Massive, nationwide vote fraud and the response

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

animekenji

Member
Aug 12, 2004
85
0
0
I do. Your posts in this thread.

And you actually believe socialism is better than the principles enshrined in the Constitution? Let me teach you something, Socialism never raises anybody up. It drags everybody down to the same level. The only people who get raised up are those in control of the system.
 

animekenji

Member
Aug 12, 2004
85
0
0
Sure they are. We believe you.

Take a look at my registration date and number of posts. I registered in 2004 but forgot about it. I only logged in again today because I tried to re-register and found my email address was already in the system. I haven't made a post in 6 years before today.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
And you actually believe socialism is better than the principles enshrined in the Constitution?

Where did I say that? Since you're new here, I'll explain a few things:

I'm a libertarian.

I have no religion (I'm agnostic).

I think I'm a better spender of my money than the government is.

I think consumers can wield more regulatory power over business and industry (to bring about desired environmental and product quality/safety standards) with their wallets than government can wield with laws and rules and committees.

I think people should be free to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn't intrude upon anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think people should be free to own and use guns.

I think that if the government must have a role in recognizing the benefits of committed monogamous relationships it should do so regardless of the gender of the participants.

I think religious views are not a good basis for new laws or a justification for reducing people's freedoms.

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and encouraged by society (rather than law) to be as rare as possible.

I think the war on drugs is a monumental waste of time, resources, and most of all.. money. Drugs should be legalized, and any harm caused to others as a result of their use should be punished severely. Those who become addicted to drugs should be treated as patients who need medical/psychological help instead of as criminals who must be locked away.

I think "hate crimes" are unnecessary and unjust. A crime is a crime. Personal beliefs that serve as the root of the crime are not the problem... the crime is the problem and is the only thing the government has a right to prosecute.

There's more, but that's a brief synopsis. I don't fit in well with either of the two major parties.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Where did I say that? Since you're new here, I'll explain a few things:

I'm a libertarian.

I have no religion (I'm agnostic).

I think I'm a better spender of my money than the government is.

I think consumers can wield more regulatory power over business and industry (to bring about desired environmental and product quality/safety standards) with their wallets than government can wield with laws and rules and committees.

I think people should be free to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn't intrude upon anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think people should be free to own and use guns.

I think that if the government must have a role in recognizing the benefits of committed monogamous relationships it should do so regardless of the gender of the participants.

I think religious views are not a good basis for new laws or a justification for reducing people's freedoms.

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and encouraged by society (rather than law) to be as rare as possible.

I think the war on drugs is a monumental waste of time, resources, and most of all.. money. Drugs should be legalized, and any harm caused to others as a result of their use should be punished severely. Those who become addicted to drugs should be treated as patients who need medical/psychological help instead of as criminals who must be locked away.

I think "hate crimes" are unnecessary and unjust. A crime is a crime. Personal beliefs that serve as the root of the crime are not the problem... the crime is the problem and is the only thing the government has a right to prosecute.

There's more, but that's a brief synopsis. I don't fit in well with either of the two major parties.

Wow! For as often as zsdersw disagrees with me, I am almost 100% in agreement with the positions in his self-description. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Hehehe.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I disagree with only the lopsided nature of your posts. Where's your criticism of Jim DeMint? (see this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2110171)

LOL, I only spend a little time in this forum and pick and choose the topics I approach. I don't even glance at many of the threads and I haven't looked at the Jim DeMint one you reference. I'll wander into it when I get a moment. Cheers!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
Name calling. That's just what I expect from lefty libtards. Why don't you argue with facts and try to convince me that Democracy is so great instead of name calling? Because you can't.

Name Calling, WTF?

Protip: Buy a clue before posting.

1) The actual quote is: Democracy is the worst form of Government, except all the others that have been tried.

2) The US is a Democracy, just a democratic Republic.

3) I didn't call you a name. I merely called your post what it was, Lame.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
de·moc·ra·cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy?&qsrc=

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

- wolf
 

animekenji

Member
Aug 12, 2004
85
0
0
Where did I say that? Since you're new here, I'll explain a few things:

I'm a libertarian.

I have no religion (I'm agnostic).

I think I'm a better spender of my money than the government is.

I think consumers can wield more regulatory power over business and industry (to bring about desired environmental and product quality/safety standards) with their wallets than government can wield with laws and rules and committees.

I think people should be free to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn't intrude upon anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think people should be free to own and use guns.

I think that if the government must have a role in recognizing the benefits of committed monogamous relationships it should do so regardless of the gender of the participants.

I think religious views are not a good basis for new laws or a justification for reducing people's freedoms.

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and encouraged by society (rather than law) to be as rare as possible.

