---

Originally posted by popinjay

---

Originally posted by shad0w99
To the guy telling people it is their duty to vote...

---

To the guy not understanding the opinion, I didn't say it's YOUR duty to vote as a British citizen.

I said it's my duty to vote. I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK nor do I particularly care about your voting obligations.

---

It has nothing to do with the UK or the USA... but democracy in general.

If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have to. For example in the most recent election if someone wasn't happy with any of the parties, they shouldn't have to vote. If you're voting for something you don't believe in, it's not truly democracy. Go look up Robert Mugabe.

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

It has nothing to do with the UK or the USA... but democracy in general.

If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have to. For example in the most recent election if someone wasn't happy with any of the parties, they shouldn't have to vote. If you're voting for something you don't believe in, it's not truly democracy. Go look up Robert Mugabe.

---

Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law. I know who Mugabe is.

I am saying I feel it's a duty for me. What part of that am I not being clear with? I didn't say it's a British citizen's duty to vote in his own country.

Democracy takes different forms throughout the world, but they all count on one thing to make them work.

Guess what that is?

For me, it's a duty.

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

 

I agree, but who decides fair?  Who decides what is correct?

That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete.  Always evolving.

And that's the same with what I'm getting at.  Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point. 

Take the 10 commandments.  Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut.  How do they need changing?  .  How do you need to change, Don't steal.  Don't murder?  That's concrete. That's timeless.  Those are perfect laws. 

 

 

How are they perfect?

#6 Thou shalt not kill  -  What if you are in danger.  What if killing person A is the only way to save person B and vice versa?

#5 Honor they mother and father -  What if one of them broke some of the commandments?  What if one of them is telling you to break one of them, do you honor them then?

They aren't perfect.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Sargoth

 

Do you have any hair because the amount of stuff that flies over it is staggering. 
Notice how the pic says, Your country "needs" you.  It's saying you should go out and vote, not that you have to nor is it a duty.
Some people happen to feel that government health care is not beneficial to our country.  And if you want your way enforced on everyone else, you "can" go vote, but their is no duty. 
Also, I can still complain about the country without having to vote.  My opinion might not mean as much but I still can.  There is no duty. 
 

---

 

Question: Is all you're going to do in this thread is attack people with personal insults?

 

 

 

 

"Whereas it would probably be true that MOST citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only advantage certain politicians.

 

Please notice that part. I am part of the "most". Apparently since you do not feel it's a "duty", you are part of the few...

 

 

A duty, from the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, is an assigned service; conduct due to parents and superiors.

An obligation, also from the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, is a duty imposed legally or socially; a thing that one is bound to do by contract, promise, moral responsibility.

There is no duty to vote.  There is only obligation through moral responsibility. 

I have an obligation to vote to counter the crap your trying to get through, but I have no duty to my country to vote. 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

 

I agree, but who decides fair?  Who decides what is correct?

That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete.  Always evolving.

And that's the same with what I'm getting at.  Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point. 

Take the 10 commandments.  Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut.  How do they need changing?  .  How do you need to change, Don't steal.  Don't murder?  That's concrete. That's timeless.  Those are perfect laws. 

 

 

 

How are they perfect?

#6 Thou shalt not kill  -  What if you are in danger.  What if killing person A is the only way to save person B and vice versa?

#5 Honor they mother and father -  What if one of them broke some of the commandments?  What if one of them is telling you to break one of them, do you honor them then?

 

They aren't perfect.

It's Thou shalt not "murder"  which means you can kill if not in conflict with moral code.  This is what allows for killing of animals to eat, and those that God said to kill in his name. 

You do honor in your parents name by living up to the same code/commandments that they are supposed to be following.  If instead they are not following it, you continue to follow the commandments and thereby honor them without doing as they wish and breaking the commandments.  Doing the right thing in the name of God and your parents is honor, breaking the commandments for you parents only serves to put you in conflict with God which does no honor to your parents.

Nice try. 

---

Originally posted by popinjay
Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law.

---

Ok, fair enough.

But there is still a grey area where if someone doesn't believe in any of the parties. They shouldn't feel it's their duty to vote anyway.

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

 

I agree, but who decides fair?  Who decides what is correct?

That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete.  Always evolving.

And that's the same with what I'm getting at.  Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point. 

Take the 10 commandments.  Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut.  How do they need changing?  .  How do you need to change, Don't steal.  Don't murder?  That's concrete. That's timeless.  Those are perfect laws. 

 

 

 

How are they perfect?

#6 Thou shalt not kill  -  What if you are in danger.  What if killing person A is the only way to save person B and vice versa?

#5 Honor they mother and father -  What if one of them broke some of the commandments?  What if one of them is telling you to break one of them, do you honor them then?

 

They aren't perfect.

It's Thou shalt not "murder"  which means you can kill if not in conflict with moral code.  This is what allows for killing of animals to eat, and those that God said to kill in his name. 

You do honor in your parents name by living up to the same code/commandments that they are supposed to be following.  If instead they are not following it, you continue to follow the commandments and thereby honor them without doing as they wish and breaking the commandments.  Doing the right thing in the name of God and your parents is honor, breaking the commandments for you parents only serves to put you in conflict with God which does no honor to your parents.

 

Nice try. 

 

In the Roman Catholic Bible it says kill.  Not Murder. It was CHANGED by other christians to say murder.  Not so concrete and timeless is it?

Thankyou for helping my point.

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

---

Originally posted by popinjay
Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law.

---

Ok, fair enough.

But there is still a grey area where if someone doesn't believe in any of the parties. They shouldn't feel it's their duty to vote anyway.

---

I think as it stands, its good enough. I don't think it should be a law. There are people I wish never knew how to operate a lever in the first place (mainly those idiots who voted Bush in for TWO terms). The U.S. and the world in general would have been a much better place socially and economically. But that's democracy for you of any type. It's why Hamas won, people thought it was a good idea over there and then all of a sudden, the U.S. didn't like the idea of voting for everyone.

Over here we have "jury duty". Everyone who is registered to vote is subject to serve on it and cannot be excused from doing it unless they have a valid reason. Now to me, jury "duty" isn't a duty.

I don't personally think it's a good idea to have my life or someone else's in the hands of twelve complete strangers who may have varying degrees of prejudice, idiocy or insanity. Most people over here hate jury "duty", but they go anyways. Why?

Not because they feel it's their duty. But it's the law. If it wasn't a law, half wouldn't even show up. I don't want voting to be that way or someone puts people in there they don't even care about.

---

Originally posted by popinjay

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

---

Originally posted by popinjay
Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law.

---

Ok, fair enough.

But there is still a grey area where if someone doesn't believe in any of the parties. They shouldn't feel it's their duty to vote anyway.

---

I think as it stands, its good enough. I don't think it should be a law. There are people I wish never knew how to operate a lever in the first place (mainly those idiots who voted Bush in for TWO terms). The U.S. and the world in general would have been a much better place socially and economically. But that's democracy for you of any type. It's why Hamas won, people thought it was a good idea over there and then all of a sudden, the U.S. didn't like the idea of voting for everyone.

Over here we have "jury duty". Everyone who is registered to vote is subject to serve on it and cannot be excused from doing it unless they have a valid reason. Now to me, jury "duty" isn't a duty.

I don't personally think it's a good idea to have my life or someone else's in the hands of twelve complete strangers who may have varying degrees of prejudice, idiocy or insanity. Most people over here hate jury "duty", but they go anyways. Why?

Not because they feel it's their duty. But it's the law. If it wasn't a law, half wouldn't even show up. I don't want voting to be that way or someone puts people in there they don't even care about.

---

Ok, I see the distinction.

We also have jury duty over here, and I agree, it shouldn't be the law.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

---

Originally posted by popinjay
Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law.

---

 

Ok, fair enough.

But there is still a grey area where if someone doesn't believe in any of the parties. They shouldn't feel it's their duty to vote anyway.

---

  

I think as it stands, its good enough. I don't think it should be a law. There are people I wish never knew how to operate a lever in the first place (mainly those idiots who voted Bush in for TWO terms). The U.S. and the world in general would have been a much better place socially and economically. But that's democracy for you of any type. It's why Hamas won, people thought it was a good idea over there and then all of a sudden, the U.S. didn't like the idea of voting for everyone.

 
Over here we have "jury duty". Everyone who is registered to vote is subject to serve on it and cannot be excused from doing it unless they have a valid reason. Now to me, jury "duty" isn't a duty.

  I don't personally think it's a good idea to have my life or someone else's in the hands of twelve complete strangers who may have varying degrees of prejudice, idiocy or insanity. Most people over here hate jury "duty", but they go anyways. Why?

 

Not because they feel it's their duty. But it's the law. If it wasn't a law, half wouldn't even show up. I don't want voting to be that way or someone puts people in there they don't even care about.

Hahahaha, you don't believe in Jury Duty.  You don't think juries are good?  Hahaha.   Any more bomb shells to let fly? 

edit:  I mean, juries go back as far as the magna carta. 

"A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . ."

---

Originally posted by Sargoth

Hahahaha, you don't believe in Jury Duty.  You don't think juries are good?  Hahaha.   Any more bomb shells to let fly? 
edit:  I mean, juries go back as far as the magna carta. 
"A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . ."

---

Well, the O.J. jury during the Goldman/Brown murder hack-n-slash was a good citizen jury, right?

I mean, that was only a capital murder case, nothing important... just a vicious double homicide that the jury obviously was wise about.

Got to love everyday jurists.

Why do liberals act like healthcare is different than regular goods/services?

Like social security, sanitation or road repair? Or how about the police and fire stations, or schools? You act like America has no concept socialized services, when reality shows America has plenty of social programs ingrained into it's culture. Programs people like you initially fought against, but now we're proud of, and other countries emulated.

If America socializes health care, what is stopping you from buying private insurance?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html

FTA: June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65

We know that 72% of the population is not liberal, how is it then that liberals are singled out?

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

---

 

Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.

 

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.

 

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?

 

Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?

 

 

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

 

In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.

I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?

 

WTF?

 

He didn't say that.

Why do you hate America?

For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.

Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.

The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.

Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.

It's worked so well so far......

 

 

I love America. America is not a democracy -- it is a constitutional republic. It is the majoritarians here that hate America. Sorry, Socialized medicine is not one of the enumerated or delegated powers of the Federal Governent according to our constitution and my love for America requires I stand WITH her and against the socialists who would destroy her.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."

All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.

 

In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.

 

OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.

 

Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.

I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.

And all you have done, is repeat yourself.

 

There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.

 

 

Socialized medicine, or any socialism. violates the most basic human right -- the right to own and dispense with your own property as you see fit. It is this basic right that is the basis for our system of government.

Either way since all you have left are personal attacks and other childish assaults. I guess this "debate" is over. Thanks for troling by. Nice try, but you failed.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
 
 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

 

 

---

 
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
 

 

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
 

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
 
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
 
 

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

---

 
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?

---

 

 

In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.

 

 

Why do you vote?

I vote because I believe in liberty, and I vote for liberty. You vote to take the rights away from your fellow citizens. I vote against that and for freedom -- the exact opposite of what you do.

You believe it is right and proper for 51% to usurp the property rights of 49%. That's political gangsterism, pure and simple.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

 

I agree, but who decides fair?  Who decides what is correct?

That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete.  Always evolving.

And that's the same with what I'm getting at.  Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point. 

Take the 10 commandments.  Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut.  How do they need changing?  .  How do you need to change, Don't steal.  Don't murder?  That's concrete. That's timeless.  Those are perfect laws. 

 

 

 

How are they perfect?

#6 Thou shalt not kill  -  What if you are in danger.  What if killing person A is the only way to save person B and vice versa?

#5 Honor they mother and father -  What if one of them broke some of the commandments?  What if one of them is telling you to break one of them, do you honor them then?

 

They aren't perfect.

It's Thou shalt not "murder"  which means you can kill if not in conflict with moral code.  This is what allows for killing of animals to eat, and those that God said to kill in his name. 

You do honor in your parents name by living up to the same code/commandments that they are supposed to be following.  If instead they are not following it, you continue to follow the commandments and thereby honor them without doing as they wish and breaking the commandments.  Doing the right thing in the name of God and your parents is honor, breaking the commandments for you parents only serves to put you in conflict with God which does no honor to your parents.

 

Nice try. 

 

 

In the Roman Catholic Bible it says kill.  Not Murder. It was CHANGED by other christians to say murder.  Not so concrete and timeless is it?

Thankyou for helping my point.

The Roman Catholic Bible is not based upon the best manuscripts (If you mean the origininal Jerome Bible, not the modern accepted NAB). Textus receptus leaves much to be desired. The original Hebrew word, found in the Torah,  is still the same Hebrew word. Pretty timeless and unchanging.

Either way you two guys are having the silliest argument I've seen in a long time.

The question is not whether laws can be changed or not; of course they can. The question is whether medicine is properly the fiunction of the state, and whether force is the best arbiter in medical transactions. I say no, and on;y those transactions which require force by their very nature are the proper job for government.

Any other use is applying force where it doesn't belong.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

I vote because I believe in liberty, and I vote for liberty. You vote to take the rights away from your fellow citizens. I vote against that and for freedom -- the exact opposite of what you do.
You believe it is right and proper for 51% to usurp the property rights of 49%. That's political gangsterism, pure and simple.

---

This fails.

Last time anyone entered a polling station, "liberty" wasn't on the ballot. People's names are.

What do you do... write in "liberty" as a write in vote?

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Sargoth

 

Hahahaha, you don't believe in Jury Duty.  You don't think juries are good?  Hahaha.   Any more bomb shells to let fly? 
edit:  I mean, juries go back as far as the magna carta. 
"A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . ."

---

 

Well, the O.J. jury during the Goldman/Brown murder hack-n-slash was a good citizen jury, right?

 

 

I mean, that was only a capital murder case, nothing important... just a vicious double homicide that the jury obviously was wise about.

 

 

Got to love everyday jurists.

I like how you ignore the point. 

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

I vote because I believe in liberty, and I vote for liberty. You vote to take the rights away from your fellow citizens. I vote against that and for freedom -- the exact opposite of what you do.
You believe it is right and proper for 51% to usurp the property rights of 49%. That's political gangsterism, pure and simple.

---

 

This fails.

 

Last time anyone entered a polling station, "liberty" wasn't on the ballot. People's names are.

 

 

What do you do... write in "liberty" as a write in vote?

Please forgive my brevity -- I thought you would be able to figure out what I meant. Again, sorry I overestimated you.

I vote for people, just as you do, but there is a critical difference between us.

You vote for people who are against liberty and in favor of socialism, I vote for people who favor liberty and are against socialism. Sadly, the bigger gang is with you -- the one who would destroy America by looting the treasury in the name of false utopian schemes.

Someday, however, people will look at the socialists in the same way we look at the slave owners from the old south today -- after all, it's the same mentality; the idea that one human being has the right to forcibly take the goods and services of another against their will.

Baby steps. Twenty years ago no one even heard of libertarianism, and classical liberalism was barely known about. This past election cycle we had one of our own in the debates. My votes over the years helped, in a very small way, usher that into existence. Yours gave us BushClintonBushObamanomics -- socialism of the right and left, the ugly ratchet that brought us to this place we now find ourselves, at least if your voting record has been consistent.

I voted against that, and yes, for Miss Liberty. Or Mister Liberty.

I've grown so sick of reading all this bullshit from you Fisher that I have now ONE thing left to say.....

If you don't like what's happening then do something to change it and shut the fuck up already.  Period.  You're not accomplishing a damn thing babbling on and on about it on a GAMING forum.  If you fancy yourself some sort of intellectual genius on the issue then run for office.  If we, as a collective people in the U.S. decide we think you have any ideas worth a damn, maybe we'll vote for you.  Then you can save the world (or not) in whatever fashion you CHOOSE.

Originally posted by girlgeek

I've grown so sick of reading all this bullshit from you Fisher that I have now ONE thing left to say.....

If you don't like what's happening then do something to change it and shut the fuck up already.  Period.  You're not accomplishing a damn thing babbling on and on about it on a GAMING forum.  If you fancy yourself some sort of intellectual genius on the issue then run for office.  If we, as a collective people in the U.S. decide we think you have any ideas worth a damn, maybe we'll vote for you.  Then you can save the world (or not) in whatever fashion you CHOOSE.

I've been DOING things about it my entire life -- over the years I've been fairly active politically -- and now I am discussing it on a gaming forum. I happen to enjoy discussing things with my fellow gamers. I have no desire to run for anything -- I am doing exactly what I like to do -- share ideas with people, be challenged by people, hone my own positions on things by debating with others. All good to me. If you feel this is not a productive way to spend your time, by all means, follow thy bliss.

Either way, if you are sick of reading all this *childish expletive* from me, no one is forcing you to.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
 
I vote because I believe in liberty, and I vote for liberty. You vote to take the rights away from your fellow citizens. I vote against that and for freedom -- the exact opposite of what you do.
You believe it is right and proper for 51% to usurp the property rights of 49%. That's political gangsterism, pure and simple.

---

 

This fails.
 
Last time anyone entered a polling station, "liberty" wasn't on the ballot. People's names are.
 
 
What do you do... write in "liberty" as a write in vote?

---

 
Please forgive my brevity -- I thought you would be able to figure out what I meant. Again, sorry I overestimated you.
I vote for people, just as you do, but there is a critical difference between us.
You vote for people who are against liberty and in favor of socialism, I vote for people who favor liberty and are against socialism. Sadly, the bigger gang is with you -- the one who would destroy America by looting the treasury in the name of false utopian schemes.
Someday, however, people will look at the socialists in the same way we look at the slave owners from the old south today -- after all, it's the same mentality; the idea that one human being has the right to forcibly take the goods and services of another against their will.
Baby steps. Twenty years ago no one even heard of libertarianism, and classical liberalism was barely known about. This past election cycle we had one of our own in the debates. My votes over the years helped, in a very small way, usher that into existence. Yours gave us BushClintonBushObamanomics -- socialism of the right and left, the ugly ratchet that brought us to this place we now find ourselves, at least if your voting record has been consistent.
I voted against that, and yes, for Miss Liberty. Or Mister Liberty.

---

Ohhhhh. NOW I get it. I don't know why this didn't register before...

I finally met one of the few people who voted for Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Steve Forbes and Al Sharpton. It finally hit me. You don't vote for Bush, Reagan, Obama or any of the "mainstream" candidates because they're all evil. You've been voting Green Party or something, LMAO! No wonder you post like you do; making no sense whatsoever half the time.

I really should have guessed it from liberty act all this time. Every election season, you always end of voting for the guy with 2,000 votes. I've often wonder if those people actually existed or that was just some glitch in the voting machines.

Holee Cow. Didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. Or Bush or Gore. Or Clinton or Bush. Or Clinton or Dole. You've been throwing away your vote for the last twenty years at least, never once hitting a winner. No wonder you're so bitter about the election process. None of your guys has never WON.

This sheds a new light on things.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
 
I vote because I believe in liberty, and I vote for liberty. You vote to take the rights away from your fellow citizens. I vote against that and for freedom -- the exact opposite of what you do.
You believe it is right and proper for 51% to usurp the property rights of 49%. That's political gangsterism, pure and simple.

 

 

---

 

 

This fails.
 
Last time anyone entered a polling station, "liberty" wasn't on the ballot. People's names are.
 
 
What do you do... write in "liberty" as a write in vote?

---

 
Please forgive my brevity -- I thought you would be able to figure out what I meant. Again, sorry I overestimated you.
I vote for people, just as you do, but there is a critical difference between us.
You vote for people who are against liberty and in favor of socialism, I vote for people who favor liberty and are against socialism. Sadly, the bigger gang is with you -- the one who would destroy America by looting the treasury in the name of false utopian schemes.
Someday, however, people will look at the socialists in the same way we look at the slave owners from the old south today -- after all, it's the same mentality; the idea that one human being has the right to forcibly take the goods and services of another against their will.
Baby steps. Twenty years ago no one even heard of libertarianism, and classical liberalism was barely known about. This past election cycle we had one of our own in the debates. My votes over the years helped, in a very small way, usher that into existence. Yours gave us BushClintonBushObamanomics -- socialism of the right and left, the ugly ratchet that brought us to this place we now find ourselves, at least if your voting record has been consistent.
I voted against that, and yes, for Miss Liberty. Or Mister Liberty.

---

 

Ohhhhh. NOW I get it. I don't know why this didn't register before...

 

I finally met one of the few people who voted for Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Steve Forbes and Al Sharpton. It finally hit me. You don't vote for Bush, Reagan, Obama or any of the "mainstream" candidates because they're all evil. You've been voting Green Party or something, LMAO! No wonder you post like you do; making no sense whatsoever half the time.

 

 

I really should have guessed it from liberty act all this time. Every election season, you always end of voting for the guy with 2,000 votes. I've often wonder if those people actually existed or that was just some glitch in the voting machines.

 

 

Holee Cow. Didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. Or Bush or Gore. Or Clinton or Bush. Or Clinton or Dole. You've been throwing away your vote for the last twenty years at least, never once hitting a winner. No wonder you're so bitter about the election process. None of your guys has never WON.

 

 

 

 

This sheds a new light on things.

I'm not the least bit bitter, about the election process or anything else.  I'm not the guy obsessively flaming anything and anyone Republican. I'm a lifelong libertarian, and happy to say I've never cast a vote I regretted.

Look, the communist party never "won" anything either, but their  1930s platform is now YOUR platform. Minority parties change things in their own way. No communist party member ever wasted his vote -- in fact, he won YOU, and now Obama, and his party never got elected to anything much at all.

Your own party is the product of third party influence. Ours is the politics of the future, and we can already see the fruits in the rhetoric of both parties. Liberals have to hide what they are to get elected, and conservatives only get elected when they govern as fiscal conservatives.

One of us, as I have said, was in the debates this year, and isn't it interesting he was the one who called this current economic crisis better than anyone on either side?

I am happy to be part of the future. I am sure you're happy being the leftist reactionary.

Any true sportsman and decent human being knows, it's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game. I know that's an alien concept to you, but it's how most decent people live their lives.

Once again we are treated to the nasty, gangster-like, bullying tactics of the left: ignore the issue, attack the PERSON you are debating in any possible way, just stay away the actual issue. If you have to go back to the issue, appeal to pity, appeal to authority, back to appeal to pity, to be followed up with some more ad hominem.

Booooooring. I would love to actually discuss ideas and issues with someone instead of watching them turn it into a discussion of ME, my life choices, my voting record, whether I have been poor or not, and the like. Well, the tactics fit the ideology I suppose. The end justifies the means.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
Once again we are treated to the nasty, gangster-like, bullying tactics of the left: ignore the issue, attack the PERSON you are debating in any possible way, just stay away the actual issue. If you have to go back to the issue, appeal to pity, appeal to authority, back to appeal to pity, to be followed up with some more ad hominem.
Booooooring. I would love to actually discuss ideas and issues with someone instead of watching them turn it into a discussion of ME, my life choices, my voting record, whether I have been poor or not, and the like. Well, the tactics fit the ideology I suppose. The end justifies the means.
 

---

Funny you throw ad hom after ad hom with the "you vote for tyranny" routine and all that without you knowing WHO I voted for, lol. Get real man. You playing the victim ala Palin ("the evil media made me quit") isn't flattering.

Tip: When men play the victim, it doesn't elicit pity from people. It just looks plain weaksauce.

C'mon Fisher. You can level with us. Who'd you vote for in the Presidential elections?

Nader? Perot? Was it anyone we might have even HEARD of before, or do your liberty votes consist of you writing "Fishermage for President" in the box and pulling the lever?

Tell you what: I'll go first.

I voted Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Clinton, Reagan, Reagan.

Your turn. I find it hard to believe you put your own name on the ballot for that many years. So, who broke your heart? What's your voting record? Care to bare your political life on the forum?

We'll understand if you don't want to. You know, freedoms and all.