solemntruth Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/15/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 29, 2006 Is 'Don't Vote.com' a good or bad idea? Prelude: Hopefully, my thread may provoke meaningful discussions of whether 'Don't vote.com' is a good or bad idea'. As the author I am voicing my personal viewpoint. It's not to say that my personal viewpoint is right or wrong. It is merely my own personal opinion. So, please don't become offended or threatened. Feel free to voice your own personal viewpoint or opinion to let others know how you think. Personal viewpoint My personal viewpoint is that Don't vote.com is a bad idea. My reasoning is as follows: Don't vote.com is saying "Don't vote until you have heard the issues!" Off the top it sounds to be a very good campaign slogan. Yet, it may have a severe backlash. The slogan places candidates on the hot seat to divulge his or her personal views and/or beliefs. Moral issues (e.g. same-sex marriage, stem cell research or partial birth abortion etc.) are personal or private beliefs. Civic officials are not obligated by any civil law to give up his or right to privacy. Each is placed on civil service payroll to perform a duty or carryout the rules. For Example: One doesn't question the postal delivery person about his or her moral beliefs. Rather, their job duty is to deliver the mail unopened until it reaches its destination or recipient. Capitol Hill is the destination or recipient of all voter mail and/or votes.The danger that I perceive is that incumbents and/or candidates seeking election to civic office will be intimidated or influenced by Don't vote.com. They may bend the rules to vote on issues without polling his or her district. Bending the rules inevitably leads to a broken government. A civic official is a person, who has temporarily stepped down from his or her superior rank as an American citizen to officiate the rules of our United States Constitution and/or State Constitution. It is the same as if a person were to step down to accept the office of an umpire, referee, judge, arbitrator or mediator to officiate a contest or dispute between competing parties. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 construes any civic office and/or civic establishment privately or publicly owned as a public accommodation (i.e. affects the safety, health or welfare of our community). As such, an individual or group may neither intimidate nor influence any civic officer to differentiate enforcing any rule, law or policy based upon color, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, creed, age or disability. The duty of a civic official, in respect to enforcing a rule, law or policy, is to refrain from interjecting his or her personal viewpoint. If a civic official were to do the latter, it will be perceived as favoritism or discrimination. The end product will manufacture schism (i.e. civil strife or racial riots etc.). A minority population will dissent to protest its grievances in the form of anarchy against civic officials for taking sides. Legally speaking, a State Representative, Congressman/woman, or Senator owns a fiduciary duty to officiate a democratic poll of his or her district. If he or she is derelict to perform the latter duty, in lieu to cast his or her own personal vote or viewpoint, then the people of his or her district are ill served or misrepresented. Instead, the people are left to hope or pray for which way the wind will blow on Capitol Hill. Under our civil system of self-government the people are in charge and/or the master of our own fate. The Preamble and Constitution protects the civil liberties of the people to make political decisions autonomously of our government. We need our civic officials to step down off his or her high horses, and supply us with the civil services that we have paid for through our taxes to carryout our own self-government. It may seem difficult for any layperson to conceive intellectually that the highest ranking civic officer (i.e. President) is lower in rank than any civilian citizen (i.e. taxpayer). It is the same as in the Army where the highest ranking Non Commission Officer (i.e. Command Sergeant Major) is lower in rank than the lowest Commissioned Officer (i.e. Lieutenant). Our Preamble has commissioned each citizen of the United States to hold the the highest rank of office to form a Federal Union to govern our own civic affairs. The President is the highest ranking civil servant on our payroll. His job descripition doesn't call for his leadership or rule. Our President has to step down from his superior rank as an American citizen in order to accept his subordinate oath of office to serve the People of our Union. The lawful duties of our Oval Office are to: enforce our Constitution, Bill of Rights and UCMJ for military personnel. Anything less would be uncivilized (lol). We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Is 'Don't Vote.com' a good or bad idea? Prelude: Hopefully, my thread may provoke meaningful discussions of whether 'Don't vote.com' is a good or bad idea'. As the author I am voicing my personal viewpoint. It's not to say that my personal viewpoint is right or wrong. It is merely my own personal opinion. So, please don't become offended or threatened. Feel free to voice your own personal viewpoint or opinion to let others know how you think. Personal viewpoint My personal viewpoint is that Don't vote.com is a bad idea. My reasoning is as follows: Don't vote.com is saying "Don't vote until you have heard the issues!" Off the top it sounds to be a very good campaign slogan. Yet, it may have a severe backlash. The slogan places candidates on the hot seat to divulge his or her personal views and/or beliefs. Moral issues (e.g. same-sex marriage, stem cell research or partial birth abortion etc.) are personal or private beliefs. Civic officials are not obligated by any civil law to give up his or right to privacy. Each is placed on civil service payroll to perform a duty or carryout the rules. For Example: One doesn't question the postal delivery person about his or her moral beliefs. Rather, their job duty is to deliver the mail unopened until it reaches its destination or recipient. Capitol Hill is the destination or recipient of all voter mail and/or votes.The danger that I perceive is that incumbents and/or candidates seeking election to civic office will be intimidated or influenced by Don't vote.com. They may bend the rules to vote on issues without polling his or her district. Bending the rules inevitably leads to a broken government. A civic official is a person, who has temporarily stepped down from his or her superior rank as an American citizen to officiate the rules of our United States Constitution and/or State Constitution. It is the same as if a person were to step down to accept the office of an umpire, referee, judge, arbitrator or mediator to officiate a contest or dispute between competing parties. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 construes any civic office and/or civic establishment privately or publicly owned as a public accommodation (i.e. affects the safety, health or welfare of our community). As such, an individual or group may neither intimidate nor influence any civic officer to differentiate enforcing any rule, law or policy based upon color, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, creed, age or disability. The duty of a civic official, in respect to enforcing a rule, law or policy, is to refrain from interjecting his or her personal viewpoint. If a civic official were to do the latter, it will be perceived as favoritism or discrimination. The end product will manufacture schism (i.e. civil strife or racial riots etc.). A minority population will dissent to protest its grievances in the form of anarchy against civic officials for taking sides. Legally speaking, a State Representative, Congressman/woman, or Senator owns a fiduciary duty to officiate a democratic poll of his or her district. If he or she is derelict to perform the latter duty, in lieu to cast his or her own personal vote or viewpoint, then the people of his or her district are ill served or misrepresented. Instead, the people are left to hope or pray for which way the wind will blow on Capitol Hill. Under our civil system of self-government the people are in charge and/or the master of our own fate. The Preamble and Constitution protects the civil liberties of the people to make political decisions autonomously of our government. We need our civic officials to step down off his or her high horses, and supply us with the civil services that we have paid for through our taxes to carryout our own self-government. It may seem difficult for any layperson to conceive intellectually that the highest ranking civic officer (i.e. President) is lower in rank than any civilian citizen (i.e. taxpayer). It is the same as in the Army where the highest ranking Non Commission Officer (i.e. Command Sergeant Major) is lower in rank than the lowest Commissioned Officer (i.e. Lieutenant). Our Preamble has commissioned each citizen of the United States to hold the the highest rank of office to form a Federal Union to govern our own civic affairs. The President is the highest ranking civil servant on our payroll. His job descripition doesn't call for his leadership or rule. Our President has to step down from his superior rank as an American citizen in order to accept his subordinate oath of office to serve the People of our Union. The lawful duties of our Oval Office are to: enforce our Constitution, Bill of Rights and UCMJ for military personnel. Anything less would be uncivilized (lol). We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. My view is that this is a really "don't vote.com" is a really GOOD idea. People most definitely shouldn't vote "until they have heard and understood the issues". You are saying "Moral issues (e.g. same-sex marriage, stem cell research or partial birth abortion etc.) are personal or private beliefs. Civic officials are not obligated by any civil law to give up his or right to privacy. Each is placed on civil service payroll to perform a duty or carryout the rules" However, civil servants and politicians are not supermen and what ever their personal beliefs are they are bound to influence their decisions with regard to how they do their "job". Also: "We need our civic officials to step down off his or her high horses, and supply us with the civil services that we have paid for through our taxes to carryout our own self-government." Wonderful in theory, but in reality they think they are above the plebs, the ordinary taxpayer. Quote: "Our Preamble has commissioned each citizen of the United States to hold the the highest rank of office to form a Federal Union to govern our own civic affairs. The President is the highest ranking civil servant on our payroll. His job descripition doesn't call for his leadership or rule. Our President has to step down from his superior rank as an American citizen in order to accept his subordinate oath of office to serve the People of our Union". Sure, of course that is the way it is, but tell the president-hopeful that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 30, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,250 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,981 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2006 very very bad idea...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dole Posted October 30, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 139 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2006 So many bad laws get passed because no one understands them. I want politicians to be open about their beliefs, they are the law makers, will these laws benefit or hurt the country? You need to know where they stand on certain issues to know how well they will represent you and your beliefs. The person who speaks for the beliefs of the most american's wins. That's why I hate when politicians are allowed to get away with half answers, answer the full question and don't just say one thing and do another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solemntruth Posted October 30, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/15/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 So many bad laws get passed because no one understands them. I want politicians to be open about their beliefs, they are the law makers, will these laws benefit or hurt the country? You need to know where they stand on certain issues to know how well they will represent you and your beliefs. The person who speaks for the beliefs of the most american's wins. That's why I hate when politicians are allowed to get away with half answers, answer the full question and don't just say one thing and do another. If our democratic process were adhered to by the letter of the law, then it wouldn't matter what beliefs a candidate for civic office may hold. Our democratic process is designed to eliminate the risk of any civic official voting on public issues contrary to the majority opinion of civilian citizens residing within his or her district. Further, it protects against any likelihood of a civic official selling his or her vote for personal gain. Our First Amendment is a safeguard to protect each civilian citizen against Congress voting laws that respect the establishment of religion. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted October 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2006 I think it's a great idea, personally. An uninformed voter is like a loaded gun in the hands of a child. I've always thought a potential voter should be tested in some manner before they are allowed to cast their vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted October 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2006 My view is that when it comes to moral issues including aborticide, homosexuality, stem cell research, et al and the Judeo-Christian position re such, one should be settled in his/her own mind & quite prepared to be consistent in Christ in voting for Judeo-Christian morality in every instance. Morals do not change with prevailing winds. Whether (Christian) Republican or (Christian) Democrat, one seeks to advance the holy cause of Jesus Christ thru the voting process. "Whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God." http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solemntruth Posted November 6, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/15/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 6, 2006 The problem that concerns many is that voters may not afford the time to exercise his or her civic duty to study or vote on the multitude of issues that may reach the floor of the House and/or Senate. The latter is fully understood and taken into consideration. Yet, it is more feasible to fix the problem of making our democratic process more user friendly to voters, than it is to fix the human frailty problem of making our politicians to become more accountable or truthful. We are living in the new age of internet technology. This means that we can upgrade our electronic voting process to be far more advanced than our predecessors. It is highly feasible that pin numbers be assigned to each registered voter. Pin numbers would permit the House and/or Senate to post civic issues on either website for public view. The latter will furnish each voter equal opportunity to cast his or her vote. If any registered voter neglects his or her civic duty to afford the time to study or vote on any particular civic issue, then the burden falls upon him or her, rather than any civic official. Example: Judge Joe Brown has installed electronic voting devices in his courtroom. The audience listens to the civil disputes between the contestants (i.e. Plaintiff and Defendant). Judge Brown advises the audience of the State laws pertaining to the issues surrounding each case. From time to time he will permit his audience to render its verdict as if it were an official jury. The electronic voting devices makes his courtroom more user friendly than any of the other Court TV judges. It lessens his burden of being deemed unfair by either contestant or the audience. The majority opinion takes precedent in our democratic process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts