• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I could lie about who I am voting for...

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I understand your thinking but just don't agree with it fully, because not voting isn't necessarily being quiet and be a statement in itself of not wanting to participate in the corrupt system and give it an appearance of legitimacy and the politicians feel they are ruling by applied consent, because they were duly elected .

I have decided myself after years of not participating because of political apathy and not liking either candidate to vote Ron Paul or possibly Gary Johnson on the libertarian ticket. Many feel I am throwing my vote away.

See that is all I'm saying is get out and try to change the corrupt system. I'm voting for RP and people say I'm throwing my vote away. If everyone that told me that would vote for RP then he would win in a landslide. Even if RP looses the election then I can atleast look at myself in the mirror and say I did what I could do to change the local and federal crooks. If I didn't at least try then I personally don't feel I can complain about it as by my staying silent tells them to keep robbing me and my children. I don't just follow what people tell me I'm still independant and not just follow along like cattle to slaughter. I also still have hope.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I understand your thinking but just don't agree with it fully, because not voting isn't necessarily being quiet and be a statement in itself of not wanting to participate in the corrupt system and give it an appearance of legitimacy and the politicians feel they are ruling by applied consent, because they were duly elected .

The problem with this is that if you don't vote out of principle, there is no way that you can be distinguished from the hordes of mindless idiots who don't vote because they are too lazy, too busy watching MTV, or would rather be bombed out of their minds on alcohol or other drugs.

When you don't vote, it makes it seem like R and D rigged game has more legitimacy, because those who do take the time to vote show they are happy with that system.

By writing in the candidate of your choice, yourself, or even Mickey Mouse, you register your dissatisfaction, as an informed and participatory citizen. While it may not have much practical effect, it does show the sheeple that there are many, many people who see R and D and choose "other." This is a critical component of waking up our fellow citizens, which we must do if we hope to change the state of things through means other than political violence.

I have decided myself after years of not participating because of political apathy and not liking either candidate to vote Ron Paul or possibly Gary Johnson on the libertarian ticket. Many feel I am throwing my vote away.

Now you're talking! :banana:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The problem with this is that if you don't vote out of principle, there is no way that you can be distinguished from the hordes of mindless idiots who don't vote because they are too lazy, too busy watching MTV, or would rather be bombed out of their minds on alcohol or other drugs.

How does one distinguish from the mindless idiot, and the dedicated voter? I see, voting out of Principle. And who decides what is a Principle vote, and what is not a Principle vote?


When you don't vote, it makes it seem like R and D rigged game has more legitimacy, because those who do take the time to vote show they are happy with that system.

So, if you don't vote, it looks like the system has been rigged. I didn't know that my vote was that important! Funny thing is, now you are stating that those who take the time to vote are stating they are happy with the system; it seems that you can't win either way. If you don't vote then you are contributing to the legitimacy of the system by not voting, and if you do vote, then you are contributing the the legitimacy of the system. So what do you recommend: voting on Principle. Odd, but I figure most individuals vote on what they view as Principle.

I am positive that you have a thoughtfully outlined definition of a True Principle.--please, share it with us.

By writing in the candidate of your choice, yourself, or even Mickey Mouse, you register your dissatisfaction, as an informed and participatory citizen. While it may not have much practical effect, it does show the sheeple that there are many, many people who see R and D and choose "other." This is a critical component of waking up our fellow citizens, which we must do if we hope to change the state of things through means other than political violence.

Why would the Sheeple care? I disagree that this is a critical component. How about Paul running Third Party? Now that's a critical component. The rest of this stuff, say: you voting for Mickey Mouse--is just, well, making a mockery of the voting system.

It's interesting that intoxicated MTV-watching drug-addicts take the time out of their busy schedule to go vote. And I always thought that most individuals who vote, actually make their way to the booth because they have followed what is going on in this Country, at least a little bit.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I am positive that you have a thoughtfully outlined definition of a True Principle.--please, share it with us.

Since you don't believe in truths, or principles, I'll not waste my time arguing with an idiot, lest others mistake me for you.

It's interesting that intoxicated MTV-watching drug-addicts take the time out of their busy schedule to go vote.

If you could read, you'd realize that is the opposite of what I wrote.

And I always thought that most individuals who vote, actually make their way to the booth because they have followed what is going on in this Country, at least a little bit.

If most individuals who voted paid attention to what is going on, the Rs and Ds would have been out of business a long time ago.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
(1)Since you don't believe in truths, or principles, I'll not waste my time arguing with an idiot, lest others mistake me for you.



(2)If you could read, you'd realize that is the opposite of what I wrote.



(3)If most individuals who voted paid attention to what is going on, the Rs and Ds would have been out of business a long time ago.



(1)I see, so I am an idiot.

(2)But like you said, "...I'll not waste my time arguing with an idiot...." BTW, sorry about the mis-read: So to prove you are a person of Principle, you know, to distinguish yourself from the mind-less, drug-addicted, alcoholics, you must show up to the booth, and vote on Principle. What if the mind-less, drug-addicted alcoholic is not voting out of Principle?--let me guess: that's not possible.

(3)Then I suppose the 120 some-odd million voters in the 2008 election only pay enough attention to who the two candidates are, and where they go to vote. If nearly half of the population aren't paying attention, what makes you think the other half will (remember, about half of the 'other half' are under eighteen).

I wonder who has more sense, the drug-addict, or the Principled person? The drug-addict stays home, and the Principled person perpetuates a System that they believe isn't working.
 
Last edited:

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
And don't forget about all the dead people and made up people that got to vote for the Dems in the last election. I wonder if they will get to vote again, did is ACORN signing them up again.


This is sarcasm...just smile and laugh and be on your way.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
And don't forget about all the dead people and made up people that got to vote for the Dems in the last election. I wonder if they will get to vote again, did is ACORN signing them up again.


This is sarcasm...just smile and laugh and be on your way.

*smiles* *laughs* *runs oft*
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
Listen, everyone that says there isn't a dime's worth of
difference between Repubs and Dems are just plain
wrong or being disingenuous . I do agree that Rebups
are not(some not all) pro-freedom, pro-small gov't,
pro-state's right's enough!!! But, they are vastly
more so than the socialist-communist Dems!!!

We did not get to this point overnight. It was
done incrementally, since Wilson. It will
take time to turn it around, if it can be.
Voting Obama out with practically anyone,
is a step in the right direction.

If Obama gets four more the damage will be
irreversible without another revolution.Hell,
maybe that's what it's gonna take anyway,
I don't know.

Obama's labor dept. is trying to ban farm kids
from working on their parents farms, most
Repubs would never do that. The Gibson
guitar raid over exotic wood would never
have happened under a Repub admin.
So there is a dime's worth of difference.

Romney was not my choice, I'd rather
see someone quite a bit more libertarian
and I'm not a RP fan. I'd like to see
Romney pick Rand for VP. Would that
sway you??

Right now we live in a two party system,
the only viable choices are Obama and
Romney.If RP was the Repub. nom.,
I would gladly vote for him(although I
don't agree with some of his foreign policy)
but a third party has NO chance of winning.
Third parties, for the most part take votes
from Repubs, only insuring a socialist-communist
win.http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/icons/icon7.png
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snippers] only insuring a socialist-communist
win.

I love responses like yours. Stand your ground, and watch as Romney loses because Republicans wanted to take the hard-line for these past three + years of Obama.

BTW, I have sat here reading post after post on this forum for better than two years, listening to some people on here Pontificating about Principles; and the so-called Principle Vote. Now that Romney is on the ticket, some people are shifting to, "well Romney will be slightly better than Obama, so I am voting for Romney."--pft, so much for so-called Principles.
 
Last edited:

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I love responses like yours. Stand your ground, and watch as Romney loses because Republicans wanted to take the hard-line for these past three + years of Obama.

I wouldn't consider Romney the hard line, he is a RINO Republican at best. The only reason the Republicans are behind him is they are hoping to get the middle of the road Independent vote that Obama got last election.

Romney was Govener of Massive-too-chits (yes I spelled it that way on purpose) which is more Democrat than Republican, does the name Kennedy ring a bell?

Romeny passed a state health care bill while govener that was used to model Obama Care, his state is also going broke partly because of his heath care problem.

Romey was not pro 2A until all of a sudden he decided to run for Pres as a Republican.

Romey changes his position depending on which way the wind blows.

The only reason the Republicains are backing Romney is to get the Independent vote, they could care less for my Contitusionalist Vote.

I do believe that Romney does have the best chance to beat Obama but that doesn't mean I have to vote for him.

I just want someone as President that will quit spending money and quit crapping on the US Contitusion.....both Romney and Obama with continue to do both just one more than the other.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I wouldn't consider Romney the hard line, he is a RINO Republican at best. The only reason the Republicans are behind him is they are hoping to get the middle of the road Independent vote that Obama got last election.

I thought my post would be interpreted as that. I would never accuse Romney of being a hard-liner. What I meant to state is Republicans have taken the hard-line; who knows, maybe they are compensating for it by putting Romney on the ticket.


Romney was Govener of Massive-too-chits (yes I spelled it that way on purpose) which is more Democrat than Republican, does the name Kennedy ring a bell?

Don't worry, grammar and punctuation is irrelevant to me, I get what you are stating. It is a time-waster to focus on spelling, grammar, and punctuation; just as ManInBlack, they like spinning their wheels in that subjective arena.

The only reason the Republicains are backing Romney is to get the Independent vote, they could care less for my Contitusionalist Vote.

They will draw some Independents with Romney.

I do believe that Romney does have the best chance to beat Obama but that doesn't mean I have to vote for him.

It isn't as if Republicans had a decent line-up this time around.

I just want someone as President that will quit spending money and quit crapping on the US Contitusion.....both Romney and Obama with continue to do both just one more than the other.

You're sure setting the bar high for Romney then--at least the Republicans are LOL. And there you have it, you admit that Romney will continue to spend, spend, spend, as well. So much for a clear contrast this election season.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
You're sure setting the bar high for Romney then--at least the Republicans are LOL. And there you have it, you admit that Romney will continue to spend, spend, spend, as well. So much for a clear contrast this election season.

That is why neither of these crooks get my vote, Romney will just spend slower and with a better smile than Obama. They both think the Contitution is an problem and not something that should be followed.

It is sad to say but I see another civil war comming soon, I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snippers]

It is sad to say but I see another civil war comming soon, I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.

Don't be shy. There are a lot of individuals who are quietly hoping for a Civil War II, or some sort of Revolution. If I may: it ain't going to happen. All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Don't be shy. There are a lot of individuals who are quietly hoping for a Civil War II, or some sort of Revolution. If I may: it ain't going to happen. All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.

Yes, because governmental overthrows never happen anymore. They are completely a thing of the past... :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

Why don't you try reading a book sometime before opening your mouth about things you know nothing about?

The most obvious (and most unexpected in its time) example from modern, post-Second World War history is the fall of the Soviet Union. This event was so colossally monumental, even you should have known about it from your free (for you) "education" at a government mind-laundry...or perhaps more correctly, in spite of it...

But, there have been others. Many, many others. Here is a partial list from the last 30 years or so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

1980s


1990s


Russian Mil Mi-8 helicopter downed by Chechens near Grozny, December 1994



2000s


2010s



Careful, your ignorance is showing...
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yes, because governmental overthrows never happen anymore. They are completely a thing of the past... :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

Why don't you try reading a book sometime before opening your mouth about things you know nothing about?

The most obvious (and most unexpected in its time) example from modern, post-Second World War history is the fall of the Soviet Union. This event was so colossally monumental, even you should have known about it from your free (for you) "education" at a government mind-laundry...or perhaps more correctly, in spite of it...

But, there have been others. Many, many others. Here is a partial list from the last 30 years or so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions



Careful, your ignorance is showing...

Good grief. I actually thought we were talking about America, Civil War in America, and Revolution in America; not a bunch of commies halfway across the Earth. Comparing Americans to Commies (or former commies?), there is a big difference. Nothing close to what was happening in the Solviet Union (or Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc.) is happening here in America. Next you are going to start comparing our current state of affairs in America to the struggles that individuals went through under Mao.

Books are overrated; and so is history. Knowledge isn't worth spit if you don't utilize it for it's intended purpose, *formulation of* Understanding.--but...then again, I wouldn't know anything about Understanding either.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Books are overrated; and so is history.

Thank you for destroying all credibility you may have held with even your fellow forum Obamatons; at least they pretend to maintain some intellectual honesty.

Fare thee well, Miss Willfully-Ignorant! :monkey
 
Last edited:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Romney can't beat Obama.

Romney can't beat Obama, but he can replace him, which is likely going to happen now that Gingrich is dropping out next week. Romney will most likely be the candidate, and ask Ron Paul to be VP. (According to my personal crystal ball ;))
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Thank you for destroying all credibility you may have held with even your fellow forum Obamatons; at least they pretend to maintain some intellectual honesty.

Fare thee will, Miss Willfully-Ignorant! :monkey

My intent is never Intellectual Honesty. I figured I destroyed all credibility...let's see...3,185 posts ago. You ought to read my posts, not just read them; there is much more being stated, but I am not going to just hand it over in a gift basket.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Nothing close to what was happening in the Solviet Union (or Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc.) is happening here in America. Next you are going to start comparing our current state of affairs in America to the struggles that individuals went through under Mao.

"Nothing close to what was happening in the German Democratic Republic (DDR) is happening here in the Soviet Union. Next you are going to start comparing our current state of affairs in the Soviet Union to the struggles that individuals went through under Honecker."
-Soviet leaders, circa 1990

Keep digging yourself that hole, Beretta. Keep pretending that America is somehow immune to the same forces, pressures, and unexpected circumstances that afflict every other nation on the earth.
 
Top