digg

Join DiggAbout
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

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • grason1129, on 02/07/2008, -12/+26we will see what happens
    • 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.
      • LadyDub, on 02/07/2008, -9/+1
        ...Said Dr Seuss :-D
        • JDenigma, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1.......thus speaks the Pavlovian dog ;-)
      • Vector713, on 02/07/2008, -17/+6I really hate your and so many others' dramatic and metaphorical doomsday statements.

        Gimme a ***** break.
        • vuke69, on 02/07/2008, -3/+10I really hate your, and so many others' apathy.
          • GawtMilk, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2Dark, brooding storm clouds gather in apathetic unison over what looks to be the saddest election day in HISTORY. THE END IS NEEEEAAAARRR!
        • feshmania, on 02/07/2008, -5/+2I think you're right, Vector. Over-exaggerated statements like JDenigma's are an annoyance and pure scare-tactics. You're no better than the people that this Digg post is about who (see Rudy Gulliani's campaign) try to scare people into believing their next door neighbor is the next terrorist mastermind.
          • cmackattack, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2
            ummm, that would be the US government trying to scare you into believing your neighbor is a terrorist... the doomsday saying regarding the comments here is the real terrorist, the US government that is gunning for you...
          • JDenigma, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1cmackattack,

            Don't expect feshmania or other comfortable sheeple to expect anything really bad and disastrous to eventually happen over time. So long as the "respectables" can come home from work, plop down on their couch, pop open a beer and watch their sports or American Idol, they'll continue to take things for granted and not give a *****. Human beings don't care if others peoples liberties are being infringed. They'll only care if they feel the government is coming after them personally and by that point it's too late.

            These people who will call me an alarmist are the same ones who believe in the exaggerated boogeymen threats of terrorists everywhere and a chaotic jungle of a predatory free market, yet somehow I'm the paranoid one? Hmmmm. Well shall see what happens and who will be in the position to say "see I told you so". This happens in all periods of times with any person who is considered a heretic and an outcast. Why, you think the Earth revolves around the Sun? You're a nutjob! I'm sure the citizens who were the product of the enlightened culture of pre-Nazi Germany also took things for granted in the 1930's and paid no heed to the warnings from the dissenters.

            Human nature sure is amusing.
      • gabeh73, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1http://www.digg.com/politics/Congressman_Larry_McD ...

        JDenigma...check out this interview of Larry Mcdonald shortly before his death...this is my recomendation for post of the month and it only has 9 diggs right now
    • Qtip42, on 02/07/2008, -4/+5We'll see the recession and a likely depression no matter what candidate makes it...just FYI. It'll be quicker to a depression if any reps or hillary make it.
      • 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!
        • notque, on 02/07/2008, -6/+5Ron Paul would clearly speed up a depression, but for significantly different reasons than other candidates.

          Not that he would have the power to implement his policies as president, but if his policies were implemented, they would spell the end of our controlled economy.

          We have nothing like markets in the U.S.

          We are a state controlled economy based through the "defense" department, and subsidies to agriculture, and other businesses.

          Decreased violence throughout the world would decrease the economy as well, however that isn't a reason to not be for it. I'm for decreased violence even though I'm well aware it will hurt the economy.
          • diggduggjoe, on 02/07/2008, -3/+5Are you nuts, peace promotes markets simply for healthy living people can become customers. There is never any sense that blowing up functional infrastructure and rebuilding it is good for the economy. That is a myth.
          • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4@diggduggjoe:

            Except when your business is the business of war. Half our nation's budget goes to defense, and that all goes to contractors and military vendors. People get paid out of that.

            A piece of the B-2 stealth bomber is made in every state in the US. That way, if any congressman tries to cut money from defense, they'll be sacrificing jobs in their own state...

            Peace absolutely hurts our economy. That's why we've been at war constantly since World War 2. This will not change until we massively shift where our tax dollars go first.
    • plarp, on 02/07/2008, -11/+4that type of attitude is the reason why voting doesn't change anything..
      • vuke69, on 02/07/2008, -3/+4No, it's the vote based on personality, or who they perceive can win (or more accurately, who the media tells them can win), "it doesn't matter", "they're all the same", attitude that makes this true.
      • 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.
    • poxonyou, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3I consider myself a socialist libertarian (please look it up on Wikipedia), and I was an activist during the anti-corporate-globalization movement. I agree that the parties are both corrupt, and ultimately I don't support a centralized government, but I see voting as a tool for the bigger picture. Compare the amount of activism, and the radical direction it was heading, during the Clinton years, and the lack of it during the Bush years. Burn-out?

      I think a far-right presidency only encourages people to support the other party, thinking they'll fix all the problems. When the "left" (center-right) party is in power, people can no longer assume that the other party will solve their problems. They become motivated to make changes on their own. There are also those who believe with a president that pays lip service to their concerns (environment, poverty, etc.) that they can pressure them to make changes, with the same sort of activism. With a Republican in power, they have no illusions that the Republican will care and many give up, just trying to get a Democrat elected.

      That's not to mention, I don't need to prove my beliefs by not voting, nor will reluctance to vote result in the positive changes we want. I rather at least have the slightly lesser evil of the corrupt in power, while we continue to do the dirty work on our own.
      • bhrgero, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1a very fine statement. its good to see people still having ideals and utopias and still enough realism in them to realize that you have to work with the system and use it at the same time to make changes possible step by step...people who always blame the government sitting on their couch and never start doing *****, just frustrate me...

        and on a personal note... its just feels better to have a government that at last claims to care about people...(as far as this might be away from the truth)

        that being said, i still believe a socialist - libertarian society is the closest idea to a just society
      • crash331, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1***** off, pinko.
        • diggduggjoe, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I would be libertarian socialist, aka anarchist. However, the key point is in order to not need a government, we must learn to govern ourselves. Why do we have police, because far too many of us need police to keep us from killing, raping or stealing at our neighbors expense. True peace comes at the individual level. I am a pragmatist, though. Let's start with property rights and open markets, then as prosperity grows for all, we can all work on our inner demons. Poor people have no use for salvation.
  • Synova, on 02/07/2008, -15/+143Not 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.
    • whitezombie420, on 02/07/2008, -3/+7exactly, they can;t lure us into a false feeling of comfort if they just start blatantly ***** us around. it just makes things so much harder on them.
    • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -3/+67well, voting doesnt change anything hence they dont need to make it illegal...
      • ufia, on 02/07/2008, -12/+4If voting does not change anything, then remind me again what was all that controversy about Diebold?
        • Bael, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10I wouldn't want you tampering with the results that I've tampered with.
        • 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.
        • Luminoth, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6The Diebold controversy is the part of the trick where the magician waves his hands around.
        • 11oops, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5Diebold is why voting doesn't change anything.
    • LordSkywalker, on 02/07/2008, -4/+47Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without.
    • beanage, on 02/07/2008, -13/+2Well thanks there Socrates. I think I'll choose to tell you to ***** right off. Real deep buddy.
      • halleyscomet, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3Do you always attack people who make points that are too complex for you to understand?
      • mtrip, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1People on digg are looney!
      • beanage, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0god damnit, something is wrong with the digg messaging system, my replies never get attached to the right comment.
    • 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, -10/+5Your very low opinion of average people shows that you have a larger problem than "Joe Sixpack."
        • fwonk, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3How many Americans vote?
          • notque, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4That's pretty irrelevant as far as positive change is concerned. The real question should be, how many Americans are educating themselves? How many Americans are reading history, and understanding the context of our actions?

            How many Americans are teaching others about what they learn?

            I doubt someone who doesn't care in the process should be voting anyway. Your first statements make no sense to me.

            You should be talking about wanting to help them learn about the issue when they are ready. And working with others.

            We're not fighting each other here. We are all human beings, and we have a goal. Convince enough other people that we have committed war crimes in Iraq, and we must take control of the government from these radical people.

            Pretty clear to me.
          • known, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. --John F. Kennedy
        • j4200, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3He's pretty accurate with his statement actually. Joe Sixpack is a big idiot.
        • ICSU, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Realistic view?
      • j4200, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5Excersize at all even! HAH
    • Digger1218, on 02/07/2008, -0/+15I believe thats the point of the poster....

      Think much?
    • bunit03057, on 02/07/2008, -3/+6I feel like not many people actually understand how voting or our form of government works. If you care so much about being represented directly, as we all should, that is what congress is for (seriously). The president is not a king his power is limited by the people and congress. This is how the system works. The president does not always and usually does not represent everyone. The system is set up so that we do not directly vote for a president, on purpose (look into the article of confederation). If you care so much, as everyone should, then focus your attention on congress which limits the president's power.
      • BlackMagic2, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3Actually the president DOES represent everyone. Senators represent your state, HR's represent your district, and the president represents America... everyone.
        • JDenigma, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1So Bush represents me though I didn't even vote for him? Sorry, but I never consented to any politician LEADING me.
      • 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...
        • bennovw, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Amend the constitution anyone?
        • Garbagio, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Respect and consider the constitution before amending it anyone?
      • bunit03057, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1"Actually the president DOES represent everyone. Senators represent your state, HR's represent your district, and the president represents America... everyone."
        I did not mean "represent" in the sense of a figure head that represents our nation, but rather as someone who likely has the same view as the majority of Americans. Similar to what JDenigma is getting at. So in that sense a senator or state rep is much more likely to represent a larger portion of the voters from his state.
    • artgon, on 02/07/2008, -2/+7It's like having to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich...
    • insomn3ak, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1So true... http://wonkette.com/353492/howard-dean-to-decide-d ...
      • halleyscomet, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1That article is so poorly written it's laughable. Was Wonkette drunk or something?
    • yunus, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Super delegates are a good example of why voting does not change anything. No matter how we vote in the end the party will choose whomever they want to win.
    • starkey1, on 02/08/2008, -0/+0It's this kind of thinking that makes people disenfranchised.
  • LadyDub, on 02/07/2008, -26/+2Hmmm... are they embarrassed to be self-proclaimed Anarchists? Seems to me if I was going to make a political statement for something I believed in I wouldn't be ashamed of it.
  • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -12/+44Ah. Famous quote by anarchist and anti-capitalist Emma Goldman. No quote better describes liberal democracy.
    • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -5/+8However I wonder why you would post this picture, when you are a pro-capitalist "free market anarchist", and support Ron Paul?
      • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -5/+20actually, 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.
        • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -10/+6Believe me, I'm not trying to force anything on anybody, I'm just trying to figure out why and how you believe in capitalism, while you at the same time believe in anarchism. The two of which, to me, are complete opposites.

          What is it about capitalism that is good, for normal people, not the bourgeoisie? How do you expect private property to be upheld without some sort of authority?

          Also, the red in anarchist symbolism symbolizes the blood of angry workers, or socialism. Why not have it in gold, or whatever "market anarchists" use?
        • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -6/+23it 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.
          • vuke69, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7"...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.
          • dufflepud, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2I second vuke69 on the outstanding post. The genius of the U.S. constitution, such as it was, was that it severely limited the gov't by specifically allowing it to do a few specific things. This maximized liberty, which as Lord Acton said, is the highest political end.
            Unfortunately, as Joe Sobran has so eloquently put it, the constitution is no threat to our current form of government.
          • insurgente, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry for the late reply.

            Private property and trade for profit (which is not barter) first occurred only when man entered it's agricultural phase, and peasants were able to produce surplus, which they could then sell.

            Before this was the hunting and gathering phase (or primitive communism in Marxism), where property was shared. Hence, private property and capitalism is not inherent in man, but is a social development arising from the production of surplus.

            It sounds to me like you want some sort of barbarism, where everybody is exclusively looking out for himself/herself and his/her property, which would make for an incredibly hostile society, which would soon enough collapse on itself due to it's massive contradictions. It would descend into chaos in the blink of an eye.

            The capitalist notion of "advancement" and "success" is nothing but an illusion, and a twisted idea. The idea that exploiting your fellow man and environment, and basically steal from what they produce for your own benefit is success is just ridiculous. This also leads to the formation of classes and hierarchies, masters (property owners, employers) and subjects/slaves (propertyless, wage laborers), which is inherently non-anarchist.

            Real success on the other hand is building houses for the people to live in, healing people in hospitals, teaching children in schools. Real success is growing food for the people to eat. Real success is the development of medicine to eradicate disease.

            Anarchism is not about authority, no matter if it's centralized or not. Anarchism is about questioning any and all authority, and if it's illegitimate, abolishing it.

            If you have property, that interferes with my right to have that property. How can you call it freedom if I can't walk on that piece of land, because you supposedly own it? Or drink water from that stream that runs through land, which is supposedly your property?

            The US is not state-capitalist. The USSR were state-capitalist, and so is the PRC. The US is market capitalist, though regulated. State-socialism on the other hand is when the state is truly a state of the workers (social democratic worker's state or people's home and Marxist pre-communist socialist dictatorship of the proletariat), and it owns the means of production, while the workers administer it.
        • greenblob, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1I guess I kinda agree with that idea: that you can do whatever you want as long as you're not invading anyone else's rights. We also seem to agree that this probably won't work in practice.
      • heroesdietrying, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism
        • insurgente, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1If there is capitalism, there can't be anarchism. If there is anarchism, there can't be capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron to me and the vast, vast majority of the anarchists of the world. For reasons I've repeatedly stated.
  • Uncle_Joe, on 02/07/2008, -4/+104Dugg for them using paper Guy Fawkes masks.
    • whyufail, on 02/07/2008, -2/+19Remember remember the 5th of november
      • pintomp3, on 02/07/2008, -1/+21no wonder voting doesn't change anything, you are voting too late.
    • redsoxmb545, on 02/07/2008, -8/+5It's sad how most people would have no idea who Guy Fawkes was without V For Vendetta.
      • Tenlow, on 02/07/2008, -4/+16Who's guy fawkes? all i see is epic fail guy.
      • notque, on 02/07/2008, -0/+19Don't worry, they still have no idea who Guy Fawkes was.
        • notque, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Fawkes was ranked 30th in the 2002 list of "100 Greatest Britons", sponsored by the BBC and voted for by the public. He was also included in a list of the 50 greatest people from Yorkshire.

          Go read about him.
        • Myonosken, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Bloody typical. One of the top 50 people from my county tried to kill the king. Welp, at least we have continued the tradition of pointless violence.
          • notque, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Ah, but the violence wasn't pointless.
          • userperson, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1@notque
            It's rare that violence isn't pointless.
            Though some vague argument might be made for the general intent.
        • userperson, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1The only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions!
    • XSVFizz, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5Remember kids, when instigating revolution and you're all out of Guy Fawkes masks, you can always have the superior alternative of Christopher Walken masks! http://www.witz.org/images/walken_mask-thumb-320x4 ...
      • userperson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1He was prettier than Guy Fawkes anyway.
    • ICSU, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2A religious psycho. What an idol!
  • GeorgeWKush, on 02/07/2008, -2/+70Voting has the ability to make change....from one political party to another.
    • rpi22, on 02/07/2008, -0/+21"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"
    • sporg, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5Two sides of the same coin.
  • 405994, on 02/07/2008, -27/+6Please, no more pseudo-intellectual claims of governments conspiracy.
    • 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
    • TheG2, on 02/07/2008, -5/+1He's not claiming otherwise, but come on, this is just vague and stupid.
    • userperson, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1No need what happens out in the open is disgusting enough.
      e.g. We're going to take your money to pay for a military invasion of people who didn't do anything to you. If you resist we'll fine you more money, if you resist we'll throw you in jail, if you resist we'll kill you. You have to support this war with your money. Never mind those people did nothing to you, you have no choice.
  • choopie911, on 02/07/2008, -27/+9God I hate people who use "anarchy" for anything. It's such *****. If you broke into their house and stole all their *****, you know they'd call the cops.
    Idiots
    • whyufail, on 02/07/2008, -3/+30Hooray for not understanding political anarchy.
      • choopie911, on 02/07/2008, -7/+5You really think they understand anarchy? That stupid ***** "A" for anarchy symbol. It's just some angsty kids who think things would magically be better if it was every man for himself.
        • Jenadae, on 02/07/2008, -3/+6At least they out demonstrating their opinion rather then sitting around doing nothing.
          • choopie911, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Demonstrating that you support anarchy with two of your friends....yeah, real political activists there.
        • Rikkochet, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Digg was down for maintenance or they never woulda done it!
      • meburnette, on 02/07/2008, -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
        • notque, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Anarchy isn't impossible. It's existed in practice. Anarchist tendencies are all around us.

          Anarchy is quite simply.

          It means, determining if authority is justified, and if it isn't destroying it.

        • BlackMagic2, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1meburnette, Zaxlebax much?
        • jospinlase, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Political Anarchy does exist moron.

          "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

          "In a word, every law that hath been in the world since the formation of Adam, gives the lie to this self-evident truth, because every law, divine or human, that is or hath been in the world, is an abridgement of man's liberty."

          "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

          Prove to me that it doesn't exsist.
    • Freezingmoose, on 02/07/2008, -7/+1And here I thought I was the only person in the world who thought this.
    • meburnette, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1Edit
  • theangrybaby, on 02/07/2008, -8/+73If making a sign changed anything, it would be illegal...
  • bingobongony, on 02/07/2008, -28/+3Another Ron Paulian embarrasses himself, and puts another dagger in Ron Paul's re-election campaign
    • beankitty, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1...in other news.
    • PongGod, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2What the hell does this have to do with Ron Paul? He is no anarchist, although he may be the closest thing we'll ever see within the political arena.
  • Eldorian, on 02/07/2008, -20/+12Is Digg full of 15 year olds?
    Nevermind, I already know the answer to that.
  • stayfree26, on 02/07/2008, -0/+37Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in
    • kakwakas, on 02/07/2008, -0/+14I've always preferred "Whomever you vote for, you still vote for a politician."
  • xam217, on 02/07/2008, -14/+2Shut up...
  • synaesthesia, on 02/07/2008, -2/+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.
    • notque, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3There are subtle differences, which still mean the lives of millions because we are a superpower. But Gore and Bush are both corporate candidates that will continue the status quo regarding class warfare, etc.
      • milesthang, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0please tell me more about american class warfare! everywhere i see the working man is oppressed by the corporate machine......
    • jessehadden, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0What does the vote of 2000 have to do with the appointment of Bush to the Presidency by the Supreme Court? They ordered the count be stopped. It's important to insist that a spade be called a spade -- Bush is an appointee, at least for his first term.
    • poxonyou, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1The Supreme Court put him into power. Also, Gore 2008 is hardly the Gore we knew in 2000, where he picked LIEBERMAN as his running mate.
    • userperson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Only 9 people could,
      wonder who appointed them?
  • 4d669, on 02/07/2008, -0/+50If voting changed anything, they'd make a private company with rigged machines count the votes.
  • clkou, on 02/07/2008, -9/+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.
    • tMANwi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2So true
    • l00s3r, on 02/07/2008, -2/+4Proof please.
    • d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -3/+4You think people would vote for the person who truly should win? You're on crack.
    • HigherLogic, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3No, you'd just have 100% of the people voting for either (a) the lesser evil or (b) the most electable. If the process of voting was _easier_ though, things might change, e.g. if you could vote via your cell phone or through the Internet instead of having to physically go to a location.

      ...that, and I really think you should have to pass a test so you can vote.
      • BlackMagic2, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4I don't think there should be a test, because, well, that leads to racism or sexism or any other ism you happen to be a part of.

        I really do hate the "It doesn't matter who you vote for, just vote" campaign. People think it is their patriotic duty to go out and vote without knowing a damn about the candidates. Then they go home and wave their american flag and put the "I Voted!" sticker on their shirt.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Dude... testing, while appealing to those of us who think we're in the 20% of "smart" people vs. the 80% of idiots (btw - everyone thinks they're in the 20%) is truly unfair and opens the door to abuse wide open. It just doesn't make practical sense.
        Unfortunately there's no secure method for SMS, Internet, or otherwise wireless voting. Just look at the ridiculous lack of security and vote fraud our current touch screen machines have introduced. I'd love it too, but it's currently a pipe dream.
        Want to make voting easier for people? Go drive a van to and from polling places on election day. It works. People who would otherwise not vote will love you for it.
    • FREETHINKER2008, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4If the MSM would stop telling the people who they should vote for.
    • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3With ever successive election, the people will elect someone who is more and more similar to them, until one day, they will wake up and realize they have exactly who they want in office: An idiot.
    • BigLLamasHouse, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1the more people that vote, the more stupid people vote.
    • XanthZeax, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2If everyone voted, countries would be in much worse shape. I think it's better that the apathetic people don't vote; if they did they wouldn't think about it as much and you'd have more unintelligent voting.
  • AppleMacMan, on 02/07/2008, -15/+0Funny how these guys don't show their face. They are definitely not among the brave Mac user fold.
  • lukas88, on 02/07/2008, -4/+10It would be more powerful as an argument, not just a statement. What is your premise? Paranoia?

    I suppose you could refer to the last 200 years of policy change. Although people did not always change the policy directly, they definitely voted for the people in office who did, so our votes are at least partially responsible for changing things.

    One could argue that our votes don't really choose the candidate, but I would disagree with that too. Bypassing the direct democracy vs representation debate, I would say that the reason we end up picking ***** candidates are because we choose our president like we choose our soft drinks: whoever's name gets heard the most in the media has the best chance of winning. If every american voter spent four hours researching what our country needs most, and four hours researching which candidate would likely accomplish it, our votes would make a HUGE difference.

    In short, the government isn't keeping our votes from making a difference, apathy is keeping our votes from making a difference.
    • C3RV4NTE5, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3Do you really believe that your vote means anything? It's already decided who's going to be the president.
      • Myonosken, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Maybe in your ***** up system. All other democracies aren't perfect, but I'm wondering more and more how your government has the gall to "spread democracy" without first checking whether their system is actually democratic.
      • huckabee, on 02/07/2008, -1/+0If it was that controlled, neither FDR, JFK or Bill Clinton would've been elected. However, conspiracy theories aside, the whole process from voter registration to primaries, winner-take-all districts, the electoral college, and not least, the enormous influence of large media corporations pretty much guarantees that the president will be someone who doesn't stir things up too much. Candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are there for entertainment purposes only ;P
    • Kyzzyxx, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0It's not a true demcracy until you have 'None of the above' on the ballot. And don't play the typical idiot that responds with "Well what if 'none of the above' wins, what do you do then?" If you can't work that problem out you are more of an idiot than I thought and maybe you shouldn't be voting for anything.
  • djadamjay, on 02/07/2008, -14/+9how cute, some college kids saw "V for Vendetta" and now they think they are anarchists.

    • jonmlm, on 02/07/2008, -2/+4how cute, you saw v for vendetta and don't know who guy fawkes is
  • stackered, on 02/07/2008, -8/+3Ok... so if 100% more people vote in this upcoming election, that wouldn't change anything - really? Really? Do people actually believe this?
    • thekingfisher, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5People do actually believe this. If you haven't noticed yet, the media controls the election. Ron Paul was drowned out in the mainstream and had no chance really.

      So no, unless I want to vote in the front-runner from one of the two idiotic parties, my vote will never count.

      Wake up! The fall of America is upon us unless something changes dramatically soon! We are walking in the footsteps of the Roman Empire...
    • d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2How many people are left that aren't in the CFR? 1? And he's already been drowned out? Go America!
    • jessehadden, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I know that I've lived through at least two fraudulent United States elections within my lifetime. You can usually spot a corrupt democracy by a few factors, such as a ban on UN observers and an agreement between media and government not to conduct exit polls. In fact, the Bush administration cites these very same reasons when interfering with the elections of other nations.
  • deviantsteve, on 02/07/2008, -6/+1They're secretly democrats.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Exactly what sort of deviant are you, anyway? Social? Sexual? Intellectual...? Scratch that last one I guess.
  • brian1127, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4If people want real change, they need to empower themselves!

    http://www.nationalinitiative.us/

    GOOGLE: NI4D
  • 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
  • darladoon, on 02/07/2008, -5/+3sure, but the flipside of that is:

    if you don't vote, you automatically vote for the winner by default.

    either way, you are screwed. so you might as well vote for the least awful candidate....
    • BlackMagic2, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I'll pass.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Failing to participate or taking the "least evil" or "most electable" candidate is a total ***** cop out. Write in your own name for *****'s sake.
      • avengerx12, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Actually it's not. You're vote means nothing so why waste time....
  • whiteguysamurai, on 02/07/2008, -3/+10Legalize it!
  • 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!
    • notque, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6Wrong. He said, Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

      Very important distinction I just made there. Between the two....
    • BigLLamasHouse, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1The Simpsons completes me
  • Corrosionx, on 02/07/2008, -4/+22Democracy is a suggestion box for slaves.
    • notque, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8Not Direct Democracy, but what we call "Democracy" here. Very true.
      • 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.
        • Adelhas, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Direct democracy doesnt exclude the possibility of a constitution that could guarantee rights equivalent to those the current one gives.
          • Corrosionx, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1But evidently they can make up all sorts of reasons to violate that Constitution. Like "We need to restrain your rights in order to protect you!"

            What a farce, they are not even required to protect you, their own Supreme Court said so.
    • bunit03057, on 02/07/2008, -4/+2Yea "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Fortunately we have a republic.
  • 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.
    • colorme, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I honestly didn't know that "V For Vendetta" was a novel before it was a movie. I'll have to go back and read that, now. Thanks for pointing that out.
      • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2It's a graphic novel.
        • colorme, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Oh, so a comic book?
          • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Basically, yes, but a very good comic book with lots of dialog :P
    • Uranium118, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1It's not even a mask, they pasted a printed image of V on their faces, they must run on a low budget.
  • mrzack, on 02/07/2008, -2/+7The 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 ***** and the Demoncrats.
    • bunit03057, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Are you a communist by any chance? Sounds like something right out of the communist manifesto. Or was that the point?
      • mrzack, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2no, communists love a one party centralized government which is EXACTLY what I'm complaining about you idiot. You wouldn't know what communism or freedom is if it hit you in the head.
        • bunit03057, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I would same the same about you. I would actually goes as far as saying you really do not understand communism at all. What you are complaining about is capitalism not anything similar to communism. Corporations controlling the government is incredibly different from communism. The main alternative form of that is communism. Your buzzword, "Oligarch," is a term closely tied with communism and the soviet union and not really applicable to anything we have going on today. "In official media, oligarchs are usually pictured as the enemies of 'communist forces'." Your lack of understanding of what you are talking about and the words you are using is the problem here.
  • 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.
  • cyrax04, on 02/07/2008, -4/+9Amen, my fellow Anarchists.
  • topace3000, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8So digg is now hot for anarchists too? Nice.
    • bonk2k, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Oh lordy! I think I'm getting the vapors!
  • xyu1, on 02/07/2008, -4/+0this ***** needs some serious diggs.
  • 10GunSalute, on 02/07/2008, -5/+6If pseudo-"anarchists" wearing Guy Fawkes masks in an attempt to be edgy, changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
  • kronzdigg, on 02/07/2008, -5/+5If people would educate themselves instead of learning about the candidates from FOX, ABC, NBC, etc then Ron Paul would be president.
    • L3MMY, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1If the constitution actually meant something and his cries of freedom weren't painfully ironic Ron Paul would be president.
    • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I think Mike Gravel would beat him...
    • userperson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1... or they would shoot him for ruining their fun.
  • ryanhayn, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1wow, that's soo true. i never thought of that. ***** YOU, GOVERNMENT!
  • sfacets, on 02/07/2008, -6/+5I have severe doubts about Anarchists who join together and call themselves Anarchists.
    • atlif, on 02/07/2008, -1/+0Nothing "un-anarchistic" about joining together.
      If they elected a leader, on the other hand...
    • bhrgero, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1what about some reading on the subjext of the anarchistic / syndicalist or socialist-libertarian movement.. just an idea...

    • nocash23, on 02/07/2008, -1/+0that's why you should read a book sometime.
    • saladdays, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0what they said!
  • 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.
    • nocash23, on 02/07/2008, -1/+0what!? nice use of key words... to bad it still doesn't make you sound like you know what your talking about.
    • nydwarf, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Go back to Russia ya ***** Commie.
  • Rell812, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3I almost didn't Digg this picture just because of those lame Guy Fawkes masks.

    Why is it that anarchists always cover their faces? We always see them marching with bandannas or masks of some sort.
    • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -2/+4Anonymity is power.
    • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Why anarchists cover their faces? So they are less likely to be identified by the authorities.
  • Amadeus2490, on 02/07/2008, -3/+3If talking about the government on the internet and saying "WAKE UP!!!" changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
  • C3RV4NTE5, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2I don't think anarchism is the right way, but these guys are right. Your votes don't mean anything, they just create a placebo effect on the population, so you think you're colaborating and that you're important for the system. You're a crap for the system.
    • userperson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1There is an important effect people believe their opinion was counted and is important. They participated in the system, therefore there's a sort of consent to how things proceed from that. Never mind if given a real choice people would choose neither a giant douche nor a ***** sandwich.
  • Sklasko, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2Anarchists are nothing but failures with no REAL ideas. They say they want anarchy but they'd be cowering in Mom's basement when the chaos hit. Not to mention everyone here is obsessing with "V". It's a ***** book and a movie, not something to live your life by.
    • L3MMY, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0Actually anarchists have achieved a great deal, just watch the movie "The Take" or look at the labor movement of the early 20th century. Anarchism isn't about chaos or violently overthrowing the government it's about analyzing authority and power.
      • Mabans, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0Anarchy - a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. If you align yourself with any organization- Yes even an anarchist one- you have then removed yourself from the ideology of being an anarchist yourself. It's amazing how people misuse the word all the time. Anarchy in terms of a real social concept is impossible because we are too social creatures. Very few creatures on this very earth follow that rule, just look at ants.. Nuff said.
    • doublejay1973, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Likening anarchy to chaos is like aligning fighting to violence.
    • Orion682, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1You my friend, are thinking of the wrong definition of the word anarchy. Anarchy, in this sense, is not rioting in the streets. Anarchy, as a model of government, is one wherein everyone is given rights and is free to exercise them, so long as they do not impinge upon the rights of others. And there is no governing body with the right to remove these rights. If you can imagine a government that is small, serves only to manage certain functions of a nation, and does not rule through coercion, or fear, or intimidation, then that may very well be defined, by certain people, as an anarchy.
    • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Anarchists have no real ideas? Read Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Chomsky, Bookchin, Berkman and even Marx to some extent. No real ideas. Sure.

      And anarchists cowering in Mom's basement?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd3LLjC8rk
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPjMs4VFa9g
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5jVmGv2BY
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9EsFkHZ3q4

  • ToothyMcshark, on 02/07/2008, -4/+1is that c for vindeta?
  • matt0ne, on 02/07/2008, -4/+4this is lame
  • wiebeezy, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Voting makes your picture get to the home page.
  • vikingkory, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1if voting gave a euphoric high they make it illegal
  • Berkopec, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Zeitgeist.com
  • MalamuteTX, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4The _real_ vote to pay attention to are the ones you use every day, represented by this symbol: $
    The day they are able to completely track and are given the ability to control how you use those votes is the day you lose your true freedom.
  • bunkybrewman, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2At the very least, those behind the masks are actually putting their actions behind their words.

    I'm curious to how many who post here do the same?

    /admittedly, I'm hypocritical with my non-actions, instead, posting on a site where my (and your) comments are discarded within hours
  • copyland, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1None of you have a legal right to vote anyway. All you have is the right to not be denied a vote in the state you live, provided the state government actually holds a vote. But this is not required either. Nothing in the constitution prevents a state from not holding a vote.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
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.