I think the war on drugs is a monumental waste of time, resources, and most of all.. money. Drugs should be legalized, and any harm caused to others as a result of their use should be punished severely. Those who become addicted to drugs should be treated as patients who need medical/psychological help instead of as criminals who must be locked away.

I think "hate crimes" are unnecessary and unjust. A crime is a crime. Personal beliefs that serve as the root of the crime are not the problem... the crime is the problem and is the only thing the government has a right to prosecute.

There's more, but that's a brief synopsis. I don't fit in well with either of the two major parties.

Then it looks like we're both on the same page mostly. It just felt like you were attacking me from a left wing position to which I always respond in kind. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:

animekenji

Member
Aug 12, 2004
85
0
0
de·moc·ra·cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy?&qsrc=

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

- wolf

Except that the people were never meant to be the be all and end all in this country. That's why the states were vested with certain powers, to act as a check on the people running amok. Yes, I said it. The Constitution puts the brakes on absolute power in the hands of the people in spite of what you may think. That's why state legislatures are supposed to appoint Senators. They are not supposed to be elected by the people. The Senate is there to empower the states to stop any foolhardy legislation passed by the House at the behest of the people when it's not in the best interest of the country as a whole. States are supposed to have the final say on any legislation before it reaches the Presidents desk. The people are also not supposed to have a say in who becomes President. The States are supposed to decide through their appointees to the electoral college. The powers vested in the States has been eroded over time and it needs to be restored.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Where did I say that? Since you're new here, I'll explain a few things:

I'm a libertarian.

I have no religion (I'm agnostic).

I think I'm a better spender of my money than the government is.

I think consumers can wield more regulatory power over business and industry (to bring about desired environmental and product quality/safety standards) with their wallets than government can wield with laws and rules and committees.

I think people should be free to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn't intrude upon anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think people should be free to own and use guns.

I think that if the government must have a role in recognizing the benefits of committed monogamous relationships it should do so regardless of the gender of the participants.

I think religious views are not a good basis for new laws or a justification for reducing people's freedoms.

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and encouraged by society (rather than law) to be as rare as possible.

I think the war on drugs is a monumental waste of time, resources, and most of all.. money. Drugs should be legalized, and any harm caused to others as a result of their use should be punished severely. Those who become addicted to drugs should be treated as patients who need medical/psychological help instead of as criminals who must be locked away.

I think "hate crimes" are unnecessary and unjust. A crime is a crime. Personal beliefs that serve as the root of the crime are not the problem... the crime is the problem and is the only thing the government has a right to prosecute.

There's more, but that's a brief synopsis. I don't fit in well with either of the two major parties.

Although I'm not agnostic*, you and I are in agreement on pretty much everything here. The only place I disagree is in treating drug addicts as medical patients; I think the vast majority of people taking drugs do so because they like it, and go through rehab only to escape the consequences of taking drugs.

What we need is a fiscally responsible, freedom loving party not in love with taking things away from the people to redistribute, not in love with borrowing money to buy votes, and not in love with using the power of government to force people to behave in ways that 50 percent plus one of voters find appropriate.

*Non-attending Baptist-leaning generic Christian, though unlike a true Baptist I will speak to you in a liquor store.
 

animekenji

Member
Aug 12, 2004
85
0
0
Although I'm not agnostic*, you and I are in agreement on pretty much everything here. The only place I disagree is in treating drug addicts as medical patients; I think the vast majority of people taking drugs do so because they like it, and go through rehab only to escape the consequences of taking drugs.

What we need is a fiscally responsible, freedom loving party not in love with taking things away from the people to redistribute, not in love with borrowing money to buy votes, and not in love with using the power of government to force people to behave in ways that 50 percent plus one of voters find appropriate.

*Non-attending Baptist-leaning generic Christian, though unlike a true Baptist I will speak to you in a liquor store.

That's what I say about drug addicts. They made a decision to use drugs, nobody forced them into it. If they become hopelessly addicted to the point where they can't quit on their own, they aren't able to get or keep a job or damage their own health as a result then there should be no public safety nets in place for them. No welfare payments, no medical care on the taxpayers dime, no methadone clinics or other treatment programs for them, and if they commit a crime while under the influence, injure or kill someone or destroy property, then they should be held fully accountable. The same should apply to anyone who suffers injury to their health due to a lifestyle choice they made, like engaging in dangerous activities like sky diving or bungee jumping or having unprotected sex. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for sports related injuries or AIDS patients who didn't use a condom or make sure their partner was safe before having sex with them?
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
My research shows that almost all of the voter registration malfeasance, for the last couple of years at least, has been by Democrat voter registration efforts, including substantial failures to deliver a quality product by ACORN and affiliates.

Your research? Research involves more than dialing up your favorite conservative websites, forums, and circle-jerks and spouting the same BS they do. I wouldn't even trust you to research the menu at my local Wendy's.