Is not voting a valid way to express your political position?

[iolo]

Well if 'exploiters' are making society prosperous and creating ipods, windows, spaceships and other technologies, then lets have more 'exploiters'. In other words, the amount of 'exploiting' somebody does is not the measure of their value, but rather their net contribution to society is the measure.

But they obviously aren't making anyone prosperous but themselves, whereas if we could back talent we'd all gain.

[Darklordabc]

But they obviously aren't making anyone prosperous but themselves

Have you seen how many people work at an ipod shop? There's more employees then customers. I find your claim that they are obviously only making them self's rich highly unlikely.

whereas if we could back talent we'd all gain.

Because that would be fair? I suppose me and you are somehow entitled to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates millions, who cares that they did all the work, right?

[Dan74]

That's a very rudimentary understanding of the CEO's role in a company. CEO's are actually hugely important, why else would business' pay millions and millions of dollars for them, are they just idiots? CEO's are a rare breed of aggressive and innovative people, they are 1 in a million, janitors are a dime a dozen and can easily be replaced.

I laughed. Hard.

Have you seen how many people work at an ipod shop? There's more employees then customers. I find your claim that they are obviously only making them self's rich highly unlikely.

Because that would be fair? I suppose me and you are somehow entitled to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates millions, who cares that they did all the work, right?

No one's entitled to any money. There will never be a society of all rich people, but capitalists like yourself will never admit this.

[Darklordabc]

I laughed. Hard.

I don't see the humor in it.

No one's entitled to any money. There will never be a society of all rich people, but capitalists like yourself will never admit this.

No, there probably never will be a society of all rich people, I'm fine admitting that, who really thinks there ever will be? Its astonishing that communist still exist today. I understand the desire for a better system, but communism, really? Its pretty sad when people view THAT as the greener pasture.

[Dan74]

I don't see the humor in it.

It's hilarious because you see importance in the workplace as something that's measured by salary.

No, there probably never will be a society of all rich people, I'm fine admitting that, who really thinks there ever will be? Its astonishing that communist still exist today. I understand the desire for a better system, but communism, really? Its pretty sad when people view THAT as the greener pasture.

Yeah, gods forbid we have a system free of exploitation in which the needs of all are met.

[Jack]

Have we forgotten about the topic of the thread? Posts should be related to the question, "Is not voting a valid way to express your political position?".

[iolo]

Have you seen how many people work at an ipod shop? There's more employees then customers. I find your claim that they are obviously only making them self's rich highly unlikely.

Because that would be fair? I suppose me and you are somehow entitled to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates millions, who cares that they did all the work, right?

Have your realised how many people successful conmen fool? The people who do the work are certainly not Jobs and Gates, are they? Your brainwashing is showing!

[LetThereBe]

Effort, and not effort for everything at the same time, is the best you can expect. You're not electing a dictator after all. The remainder of the power is for the other elections to distribute.

If that is all we are measuring then I expect most politicians easily hit that 88% mark for "at least they tried".

[Yarn]

If that is all we are measuring then I expect most politicians easily hit that 88% mark for "at least they tried".

Using the same website, it appears that Obama is more honest than the Democratic and Republican leadership of both houses in congress and Romney.

E.g.
PolitiFact | Barack Obama's file
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi's file
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/harry-reid/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-boehner/
http://www.politifact.com/personalit...tch-mcconnell/

So I don't know that many would reach 88%.

[LetThereBe]

Using the same website, it appears that Obama is more honest than the Democratic and Republican leadership of both houses in congress and Romney.

E.g.
PolitiFact | Barack Obama's file
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi's file
PolitiFact | Harry Reid's file
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-boehner/
PolitiFact | Mitch McConnell's file

So I don't know that many would reach 88%.

This is again an entirely different measure (not to say that it is completely lacking in value).
Looking at a few examples, it seems to be a case of better fact checking and research than political consistency.

[Yarn]

True. One would hope there would be a correlation.

Obama has been honest in both his statements and committments, but that isn't a very large sample size from which to be drawing a trend.

[The Decider]

Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that essentially called corporations "people" for purposes of campaign contributions, came from the Republican/Bush appointed majority. Those progressives who sat out the 2000 election indirectly put a stake in the heart of any future political money reform and, by extension, any hope for a viable third party movement. Non-voters' non-participation increased, not decreased, the power of the 1% that they rail against.

Go ahead, sit out another one. That is your "valid" right, as is mine to label such irresponsible behavior something akin to stupidity.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n - 08-205 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center