Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/12/12 12:56 AM, TucoM wrote:

At 10/11/12 09:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

People not voting is actually an expression of having no trust in the system.

That is.........a good description of one reason behind voter apathy.

You say apathy but that is not the right word at all as a choice to not vote took at leased as much thought but more than likely more than the choice to vote. Trust and as you say apathy are very different. There are many people who could give a dam about politics because they are to busy living and enjoying life and to you that is apathy which is a complete false statement. To loose trust in the system means one is actually thinking and using there brain functions therefore not voting is contrary to apathy.

You could say that low voter turnout is as legitimate as high turnout as long as the right to vote exists but that is very highly dictatorship like and as well it is very pretentious. I choose not to vote and that is my right and I expect you to respect it just as I respect your right to vote.

I'm not telling you whether or not you should vote. Your choice on the matter is just that......your choice. All I'm saying is that boycotting elections will be seen by the powers that be as mere voter apathy. Your first sentence in your post says exactly that.

As I said trust and apathy are very very different words so please look up the meanings. Just by you saying that they will see low voter turnout as apathy which is an erroneous statement to begin with should be enough for you to see how corrupt it goes. We have never even had "high" voter turnout as most of the population due to an array of reasons cannot vote ether bylaw or otherwise so what is left is a bunch of mindless sheep who only do what they are told and a bunch of crazy gun toting pro military, religious, fascists turning out to vote to do there part to usher in the "fascist utopia".

Real radical changes in our system may require armed revolution........and that's a big can of worms that might best be left unopened.

I believe in the non-aggression principle as it is one that can not be argued against without admitting that you condone the initiation of violence. An eye for an eye leave's "US" all blind.

At 10/11/12 09:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/11/12 07:24 PM, Warforger wrote:

You do realize that politicians won't give a shit if you don't vote right? In fact many politicians particularly Republicans try to keep people from voting.

Just because you might not mind letting your bussy get diddled by your favorite politicians does not mean actively withholding your vote is a bad idea until they clean up there collective act.

How does that change anything? If you don't vote then politicians will still win elections and all it does is get the government to concentrate on less people. If you don't vote they don't have a reason to care about you, all they have to do is go after people who will. If say the President is elected but only 10 people show up to vote, that doesn't mean that the President is going to give a shit it just means that he's going to have to appease those 10 people more. He's not going to care if voter turnout is higher because it doesn't matter.

At 10/12/12 07:47 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: To Everybody who doesn't like Obama in power: let's all go back to anarchy. You start.

What ?

At 10/12/12 07:47 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: To Everybody who doesn't like Obama in power: let's all go back to anarchy. You start.

The fuck are you talking about?

I remember my dad telling me someone I know is a part of the last regiment to be shipped off to Afghanistan but I just can't remember who it was. Try looking at the war on terror in a tactical point of view, backing out isn't as easy as its seem. We can't just turn our back on them and walk away cause they're the kind that will take advantage of that. Tell me how you'd do it, I want to know!

At 10/12/12 09:22 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

We can't just turn our back on them and walk away cause they're the kind that will take advantage of that.

What the hell are you talking about.

At 10/12/12 09:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

What the hell are you talking about.

I'm talking about the war he promised to "bring our boys back" that you seem to have forgotten about even though that was your only reason to create this post...

At 10/12/12 09:57 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

You say apathy but that is not the right word at all as a choice to not vote took at leased as much thought but more than likely more than the choice to vote. Trust and as you say apathy are very different. There are many people who could give a dam about politics because they are to busy living and enjoying life and to you that is apathy which is a complete false statement. To loose trust in the system means one is actually thinking and using there brain functions therefore not voting is contrary to apathy.

Not voting because one loses trust in the system is a form of voter apathy.

:"a bunch of crazy gun toting pro military, religious, fascists turning out to vote to do there part to usher in the "fascist utopia".

Obama is a gun toting, pro military, religious nut? OK, he does love drone strikes, but he really, really hates what is in my gun cabinet.

I believe in the non-aggression principle as it is one that can not be argued against without admitting that you condone the initiation of violence. An eye for an eye leave's "US" all blind.

And.........if that fails?

At 10/12/12 09:47 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 09:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

What the hell are you talking about.

I'm talking about the war he promised to "bring our boys back" that you seem to have forgotten about even though that was your only reason to create this post...

Ending the war does not mean sending 30,000 more troops to the war.

At 10/12/12 09:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Ending the war does not mean sending 30,000 more troops to the war.

Closure. What war is there? Truth is that we have troops everywhere... after ww2 we stopped allowing the world to do what it wants. We aren't at war but we are occupying a nation.

At 10/12/12 09:53 PM, TucoM wrote:

Not voting because one loses trust in the system is a form of voter apathy.

Apathy is a very inaccurate word to use as it does not reflect all non voters as most of the public is not able to vote for a varying array of causes such as but not limited to as you say potential voter indifference to politics and as well many others such as law, age, retarded mental function, incarceration, work, out of the country during voting period, health issues in general both mental and physical etc .....

I believe in the non-aggression principle as it is one that can not be argued against without admitting that you condone the initiation of violence. An eye for an eye leave's "US" all blind.

And.........if that fails?

Move to safe location it's very simple really meanwhile let the retards use there archaic primal part of the brain and there bullets until they kill each all other off "god willing". Then the people that are left over and that want to use there working and still in tact brains will be free to do so in relative peace after the rift raft wipe each other out by way of there ignorant and primal learned and indoctrinated EGOs, Pride, Hate, Greed, and Selfish 1 dimensional ideals that ultimately lead them to there own demise.

At 10/12/12 10:15 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

Closure. What war is there? Truth is that we have troops everywhere... after ww2 we stopped allowing the world to do what it wants. We aren't at war but we are occupying a nation.

No we are still fully at war in the middle east. What you're referring to, is us having non-combat personnel and bases in peaceful nations.

Helicopter pilots are still getting shot down in Afghanistan, and bases are rocketed almost daily. The war is very much real, people are still dying.

At 10/12/12 10:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Helicopter pilots are still getting shot down in Afghanistan, and bases are rocketed almost daily. The war is very much real, people are still dying.

Okay then... if all that is happening what do you think would happen if we told our men to drop their post and report to a C-5 Galaxy for evacuation? You've lost more troops in a hour then the entire war! Falling back isn't easy, we've only had to do it once.

At 10/12/12 10:37 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 10:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Helicopter pilots are still getting shot down in Afghanistan, and bases are rocketed almost daily. The war is very much real, people are still dying.

Okay then... if all that is happening what do you think would happen if we told our men to drop their post and report to a C-5 Galaxy for evacuation? You've lost more troops in a hour then the entire war! Falling back isn't easy, we've only had to do it once.

If the War Machine that is the US Military had orders to pull out they could do it in record time no problem. Remember the US Military are the aggressors so once they go away the Arabs will be just happy to have them the fuck out of there country and homes man. The Arabs will commence back to throwing rocks at each other meanwhile the Americans back on the home front will continuing eating there Mc cheese burgers and texting on there new iphone 5 and everything will be alright sorta well maybe not but it will be better than it was.

At 10/12/12 10:37 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

Okay then... if all that is happening what do you think would happen if we told our men to drop their post and report to a C-5 Galaxy for evacuation? You've lost more troops in a hour then the entire war! Falling back isn't easy, we've only had to do it once.

This isn't the issue. You're saying the war isn't real. It is.

At 10/12/12 10:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

and everything will be alright sorta well maybe not but it will be better than it was.

We can only wish that it was that easy...

At 10/12/12 11:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

This isn't the issue. You're saying the war isn't real. It is.

Define war?

At 10/12/12 11:11 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 10:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

and everything will be alright sorta well maybe not but it will be better than it was.

We can only wish that it was that easy...

See the hard part was already done and over with 10 years ago mission accomplished which is to get the public behind another false war.

At 10/12/12 10:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

:as well many others such as law,

?????

:age,

Let 3 year olds vote? LOL 18 is a decent compromise.

:retarded mental function,

I didn't know we disenfranchised "special" people.

:incarceration,

Too bad!

:work,

Most people who vote actually work.....they find the time.

:out of the country during voting period,

Absentee voting

:health issues in general both mental and physical etc .....

I'm sure we can do without really insane people voting.

Anyone who is eligible and really cares, will find a way to cast their ballot.

Move to safe location it's very simple really meanwhile let the retards use there archaic primal part of the brain and there bullets until they kill each all other off "god willing".

Unfortunately, that won't happen. Whoever wins will make the rules.

At 10/12/12 11:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

See the hard part was already done and over with 10 years ago mission accomplished which is to get the public behind another false war.

You can blame the Bush administration for that one...

At 10/12/12 11:20 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

See the hard part was already done and over with 10 years ago mission accomplished which is to get the public behind another false war.

You can blame the Bush administration for that one...

No that's to easy not to mention the sole reason Bush was put into power. See I don't blame Bush I blame the mass public for being so gullible.

At 10/12/12 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

No that's to easy not to mention the sole reason Bush was put into power. See I don't blame Bush I blame the mass public for being so gullible.

Uh boy... do you recall voting to go to war against Iraq? I don't... when it comes down to it. We've got the people we've elected for House of Reps., the Senate, and the President to blame. Of course my parents voted for Kerry during that election but seeing how someone fucked with the Florida votes that election... it didn't matter.

At 10/12/12 11:20 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

See the hard part was already done and over with 10 years ago mission accomplished which is to get the public behind another false war.

You can blame the Bush administration for that one...

Hi, Obama's been president for 4 years

At 10/12/12 11:33 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

do you recall voting to go to war against Iraq?

I don't recall people ever "voting" to go to war however I do recall let it was yesterday people voting for some well known first black president that said he would bring the troops back home as his campaigning cornerstone rhetoric.
As I said people are to gullible here is proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ

At 10/12/12 11:14 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

Define war?

In this context

war âEU' [wawr]
noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

At 10/12/12 11:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Hi, Obama's been president for 4 years

And I hope he stays elected so we don't end up backing Israel in a war that will lead to WW3. Bush was president at the start and his family made a buck or 2 war profiteering... we've had chances to kill Bin Laden during his term in office but I think he was just stalling.

At 10/12/12 11:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:14 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

Define war?

In this context

war âEU' [wawr]
noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

And the first 2 said exactly my point "between nations" we aren't at war with the nation of Afghanistan. Geneva code would agree as well as the people we are fighting.

At 10/12/12 11:46 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 10/12/12 11:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Hi, Obama's been president for 4 years

And I hope he stays elected so we don't end up backing Israel in a war that will lead to WW3. Bush was president at the start and his family made a buck or 2 war profiteering... we've had chances to kill Bin Laden during his term in office but I think he was just stalling.

Obama is proof that the majority of the public or many of them are gullible.

At 10/12/12 11:53 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

And the first 2 said exactly my point "between nations" we aren't at war with the nation of Afghanistan. Geneva code would agree as well as the people we are fighting.

What a weak stance and are you serious really.