|
|
| Well I'VE got the brians enough too  , but I'm not making 153 phone calls to my neighbors to push their buttons, make judgements and strengthen their resolve one way or the other. Sorry Dan but if even 1% of the American people started making un-soliceted phone calls at random, spouting their wisdom, I think the "political season" would be even worse then it is. Ad upon ad, slam upon slam, lie upon lie, position upon position upon position. Where does it end?? Sure I compliment you on your enthusiasm for your civic duty but regardless of MY opinion on who I am going to vote for and the reasons, anyone who has the desire to vote. should. I think your statement asking people to vote based on your standards is as insulting a post as I've ever seen here. Maybe a simple IQ test before voting would be a good way to satisfy you. How about an in-depth questionaire on the issues. Is voting for someone because of their voice ANY worse then voting for someone JUST because of the party he is from? Ignorance is rampant and shows itself quite well every 4 years. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Joel "Doc" Kunz - 11/1/2004 2:08 PM
Well I'VE got the brians enough too , but I'm not making 153 phone calls to my neighbors to push their buttons, make judgements and strengthen their resolve one way or the other. Sorry Dan but if even 1% of the American people started making un-soliceted phone calls at random, spouting their wisdom, I think the "political season" would be even worse then it is. Ad upon ad, slam upon slam, lie upon lie, position upon position upon position. Where does it end?? Sure I compliment you on your enthusiasm for your civic duty but regardless of MY opinion on who I am going to vote for and the reasons, anyone who has the desire to vote. should. I think your statement asking people to vote based on your standards is as insulting a post as I've ever seen here. Maybe a simple IQ test before voting would be a good way to satisfy you. How about an in-depth questionaire on the issues. Is voting for someone because of their voice ANY worse then voting for someone JUST because of the party he is from? Ignorance is rampant and shows itself quite well every 4 years.
Doc.
I'm impressed that you even gave me the benefit of the doubt as far as standards go. I've noticed that I've been snubbed by you and a few of my piers, since my (Self) banning from Walleye Central, and have actually missed yours and others phyco-analization of my many posts. Good to know theres still a subject matter that pulls you in to the frey, no matter who the foe. But basically I find it easy to debate you.
In general my own integrity and standards have cost me some friends and transversly, have made me some over the years. If you believe being un-informed and yet blindly voting for a person or issue does this country justice, then I reitorate "God help us".
Edited by walleye express 11/2/2004 7:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 116
| "anyone who has the desire to vote. should. "
Yes they should but only after becoming informed. Trusting our freedom to random votes because retoric out there emphasizes gettting out to vote and ignores the obvious first step which is to get/be informed is as dangerous as using your right to hunt without
proper training on handling a gun. Captain Dan said it so much more eloquent then I but I felt compelled to try again or at least lend support to a sane point of view. |
|
| |
|
| Dan, no I do not believe voting while being uninformed does the country any good. Never said it does. Just said that YOU shouldn't set the standards and that everyone has the right to vote. Does "blindly" voting a particular party do any good? How many people don't even think of the issues and just vote Democatic or Republican because that's the way their parents did or because Grandpa worked for Harry Truman. You assume I've been snubbing you? wrong. Easy to debate me? What's that come from. I actually give a hoot whether you have a self imposed banning from walleyecentral and don't miss you at all, period. Nothing you have said here recently, prior to your statement in this thread, has been on a subject that I have an opinion on in order to reply to you. Heck, I make one reply saying everyone has the right to vote and YOU turn it in to I've been snubbing you, you find it easy to debate me and that I think being un-informed is good. Pretty simple minded I think.
gillman911, I agree that voters should be informed, but how many really are? My statement is what our democracy is built on, the right to vote period. Not under standards set by anyone! one person = one vote. I personally don't thinnk the way campains are run and advertised is right. Lets see 80 BILLION ON ADVERTISING!! That's right 80 BILLION!! And most of it is lies, statements taken out of context and fabrications. And that doesn't include what is spent by the other factions trying to influence the voter. I love the "fact checks" done on the ABC news to the statements being made by the candidates. I wish EVERYONE took their vote to heart, informed themselves and made a decision based on fact, not the rhetoric of a political campain but I don't bash ANYONE for taking the time to be an American. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| I'm not going to jump on one side or the other on this. I think that this is going to be the largest % turn out nationwide for an election ever. That alone will ne-gate (mspl?) many of the efforts some groups have used to get people out to vote, just because of the sheer numbers that turn out for this election. The main thing is, and in my minds eye believe is long over due, is that there is finally a heightend state of concern by the citizens of this country. For too many years people had the attitude that it didn't matter if they voted or not. Not this year though, and hopefully not into the future either.
We are a young country, as is our political system by world standards, yet the rest of the world expects us to be their leaders in democracy and civilization. To lead them. They are looking at us, and how we as a society respond to this challenge. This election will have a huge bearing on the future of our country, both here at home, and in the eyes of the world for a long time, if not all history. Historians around the world are archieving everything they can concerning this election because of the meaning it bears on the world, and the future of democracy.
As time goes we will learn the lessons of our mistakes, but in the mean time, as long as any citizen is willing to make an effort, regardless of consequence, we need to applaude that effort to vote. What ever the motivation. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 377
Location: Neenah Wi | I don't know about the rest of you but Is'nt it everyones civic responsibility to be an informed voter.It is a right and priviledge to vote and along with that comes some responsibility.It is up to ever individual to get the information they feel they need to make an informed decision.And then accept the results of the election good or bad.And as far as the ads go,when this country bans ALL lobbyist and special interests from OUR elections you will continue to see the kind of elections we are seeing.Let the candidates get out and do some real campaigning.The huge international corporations have way too much money invested in OUR elections MONEY TALKS BABY that is why I will be voting for a third party candidate.I'm voting for REAL change.The internet is a great source of information about all of the candidates,of which there are more than 2 for those that are not really into politics.One day we will get fed up enough to get a real leader to stand up for the average American.
Edited by Risor39 11/1/2004 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1188
Location: Chicago IL. | WOW!!!!!!!! Man i`m glad the bears won. I thought for a minute the world was comming to a end.HEHEHEHE
John Mannerino
#473 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | gilman911 - 11/1/2004 5:49 PM
"anyone who has the desire to vote. should. "
Yes they should but only after becoming informed. Trusting our freedom to random votes because retoric out there emphasizes gettting out to vote and ignores the obvious first step which is to get/be informed is as dangerous as using your right to hunt without
proper training on handling a gun. Captain Dan said it so much more eloquent then I but I felt compelled to try again or at least lend support to a sane point of view.
Gilman.
Thanks for the pat on the back. It don't happen much under these topic circumstances believe me;-)
Actually, I'm pretty thick skinned. Doc's answers to me were what I fully expected. His rare appearences seldom share much fishing wise, but his comentaries are usually served with a sharp knife.
I'm actually surprised this thread hasn't self distructed yet. I just got home from 10 1/2 hours of helping old folks, physically impared and just plain folks both park their cars and vote at my local precinct. And I didn't even threaten anybody with bodily harm for voting one way or the other.  Fact is, I never asked anybody their voting persuations. Believe it or not, the whole thing had a calming effect on me. The people in America are like no others in this world. Maybe we won't self destruct in 4 years under what I think is the wrong choice, (if he wins). I think I can now accept the results no matter how they end up, a little better know. 
Edited by walleye express 11/2/2004 6:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | "His rare appearences seldom share much fishing wise"
Dan:
I planned on just sitting back and letting you two duke it out but the above statement really got my attention. What Forums do you visit here? Doc is the moderator of the Wolf River Forum and is HIGHLY regarded in this area. His web page gives great insight on what is happening and is a sister site of Walleye First. Doc has also been around here for a very long time and has helped countless people catch fish on the Wolf River.
Knowing DOC, he doesn't need anyone to stand up for him but your comments were out of line IMHO. You're not being very factaul this time.
Can't we ALL just get along???????????????????
Both of you are highly respected on this site. I don't see what benefit there is for the two of you to butt heads in an open forum. Take it outside guys!!
This is just another example why politics and religion are a taboo subjest on many sites. People get to wound up and make personnal statements that they or WE regret later.
Edited by Sunshine 11/3/2004 8:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Dennis.
Heres a fact for you. This is the first time in the (almost a year) since I left WC, that you yourself have personally directed or answered any of my posts. Even when I directly answer or add comments to your posts. Hey, I'm not loosing sleep over it, it's simply something I've noticed and wondered about, but I guess you didn't realize that fact. I'm also well aware that some of my views and mannerisms rub peole the wrong way. But at least you know where I stand on most issues. And you already know that I do and can share any new product news and (at times) share to much about fishing techniques, and always honestly answer (if I can) anybodies questions. And this is the only forum I visit, as I seldom fish other waters than my home waters. I'm a true believer that having a vested interest or history on any particular waters, better qualifies a person to validate his fishing advise on them.
And the one thing you may not have noticed about my threads here, and even on this particualr post. I use the phrase (my own personal opinion) quite often. And that's simply what it is. I did not attack Doc first, but simply made valid points about how I seen this particular subject. He's the one who took it as an afront on his mentality, claimed it "the most insulting post" he's ever read on any board, and started the carving. I do have thick skin. But will stick to my points and not be made out to look like the fool.
As far as my observations about what he shares here on this forum/board. Again, is "my own personal opinion"
Edited by walleye express 11/3/2004 9:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Dan,
Here's my own personnal opinion (IMHO, I use that phrase a lot also).
Not real sure what you mean exactly when you say that I do not personally direct or answer any of your posts?
I do not have the time to go back the whole entire year (if that’s how long you’ve been gone from WC…… believe it or not, I don’t follow that gibberish) but a quick review of recent posts by you revealed the following responses by me:
On 10/14 – subject: Personal Best and Worse fishing related products/decisions.
On 10/5/2004 at 7:40 AM – Subject: PWT tourney News.....NO teaser.
On 8/21/2004 at 8:33 AM – subject: Global Warming? Ya....Right!
Funny, you got me thinking about your perception that I was snubbing you in some way, so I went back to look to see if/when you replied to one of my posts. I wanted to see if I ignored you. What I found out was that you have not responded to one of my posts in the general discussion forum since:
9/22/2004 at 10:23 AM - Subject: When do you switch from crawler Harnesses to cranks?
And then again on
9/27/2004 at b12:24 PM. - Subject: Web Sight Problems. I responded to your reply on that thread.
I assure you Dan, your perception that I am trying to avoid you just isn’t true. When you post something that interests me I have and will continue to reply.
Jeez………. I thought we were corresponding and getting along just fine. You may say you’re thick skinned but in this case you’re perceiving something that just isn’t there. I’m not avoiding you now and never have. I LOVE YA’ MAN
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 100
Location: Oshkosh, WI | Jack-
What did I tell you, Pack wins and so does Bush.
Perchie |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| Thats a good thing for all of us!!
I doubt seriously if this "trivia" thing I brought up had any bearing in the Wisconsin results, but I can't recall ever seeing a state so evenly split! I honestly thought with as many true outdoorsmen as there are in Wisconsin, and here in Minnesota, we'd have seen a more favorable Bush outcome from the polls.
As far as the undecided states, what happens with those electoral votes now that the election has been decided without them? Do those states remain as undecided, or do they somehow get awarded to a candidate before it is finalized?
Edited by JLDII 11/3/2004 11:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| I believe the more urban counties in WI really helped the Kerry vote, although it was fairly close all over. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| thumper - 11/3/2004 11:32 AM
I believe the more urban counties in WI really helped the Kerry vote, although it was fairly close all over.
Kerry carried Minnesota purely because of the voting of 2 counties in the state. Those of course are the 2 major counties the Twin Cities are in. Highest minority vote, and most liberal voter base. They also make up about 1/3 the states population. The rest of the state was basically a Bush majority, (some counties as high as almost 70%) but not enough to over come those two counties in the cities. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Dennis.
You do know how to put things back on track.
If my perception of this was wrong, I whole heartedly appologize to you. And if I've misjudged Doc and his intentions, I apologize to him as well.
Jeez………. I thought we were corresponding and getting along just fine. You may say you’re thick skinned but in this case you’re perceiving something that just isn’t there. I’m not avoiding you now and never have. I LOVE YA’ MAN
Edited by walleye express 11/4/2004 8:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 100
Location: Oshkosh, WI | They still count those electoral votes when they come in for the undecided states. They only make it "official" for the final count. Same thing with Wisconsin, Madison and Milwaukee areas carry the numbers as those areas are mostly always Democrat for various reasons. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| Perchie,
I would imagine those areas are much like the Twin Cities in that those areas are where most people from other parts of the country move into because of business interests. Thats very true here anyway. So many of the people in the Twin Cities come from other areas of the country, that I'd be surprised if they don't make up at least 1/3 of the downtown population. We also have a large segment of that area that moved here from other states because our welfare system gives them so much more money. Many come from Chicago,and Detroit. FYI, the Twin Cities now has the highest Hmong population in the U.S., and another 5000 are being brought here to live from Cambodia over the next year. (Shore fishing is starting to become a little over crowded, if you know what I mean). |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 38
Location: Laurel, MT | California - LA/Oakland/San Francisco
Illinois-Chicago
Michigan - Detroit
Minnesota- Twin Cities
New York - NYC
Wisconsin - Milwaukee/Madison
Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh/Philly
If you change the outcome in these 7 states that were dominated by their big cities, EC vote would be 451-87 Bush.
I am not saying that those cities don't matter and I am glad that they do, just saying that it shows that the cities are where Kerry's votes came from.
Honsie
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| I heard somewhere on election night that the demographics showed that Kerry's support came mostly from cities with populations over 50,000. That in itself wipes out all the urban voters.
If that in fact is the case, it says alot about "us country folk" since in the end, morals was the issue that won the race, and that was from "us country folks"!!! |
|
| |
|
| Dennis, thank you. Dan, wow. Not sure where you get all this snubbing stuff and that I "attacked" you and the "thick skinned" stuff but I don't see it.
Let's see, you said: "For the love of God people. If you don't understand whats at stake in this election, whats been going on since 9-11, have virtually no knowledge history of your candidates choices, decisions or charcter since he's been in the political field, and what this all means to our kids and grandkids down the road. Please stay at home and let the people who know more about the candidtaes than the good or bad (sound of his voice) make the decisions."
And I said: "Sure I compliment you on your enthusiasm for your civic duty but regardless of MY opinion on who I am going to vote for and the reasons, anyone who has the desire to vote. should."
THEN I said: "I think your statement asking people to vote based on your standards is as insulting a post as I've ever seen here. Maybe a simple IQ test before voting would be a good way to satisfy you. How about an in-depth questionaire on the issues. Is voting for someone because of their voice ANY worse then voting for someone JUST because of the party he is from?"
I also went on to clarify that by agreeing with a following post that people SHOULD be informed but that NO ONE had the right to tell people NOT to vote. Then we go to the snubbing and how you can debate me and how I don't ever help anyone, WOW!!
NOW it's: "He's the one who took it as an afront on his mentality, claimed it "the most insulting post" he's ever read on any board, and started the carving. I do have thick skin. But will stick to my points and not be made out to look like the fool."
So you can see that I NEVER said "most insulting post on ANY board" and that you have been doing most of the carving. An afront to my menality? OK Dan, how many OTHER people got it when I was "also" having a little fun with your use of the word BRIAN'S in place of the word BRAINS!! Not rocket science here, just a little fun and then a scincere post about your comments on voting. I asked you a specific question regarding the "party line voting" and you've done a good job of everything except answering the question.
Dan..... DUDE...... slow down a bit, take a deep breath, then post. I'm not trying to single you out and a good debate on the question of the "informed voter" was in process until you IMHO went off in a different direction. Not sure about the sharp knife either, I think you are being too defensive. Hard to tell tone of voice and a dry wit is often mistaken in a forum such as this but going on to say things such as "Doc's answers to me were what I fully expected. His rare appearences seldom share much fishing wise, but his comentaries are usually served with a sharp knife." Well, that's a bunch of crap! Sure, I can be on the edge but it usually when someone is being out of line. I've had plenty of conversations with Zach in that regard and have not had any issues with him or Walleye First. My efforts to educate anglers on my home waters are well known and your comments to such are off base, un-informed and out of context to this discussion. The rest of what I would have to say to you would be better off done eye to eye. |
|
| |
|
| What "morals", exactly do you speak of? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Doc.
I'll give you the last word, as this will be my last post on this subject, as I'm sure you'll chime back in. I've always reserved a special place in my heart for guys who use the word "dude" when making points. This whole debate is laid out for everybody to read. Thats good enough for me. Lets just let this whole thing drop.
And I've had better than average success when talking to most of my (eye to eye) debate partners in my life. So if we can ever arrange this debate meeting somewhere between our home teritories, feel free to let me know where and when.
Edited by walleye express 11/5/2004 9:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| huh? - 11/5/2004 8:06 AM
What "morals", exactly do you speak of?
Different voters defined them differently, but those who voted for Mr. Bush oppose gay marriage and feel matrimony ought to be a union between a man and a woman. They also oppose abortion rights to some degree, and oppose broader government support for stem-cell research.
On top of that, Kerry allowed himself to be thought of and characterized as a "Boston Irish Catholic" when is is not. How can, and why would any true Catholic support abortion rights for women when it goes directly against the doctirine of the Catholic Church? (Kerry's religious background is actually Germanic Judaism.)
Surveys also showed that those people with religious values (those who attended church on a regular basis) voted more than 2:1 for Bush.
Ironic isn't it, that in the end, at least in this case, there is no seperation of Church and State, but actually one dictating the other.
Edited by JLDII 11/5/2004 9:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Dan, my reference to the eye to eye thing was to point out that meeting you would be the only way to "know" where the vigor in your posts were coming from and that any comment after that point could only be said person to person. I wasn't trying to challenge you to a debate and hoped you agreed that the only way to KKNOW someone is to MEET them. You obviously took it as another challenge, or snubbing or who knows what but I guess it's my fault you missed the point, I should have been more clear. I'm also glad you have a special place in your heart for me now, thank you.
Later Dude,
As far as moral values, ABC news had a great story on that showing how what one area considered moral values was totally opposite in others. The HUGE complexity of the election process (AND 80 BILLION in advertising) shows how the "perceived" person can carry more weight then the actual, and how the "message" from the candidates tries to dictate that. |
|
| |
