Caprice. I vote in every election that affects me, including city and town councils. I don't think that Blue is being frivolous. I think that if you don't like any candidate, or if you are not informed, then there is nothing wrong with exercising your option not to vote. It's a right, not a duty. Do you feel that it should be legislated? If you do, then that's a whole other debate, but if you don't, then you should just back off.
And by the way, I think that the reason there are such fools in power is that there are such fools in the public.
kickycan wrote:....but if you don't, then you should just back off.
I don't think so. I exercise my right to free speech.
We've had the 'should you be required to vote' debate here a coupla times already. I'm on the yes side. I like the Australian approach. They fine you a bit if you don't vote. I guess I'm somewhat optimistic that it will force a few more people to get informed about the issues.
How true PDiddie, it's sad bit of irony.
I don't think it's excercise at all....
People who don't vote are pure lazy. The can't find the time to investigate the options.
Agreed, Ceili.
And very amusing quote, PDiddie...
Which do you think will happen this sunday when Timberlake does his thing at the Grammys?
A. When he comes out the crowd jumps up in a fury, throwing rotten tomatoes and dead rats at him. He bursts into tears and scampers off the stage into obscurity.
B. When he comes out the crowd bursts into a heartfelt and supportive eight-minute standing ovation. Tearful shouts of "We love you Justin!" are heard from teenage girls. He bursts into tears and scampers off the stage into obscurity.
Or C. I don't care.
*heh*
By the way, what exactly does it mean when you put those *asterisks* around a word?
That comes from my chatting days. Words within asterisks are a more emotive (i.e. non-verbal) form.
Guess who's got an album out soon!!
Quote:Janet Jackson is back and not just at the courthouse. The singer is ready to jump off with latest set. Her as-yet-untitled new album will be released March 30, according to a spokesperson at her label, Virgin Records.
The album features collaborations with, of course, longtime producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, but also Dallas Austin, who she has worked with before.
Dallas Austin promises her new album is "easily the most sexy thing she's done." "Guys won't know what to do with themselves after this," he said, laughing at the prospect. "It's one of the best records she's made."
The overriding theme of Austin's collaborations with Janet is her overflowing sexuality. "To me, this is her Dirty Mind," Austin explained, referring to the Prince album that established him as the sex symbol of the music world. "It's a really sexy record, but not in a sensual way. It's bold, it's fun, it's really positive. Nobody's sad, nobody's mad. It's just really fun songs where she happens to be talking frankly about sex."
In support of the new album, Ms. Jackson is planning to tour this summer. In addition, she will be part of the MTV-produced Super Bowl XXXVIII in Houston on Feb. 1. It is not yet known if she will preview material from the upcoming set. P. Diddy, Kid Rock and Nelly are also scheduled to partake in the festivities.
Janet's new release follows her 2001 album, "All for You," which debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, and has sold more than 3 million copies in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan. The title cut reached No. 1 on the Hot 100 singles chart.
What I want to know is, what is Britney Spears going to do to top this?! And when, because I want to be there when she does it!
I always miss the good stuff. Personally though, I don't think anybody should have to apologize for anything. America's hangups regarding nudity is ridiculous. So people saw a breast. Nobody was harmed and if you say that kids were harmed because of it, you're really reaching.
I agree with you on all of your points roverroad. Having now seen the segment of video from the incident in question, I do have a problem with the context of the bare boob -- a man ripping away a piece of clothing from a woman's outfit. Skin exposure or no skin exposure, the message that sends doesn't sit right with me.
caprice wrote:I agree with you on all of your points roverroad. Having now seen the segment of video from the incident in question, I do have a problem with the context of the bare boob -- a man ripping away a piece of clothing from a woman's outfit. Skin exposure or no skin exposure, the message that sends doesn't sit right with me.
OK, so that's a good point. But I still think it was blown out of proportion. It was a theatrical dance. Not like it was the real thing. II don't think it sends a message that it's OK to rip peoples clothing off. Maybe it was a statement to the contrary. It's all in how you look at it I guess.
roverroad wrote:It's all in how you look at it I guess.
This is very true!
And I agree, it's been overblown. It doesn't deserve this much attention. Why aren't these same people up in arms over homelessness? Or the fact that approximately 15% (fifteen per cent!!!!!!!!!!!!) of Americans have no health care insurance. Aren't these much more worthy issues?
Yes, those are the issues that Americans should be focusing on. I'm pleased to hear that people are showing up at the primaries in record numbers. The people that think life is great and America is on the right path are the people that get hung up on petty issues like this.
Caprice (or anyone else who might have an opinion):
Would you be in favor of having the option of a protest vote on the ballot? I wonder what effect that would have.
