USA 2008 Elections

[Mugwump]

I'm waiting to see who the Greens will endorse.

Obama may well lose to McCain, if only because of his heritage, something I find severely disturbing. Regardless, he does not have the qualifications or experience for the job. I may wind up voting for Obama if the numbers get too close in my area if only to help bring Rasberrybeard and his mates home for good! Not to mention what they deserve when they get back (jobs, housing, medical, education....)

 

Drue ~ Not that I'm willing to actually *Vote* for any of them..

 

See, Unlike most Americans, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the US Government. I just happen to recognize fraud when I see it. I also refuse to sanction the process that forces a set of rulers upon me whether I want them or not, whether they are qualified and competent or not, by participating in it. A choice to follow one of 2 walking piles of shit pretty much *always* involves living in a perpetual stink.

 

Drue don't forget that we ARE our government, that's what democracy is all about! For the people, of the people, by the people. That adds up to IS the people.

 

Yeah, call me Pollyanna. Still it's the truth, and it will take a hella moving and shaking to change things well enough just to give some power to some good people. It can happen and it has to happen.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Mugwump

[Drue]

Drue ~ Not that I'm willing to actually *Vote* for any of them..

 

See, Unlike most Americans, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the US Government. I just happen to recognize fraud when I see it. I also refuse to sanction the process that forces a set of rulers upon me whether I want them or not, whether they are qualified and competent or not, by participating in it. A choice to follow one of 2 walking piles of shit pretty much *always* involves living in a perpetual stink.

 

Drue don't forget that we ARE our government, that's what democracy is all about! For the people, of the people, by the people. That adds up to IS the people.

 

Yeah, call me Pollyanna. Still it's the truth, and it will take a hella moving and shaking to change things well enough just to give some power to some good people. It can happen and it has to happen.

 

First of all, the United States is *not* a democracy. It is not now, nor has it *ever* been in the past. We are a Republic, nominally.

 

Secondly, "For the People".. Since when? I have trouble thinking of a single act perpetrated by our government over the last 10 years that I can construe as being "in the people's interest".. I can think of thousands of acts which are directly *against* the people's interest.

 

"Of the People".... I highly question. Sure, before one is distinguished as being a member of that criminal cabal who enforces its will upon The People through elaborate acts of subterfuge and deception, one is nominally "Of the People".. Except that I would argue that one must, by necessity, be separated from those people in some fashion or another in order to be willing to engage in the process of lying , cheating, dirty dealing, and and the general suborning of the rights and interests of "Those you came from" in order to gain that elevated position..

 

By the People.. that's the only one I'll give any credence to. Yes, We *let* them get by with this nonsense. We let them rape, torture, murder and steal in our names. We give OUR legitimacy to their fraud by our consent, by not standing up and demanding these miscreants be accountable to us. We allow it to happen because we think that they have a *right* to do what they do, and that there is even a shred of legitimacy in the institutions that support them.

 

There isn't. that's the problem. Even the vaunted US Constitution is illegitimate as a binding authority. When drafted and ratified, it was voted upon by a tiny handful of men.. and Men only, I might add, who were *not* in any means notably representative of the actual "People". Besides that, the Constitution is nothing more than an aggrandized legal contract. It contains in it no presupposition to bind the posterity of its signatories to its will, nor would such signatories have any legal authority to act in such a fashion as to bind those who are not yet born without their consent. As a contract, the Constitution is valid and applies to those who have *signed* it, not to any other.

 

Furthermore, our process of Election is entirely fraudulent for the purposes of representation in a matter fitting a democratic republic. If, in any other contract, I authorize a proxy to speak for me, I am required to put forth, publically, that I authorize this proxy, and duly provide said proxy with a signed writ of authorization whereby he or she may act in my interest. Under no circumstances does this *ever* occur when one supposedly "elects" a candidate to that exhalted group of robbers and murderers who purport to be our overlords. Our vote is cast in secret, there is no public proof that any of these "representatives of The People" are anything of the sort. At best, they can claim to be representatives of "an anonymous cabal of unnamed and unnumbered individuals who call themselves "The People of the United States", and who conspire to project power over their fellow man by criminal conspiracy and force of arms."

 

Just because a mechanism is presented whereby I *may* participate in a conspiracy, does not mean I am *obligated* to participate in that conspiracy. In much the same fashion, just because a group of people who happen to live on the same continent as I do, decide that *they* want to appoint someone a king over them, does not mean that *I* have to participate and recognize this pompous ass as my overlord. And in the case of a government which purports to be "Of, By, and For the People"... yet does not in any such way actually *represent* those people, or work for their interests, or even, perchance, take steps to ensure that the voice of said people can actually be *heard*... such a government has no legitimate standing to compel my participation in it, or acknowledgement of its authority, beyond its ability to employ force of arms in tyrannical oppression of my rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

Your government is a fraud, and it makes of you not a pollyana, but an ignorant conspirator in enforcing that fraud upon your fellow man by acts of terror and force.

 

Hence why I say "Don't Vote, it only encourages them."

 

When the People have *ANY* real, honest representation in government, I might consider changing my mind.

[Roja]

Hence why I say "Don't Vote, it only encourages them."

 

I think voting for a 3rd party would send a stronger message than not voting at all.

[LevinMage]

Hence why I say "Don't Vote, it only encourages them."

So you think by not voting you... discourage them? Not voting does exactly jack. As Roja said, vote for a candidate if there is one out there in a 3rd party who really

 

 

Mugwump: Obama may well lose to McCain, if only because of his heritage, something I find severely disturbing. Regardless, he does not have the qualifications or experience for the job. I may wind up voting for Obama if the numbers get too close in my area if only to help bring Rasberrybeard and his mates home for good! Not to mention what they deserve when they get back (jobs, housing, medical, education

 

What type of experience do you need to be president? I would think that you would need:

1) love for your country and the desire to improve it for all of its citizens regardless of politics

2) a full functioning brain

3) the skills to negotiate with most of the jackasses who are in government

... you would think that it this combination would be easy to find, but sadly it is not with most "politicians"

Edited June 25, 2008 by LevinMage

[robotbob]

Drue ~ Not that I'm willing to actually *Vote* for any of them..

 

See, Unlike most Americans, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the US Government. I just happen to recognize fraud when I see it. I also refuse to sanction the process that forces a set of rulers upon me whether I want them or not, whether they are qualified and competent or not, by participating in it. A choice to follow one of 2 walking piles of shit pretty much *always* involves living in a perpetual stink.

 

Drue don't forget that we ARE our government, that's what democracy is all about! For the people, of the people, by the people. That adds up to IS the people.

 

Yeah, call me Pollyanna. Still it's the truth, and it will take a hella moving and shaking to change things well enough just to give some power to some good people. It can happen and it has to happen.

 

First of all, the United States is *not* a democracy. It is not now, nor has it *ever* been in the past. We are a Republic, nominally.

 

[snip]

 

Great post.

 

I'm always tried pointing this out to fellow americans but they are so deluded under nationalistic propaganda, they became blind.

Even the CIA lists its The United States of America as: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

 

ref: CIA Factbook

 

I do agree on your opinion of voting. I vote anyway, but its really "allow the mob to have their illusions".

 

Its akin to allowing a slave to vote on what house he will live in, even if he selects one, he is still a slave.

 

(I recommend a book: On Democracy By Robert A. Dahl)

Edited June 25, 2008 by robotbob

[bigshock28]

I voted Ron Paul in the PA primarys but now that he is out, i'm voting McCain. Republicans FTW

[Entropy]

I don't think even *Charles Manson*, if elected president, could fuck up the country more than Bush has. Under 8 years of the Bush administration we've seen the greatest assault on the "american way" concievable, short of the US losing WWII, or the Stalinists winning the "Cold War." While it's pretty much a given that "All Politicians Lie", few have done so with such enthusiasm and vigor, or to such blatantly facist and totalitarian ends.

I don't think it is King George that fucked up the country, I think he MIGHT even have good intentions, but he is too stupid to get the consequences of his actions. I think there are other people, working behind the scenes, that did that. Well, them and Mr. Dick too.

 

The economy's in the crapper, with gas and food prices skyrocketing, and the only industries doing really *Well* are those that the Administration has vested interests in.. namely Defense Contracting, Oil, and Prisons. If corruption were any *more* blatantly obvious, Washington DC would have a giant billboard flying over it listing bribery prices for various levels of officials and the degree of influence desired to be purchased...

And who made and approved all those bills? The congress, yes? Who controls the congress now? The Republicans? Who voted to fund the war? Mr. Obama.

 

And, of course, we have the USA Patriot Act, and a number of less publicized but no less significant laws which effectively do nothing but entirely trash the concepts of "legal rights", "due process of law", and "constitutional protections", in order to grant the executive branch and its minions wholly unconstitutional powers rivaling that of the old soviet KGB..

And who voted to extend the valability of that act? Mr. Obama.

 

Certainly, "King George" and his minions have had their accomplices in treason... Including almost the entire membership of the 107th United States Congress.. But that fact certainly does not absolve him of his own actions.

Like I said, King George is just a small pawn. Obviously, he and his buddies should be tried for treason, but that won't happen. The Democrats are his buddies as well, with a few exceptions. Why the fuck didn't they impeach him? For this reason, I think the Democrats are even worse than the Republicans.

 

 

Now, that bit being said... I kind of like Obama for one reason, and one reason only. He offers, in whatever illusory form, the notion of "hope" for the future. It's full of shit, I realize this.. the only "Hope" this nation has is the breaking of the stranglehold on power held jointly by the Republican and Democratic parties, and the establishment of what is essentially a wholly new government based on a plurality of representation... But damnit, the man is about the *only* optimism that's floating around out there, with the possible exception of the "Cult of Ron Paul".. which, frankly, is just a little too creepy for me... kinda like Scientology in that respect.

Why? The 'Ron Paul' cult, which I am proudly part of (I even donated 300 bucks to his campaign) has a very open agenda: Bring the US back to the principles it was founded upon. They do not harass and sue people, they do not kill people, and they are very open. Tell me something you don't like about this 'cult'.

 

See, Unlike most Americans, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the US Government. I just happen to recognize fraud when I see it. I also refuse to sanction the process that forces a set of rulers upon me whether I want them or not, whether they are qualified and competent or not, by participating in it. A choice to follow one of 2 walking piles of shit pretty much *always* involves living in a perpetual stink.

No one foces you to vote between two guys, there are always 3rd party or independent candidates running. Vote for them!

[Entropy]

I voted Ron Paul in the PA primarys but now that he is out, i'm voting McCain. Republicans FTW

Why the hell would you vote for a candidate that Ron Paul explicitly did not endorse? Why not vote for the Libertarian candidate?

[Entropy]

There isn't. that's the problem. Even the vaunted US Constitution is illegitimate as a binding authority. When drafted and ratified, it was voted upon by a tiny handful of men.. and Men only, I might add, who were *not* in any means notably representative of the actual "People". Besides that, the Constitution is nothing more than an aggrandized legal contract. It contains in it no presupposition to bind the posterity of its signatories to its will, nor would such signatories have any legal authority to act in such a fashion as to bind those who are not yet born without their consent. As a contract, the Constitution is valid and applies to those who have *signed* it, not to any other.

I strongly disagree here.

While the people alive today did not vote for the constitution, it is still the 'law of the land'. And it is the law of the land because people living ever since the constitution was signed did not consider it necessary to amend the constitution (well, there were a few amendments, but it is more or less the same constitution for 200+ years).

 

Furthermore, our process of Election is entirely fraudulent for the purposes of representation in a matter fitting a democratic republic. If, in any other contract, I authorize a proxy to speak for me, I am required to put forth, publically, that I authorize this proxy, and duly provide said proxy with a signed writ of authorization whereby he or she may act in my interest. Under no circumstances does this *ever* occur when one supposedly "elects" a candidate to that exhalted group of robbers and murderers who purport to be our overlords.

Sounds great in theory, but horrible in practice. Without an elected person (which wins by a 50%+1 majority), nothing would ever get done. Therefore, it is necessary to have someone to 'represent' the people, someone who is voted by the people.

 

Just because a mechanism is presented whereby I *may* participate in a conspiracy, does not mean I am *obligated* to participate in that conspiracy.

 

There is no conspiracy, it's just that most of the people don't give a fuck about their country to actually process the garbage they see on the news and make their own oppinion of the events. People in the US are too busy working and enjoying themselves, and until the country will be really fucked up (which is likely will happen in the next 4 years, no matter who wins), they will not wake up and vote with their brain.

[Drue]

I don't think it is King George that fucked up the country, I think he MIGHT even have good intentions, but he is too stupid to get the consequences of his actions. I think there are other people, working behind the scenes, that did that. Well, them and Mr. Dick too.

 

Well, this gets down to whether or not Bush is actually running the country. If he is, then the titanic series of fuckups, lies, and just outright crimes against humanity perpetrated by his administration are, indeed, *HIS* fault. If, as I strongly suspect, that Dubya is nothing more than a means for Senior to control the White House for 8 years, it matters little, as we'll likely never know the truth of the matter.

 

And who made and approved all those bills? The congress, yes? Who controls the congress now? The Republicans? Who voted to fund the war? Mr. Obama.

The economy in the crapper hasn't a damn thing to do with any "bills" passed by Congress, per se. It has everything to do with a protracted period of *policy* fuckups within various agencies of the federal government, most of which fall under the purview of the executive branch, and we haven't even *begun* to see the damage that Dubya's little "Holy War" over in Iraq is going to inflict on the economy.

 

Policy enacted by the FTC, the Federal Reserve, the SBA, and the IRS has been the primary "mover and shaker" in terms of causes of the economic meltdown. Those and the suppression of science, most of which has been carried out at the behest of various executive branch administrations over the last hundred years.

 

You sound like you think I give a shit about the democrats, Ent... sadly, that's a bit wrong.. I think that Both of the major parties are worse than useless, and probably criminally culpable in a whole host of nasty activities.. The only reason I'm as pissed as I am at Bush is that I don't think anybody else could have fucked things up this badly if they deliberately *tried* to. Every single instance where Bush has made a decision, in my view, he's made the *worst* possible choice he could have made. It's pathetic to have to call someone that fucking *stupid* "my leader".

 

 

And who voted to extend the valability of that act? Mr. Obama.

And Hillary.. And McCain.. and once again, like I give a shit about the Dems? I just got done saying that the *only* reason I liked Obama was because he's got a bit of optimism about him.

 

 

Like I said, King George is just a small pawn. Obviously, he and his buddies should be tried for treason, but that won't happen. The Democrats are his buddies as well, with a few exceptions. Why the fuck didn't they impeach him? For this reason, I think the Democrats are even worse than the Republicans.

 

As if there's even *remotely* any difference between a Democrat and a Republican, Ent? Look.. they're *both* out to increase their collective power at the expense of the people.. and it doesn't matter a tinker's damn which side of the aisle you support.. As long as they *both* remain in power, they don't care. It's just a giant mass of bread and circuses designed to keep them all laughing their way to the bank.

 

Democrats "purport" to support bits on civil rights, social issues, etc. Whether they actually *do* or not depends almost wholly on what *they* get out of it. Pretty much the same deal with Republicans... except they don't even bother to pay lip service to the ideas of civil rights, social services, environmental regulation, etc. So while I suppose that makes Republicans more *honest*.. it doesn't make them any less *bastards*.

 

He doesn't get impeached because he serves the interests of the people who *own* congress.. and because those same people have all the media coverage they want to get the Sheeple of the american public all terrified of "emboldening the terrorists".

 

Why? The 'Ron Paul' cult, which I am proudly part of (I even donated 300 bucks to his campaign) has a very open agenda: Bring the US back to the principles it was founded upon. They do not harass and sue people, they do not kill people, and they are very open. Tell me something you don't like about this 'cult'.

 

It's the creepy plastic grin, to be honest. The "Ron Paul" cult is just.. well.. creepy. They think that he's some sort of saint, that he's going to lead them back to some "neverwas" time from the fictionalized 1950's, and that he's going to make things all better, for he is the chosen one..

 

To me, he's just another creepy christofacist pushing a homophobic, anti-woman, and pro-evangelical agenda.

 

Not that this means that every one of his ideas are bad.. Just enough of them are seriously bad *enough* to make me seriously twedgy. And no, the Ron Paul cult does not have as its agenda to bring the US back to the principles it was founded upon. I've heard nobody in the Ron Paul camp call for an organized revolution against the giant pile of tyranny and bullshit that runs this nation now. Every one of the Founding Fathers would be on the streets with a musket pointed at some politicians head *LONG* before they allowed things to get this bad.

 

No, the Parallels between the Ron Paul Cult and the Scientologists are just based in the "Creepy Denial of Reality" factor.. Ron Paul is no more the savior of American Politics than Tom Cruise is the love child of Galactic Overlord Xenu, regardless of what they or their followers personally believe. But in all my discussions with both Scientologists and Paulites... they both get the same kind of weird "disconnected" look when you start talking about "why and how the chosen one is full of shit". Kinda like the look a health nut gets when you tell them that Soy isn't as great for them as they thought, but not quite the rabid frenzy that results when you tell a mother with a young child that Barney the Purple Dinosaur is a great way to fuck kids up developmentally.

 

It's just creepy.. it's like Fanboy-ism, but on a whole other level.

[Drue]

There isn't. that's the problem. Even the vaunted US Constitution is illegitimate as a binding authority. When drafted and ratified, it was voted upon by a tiny handful of men.. and Men only, I might add, who were *not* in any means notably representative of the actual "People". Besides that, the Constitution is nothing more than an aggrandized legal contract. It contains in it no presupposition to bind the posterity of its signatories to its will, nor would such signatories have any legal authority to act in such a fashion as to bind those who are not yet born without their consent. As a contract, the Constitution is valid and applies to those who have *signed* it, not to any other.

I strongly disagree here.

While the people alive today did not vote for the constitution, it is still the 'law of the land'. And it is the law of the land because people living ever since the constitution was signed did not consider it necessary to amend the constitution (well, there were a few amendments, but it is more or less the same constitution for 200+ years).

 

Not only did nobody who is alive today vote for the Constitution, but even those persons who *did* vote for the constitution did not represent the *PEOPLE* of the United States. They represented a minority of people, the qualifying white landowners who chose to get involved. They certainly did not, just as they do not today, represent the entire population.

 

Within itself, the Constitution makes no claim to binding subsequent generations. It makes no claim to extablishing its authority in perpetuity to the exclusion of other authority. It also does not lay claim to enforcing itself upon anyone.. only that it is established so that those who wish to may participate under its auspices. It is a contract between specific persons.. the signatories, to engage in an attempt at government. If the people of one municipality decide to join together in a contract to establish a church, a school, and a hospital, and to do so with public funds, certainly they have the right do do so...

 

But they just as certainly have no right to force the members of the next town over who decline to participate in their actions or to receive benefits of those services to pay for it.

 

It's being "The Law of the Land" has nothing to do with its representative quality. It has everything to do with the fact that Lincoln and the rest of the "Unionists" decided that it was entirely appropriate to enforce membership in this compact by fire, slaughter, and death. As such, "the Great Liberator", to the accurate student of history, is nothing more than another tyrant with a good propagandist behind him, and established the present mode of governance, where "you will be governed as we see fit, or we will imprison or kill you."

 

Whence is the liberty? Whence is the "freedom" of our "great democracy"? Farce!

 

 

Furthermore, our process of Election is entirely fraudulent for the purposes of representation in a matter fitting a democratic republic. If, in any other contract, I authorize a proxy to speak for me, I am required to put forth, publically, that I authorize this proxy, and duly provide said proxy with a signed writ of authorization whereby he or she may act in my interest. Under no circumstances does this *ever* occur when one supposedly "elects" a candidate to that exhalted group of robbers and murderers who purport to be our overlords.

Sounds great in theory, but horrible in practice. Without an elected person (which wins by a 50%+1 majority), nothing would ever get done. Therefore, it is necessary to have someone to 'represent' the people, someone who is voted by the people.

 

Bollocks. First and foremost, an honest system of election involves no more work than the current fraud does. With advances in technology being what they are, we could possibly even wind up making direct democracy feasible. But a functional proxy system where an individual's vote actually *counted*.. instead of this "plurality law" fraud, and electoral college nonsense.. Hell, let's even get straight down to the core here.. There's absolutely *nothing* in our Constitution that says that the people even should be *asked* who they want to be their president. There is *nothing* mandating that a popular vote even be *taken*. The Electoral College members are *APPOINTED* by the party reps in the state legislatures, and there has never *ONCE* been a "Faithless Elector" penalized for voting against the wishes of those he purports to represent, not ONCE in the 150-ish times that it's occurred.. Hell, in half the states, it's not even *illegal*.

 

An actual Proxy system *ensures* that my voice is heard, instead of being totally discounted because I was among the "1 vote shy" crowd. As this government is nominally "By" me, "for" me, and "of" me, then I should damn well think that my view matters, regardless of whether or not 50%+1 of the people in my area agree with my view.

 

As it stands now, the only way that my voice can be heard is by buying myself a Senator. If I have money, or power, or head up some special interest group, I can talk to "my" elected representative, let my feelings be known, urge support of this action or that action.. If I do *not* have money, or power, or some special interest group supporting me, I can get interaction with a low level flunkie, who will, if I am fortunate, notate my opinion in a tabulation somewhere, if said flunkie is intelligent/motivated enough to be trusted to notate it correctly in the first place.. which often is *not* the case. If I have weeks of time to spend, and money to burn to do it, I might be able to schedule an appointment with "my" elected representative.. to get 5 minutes of "face time" *if* I happen to be one of the lowly petitioners lucky enough to be chosen that day.. Or if the Chairman of "Bloatware, Inc" doesn't just happen to show up late..

 

No, I reject this notion that somehow, some way, participation in this fetid, stinking, bloated corpse of a governmental system is in anyway capable of producing change, or even holds the power it does legitimately. I was never asked, I never consented, I was never informed, efforts were made to deceive me from the get-go, to deprive me of my lawful rights.. UNALIENABLE rights..., and to encourage me to perpetuate a fraud by endorsing a fraudulent, corrupt tyranny held in place solely through misinformation and threat of force as "democratic" or "representative".

 

No way, no how, does she hold water, capt'n...

[Entropy]

You sound like you think I give a shit about the democrats, Ent... sadly, that's a bit wrong..

Well, no, but you were only blaiming Bush, when it is a collective fault of everyone (Republicans, Democrats, and those who voted for them). Personally I do not blame Bush as much as I blame those who voted for him in 2004.

 

As if there's even *remotely* any difference between a Democrat and a Republican, Ent? Look.. they're *both* out to increase their collective power at the expense of the people.. and it doesn't matter a tinker's damn which side of the aisle you support.. As long as they *both* remain in power, they don't care. It's just a giant mass of bread and circuses designed to keep them all laughing their way to the bank.

After the 2006 elections, I realized that as well. There is no difference between them, except that the Democrats want to increase the taxes more than the Republicans.

 

It's the creepy plastic grin, to be honest. The "Ron Paul" cult is just.. well.. creepy. They think that he's some sort of saint, that he's going to lead them back to some "neverwas" time from the fictionalized 1950's, and that he's going to make things all better, for he is the chosen one..

 

To me, he's just another creepy christofacist pushing a homophobic, anti-woman, and pro-evangelical agenda.

Are you fucking kidding me? I share the view that he is some sort of saint, because, if you'd look closer at him, you'd see that he is totally unlike any other politician in the US. He always consitently voted for the things he believed in (ok, maybe with some very minor exceptions), and I agree with the vast majority of his votes. Calling him a "creepy christofacist pushing a homophobic, anti-woman, and pro-evangelical" is a big lie and I dare you to back up your statements with facts.

 

I've heard nobody in the Ron Paul camp call for an organized revolution against the giant pile of tyranny and bullshit that runs this nation now. Every one of the Founding Fathers would be on the streets with a musket pointed at some politicians head *LONG* before they allowed things to get this bad.

Everyone in his camp, including me, thought about an organized revolution (as a thought exercise). However, there is no reason to have an organized revolution in the US, because it is, afterall, a free country. You can say what you want, and you can vote as you want. So unless Father George starts abolishing the Bill of Rights, there is no need for a gun blazing revolution.

But revolutions can come in other forms, not just violent. There were many revolutions in the world, especially at the end of 89 and early 90, where the regimes were changed with little or no blood shed. The revolution is a state of mind, the idea that you have to change the way things work right now.

 

But in all my discussions with both Scientologists and Paulites... they both get the same kind of weird "disconnected" look when you start talking about "why and how the chosen one is full of shit".

You are full of shit for saying something like that. First, you can not blame a whole movement after talking to only a few people. Then you can not say that Ron Paul is full of shit, because you have no facts to back up that statement.

[Entropy]

Not only did nobody who is alive today vote for the Constitution, but even those persons who *did* vote for the constitution did not represent the *PEOPLE* of the United States. They represented a minority of people, the qualifying white landowners who chose to get involved. They certainly did not, just as they do not today, represent the entire population.

Doesn't matter, the Constitution is flexible and allows for changes. If you are not happy with it, start a movement and change it. But most of the people, including me (and I am not easy to please when it comes to politics) are very happy with it as it is.

Whence is the liberty? Whence is the "freedom" of our "great democracy"? Farce!

Like, say, in the Bill of Rights?

 

Bollocks. First and foremost, an honest system of election involves no more work than the current fraud does. With advances in technology being what they are, we could possibly even wind up making direct democracy feasible. But a functional proxy system where an individual's vote actually *counted*.. instead of this "plurality law" fraud, and electoral college nonsense..

1. This is not technically possible yet (not everyone has access to the Internet).

2. Would be a huge security problem to make sure that there is no fraud.

3. People are stupid, are you sure you want to let them vote for every single issue? Remmeber, 70% of the Americans were for the war, when it started.

 

As it stands now, the only way that my voice can be heard is by buying myself a Senator.

There are many grass roots organisations that changed a lot of things. One example is the fascist cunts from MADD that managed to make the minimum drinking age to be 21 years old in all the US states (or else the states lose federal funds).

You don't have to have a lot of money, but you need to be dedicated and persistent.

[Arnieman]

personally, I'm waiting for a viable 3rd party, or to see McCain's running mate... As is now, I don't see someone I'm certain enough to call my candidate.

 

I refuse to let my vote count for anything for Hillary - not even as pooper-scooper.

[Drue]

You sound like you think I give a shit about the democrats, Ent... sadly, that's a bit wrong..

Well, no, but you were only blaiming Bush, when it is a collective fault of everyone (Republicans, Democrats, and those who voted for them). Personally I do not blame Bush as much as I blame those who voted for him in 2004.

 

I blame the Bush Administration. Dubya himself I think gets a small bit of a pass because he's too much of a retarded fratboy to have orchestrated 90% of the bullshit his administration pulled. However, since he is, nominally, the "chief executive", anything done by his administration is *his* responsibility.

 

Of course, the members of various congresses are also culpable, regardless of party.. but I especially single out Bush/Cheney/Rove/Et Al for deliberately lying to not only the American people, but to Congress and the leadership of most of the rest of the world. Deliberately and premeditatedly lying out their sorry, sneaky, republican asses, in order to start an unneeded war to kill a bunch of brown people. I'm not even going to get anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11... Heads need to roll here, conspiracy theories aside.

 

 

Are you fucking kidding me? I share the view that he is some sort of saint, because, if you'd look closer at him, you'd see that he is totally unlike any other politician in the US. He always consitently voted for the things he believed in (ok, maybe with some very minor exceptions), and I agree with the vast majority of his votes. Calling him a "creepy christofacist pushing a homophobic, anti-woman, and pro-evangelical" is a big lie and I dare you to back up your statements with facts.

 

Dare and the deed is done, Ent..

 

Let's start off with "Homophobic".. To start off with, he's a fan of this "Don't ask, don't tell" bullshit in our military.. He's against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, even though they are extended to heterosexual couples as a matter of course.. He's against the "gay marriage ban" amendment, but only on a "states rights" platform.. and he's been very careful to remain "neutral" on the whole concept of "gay marriage" or "civil unions".. but in the same speeches, he's always there to mention "family values" and "church values".. which in 90% of the USA mean "societally endorsed bigotry"..

 

His "states rights" platform, in that regard, is built around the idea of forbidding federal judges (and federal law) from forcing states to recognize the rights of Homosexuals. Lemme quote:

"Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

 

So He's against a constitutional amendment because it gives the FED's too much power.. but he's got no problem with treating gay people like social pariahs the way a great many states currently do.

 

And I'd like to make one point.. just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it "right". For a couple hundred years, Slavery was "traditional".. In many places in the South, it's "traditional" for a bunch of drunk white rednecks to get together a couple times a year and lynch a black man, just because he's there. In *many* parts of the country, the idea of harassing pagans, non-christians, or any other "different" social group member is a longstanding, and I daresay *cherished* tradition of the local citizenry, even to the extent that it is ignored by local law enforcement when it violates laws, civil rights, and even the health and well-being of the victim... Segregation was "traditional"... Women not being allowed to Vote was "traditional".. In some parts of the world, murdering your own daughter for marrying outside of her caste is "traditional"... and in each and every case, it's still fucked the hell up.

 

Ok.. let's go on to Anti-Woman... This one's easy. We can start with the Sanctity of Life Act.. which Ron Paul introduced in both 2005 and 2007.. essentially a gutting of Roe v. Wade. We can go from there to the "We the People Act".. also introduced in 2005 and 2007.. which would have forbidden the federal government from stepping in against any state laws that happened to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, sexual practices, etc.. It would also allow states to declare abortion to be murder, to outlaw certain forms of contraception... He's even gone on record as opposing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

 

Now, I understand this gets into some heavy bullshit, especially as the "right to life'rs" get their undies in a wad.. But sorry, every nation in the industrialized world has legalized abortion. Every other "western" society has recognized that "it may not be a "good thing", but reproductive freedom is more important. " If it's outlawed, its *WOMEN* who are put at risk.... They're the ones who either have to try and raise a child they're unprepared for, and possibly do a horrible job at it, or risk prison and/or injury/death to try to get an "underground" abortion.. That, Sir, is Anti-Woman.. because there sure as hell hasn't been any effort undertaken to criminalize a young irresponsible male from "sowing his wild oats".

 

From there we can go to his absolutely *asinine* support for "abstinence only sex education". Doesn't work, has *never* worked, and the only results you see where it has been tried is a rise in teen pregancies, sexually transmitted diseases, highschool dropouts and abortions. This, too, is also anti-woman.. it's anti-young-woman, but young women are women nonetheless. The rationale is this: "If we don't tell people about contraceptives, they just won't have sex before they're married." This, we *all* know, is utter bullshit. What it winds up doing is simply denying young people the information they need to be able to prevent making some really really *stupid* mistakes... all this in the name of what is essentially "Conservative Christian Prudishness."

 

Which is a beautiful segue into the whole "Evangelical" bit..

 

Let's see.. So far, we already have a fair chunk of ammo to support that claim.. The anti-gay bits certainly.. as it's only the "conservative christian" evangelical people who are really militant gay haters... And the anti-abortion bit.. that, too, is pretty much screams "Evangelical".. since they are the ONLY major group who have *still* been pushing for that nonsense for the last 30 years... Then we have the "Abstinence-only-sex-ed" nonsense.. again, that is something that *only* a bible-thumping christian is nuts enough to support....

 

From there we can go into his official position of "neutrality" with regards to teaching of "Creationism" as "Science"... Nobody but a Fundie who's trying to get elected is "Neutral" on that issue... The only people who "support" it are Seriously whacked out Evangelical nutbags.. and everybody else is pretty much dead "Against" the notion. Paul carefully avoids it like he does the "Gay Marriage" issue by deliberately obfuscating it under a blanket "states rights" statement.

 

He's also come out on the record as supporting prayer in public schools. Again, the only people staunchly in favor of such positions are Evangelicals...

 

Granted, he's more of a libertarian than an Evangelical in his political platform.. But the end result of most of his "States Rights" approach is that the entire Southeastern United States become a bastion of state-sponsored christian bigotry. In Georgia, for example... anal sex is illegal.. regardless of whether or not it's between two gay men or between consenting married heterosexuals.. Frankly, it's none of *any* government's fucking business what kind of sex anybody has with anyone else, just so long as it's all consensual. Once powerful Evangelical groups in the "Bible Belt" get their carte blanche from Ron Paul to start abusing as they please, free from any interference by the Federal court system... you're going to see large chunks of this nation become even more of a theocracy than they already are.. which is something the Evangelicals of this country have been treasonously pushing for for the last 4 decades.

 

So absolutely I call him a homophobic, anti-woman, Evangelical Christofacist.

[Drue]

Not only did nobody who is alive today vote for the Constitution, but even those persons who *did* vote for the constitution did not represent the *PEOPLE* of the United States. They represented a minority of people, the qualifying white landowners who chose to get involved. They certainly did not, just as they do not today, represent the entire population.

Doesn't matter, the Constitution is flexible and allows for changes. If you are not happy with it, start a movement and change it. But most of the people, including me (and I am not easy to please when it comes to politics) are very happy with it as it is.

 

So it doesn't matter that the foundational basis for what claims itself to be a "representational" government was not in any way "representational" when it was created? It doesn't matter that the document you hold to be the basis of all law is, in and of itself, not particularly legally binding upon anybody through any means other than threat of force? Or that the only reason it is held as such is because the last people who tried to exert their "Rights" to withdraw from its auspices were smashed into compliance with utmost violence? Don't you see a wee bit of a double standard here? It doesn't matter a damn if its "flexible" or not, if its very conception is against the very things it purports as "Essential values".

 

Whence is the liberty? Whence is the "freedom" of our "great democracy"? Farce!

Like, say, in the Bill of Rights?

 

Ah yes, that pompous bag of foolery..

 

To begin with, if I have a "Right".. then it is nothing to be permitted me by a document of law. If it is my right, it is an absolute. If it is extended to me by a document.. a document which can me amended at will, then it is *NOT* a right, it is simply a privilege that those who would call themselves my "Masters" choose to extend to me. The "Bill of Rights" attempts to take what *ought* to be natural rights and makes them "privileges" extended to me by the Government.

 

Secondly.. from a constitutional standpoint, 90% of the laws enacted by the federal government since the Civil War are unconstitutional. They draw their basis from a subtle re-defining of "Citizenship", by which we are assumed to have "voluntarily" already surrendered most of our "constitutionally protected rights" in exchange for certain "additional benefits". The main problem is that people are not *informed* of this, nor is there any effort made to educate them, and its only with significant difficulty that such information can be obtained in the first place. Which means our "Voluntary Compliance" is the result of "Extensive and Willful Deception by Omission". This is a direct violation of the supposed "Right" of every American to "Liberty". Unless one has renounced their citizenship in the Federal Government of the United States, while simultaneously re-affirming their citizenship in the State of their Birth, essentially, the "Bill of Rights" doesn't apply to you anyway.. it's only held thus at the convenience of the State.. as the USA PATRIOT Act, and many others so adroitly prove.

 

Bollocks. First and foremost, an honest system of election involves no more work than the current fraud does. With advances in technology being what they are, we could possibly even wind up making direct democracy feasible. But a functional proxy system where an individual's vote actually *counted*.. instead of this "plurality law" fraud, and electoral college nonsense..

1. This is not technically possible yet (not everyone has access to the Internet).

2. Would be a huge security problem to make sure that there is no fraud.

3. People are stupid, are you sure you want to let them vote for every single issue? Remmeber, 70% of the Americans were for the war, when it started.

 

1. Not everyone *needs* access to the internet. For Direct Democracy, it would be helpful.. but for an effective Proxy system, it's unnecessary. All one needs is for polling places to be secure, permanent, available, and interconnected. The ability to change one's Proxy "on the fly" up until a certain time before a vote is cast makes the reasonable assurance that the people who actually *care* will have their voice heard on an issue.

 

2. As opposed to the current system, where there is no assurance of any kind that there is no fraud? We are simply *told* that the system works.. there is never any "proof" of security or legitimacy.. Aye, security and fraud prevention are big big issues.. and need to be implemented *regardless*. If you've got to do it anyway, why not just revamp things to make the government actually *representative* instead of merely paying lip service to it?

 

3. Of course people are stupid. How is letting them vote any more dangerous than letting them be lead around by the nose by a corrupt and incompetent government whose interests are, by and large, opposed to the people's own? If the people actually *have* a say, they are at least responsible for their own state of "getting fucked up by what happens." Makes em more honest.

 

In actuality, what you wind up with isn't much different.. The vast majority of the people will still vote however the tv tells them, when they can be arsed to stand up and do so. The difference is, however, that the people who actively *care* about government, who are motivated and educated on the subjects, will be able to have their voices heard, instead of just being assumed to fall in line with a certain percentage of the mindless masses that match their polling demographic. It still doesn't solve the problem of the deliberate dumbing down of the citizenry, nor the deliberate engendering of political apathy that has allowed this nation to be taken to the cleaners to the extent that it has.. But it does give people who *do* care, and those who perhaps might be able to be arsed to care, an actual *reason* to get involved, instead of this pointless non-representative nonsense we currently engage in.

 

As it stands now, the only way that my voice can be heard is by buying myself a Senator.

There are many grass roots organisations that changed a lot of things. One example is the fascist cunts from MADD that managed to make the minimum drinking age to be 21 years old in all the US states (or else the states lose federal funds).

You don't have to have a lot of money, but you need to be dedicated and persistent.

 

And how do you think those "Facist Cunts" from MADD got all that done? They bought themselves some Senators. They built themselves up a grassroots organization to raise *funds* to allow themselves to be able to lobby full time. They, in fact, built a political *business* out of their "cause". Nothing happens without money to grease the wheels. Nothing.

[LevinMage]

I'm not even going to get anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11... Heads need to roll here, conspiracy theories aside.

Oh, what did happen on 9/11? Seems fairly simple what happened. No need for people to make up long, wild and crazy conspiracy theories.

 

Let's start off with "Homophobic".. To start off with, he's a fan of this "Don't ask, don't tell" bullshit in our military.. He's against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, even though they are extended to heterosexual couples as a matter of course.. He's against the "gay marriage ban" amendment, but only on a "states rights" platform.. and he's been very careful to remain "neutral" on the whole concept of "gay marriage" or "civil unions".. but in the same speeches, he's always there to mention "family values" and "church values".. which in 90% of the USA mean "societally endorsed bigotry"..

Just because he is against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, "dont ask, don't tell policy," etc, as you are saying he does, doesn't mean he is homophobic.

Same thing for "Sanctity of Life Act"/anti-abortion, which does not equal being anti-woman.

 

You seem quite good at taking people's support or non-support for an issue and giving them labels.

[Drue]

I'm not even going to get anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11... Heads need to roll here, conspiracy theories aside.

Oh, what did happen on 9/11? Seems fairly simple what happened. No need for people to make up long, wild and crazy conspiracy theories.

 

And what part of "I'm not even going to go anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11" Says to you that I'm intending to start up a long, drawn up conversation with you on the subject?? You just believe what you want, because no amount of evidence or suspicion is going to matter to you in the slightest. I might suggest you stop trolling.

 

Let's start off with "Homophobic".. To start off with, he's a fan of this "Don't ask, don't tell" bullshit in our military.. He's against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, even though they are extended to heterosexual couples as a matter of course.. He's against the "gay marriage ban" amendment, but only on a "states rights" platform.. and he's been very careful to remain "neutral" on the whole concept of "gay marriage" or "civil unions".. but in the same speeches, he's always there to mention "family values" and "church values".. which in 90% of the USA mean "societally endorsed bigotry"..

Just because he is against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, "dont ask, don't tell policy," etc, as you are saying he does, doesn't mean he is homophobic.

Same thing for "Sanctity of Life Act"/anti-abortion, which does not equal being anti-woman.

 

You seem quite good at taking people's support or non-support for an issue and giving them labels.

 

And you seem to be quite good at playing "dutifully oblivious" when it comes to certain points you disagree with.

 

With regard to Homosexuality.. There is not one *shred* of viable scientific evidence that says that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. *none*. There are physiological differences in homosexuals.. in genetics, in brain structure and activity. Homosexuality is recorded in nature, among animals. It is even *commonplace.* The only reason *not* to afford the homosexual relationship the same benefits and protections as the heterosexual relationship is religious bigotry. Period.

 

Anti-Woman vs anti-abortion/etc... I beg to differ with you, sincerely. When someone suggests to me that a person who was brutalized in a rape must be forced by law to carry her rapists child to term, I say they're some right sick bastards. That's about as anti-woman an idea as you can get. So is the idea of Abstinence Only Sex Ed, in addition to being an utter failure.

 

And quite frankly, I fail to see how it is *ANY* of a government's business telling a woman under what circumstances she can give birth, or decide not to. Abortion has been practiced for thousands upon thousands of years, mostly carried out *BY* women, for women.. It was carried out in Biblical times in Israel, in ancient Rome and Greece, in the great empires of Asia.. All around the world.. And yet you see *nothing* of it mentioned in the Bible or other "holy books".. You simply see a giant hue and cry raised by a radical Protestant minority based on medieval Roman Catholic dogma. That makes the whole "abortion" issue, in terms of its legality, nothing but an attempt by a religious group to impose *its* morals upon people who don't agree with them by the force of secular law.. and that is as "Un-American" as it gets. Commonplace, but Un-American.

 

This ain't real complicated. Regardless of how much the idea perhaps offends you, simply discounting it doesn't make it any less valid.

[LevinMage]

And what part of "I'm not even going to go anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11" Says to you that I'm intending to start up a long, drawn up conversation with you on the subject?? You just believe what you want, because no amount of evidence or suspicion is going to matter to you in the slightest. I might suggest you stop trolling.

Hmmm... yes a large amount of solid evidence pointing at something could sway me to a different viewpoint, but sadly all the "conspiracy theories" I read about were lacking in this respect.

 

Let's start off with "Homophobic".. To start off with, he's a fan of this "Don't ask, don't tell" bullshit in our military.. He's against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, even though they are extended to And you seem to be quite good at playing "dutifully oblivious" when it comes to certain points you disagree with.

I don't disagree with the viewpoint that a majority of homosexuality is based in genetics or that woman should have the right of choice, just that if you are against these you are automatically a homophobic, woman hater.

 

And quite frankly, I fail to see how it is *ANY* of a government's business telling a woman under what circumstances she can give birth, or decide not to. Abortion has been practiced for thousands upon thousands of years, mostly carried out *BY* women, for women.. It was carried out in Biblical times in Israel, in ancient Rome and Greece, in the great empires of Asia.. All around the world.. And yet you see *nothing* of it mentioned in the Bible or other "holy books".. You simply see a giant hue and cry raised by a radical Protestant minority based on medieval Roman Catholic dogma. That makes the whole "abortion" issue, in terms of its legality, nothing but an attempt by a religious group to impose *its* morals upon people who don't agree with them by the force of secular law.. and that is as "Un-American" as it gets. Commonplace, but Un-American.

...didn't someone just say And I'd like to make one point.. just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it "right". I am certainly not a biblical scholar having only read the bible once, so I really couldn't say whether abortion is in there or not.

 

This ain't real complicated. Regardless of how much the idea perhaps offends you, simply discounting it doesn't make it any less valid.

The only idea that offends me is how you so quickly group people into different categories without really listening to what others are saying.

Edited June 28, 2008 by LevinMage

[Entropy]

Drue, you are a fucking hypocrite on multiple counts:

 

1. You claim that the US government is not representative enough. Ok, that is a valid point, but then this guy comes and says: I want to let the STATES decide for themselves on host of issues (gay rights, abortions, etc.). No matter what you say or think, the fact is that it is easier for a person to influence the law in his or her state than the law of the whole federation. So instead of respecting that guy, you call him a "christofascist" and women hater??

 

2. You claim that Ron Paul is against the women rights, but by the very same measurement, you are a baby killer, and against the babies life.

 

3. You complain about the US Constitution and how you should not be bound by it because you didn't sign it yourself.

Well, guess what. When you come to this world, you are not King Shit of the Mountain Fuck. You do NOT inherently have the right to live, or to be free, or to be happy. You do not have the right to drive your car on the street, you do not have the right to post on this forum, you do not have the right to have a roof above your head. You are, however, able to do those things (live, eat, and so on) because you live in a country that has a great Constitution, which protects you, even though you didn't sign for it. If you were born in Rwanda, or Somalia, or Afganistan (all those countries have no effective governments), then someone could have very well killed you the day you were born, then have sex with your dead body and finally force your mother to eat it. And that person could have walked freely after doing such things, because, well, there are no laws in those countries.

So regardless of who or when signed for the US Constitution, it is because of it that you are alive. And this does not apply only for the US constitution, it applies for any constitution in any country that has a government. Because if you had to SIGN for it in order to be protected by it, people could have very well killed you before you were able to sign for it.

[Entropy]

Oh, fuck it, it seems that the Libertarian candidate of this year is no go either: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/polit...0oJ0IPh+bBZa57A

I would never vote for someone who voted for the war or for the Patriot act.

I guess that this year there is no point in even going to vote...

[Ateh]

Its a shame that this man : http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/280608Paul.htm

 

didnt make it to the elections , but then again he would have actually changed things and not just given everyone an empty mantra of

 

''change you can believe in''

 

I want to know what sort of change Obama is talking about ? Change for the better ? For the betterment of who ?

 

After reading this article : http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/lawm..._war_62708.html

 

im really not sure anymore.

 

If I was American , and faced with the choice of McCain or Obama, id choose not to vote as I dont trust either of them.

Ive never voted in my life because ive been unable to trust the people were supposed to vote for.

 

No matter how great they make you feel by promising change (and they ALLWAYS talk about tax cuts and that never happens so you know that ones a lie right away ) , or how good thier little TV advert is, or how many photo ops they get holding someone else baby looking all '' paternal '' , they allways end up the same way, at war, raising taxes at home while complaining about how violent the criminals are getting so they NEED MORE POWER.

 

Anyway, im pretty sure that sooner or later were not even going to get the chance to vote in any country. So might as well enjoy it while you can and vote for Obama, at least he looks a bit like Ed Munster from the Munsters and that was a classic show.

 

 

 

what I do find funny is that 26% are more willing to vote in an eternal lands poll than they are in a National ELection

Edited June 29, 2008 by Ateh

[Entropy]

what I do find funny is that 26% are more willing to vote in an eternal lands poll than they are in a National ELection

At least in our polls, one of the options is usually good for the player who votes (even if the vote is against something).

In the 2008 US elections, I really could not find any candidate that won their party nomination, who would do good to this county.

There is so much hype about Obama, the "Yes we can" bullshit, but I think he is just a little more subtle whore: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/o...d_n_109758.html

He does not stand on issues because he believes in them, he does so because he is seeking to win a broader spectrum of possible voters. This is, imho, very patethic and tells a lot about his moral qualities.

[Inglor]

I will vote for Obama. Believe that McCain may wake up and forgot he is President someday should he win:)

Seriously I think we need a younger mind than McCain is the main reason for my choice.

Would not have voted for Hilary. Thought that she was way to mean spirited for me.

 

The lesser of 2 ebuls again this election. On the other hand de ebul Bush brought the country togeather with one thought: "Be glad when he is out of here". Think positive. I am positive either cadidate will be an improvement over the last 8 years.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Inglor

[Drue]

Drue, you are a fucking hypocrite on multiple counts:

 

1. You claim that the US government is not representative enough. Ok, that is a valid point, but then this guy comes and says: I want to let the STATES decide for themselves on host of issues (gay rights, abortions, etc.). No matter what you say or think, the fact is that it is easier for a person to influence the law in his or her state than the law of the whole federation. So instead of respecting that guy, you call him a "christofascist" and women hater??

 

The US government is *not* representative enough. Neither is state government, for my liking. However, the platform of "states rights", when it comes up against the question of essential human rights, and the preservation thereof, don't mean jack to me. Perhaps it is easier for a person to influence the law in their own state. For every occasion that this opens the door for positive change, it *also* opens the door for a group of bigots with some particular hate fetish to push their agenda in an isolated region. Now, if there was a sort of overarching constitutional guarantee of equal rights for absolutely *everyone*, implemented by a system that was truly representative *and* binding, then it matters little.. but simply removing any sort of oversight potential does nothing but *invite* abuse, regardless of how you want to spin it.

 

2. You claim that Ron Paul is against the women rights, but by the very same measurement, you are a baby killer, and against the babies life.

 

Call me a hypocrite, I call you a libeler. I am not a "baby killer".. nor are we even close to using the same measure. I have not intended to force anyone to kill children. I have not killed children. I have not even scraped a non-conscious sack of cellular matter off the inside of a uterus. I'm a 32 year old guy who's never engaged in procreation, even. So you can stop libeling me.

 

See, you right to life people always make that assumption... you think that just because somebody isn't a facist adherent to your completely unproven doctrine and personal moral assumptions that they are somehow *FOR* abortion.. and that they suggest that we should all run around murdering babies, just because it's fun! Unfortunately for you, and the rest of us, that position is full of shit.

 

My position is that it's not your right to determine the morals for the rest of us. Period. It's also not your responsibility, or even your *business*... moral or religious motivations included.

 

You just *assume* that "life begins at conception".. and get all fucking militant when somebody suggests that it's not proven, (because it isn't)... and you get bent out of shape because you believe, without any actual *evidence*, that we only get 1 time around... that early death "wastes" life... that perhaps a soul is being "deprived" of a chance for a life... all based on a bunch of religious bullshit that absolutely *IS NOT* universally shared, and emphatically *CANNOT* be scientifically proved. And you want to use this as the foundation for secular LAW that determines what a woman can and cannot do with her own body? And you call yourself an american, or a libertarian? Both notions of which embrace thoroughlly the separation of Religious Law from Secular Law, and the idea of the supremacy of individual liberty?

 

Who's Really the hypocrite, Ent?

 

3. You complain about the US Constitution and how you should not be bound by it because you didn't sign it yourself.

Well, guess what. When you come to this world, you are not King Shit of the Mountain Fuck. You do NOT inherently have the right to live, or to be free, or to be happy. You do not have the right to drive your car on the street, you do not have the right to post on this forum, you do not have the right to have a roof above your head. You are, however, able to do those things (live, eat, and so on) because you live in a country that has a great Constitution, which protects you, even though you didn't sign for it. If you were born in Rwanda, or Somalia, or Afganistan (all those countries have no effective governments), then someone could have very well killed you the day you were born, then have sex with your dead body and finally force your mother to eat it. And that person could have walked freely after doing such things, because, well, there are no laws in those countries.

So regardless of who or when signed for the US Constitution, it is because of it that you are alive. And this does not apply only for the US constitution, it applies for any constitution in any country that has a government. Because if you had to SIGN for it in order to be protected by it, people could have very well killed you before you were able to sign for it.

 

 

This is perhaps the biggest pile of drivel I have heard in quite some time. Mindless Patriotism FTW, anyone? Save the self-righteous flag waving for somebody who's impressed by it, Ent.. the argument doesn't hold water.

 

Lemme just recap something you've said here... "You do NOT inherently have the right to live, or to be free, or to be happy."

 

I take it that you disagree with the fundamental ideas that this nation was founded upon, then? Because sure as shit, the Declaration of Independence.. the statement of principles by which we justified revolution and war against England, breaking away at the cost of thousands of lives, says unquestionably THAT I DO.

 

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Or perhaps the concepts of "self evident" and "unalienable", being in a somewhat archaic language, confuse you? Self Evident means that "Hey, any idiot can see this, without it needing to be pointed out to him... and Unalienable means "Cannot Be Denied", ie, that which can never be separated from someone. But you're a smart guy, Ent.. you did manage to code this game after all, and I can't do that... so I assume you do understand these words...

 

So is it then that you simply just disagree with this basic premise that our nation was founded upon? That you find lacking the core values that birthed the Great American Experiment? It seems to me to be unfathomable that someone could so emphatically stand up for a system of laws and regulations which fail to uphold the ideals that led to their founding, and yet reject those ideals out of hand in the same breath..

 

My contempt for the Government, and for the Constitution, is entirely based upon the fact that they do *not* measure up to the ideals upon which this nation was founded. Your contempt for me is, apparently, based upon you not agreeing with those ideals in the first place, and finding more value in the hero worship of a man who tells you what you want to hear than in a person who is angry and insists that certain principles be upheld even in those circumstances which are unpleasant to experience.

 

That you have a right to feel this way, I will not question. I will absolutely not agree with your point of view, for I find no merit whatsoever in it, but it's your right to hold such views. At any rate, I am withdrawing from this debate, in the interests of keeping the peace.

 

edited to remove temporary overuse of profanity.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Drue