compelled to join in the charade.
Sure, people died and all that, sure, I'm not having my completely ineffectual 'say' in what happens in the country.
But it doesn't change a damn thing.
And 'if enough people voted..' doesn't either. I'm one man, I have one vote. And, in case you missed the message, it doesn't change a damn thing.
I get the feeling a lot of the arguments offered to rationalise voting - despite the impotence of it all - are created solely for that purpose - so people can use them as a tool in arguing.
Sure, some people may care passionately about a 'moral responsibility' to do something that won't count for anything.
But most of the people who come out with those arguments simply see, and dislike, mass apathy, and so come up with convoluted arguments for ammunition against individual apathists.
I even did it myself for a while. I didn't even realise I'd done it, I just looked for a 'reason' to vote, and went along with what I came up with for a while.
Then I forced myself to rationally scrutinise my own arguments, and found they were just hollow constructions, a means to an end.
Since then I've been surprised how many people have been making the same mistake.
You irrationally want to believe something, come up with a weak, flawed argument to hide behind when forced to justify your opinion, and believe it because you want to believe it.
Just like the UKIPpers.
Hmm, comparing Light to Kilroy (bar the racist slant) seems a slightly harsh note to end on. Hence this footnote. But even if the nature of the belief to be justified is different, the process of building a smoke and mirrors argument to back it up (if not 'deliberately') is the same principle.
> If anything you're saying is something more than "God, I'm just
> so cynical" posturing of the terminally teen, then maybe
> I'd give you a little attention.
It's all reasoned.
Blair is a deceitful d*ck.
Howard is just as bad, only he wants to shaft public services too.
Kennedy made a good impression, but I can't bring myself to vote for someone whose policies so callously disregard the fate of vast numbers of innocent civilians. So in his own way, he's just as bad as Blair too.
On various TV spots, Kennedy has stated that he would have our troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, come what may. No vague intentions. Not sure what was in his manifesto, I may check later. But he's definitely made definite commitments to getting out by the end of this year. Obviously it doesn't count for anything unless he pulls off an upset to upstage Liverpool, Murphy and Greece combined. But nevertheless it's his party's principles, and that's what you're voting for.
I was under the impression that they didn't count spoiled ballots, which was the reason for my decision not to bother, but if you want to argue that it's better than not bothering at all, remember that low turnout gets much more attention, and raises more questions as to the state of democracy when so few have 'chosen' the elected government.
I don't particularly want an argument about which is the 'best' protest, partly because I'm not convinced either way myself (like I said, I chose not to in the belief that a spoiled ballot didn't count for ****).
But you can clearly argue both ways, that either one could be a more effective protest than the other. Spoil your ballot and nobody really cares, don't vote at all and people care, but aren't sure whether it's because you don't back anyone, or are a lazy b**** (or both!)
But what really irks me (at least when people try to rub it in your face) is all this sanctimonious 'it's your responsibility..' / 'then you can't complain..' bull****.
On a large scale, apathy is undoubtedly a problem.
But on a personal scale, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference whether one particular individual votes or not.
The closest ever result was a Lib Dem win ahead of the Tories by 2 votes.
In one freakishly close constituency, one of 660 (or thereabouts) seats, in one of I don't know how many elections run, even then, one man's vote doesn't change anything.
If you want to vote for symbolic or sentimental reasons that's fine. Some people are practical and where something has no practical importance, a private tolken ritual, don't feel compelled to join in the charade.
Sure, people died and all that, sure, I'm not having my completely ineffectual 'say' in what happens in the country.
But it doesn't change a damn thing.
And 'if enough people voted..' doesn't either. I'm one man, I have one vote. And, in case you missed the message, it doesn't change a damn thing.
I get the feeling a lot of the arguments offered to rationalise voting - despite the impotence of it all - are created solely for that purpose - so people can use them as a tool in arguing.
Sure, some people may care passionately about a 'moral responsibility' to do something that won't count for anything.
But most of the people who come out with those arguments simply see, and dislike, mass apathy, and so come up with convoluted arguments for ammunition against individual apathists.
I even did it myself for a while. I didn't even realise I'd done it, I just looked for a 'reason' to vote, and went along with what I came up with for a while.
Then I forced myself to rationally scrutinise my own arguments, and found they were just hollow constructions, a means to an end.
Since then I've been surprised how many people have been making the same mistake.
You irrationally want to believe something, come up with a weak, flawed argument to hide behind when forced to justify your opinion, and believe it because you want to believe it.
Just like the UKIPpers.
Hmm, comparing Light to Kilroy (bar the racist slant) seems a slightly harsh note to end on. Hence this footnote. But even if the nature of the belief to be justified is different, the process of building a smoke and mirrors argument to back it up (if not 'deliberately') is the same principle.
and Top Cat ripped all his material off Bilko.
You're saying Bilko is like Thatcher.
GRRRR.
You're saying Bilko is like Thatcher.
GRRRR.
One opinion I've heard is that the Liberals can claim what they like because they won't get in.
Anything but Howard.
Anything but Howard.
Page: