digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at i133.photobucket.com

If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal!

i133.photobucket.com — truer words were never spoken

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 7, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

240 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Synova, on 02/07/2008, -16/+144Not very accurate in my opinion. Making voting illegal would basically guarantee some kind of revolution. Tampering behind the scenes is a far safer strategy, and it happens almost every election to some degree.
  • Uncle_Joe, on 02/07/2008, -4/+105Dugg for them using paper Guy Fawkes masks.
  • GeorgeWKush, on 02/07/2008, -2/+73Voting has the ability to make change....from one political party to another.
  • theangrybaby, on 02/07/2008, -8/+73If making a sign changed anything, it would be illegal...
  • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -3/+68well, voting doesnt change anything hence they dont need to make it illegal...
  • 4d669, on 02/07/2008, -0/+50If voting changed anything, they'd make a private company with rigged machines count the votes.
  • LordSkywalker, on 02/07/2008, -4/+47Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without.
  • JDenigma, on 02/07/2008, -3/+42Yes we certainly will and what we will see will be the same ***** and that ***** is going to hit the fan and it will get worse. Batten down the hatches. The storm clouds are gathering.
  • stayfree26, on 02/07/2008, -0/+38Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in
  • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -12/+46Ah. Famous quote by anarchist and anti-capitalist Emma Goldman. No quote better describes liberal democracy.
  • whyufail, on 02/07/2008, -3/+30Hooray for not understanding political anarchy.
  • fwonk, on 02/07/2008, -0/+22''It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes' - allegedly from Stalin
  • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -0/+22"The goal is to have both parties represent, essentially, the same interests so that as the administration changes from one party to another their policies remain the same." - Professor Carrol Quigley of Georgetown University, Bill Clinton's self proclaimed mentor.

    "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the democrat and republican parties!" - George Wallace, just before he was shot

    "I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I HAVE NO AVERSION TO IT OR TO MOST OF ITS AIMS AND HAVE, FOR MUCH OF MY LIFE, BEEN CLOSE TO IT AND TO MANY OF ITS INSTRUMENTS. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that IT WISHES TO REMAIN UNKNOWN, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known." - Carroll Quigley, CFR Historian -- In his 1300-page, 8 pound tome "Tragedy and Hope"
  • pintomp3, on 02/07/2008, -1/+21no wonder voting doesn't change anything, you are voting too late.
  • Corrosionx, on 02/07/2008, -4/+23Democracy is a suggestion box for slaves.
  • notque, on 02/07/2008, -0/+19Don't worry, they still have no idea who Guy Fawkes was.
  • pe5t1lence, on 02/07/2008, -3/+22Reminds me of when Kodos ran against Kang in the Simpsons; Kodos is elected and instantly enslaves the world's population. Homer's comment to Lisa "Don't blame me, I voted for Kang"

    I realize this is probably 100% accurate, but I haven't seen the episode in 5-6 years!
  • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -6/+24it would appear that private property and barter are a naturally occurring phenomenon throughout human history, arising from a total stochastic state (stochastic being natural anarchy). Even in communist russia, private parties traded alcohol, tobacco, services, favors, etc.. From the time of cavemen, it would appear, private property is prevalent. It didnt rely upon some central state authority providing legitimacy through some arbitrary legal system, all it took was a caveman and his club protecting his own cave. How exactly he came to 'own' the cave is up for debate. However if one is proficient at acquiring food and another has skills working with furs, it would seem appropriate that their skill sets accompany each other. And those that work the hardest benefit the most. I would much prefer being a 'wage-slave' with the opportunity for advancement than a 'no-wage-slave' that cannot advance no matter how hard they work. and i think we tried no-wage-slavery once, iirc it didnt work out so well...

    So, authority? yes. coercive centralized state authority? no. Anarchism is not about a lack of authority or absence of government, it's about a lack of coercive authority and non-representative government that restricts freedoms. People have the authority to protect themselves from clear and present dangers, there's nothing coercive about that. They are also entitle to protect the fruits of their labor. Or if they so choose they can hire another party for security services. The problem only arises when they try to impose authority over others against their will.

    People are free to organize however they see fit. and any form of organization provides governance, hence a government. It would appear that government is a necessary evil, however it always works best when it's as small and decentralized as possible. and it should serve its stakeholders without imposing its will on others. so long as all participants are voluntarily compliant and free to do as they wish i see no problem.

    while our current system of state-capitalism definitely benefits some much more than others, the ultimate authority rests with the consumers who have absolute power, if only they are smart enough to use it. people are free to do whatever they want so long as it does not inhibit others' freedoms. so if one can pursue shelter, food, medicine without restricting the ability of others to also pursue the same, then so be it.
  • whyufail, on 02/07/2008, -2/+19Remember remember the 5th of november
  • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -5/+21actually, im an anarcho-democratist. i do not proscribe to any particular ideology. im willing to take the good parts from any system and coalesce them into some sort of Frankenstein.

    i posted it because its true.

    while i do indeed believe free-market capitalism could adequately provide us with many of the services people rely on the government for, and much more efficiently, i acknowledge that it has its shortcomings like any other ideology. i will not, however, force any system, whether capitalist or socialist, on anyone. i dont care which particular political philosophy you choose to worship, just dont force it on me.
  • Digger1218, on 02/07/2008, -0/+15I believe thats the point of the poster....

    Think much?
  • kakwakas, on 02/07/2008, -0/+14I've always preferred "Whomever you vote for, you still vote for a politician."
  • fwonk, on 02/07/2008, -2/+16I'm so doubtful of any kind of revolution these days. Joe Sixpack will just roll over and take it in the ass, most of them can barely get out and exercise their right to vote anyway.
  • notque, on 02/07/2008, -0/+13The Diebold controversy is basically a footnote. We don't have real elections in this country, but the single party that represents different sectors of corporate power seriously fight so that their sector has the biggest gains.

    A lot of profit to be had, even if they are the same party.
  • grason1129, on 02/07/2008, -13/+26we will see what happens
  • Tenlow, on 02/07/2008, -4/+16Who's guy fawkes? all i see is epic fail guy.
  • nextyoyoma, on 02/07/2008, -0/+11oh wait...
  • Bael, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10I wouldn't want you tampering with the results that I've tampered with.
  • dylio, on 02/07/2008, -3/+13SURELY nothing shady happens behind closed doors. SURELY the government is on our side and tells us everything.

    "I will put American Gladiator on 46 channels, GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA!" - Bill Hicks
  • synaesthesia, on 02/07/2008, -3/+12I'll bet a more than a few people had that same sentiment during the 2000 election. Where a few votes could have made a difference, instead Gore lost, Bush became POTUS and we all know how that ended up.
  • ChefEspeff, on 02/07/2008, -1/+10Wearing the V mask has become so much less cool ever since the movie came out. The worst is when people wear it or talk about how smart that story is without reading the novel. The movie barely scratched the surface of what V for Vendetta is all about.
  • notque, on 02/07/2008, -2/+10That isn't true. Voting doesn't change anything because our system created by James Madison was intended to keep the population out of the affairs of government. That's been the fundamental core of U.S. policy in regards to the population.
  • bruce86, on 02/07/2008, -1/+9Voting taps the minds of the masses. The masses are irrational and violent, they are to hasty in their judgment, Only judging with the "gut" that they feel. Voting drowns the voice of the reasonable, the wise and the thoughtful.

    What are conundrum we are in! It is a conundrum indeed, to stay rational but inable to change, or to become blind and powerful, to make change in a fog. With no foresight to see the vast void, right at our very feet.
  • notque, on 02/07/2008, -1/+9Not Direct Democracy, but what we call "Democracy" here. Very true.
  • diggduggjoe, on 02/07/2008, -2/+10How would Ron Paul speed up a depression? Would balanced budgets hurt the economy? Would abolishing the IRS hurt the economy? Would competition to the US fiat currency hurt the economy? Would decreased violence throughout the world hurt the economy?

    Any member of the CFR will speed up the collapse, that includes Obama. It is sad it will likely come down to Clinton and McCain. Warmonger or Warmonger Lite, what a choice!
  • cryonix, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7almost was.
  • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7We don't directly vote for the President because the founding fathers worried that the common man might be an idiot, so they setup an intermediary in case they make a catastrophically wrong decision.

    The President is supposed to be our chief diplomat, and commander of our armed forces. In the first role, he does indeed represent EVERYONE. The problem is that the President has gained much power since the office was established. Power which he was never meant to have, such as signing statements. Until we have a President willing to give that up and reset his power to its original levels, things will only get worse.

    Power corrupts...
  • vuke69, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8"...if only they are smart enough to use it."

    Ahh... I know there was a caveat in there somewhere.

    Outstanding post btw, I couldn't have said it better myself.
  • clkou, on 02/07/2008, -10/+17If 100% of the people would vote instead of 30%, we would actually elect people who represented our ideas and be better off for it.
  • topace3000, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8So digg is now hot for anarchists too? Nice.
  • vuke69, on 02/07/2008, -3/+10I really hate your, and so many others' apathy.
  • whiteguysamurai, on 02/07/2008, -3/+10Legalize it!
  • SirBrittanicus, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8I think they're going for the V for Vendetta look rather than the Anonymous look.

    Dug for awesome.
  • Luminoth, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6The Diebold controversy is the part of the trick where the magician waves his hands around.
  • Corrosionx, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Direct democracy, seriously? What would you call 51% of the people voting to take away what the 49% of the rest possess? Or if 60% want the other 40% killed?

    Democracy is two wolfes and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. There needs to be limits to what the government can do to people. Individual rights are the key. And every system of government (democratic or not) that ever existed was a predator onto those rights.
  • Garbagio, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Respect and consider the constitution before amending it anyone?
  • Hangingtree, on 11/04/2008, -2/+8@ Whyufail

    Anarchy means only one thing, and does not need to be qualified. There is no such thing as "political anarchy" and the fact that you think there is actually proves that you dont know much if anything about Anarchy.

    Anarchy is a lack of government and authority, plain and simple, not other definition.

    Anarchy is an impossible and unrealizable ideal due to the nature of mankind, from the earliest family organized clans, there has been some sort of social order governed by rules, first customary and then codified. A world without government is a world without man.

    These anarchists are wasting their time by supporting an ideal that can never be recognized on this planet. If they really cared about politics and making changes they would take an active role in trying to make a positive change. Not spouting their angsty "no rules LAWLZ" *****.

    And that is Whyufail
  • inactive, on 02/07/2008, -2/+8The Gov't is an extension of the global wealthy oligarchs control over the slave people. The elites control the corporations which in turn control both the Republicunts and the Demoncrats.
  • Jenadae, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5huh?
  • cyrax04, on 02/07/2008, -4/+9Amen, my fellow Anarchists.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 241 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.