Voting

[Magus86]

Actually, Geologist, it was from 1996.

And while I totally understand that I could have just as easily voted for the other person, it doesn't change the fact that my vote doesn't really mean anything. My vote doesn't really mean anything because the person who gets the popular vote isn't necessarily the person who wins, and that's retarded. It's a stupid broken system that doesn't make any sense. Besides that, I don't have the time, energy, or desire to go out and research every single person who runs for president. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same damn coin. It doesn't make much of a difference who runs for president. They both suck equally as far as I'm concerned. If I had to pick anybody who I truly think has good ideas, it would probably be a libertarian, but voting for a libertarian would be totally pointless. They'll never win because everybody in this country has his head up his ass with this stupid 2 party BS. So if I'm totally powerless to change anything in the way I really would like to see it changed, what is the point in going to the booth to vote? It's a gigantic waste of time. I don't think there should be such things as political parties in the first place. Voting isn't going to change that, and not enough people would ever agree with me to get it changed.

[UnknownSniper]

I said screw that noise.

Politics are one big steaming pile of BULLpoo. People will say whatever they want to get elected. Nobody can really do anything to make sure they stick to it. Most of politics is making your opposition look bad by either making up lies entirely or horribly twisting the facts. I didn't know much about either Obama or McCain, and I didn't plan to try and find out. If I would have decided to vote, though, it would be for Obama, based on what I did hear. I really don't care either way. I think it's funny how people who went with McCain think the world is going to end now or something. By the way, Bush was doing a crackerjack fecking job. I can't imagine anybody being worse.

Our votes don't really mean a whole lot, though, and that's also part of the reason why I don't care about politics. You can have more people vote for you, yet still lose the election, which makes no goddamn sense.

It's not that we think the world is going to end, it's just that we "think," more like foresee, our lose of the second amendment which in turn will mean a lose of the others. If the second amendment(right to bare arms) is taken away as the democrats plan, then there will be nothing stopping them from doing as they wish with the rest of the country.(Simply because with guns, people with balls will be more willing to stand up for their rights as Americans.)
</ranttoaretard>

* UnknownSniper walks out of the thread because this post will end up flamed by Obama's socialist fan base. (75% +/- of the internet gamers. (IRONY))

[Magus86]

LOL, socialist fan base? from what I heard, Obama supports gun rights. Now I know that democrats in general do not, but I heard Obama does. And while that doesn't mean much, which is exactly why I don't plan to try to argue or debate anything here, if it's true, then it's a good thing. Because even though I don't have a gun myself, I would like to own one. And even if I didn't, I still think we should be allowed to. And if you're referring to letting Bush's tax cuts to rich people expire, how the hell is that socialism? He's not proposing that we should all have equal everything, but he is trying to help out people who are less fortunate. And if that's incorrect, feel free to correct me with a reference. I'm too lazy to research on my own, but it's what I've heard.

Gun control doesn't do anything as far as safety is concerned, except maybe prevent a few idiotic kids from finding daddy's pistol and blowing each other's heads off. However, that could also be prevented, if a more serious problem with the way America deals with things were changed. Whenever we see a problem, we automatically blame the object as opposed to the idiots involved. If you properly educate people on how to handle guns and what to do if you find one in your parents' house... or here's an idea, how about the parents who have the guns teach their kids that they're not meant to be played with? No, we think if we hide/lock them away somewhere, they'll never find them, and the problem is solved. I'm not suggesting that we should have guns sitting out on the dresser or anything like that, but people need to be educated. Banning something because some dippoo screwed up doesn't solve anything. And while I realize there will still be some accidents, even with education, I think that education would greatly reduce those accidents. And we need to realize that some people are just feckin stupid. We need to stop letting one or two ruin poo for the rest of us. Gun control doesn't actually get rid of all the guns anyway. We have laws against lots of drugs, but is that really stopping people from getting them? No, so one way or another, the people who want to get guns will get them, and most likely those are the ones who wish to use them to cause harm. I'm sure we can all agree that the problem with guns mainly comes from the people who use them for harm. Most forms of harm to someone else are made illegal. Now, if someone is willing to break the law by harming someone, what makes anybody think it'll stop them from getting a gun? And besides, if anybody thinks that gun control will lower violence, no it won't. People have been killing each other for a long damn time, LONG before guns were ever invented. People will always find a way to kill each other. It's not like if someone wants to kill someone else, but he finds out he can't get a gun, he'll say "aw, poo! I guess he'll have to live."

By the way, Unknown, the end of your post is a great example of why I hate this stupid bi-party system. There are two teams, and most people feel they need to pick one or the other. Both parties suck equally for one reason or another, and simply because you happen to like a republican, you think all democrats are evil socialists. And then the democrats think that all republicans are evil rich people who only care about other rich people. While I'm sure SOME of the people are like that, they're not all, and the fact that we have this stupid party loyalty crap ruins a lot of things and keeps a lot of stuff from getting done. Stop it already. We all belong to the same team. it's called America... Why can't we realize that and accomplish something meaningful?

By the way, one last thing: Comedian or not, George Carlin was a very intelligent man, and a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense.

[The Geologist]

This should have been up last night, if I could have reached the homepage.

Hell, if you'd at least get out and vote for the candidate you support that would be much better than not voting at all.

And I can't understand why you keep saying your vote doesn't matter.  That's total nonsense.  I'm guessing your outlook is so jaded because of the fact that Bush Jr. was elected without getting the popular vote, but please, correct me if I'm wrong there.

In the history of presidential elections, only four presidents elect have won without receiving the popular vote.  Only four.  So the vast majority of elections have been won in accordance with the popular vote.

Fed up with the electoral college?  Guess what - the people in there are people you have the chance to vote for or against.  They're in their positions to represent you.  They were voted in to that position by the people in your state.  Don't like who's representing you?  Vote against them!  I'm certain others will as well.

The way you talk, it's quite obvious you know very little.  As one would expect, when you openly admit you can't be bothered to research anything in order to place a vote for the future of the country you happen to live in.  What's wrong with two parties being two sides of the same coin?

Better than a coin with two similar sides, and considering it's a dominantly two party system for one nation, a coin with two sides is a pretty apt analogy.  These parties, in general, have had notably different practices regarding spending, taxation, welfare, warfare, and so on.  The individuals even have different stances on important issues.  They have to - it's something that was created long ago, and it's called a political platform.  The other guys have just as much of a chance, but always come up far short in terms of funding and that other important thing - appealing to the majority of the country.

So, what's the point?  Well, you could continue to cry in the corner about how no one listens to you, or you could go and vote to try and make a change.  It's true that voting will not lead to abolishing political parties - but let's see a country this size try and run without them.  Fat chance.  And hey, you might go out and vote only to see the other guy get elected.  So what?  At least you tried, as did many other people.  That's the whole point.  This isn't a nation of "If I don't get my way then screw it".  It's a DEMOCRACY.  Put in your two bits or shut up.  You're given ample opportunity to voice your distaste for the way things are run, but if you fail to do so, it's no one's fault but your own.

Who was the libertarian candidate, by the way?  And why would you have voted for them?  Bob Barr - a former Congressman and U.S. Attorney.  Seems good enough.  But wait, who's his VP?  A friggin' sports handicapper, author, and TV show host.  Yea, that's who I want in VP.  Better hit the books again before you back the Libertarian party, IMO.  Think I'm beginning to see a reason why there wasn't a landslide Libertarian victory this time around.

Looked through that wall of text...your logic is way off base.  Not even worth digging into that hornets nest of nonsense.  I love how people who don't want to take action or dig up a few facts seem to have the most to say.

[UnknownSniper]

LOL, socialist fan base? from what I heard, Obama supports gun rights. Now I know that democrats in general do not, but I heard Obama does. And while that doesn't mean much, which is exactly why I don't plan to try to argue or debate anything here, if it's true, then it's a good thing. Because even though I don't have a gun myself, I would like to own one. And even if I didn't, I still think we should be allowed to. And if you're referring to letting Bush's tax cuts to rich people expire, how the hell is that socialism? He's not proposing that we should all have equal everything, but he is trying to help out people who are less fortunate. And if that's incorrect, feel free to correct me with a reference. I'm too lazy to research on my own, but it's what I've heard.

Gun control doesn't do anything as far as safety is concerned, except maybe prevent a few idiotic kids from finding daddy's pistol and blowing each other's heads off. However, that could also be prevented, if a more serious problem with the way America deals with things were changed. Whenever we see a problem, we automatically blame the object as opposed to the idiots involved. If you properly educate people on how to handle guns and what to do if you find one in your parents' house... or here's an idea, how about the parents who have the guns teach their kids that they're not meant to be played with? No, we think if we hide/lock them away somewhere, they'll never find them, and the problem is solved. I'm not suggesting that we should have guns sitting out on the dresser or anything like that, but people need to be educated. Banning something because some dippoo screwed up doesn't solve anything. And while I realize there will still be some accidents, even with education, I think that education would greatly reduce those accidents. And we need to realize that some people are just feckin stupid. We need to stop letting one or two ruin poo for the rest of us. Gun control doesn't actually get rid of all the guns anyway. We have laws against lots of drugs, but is that really stopping people from getting them? No, so one way or another, the people who want to get guns will get them, and most likely those are the ones who wish to use them to cause harm. I'm sure we can all agree that the problem with guns mainly comes from the people who use them for harm. Most forms of harm to someone else are made illegal. Now, if someone is willing to break the law by harming someone, what makes anybody think it'll stop them from getting a gun? And besides, if anybody thinks that gun control will lower violence, no it won't. People have been killing each other for a long damn time, LONG before guns were ever invented. People will always find a way to kill each other. It's not like if someone wants to kill someone else, but he finds out he can't get a gun, he'll say "aw, poo! I guess he'll have to live."

By the way, Unknown, the end of your post is a great example of why I hate this stupid bi-party system. There are two teams, and most people feel they need to pick one or the other. Both parties suck equally for one reason or another, and simply because you happen to like a republican, you think all democrats are evil socialists. And then the democrats think that all republicans are evil rich people who only care about other rich people. While I'm sure SOME of the people are like that, they're not all, and the fact that we have this stupid party loyalty crap ruins a lot of things and keeps a lot of stuff from getting done. Stop it already. We all belong to the same team. it's called America... Why can't we realize that and accomplish something meaningful?

By the way, one last thing: Comedian or not, George Carlin was a very intelligent man, and a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense.

You HEARD, but unless you look for the facts, as Geologist said, you wont know the truth.
He already has plans, admittedly, to waiting to ban semiautomatic, automatic, repeating, high power(hunting rifles), and revolvers. 

As for your comment that they don't serve for safety, there has been MANY reports of people killed for self defence, just a few days ago a burglar was shot and killed in an apartment building. I guess this isn't safety or security, and protecting yourself, your family and your belongings is just something you can overlook. Oh, wait, it's not!

When guns were initially banned in England, there was a spike in the crimes commited with knives, which are actually more dangerous than guns. A 2 inch knife is in itself more lethal than guns, more easy to hide/conceal, silent if you assault somebody with it and can be thrown just as easily as jabbed. So there would be more crimes with the loss of guns, because every corner store sells knives, to anybody of any age.

As for the last part of your post; I am aware that not all democrats are bad, but with the "promises" Obama has made, and the plans he has(Unless he gives up on them as well), America will be worse off than it currently is, I wouldn't be surprised if the gun ban, if it happens, causes a decrease in military personal and causes people to become more or less self dependent.
</rant>

[Vltava]

* UnknownSniper walks out of the thread because this post will end up flamed by Obama's socialist fan base. (75% +/- of the internet gamers. (IRONY))

Okay, name calling just proves you're a douchecanoe. People like you are an embarrassment to the GOP fanbase. People like you tainted McCain's otherwise impeccable concession speech. After McCain's popularity plundered in September, GOP troglodytes like you have done nothing but female dog in the face of defeat. The honorable thing to do now is to follow McCain's example and get over yourself, because regardless of what you want, Obama is going to be President for four years. Deal with it and do your best to help your nation.

[UnknownSniper]

* UnknownSniper walks out of the thread because this post will end up flamed by Obama's socialist fan base. (75% +/- of the internet gamers. (IRONY))

Okay, name calling just proves you're a douchecanoe. People like you are an embarrassment to the GOP fanbase. People like you tainted McCain's otherwise impeccable concession speech. After McCain's popularity plundered in September, GOP troglodytes like you have done nothing but female dog in the face of defeat. The honorable thing to do now is to follow McCain's example and get over yourself, because regardless of what you want, Obama is going to be President for four years. Deal with it and do your best to help your nation.

Aside from that being a hypocritical post, it's quite amusing.
If not for the "minority" voters, who just wanted him in for the color of his skin(YES THERE ARE TONS OF THEM) I doubt he would have won. And the remainder of your post just proves what I said.

Good job proving my point for me love, I enjoy people who do my job for me. :>

[n00bface]

* UnknownSniper walks out of the thread because this post will end up flamed by Obama's socialist fan base. (75% +/- of the internet gamers. (IRONY))

Okay, name calling just proves you're a douchecanoe. People like you are an embarrassment to the GOP fanbase. People like you tainted McCain's otherwise impeccable concession speech. After McCain's popularity plundered in September, GOP troglodytes like you have done nothing but female dog in the face of defeat. The honorable thing to do now is to follow McCain's example and get over yourself, because regardless of what you want, Obama is going to be President for four years. Deal with it and do your best to help your nation.

Aside from that being a hypocritical post, it's quite amusing.
If not for the "minority" voters, who just wanted him in for the color of his skin(YES THERE ARE TONS OF THEM) I doubt he would have won. And the remainder of your post just proves what I said.

Good job proving my point for me love, I enjoy people who do my job for me. :>

If it were true that people voted for Obama based solely on the color of his skin, then why could Palin not have secured the woman's vote for McCain?  What about all of the people poled in battleground states who said they would not vote for Obama because of his skin color?  I'm pretty sure the race/gender thing balanced itself out, and you're forgetting that the United States has been with a white male president for over two centuries, so I doubt that suddenly everything's been turned around.

[a-4-year-old]

from what I heard, Obama supports gun rights.

Hes not, he was outright lying.

[Magus86]

Um... Geologist, I didn't say that I liked the libertarian candidate that ran. What I was trying to say is that if I were to pick a party, it would probably be the libertarians. I simply say this because they seem more reasonable than the other two based on the little bit of information I have about them.

However, once again, I have not picked any, simply because I don't know enough about any of them. I didn't say it was "i get my way or screw everything," but there will never be a vote for most of the things I'd like to see happen. If you're given a choice between a punch in the face and a punch in the balls, you might be able to pick one or the other, base on which one isn't quite as bad. But the point is that they both still suck, and if I feel my two choices suck, or I don't care because it's not a choice that I care about one way or another, why should I vote? At one point, you told me never to vote because I'm uninformed, which was my point in the first place... Then you say that I should care and should vote. I'm still uninformed, and I don't plan to get informed, so you're encouraging an ignorant person to vote. I don't think that's a good idea for me or anybody else.

I love when people see a "wall" of text and immediately dismiss it.

Unknown, NOWHERE in my post did I ever say that people didn't have guns for protection. I was saying that taking them away doesn't do any good. People think that the problem in this country is the fact that we have guns. They think that because some people do stupid shit with their guns or try to harm others, that every gun owner must also do the same. This leads them to believe that they should be taken away, and we'd be so much safer without guns. That couldn't possibly be further from the truth as far as I'm concerned. Re-read my post because I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but you definitely misunderstood me.

Also, unknown, I'm pretty sure there were just as many people who voted against Obama for the very same reason. If you think only blacks and other minorities voted for Obama, you're mistaken.

[Lord Frunkamunch]

If you're self-admittedly too lazy to bother becoming informed enough about the elections to make a choice, then are you really in a position to be debating politics?

For future reference, Unknown is either a troll or mindshatteringly stupid. Either way, it's pointless debating with him even if you do know what you're talking about.

On that note...you're digging ourself into a hole here. Every point you make is either incorrect, which means you have no problem passing on false information (which just makes you look stupid) or correct (which means that you took at least some time to research it, which in turn means your claim of being too lazy to vote is making you look like less of an enlightened cynic, and more of a douche trying to be edgy.)

[UnknownSniper]

If you're self-admittedly too lazy to bother becoming informed enough about the elections to make a choice, then are you really in a position to be debating politics?

For future reference, Unknown is either a troll or mindshatteringly stupid. Either way, it's pointless debating with him even if you do know what you're talking about.

On that note...you're digging ourself into a hole here. Every point you make is either incorrect, which means you have no problem passing on false information (which just makes you look stupid) or correct (which means that you took at least some time to research it, which in turn means your claim of being too lazy to vote is making you look like less of an enlightened cynic, and more of a douche trying to be edgy.)

How am I a troll for defending what I believe, especially when they're facts? I'm sure you may see a debate as trolling, but if that were true everyone would be trolling. For future reference, I'm not trolling in any way, it is actually you who is by making that statement.

And as for you calling me stupid, I guess it's stupid to have evidence from multiple sources for every comment you make in a debate, and I'm just going to take a wild guess and say you wont debate with me because you know you'd fail at it.

Have a nice day, sir, you are a troll and don't even know it. 

[Lord Frunkamunch]

No, I've just been reading through this thread several days late, so all the things that I would have debated are old news.

On a slightly unrelated note, going for the good ol' condescending-yet-jovial "I'm superior, and am completely unfazed by anything you might say because I know I am right" angle doesn't make you look smart.

Just putting that out there.

also how the hell can you be a troll without knowing it

[kingkitty]

Yay go Obama!
Woo change!

[Magus86]

If you're self-admittedly too lazy to bother becoming informed enough about the elections to make a choice, then are you really in a position to be debating politics?

For future reference, Unknown is either a troll or mindshatteringly stupid. Either way, it's pointless debating with him even if you do know what you're talking about.

On that note...you're digging ourself into a hole here. Every point you make is either incorrect, which means you have no problem passing on false information (which just makes you look stupid) or correct (which means that you took at least some time to research it, which in turn means your claim of being too lazy to vote is making you look like less of an enlightened cynic, and more of a douche trying to be edgy.)

Uh... No, I'm not in a position to debate politics, which is precisely why I'm not... talking about gun control isn't the same thing as debating politics. I wasn't debating anything at all. What I was doing is explaining the reasons behind the answer that got me bitched at.

[n00bface]

talking about gun control isn't the same thing as debating politics.

Yes it is

[The Geologist]

I'll put my vote behind douche trying to be edgy.

[Smegma]

also how the hell can you be a troll without knowing it 

Its quite simple really.

[Magus86]

talking about gun control isn't the same thing as debating politics.

Yes it is

No, it definitely is not. If talking about gun control is the same thing as debating politics, than so is talking about just about anything else because a law could be made preventing it. So talking about soldat is political debate as well. this entire forum is political...

Clearly you're a dumbass who doesn't know what a debate is. Get your head out of your ass and go read a dictionary.

Douche trying to be "edgy..." ? I'm not trying to be anything, but apparently you think you know more about me than I do...


Geologist: "I assumed a bunch of stuff and turned out to be wrong, so I'll call Magus a douche so I don't look stupid."

[The Geologist]

Ah...what?

What did I assume?  Please, tell me.  A bunch of stuff?  What stuff?

All I did was tell you to educate yourself and vote.  That, and not to gripe so much about politics when you didn't even do any research or vote.  You have plenty of chances to participate and push for change.

And yes, gun control is a political issue.  If you think otherwise, that's further proof that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.  For someone who admits they're not in a position to debate politics, why are you calling others out on what a debate is?  Do you want another shovel for digging that hole?