Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Here's a deal for you voting advocates
Topic Started: Apr 24 2016, 03:02 PM (1,535 Views)
estonianman
Member Avatar

Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:44 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:43 PM
Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:40 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Indeed. Soviet dissidents had a choice as well. They could have chosen to just just STFU.


I don't mind your incessant whine and juvenile blathering about the pains of being a so-called "slave" to civilization.


Keep whining if you want, or walk the walk and leave for good. The choice to live by your own words is in your own hands, Jedi.
I see. So that whole "airlift into the wilderness" thing was in jest.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cruzula
Member Avatar

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:47 PM
Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:44 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:43 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


I don't mind your incessant whine and juvenile blathering about the pains of being a so-called "slave" to civilization.


Keep whining if you want, or walk the walk and leave for good. The choice to live by your own words is in your own hands, Jedi.
I see. So that whole "airlift into the wilderness" thing was in jest.


If you make the choice to walk the walk and leave, the gummint will provide for the expenses of airlifting you out... Under the condition that you break all ties and chains of communication with civilization.

It's only fair.. Or do you want to be a freeloader, and get a return gummint trip on the airlift too, if you get a big woowoo on your knee from tripping over a fallen stump?
Edited by Cruzula, Apr 24 2016, 05:49 PM.
"Merkel is a worse Chancellor than Hitler" ~ American Identitarian
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:49 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:47 PM
Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:44 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I see. So that whole "airlift into the wilderness" thing was in jest.


If you make the choice to walk the walk and leave, the gummint will provide for the expenses of airlifting you out... Under the condition that you break all ties and chains of communication with civilization.

It's only fair.. Or do you want to be a freeloader, and get a return gummint trip on the airlift too, if you get a big woowoo on your knee from tripping over a fallen stump?
Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cruzula
Member Avatar

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:58 PM
Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:49 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:47 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


If you make the choice to walk the walk and leave, the gummint will provide for the expenses of airlifting you out... Under the condition that you break all ties and chains of communication with civilization.

It's only fair.. Or do you want to be a freeloader, and get a return gummint trip on the airlift too, if you get a big woowoo on your knee from tripping over a fallen stump?
Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.



That's because you're a crypto-anarchist worshipper at the golden altar of ayn rand/rothbard, silly. If you don't have your cake and eat it too, there's "no choice" in your mind.
"Merkel is a worse Chancellor than Hitler" ~ American Identitarian
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:26 PM
CautionaryTales
Apr 24 2016, 05:12 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 03:02 PM
Let's mandate voting - here's the deal:

Since beneficiaries of government funds cannot vote objectively, I propose that these folks be stripped of voting rights. This includes:

- EBT recipients
- Social Security recipients
- Shareholders of companies that receive corporate welfare
- Any kind of disability, unemployment benefits
- Recipients of any government guaranteed loans, like small business and higher education loans
- Government employees, contractors - including military
- Recipients of medicare, medicaid or medicare+ programs like prescription drug subsidies or the ACA
- Recipients of agricultural subsidies
- Recipients of federal research grants, universities etc

Go down the list -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

For everyone else - voting will be mandatory, punished by a tax penalty similar to what is in the ACA.

The people that pay into the system get to dictate where their funds are spent, not the recipient.

:cool:
Since you are one that won't vote, I'm all for you staying home.
I would probably vote in this system.
Its pretty much like every other fairytale scenario you toss up like a bad night of bad whiskey.
I prefer the one we have now in the real world, when quitters just stay home.

Like you are staying home.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
Apr 24 2016, 06:06 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:26 PM
CautionaryTales
Apr 24 2016, 05:12 PM
I would probably vote in this system.
Its pretty much like every other fairytale scenario you toss up like a bad night of bad whiskey.
I prefer the one we have now in the real world, when quitters just stay home.

Like you are staying home.
So you think that people receiving government handouts will vote for less handouts? Why?

The number is approaching 50%. Where is the money going to come from?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 06:00 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:58 PM
Cruzula
Apr 24 2016, 05:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.



That's because you're a crypto-anarchist worshipper at the golden altar of ayn rand/rothbard, silly. If you don't have your cake and eat it too, there's "no choice" in your mind.
So what you are saying is that you would like to force everyone with dissenting opinions into the wilderness.

But at the end of the day, they made the choice - either stfu or live in the wilderness.

Let freedom ring.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 03:02 PM
Let's mandate voting - here's the deal:

Since beneficiaries of government funds cannot vote objectively, I propose that these folks be stripped of voting rights. This includes:

- EBT recipients
- Social Security recipients
- Shareholders of companies that receive corporate welfare
- Any kind of disability, unemployment benefits
- Recipients of any government guaranteed loans, like small business and higher education loans
- Government employees, contractors - including military
- Recipients of medicare, medicaid or medicare+ programs like prescription drug subsidies or the ACA
- Recipients of agricultural subsidies
- Recipients of federal research grants, universities etc

Go down the list -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

For everyone else - voting will be mandatory, punished by a tax penalty similar to what is in the ACA.

The people that pay into the system get to dictate where their funds are spent, not the recipient.

:cool:
That's sick.

Go relieve your guilt at not stepping up to vote elsewhere.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:17 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 03:02 PM
Let's mandate voting - here's the deal:

Since beneficiaries of government funds cannot vote objectively, I propose that these folks be stripped of voting rights. This includes:

- EBT recipients
- Social Security recipients
- Shareholders of companies that receive corporate welfare
- Any kind of disability, unemployment benefits
- Recipients of any government guaranteed loans, like small business and higher education loans
- Government employees, contractors - including military
- Recipients of medicare, medicaid or medicare+ programs like prescription drug subsidies or the ACA
- Recipients of agricultural subsidies
- Recipients of federal research grants, universities etc

Go down the list -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

For everyone else - voting will be mandatory, punished by a tax penalty similar to what is in the ACA.

The people that pay into the system get to dictate where their funds are spent, not the recipient.

:cool:
That's sick.

Go relieve your guilt at not stepping up to vote elsewhere.

Not guilty.

This is a thought experiment.

How would the country be different if the subjective, greedy electorate lost their right to vote themselves more?
Edited by estonianman, Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:26 PM
CautionaryTales
Apr 24 2016, 05:12 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 03:02 PM
Let's mandate voting - here's the deal:

Since beneficiaries of government funds cannot vote objectively, I propose that these folks be stripped of voting rights. This includes:

- EBT recipients
- Social Security recipients
- Shareholders of companies that receive corporate welfare
- Any kind of disability, unemployment benefits
- Recipients of any government guaranteed loans, like small business and higher education loans
- Government employees, contractors - including military
- Recipients of medicare, medicaid or medicare+ programs like prescription drug subsidies or the ACA
- Recipients of agricultural subsidies
- Recipients of federal research grants, universities etc

Go down the list -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

For everyone else - voting will be mandatory, punished by a tax penalty similar to what is in the ACA.

The people that pay into the system get to dictate where their funds are spent, not the recipient.

:cool:
Since you are one that won't vote, I'm all for you staying home.
I would probably vote in this system.
No you wouldn't. You would come up with some other poor excuse.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:25 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 24 2016, 05:11 PM
Entire segments of society cannot be excluded from voting. Voting doesn't work that way.
Perhaps an incentive in this system to get off government welfare is that you can be allowed to partake in the voting process.

People that receive government benefits will always vote for more benefits. People that work for government will vote to fund thier jobs - not matter how useless it is.

You cannot have an objective system as long as this takes place.
You can't have an objective system regardless. There is no such thing.

Everyone has some kind of interest in the government. Financial, legislative, regulatory, tax-related, ideological, political. Anywhere you decide to draw the line is essentially arbitrary.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:26 PM
CautionaryTales
Apr 24 2016, 05:12 PM
I would probably vote in this system.
No you wouldn't. You would come up with some other poor excuse.
I probably would. I hate the idea of kings but if that's what we are stuck with.

One of the reasons I do not vote is that my kind will always lose the majority vote. The cannibals always win.
Edited by estonianman, Apr 24 2016, 06:22 PM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:20 PM
Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:17 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 03:02 PM
Let's mandate voting - here's the deal:

Since beneficiaries of government funds cannot vote objectively, I propose that these folks be stripped of voting rights. This includes:

- EBT recipients
- Social Security recipients
- Shareholders of companies that receive corporate welfare
- Any kind of disability, unemployment benefits
- Recipients of any government guaranteed loans, like small business and higher education loans
- Government employees, contractors - including military
- Recipients of medicare, medicaid or medicare+ programs like prescription drug subsidies or the ACA
- Recipients of agricultural subsidies
- Recipients of federal research grants, universities etc

Go down the list -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

For everyone else - voting will be mandatory, punished by a tax penalty similar to what is in the ACA.

The people that pay into the system get to dictate where their funds are spent, not the recipient.

:cool:
That's sick.

Go relieve your guilt at not stepping up to vote elsewhere.

Not guilty.

This is a thought experiment.

How would the country be different if the subjective, greedy electorate lost their right to vote themselves more?
Not playing your game or arguing against ideas that are as sick as what you propose.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:22 PM
Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:26 PM
No you wouldn't. You would come up with some other poor excuse.
I probably would. I hate the idea of kings but if that's what we are stuck with.

One of the reasons I do not vote is that my kind will always lose the majority vote. The cannibals always win.
You have been quite clear in the past about why you will not be a responsible citizen.

You are one of those that uses the roads, breathes clean air, enjoys clean water, calls the police if you are mugged and calls the fire department if your home is on fire but you remain above it all. :rollseyes:



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Two a.m.
Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:25 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 24 2016, 05:11 PM
Entire segments of society cannot be excluded from voting. Voting doesn't work that way.
Perhaps an incentive in this system to get off government welfare is that you can be allowed to partake in the voting process.

People that receive government benefits will always vote for more benefits. People that work for government will vote to fund thier jobs - not matter how useless it is.

You cannot have an objective system as long as this takes place.
You can't have an objective system regardless. There is no such thing.

Everyone has some kind of interest in the government. Financial, legislative, regulatory, tax-related, ideological, political. Anywhere you decide to draw the line is essentially arbitrary.
The first good reply in this thread - I wish your rational thought process was emulated by your comrades, but alas ...

Its fair to say that a majority that do not receive cash handouts, subsidized loans or some other form of transfer payments might actually vote for less government.

Whether or not this your position is irrelevant - a healthy democracy begins with a diversity of opnions, no?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:24 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:20 PM
Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:17 PM
Not guilty.

This is a thought experiment.

How would the country be different if the subjective, greedy electorate lost their right to vote themselves more?
Not playing your game or arguing against ideas that are as sick as what you propose.

Why are they sick?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:28 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 05:25 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You can't have an objective system regardless. There is no such thing.

Everyone has some kind of interest in the government. Financial, legislative, regulatory, tax-related, ideological, political. Anywhere you decide to draw the line is essentially arbitrary.
The first good reply in this thread - I wish your rational thought process was emulated by your comrades, but alas ...

Its fair to say that a majority that do not receive cash handouts, subsidized loans or some other form of transfer payments might actually vote for less government.

Whether or not this your position is irrelevant - a healthy democracy begins with a diversity of opnions, no?
It begins with participation.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:28 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:22 PM
Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM
I probably would. I hate the idea of kings but if that's what we are stuck with.

One of the reasons I do not vote is that my kind will always lose the majority vote. The cannibals always win.
You have been quite clear in the past about why you will not be a responsible citizen.

You are one of those that uses the roads, breathes clean air, enjoys clean water, calls the police if you are mugged and calls the fire department if your home is on fire but you remain above it all. :rollseyes:



A. the government is the largest polluter

B. The rest are government monopolies. If people want to interact with society, you have no choice.
Edited by estonianman, Apr 24 2016, 06:37 PM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:29 PM
Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:24 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:20 PM
Not playing your game or arguing against ideas that are as sick as what you propose.

Why are they sick?
Because you would penalize Americans for their lives, from the financially unfortunate that are rebuilding, through the elderly right down to the tragically infirmed.






Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Apr 24 2016, 06:30 PM
estonianman
Apr 24 2016, 06:28 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 24 2016, 06:21 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The first good reply in this thread - I wish your rational thought process was emulated by your comrades, but alas ...

Its fair to say that a majority that do not receive cash handouts, subsidized loans or some other form of transfer payments might actually vote for less government.

Whether or not this your position is irrelevant - a healthy democracy begins with a diversity of opnions, no?
It begins with participation.
Let's start from the beginning. Do you think there is a chance that a government beneficiary will vote against their benefit?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply