Go Vote

[timesjoke]

I do have to somewhat agree with Hugo and not with TJ.

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Everyone should have the right to vote, but uninformed, ignorant people should stay home.

 

I remember you one time saying I was a bad person for saying only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. You claimed I was trying to advocate a "ruling class" and limiting who can vote was very bad.

 

 

So I agree with you and want everyone to vote and suddenly "YOU" are advocating a "ruling class" and wanting to limit who is allowed to vote? Flip flop much?

 

 

This is why the ignorant should be seen and not heard.

 

This isn't the same thing and I never said everyone should vote. I said everyone should have the right to vote, you only want property owners to have the right to vote. Big difference.

 

Dumbass.

 

Don't play the Bender two step Joe, you just said some people should not vote. You are now playing semantics, either everyone should vote or they should not, you say some people should not vote, the reason for your vote restriction was different than mine but the concept is exactly the same only this time it is you who is saying some people should not vote so I guess that makes it okay, lol

 

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words, not mine Joe........................hypocrite.

 

Dumbass.

 

You want to take the "RIGHT" to vote from people. I said that uninformed, ignorant people shouldn't vote, not that they should lose the right to do so.

 

The fact that you can't or won't see the difference is why I lump you in the category of those who shouldn't vote.

 

If "some" people in your opinion should not be allowed to vote, it is the exact same thing no matter what semantics you try to play Joe. The only difference is what reasons we each use to justify limiting their ability to vote.

 

You say you would restrict the ability to vote based on what you see as "stupid" while I said voting should be limited to those who pay taxes (I never said anything about property by the way, just to keep you on track, not sure where you got that). So the "ruling class" according to IWS is those who IWS believes is smart while my idea of the "ruling class" are those who pay for Government to function. Same thing, different justifications.

 

 

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words Joe, not mine, lol

 

I never said "some" people should not be allowed to vote. I said some people shouldn't vote. Kinda like fat people shouldn't wear spandex. Doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed, they just shouldn't do it.

 

Nice lie, Dumbass.

 

Lie?

 

I used your actual words Joe. The only lie is from you when you change from day to day what your possitions are just so you can take a shot at me my flip-flop friend, lol.

 

 

Let me quote you again:

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

You said it Joe, now be man enough to admit it or ch!ckensh!t enough to simply run away from it, stop trying to lie your way out of it though because that is just pathetic.

[ImWithStupid]

I do have to somewhat agree with Hugo and not with TJ.

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Everyone should have the right to vote, but uninformed, ignorant people should stay home.

 

I remember you one time saying I was a bad person for saying only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. You claimed I was trying to advocate a "ruling class" and limiting who can vote was very bad.

 

 

So I agree with you and want everyone to vote and suddenly "YOU" are advocating a "ruling class" and wanting to limit who is allowed to vote? Flip flop much?

 

 

This is why the ignorant should be seen and not heard.

 

This isn't the same thing and I never said everyone should vote. I said everyone should have the right to vote, you only want property owners to have the right to vote. Big difference.

 

Dumbass.

 

Don't play the Bender two step Joe, you just said some people should not vote. You are now playing semantics, either everyone should vote or they should not, you say some people should not vote, the reason for your vote restriction was different than mine but the concept is exactly the same only this time it is you who is saying some people should not vote so I guess that makes it okay, lol

 

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words, not mine Joe........................hypocrite.

 

Dumbass.

 

You want to take the "RIGHT" to vote from people. I said that uninformed, ignorant people shouldn't vote, not that they should lose the right to do so.

 

The fact that you can't or won't see the difference is why I lump you in the category of those who shouldn't vote.

 

If "some" people in your opinion should not be allowed to vote, it is the exact same thing no matter what semantics you try to play Joe. The only difference is what reasons we each use to justify limiting their ability to vote.

 

You say you would restrict the ability to vote based on what you see as "stupid" while I said voting should be limited to those who pay taxes (I never said anything about property by the way, just to keep you on track, not sure where you got that). So the "ruling class" according to IWS is those who IWS believes is smart while my idea of the "ruling class" are those who pay for Government to function. Same thing, different justifications.

 

 

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words Joe, not mine, lol

 

I never said "some" people should not be allowed to vote. I said some people shouldn't vote. Kinda like fat people shouldn't wear spandex. Doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed, they just shouldn't do it.

 

Nice lie, Dumbass.

 

Lie?

 

I used your actual words Joe. The only lie is from you when you change from day to day what your possitions are just so you can take a shot at me my flip-flop friend, lol.

 

 

Let me quote you again:

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

You said it Joe, now be man enough to admit it or ch!ckensh!t enough to simply run away from it, stop trying to lie your way out of it though because that is just pathetic.

 

We all know you couldn't have done well on the writing section of the SAT but I see you obviously didn't do very well on the critical reading part either.

[eddo]

I understood IWS's meaning the first time.

 

 

it's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

[emkay64]

Your lying Eddo.

[eddo]

Your lying Eddo.

 

 

no, I'm sitting up..

 

 

</didn't understand 'cause TJ didn't explain it to me>

[timesjoke]

I do have to somewhat agree with Hugo and not with TJ.

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Everyone should have the right to vote, but uninformed, ignorant people should stay home.

 

I remember you one time saying I was a bad person for saying only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. You claimed I was trying to advocate a "ruling class" and limiting who can vote was very bad.

 

 

So I agree with you and want everyone to vote and suddenly "YOU" are advocating a "ruling class" and wanting to limit who is allowed to vote? Flip flop much?

 

 

This is why the ignorant should be seen and not heard.

 

This isn't the same thing and I never said everyone should vote. I said everyone should have the right to vote, you only want property owners to have the right to vote. Big difference.

 

Dumbass.

 

Don't play the Bender two step Joe, you just said some people should not vote. You are now playing semantics, either everyone should vote or they should not, you say some people should not vote, the reason for your vote restriction was different than mine but the concept is exactly the same only this time it is you who is saying some people should not vote so I guess that makes it okay, lol

 

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words, not mine Joe........................hypocrite.

 

Dumbass.

 

You want to take the "RIGHT" to vote from people. I said that uninformed, ignorant people shouldn't vote, not that they should lose the right to do so.

 

The fact that you can't or won't see the difference is why I lump you in the category of those who shouldn't vote.

 

If "some" people in your opinion should not be allowed to vote, it is the exact same thing no matter what semantics you try to play Joe. The only difference is what reasons we each use to justify limiting their ability to vote.

 

You say you would restrict the ability to vote based on what you see as "stupid" while I said voting should be limited to those who pay taxes (I never said anything about property by the way, just to keep you on track, not sure where you got that). So the "ruling class" according to IWS is those who IWS believes is smart while my idea of the "ruling class" are those who pay for Government to function. Same thing, different justifications.

 

 

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words Joe, not mine, lol

 

I never said "some" people should not be allowed to vote. I said some people shouldn't vote. Kinda like fat people shouldn't wear spandex. Doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed, they just shouldn't do it.

 

Nice lie, Dumbass.

 

Lie?

 

I used your actual words Joe. The only lie is from you when you change from day to day what your possitions are just so you can take a shot at me my flip-flop friend, lol.

 

 

Let me quote you again:

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

You said it Joe, now be man enough to admit it or ch!ckensh!t enough to simply run away from it, stop trying to lie your way out of it though because that is just pathetic.

 

We all know you couldn't have done well on the writing section of the SAT but I see you obviously didn't do very well on the critical reading part either.

 

 

 

Not everyone should vote.[/u

 

Not a lot there to understand or misunderstand Joe, you said it, now your trying to sidestep taking responsibility for your own words.

 

All I am doing is pointing out a fact that you said some people should not vote.

[eddo]

All I am doing is pointing out a fact that you said some people should not vote.

 

exactly.

 

and he isn't denying that TJ.

 

There is a BIG difference between 'some people should not vote' and 'some people should not be allowed to vote'

 

BIG difference.

 

 

 

 

Kinda like socialism.

 

Yes, we should all, by choice, help out those around us in need. It's a BIG difference when the Gov't starts demanding that we have to help others, and starts taking our money to do so.

[timesjoke]

All I am doing is pointing out a fact that you said some people should not vote.

 

exactly.

 

and he isn't denying that TJ.

 

There is a BIG difference between 'some people should not vote' and 'some people should not be allowed to vote'

 

BIG difference.

 

 

 

 

Kinda like socialism.

 

Yes, we should all, by choice, help out those around us in need. It's a BIG difference when the Gov't starts demanding that we have to help others, and starts taking our money to do so.

 

Semantics, his desire in his heart was the same, some people not voting, the execution of the desire was never the point, it is now just an excuse to try and get out of what he said.

 

 

Joe in his heart believes some people should not vote, and that was my point.

[wez]

TJ is a dipshit..

[jokersarewild]

All I am doing is pointing out a fact that you said some people should not vote.

 

exactly.

 

and he isn't denying that TJ.

 

There is a BIG difference between 'some people should not vote' and 'some people should not be allowed to vote'

 

BIG difference.

 

 

 

 

Kinda like socialism.

 

Yes, we should all, by choice, help out those around us in need. It's a BIG difference when the Gov't starts demanding that we have to help others, and starts taking our money to do so.

 

Semantics, his desire in his heart was the same, some people not voting, the execution of the desire was never the point, it is now just an excuse to try and get out of what he said.

 

 

Joe in his heart believes some people should not vote, and that was my point.

 

So you think the ignorant morons who know nothing about any of the issues, do no research, and vote for the guy with the best hair, should be out voting?

 

I think that's something along the lines of what IWS meant. It's kind of like driving a car with a .06 BAC. Is it legal? Technically, yes. Is it a bad idea? Probably.

 

If you don't know what's going on, have no interest in politics, and then vote, that's not a good thing. Do they have the right to? Yes. Should they? No.

[eddo]

TJ is a dipshit..

 

 

dammit, this sucks....

 

 

I agree with Wez.

 

 

:sick:

[timesjoke]

So you think the ignorant morons who know nothing about any of the issues, do no research, and vote for the guy with the best hair, should be out voting?

 

Yes, even Democrats should go out and vote.

 

 

 

I think that's something along the lines of what IWS meant. It's kind of like driving a car with a .06 BAC. Is it legal? Technically, yes. Is it a bad idea? Probably.

 

If you don't know what's going on, have no interest in politics, and then vote, that's not a good thing. Do they have the right to? Yes. Should they? No.

 

That is exactly what I was saying as well when IWS jumped me.

 

My point was that people who don't pay taxes will never be concerned about the cost of the things they vote for. Take for example Government run healthcare. Most Americans pay little or no taxes so why not vote for people who will pass that when you know you will never have to pay for it?

 

 

 

The only real difference between what I said and what IWS said is who said it, as usual the double standard, but it is not like this is new, I just like pointing out the hypocrisy when it appears.

[hugo]

As a radical libertarian I believe cocaine should be legal. I do not believe people should use it.

 

I believe the American Communist Party has a right to exist. I do not believe people should join them.

 

I believe you should be allowed to pick your nose in front of your date on the first date. I do not believe you should do it.

 

It is a simple concept that only a total idiot could not understand.

[jokersarewild]

Semantics, his desire in his heart was the same, some people not voting, the execution of the desire was never the point, it is now just an excuse to try and get out of what he said.

 

 

Joe in his heart believes some people should not vote, and that was my point.

 

Actually, semantics are pretty relevant here. He said some people should not vote. And he's quite correct. I know a few people that shouldn't vote. And they don't. Because they know they shouldn't. It's not that they don't want to. They're doing the responsible thing and not voting when they know nothing about politics and don't give a sh t.

 

He never said that some people should not be able to vote. Just that some people shouldn't vote. Big difference.

 

And how do you know the desires of his heart? By reading the text he posted on the internet?

[hugo]

Your lying Eddo.

You're possition dum.

[hugo]

The only real difference between what I said and what IWS said is who said it, as usual the double standard, but it is not like this is new, I just like pointing out the hypocrisy when it appears.

The fact that everyone else does not believe the guy in the rubber room is Napoleon does not imply a double standard.

[timesjoke]

Semantics, his desire in his heart was the same, some people not voting, the execution of the desire was never the point, it is now just an excuse to try and get out of what he said.

 

 

Joe in his heart believes some people should not vote, and that was my point.

 

Actually, semantics are pretty relevant here. He said some people should not vote. And he's quite correct. I know a few people that shouldn't vote. And they don't. Because they know they shouldn't. It's not that they don't want to. They're doing the responsible thing and not voting when they know nothing about politics and don't give a sh t.

 

He never said that some people should not be able to vote. Just that some people shouldn't vote. Big difference.

 

And how do you know the desires of his heart? By reading the text he posted on the internet?

 

It is not about the desire of his heart, it is the actual words he said. He said some people should not vote, I said the exact same thing, trying to make it "sound" different is simply silly.

 

 

As usual this is all about Joe trying to play "gotcha" and later getting his words tossed back at him and he is not man enough to admit it.

[jokersarewild]

Semantics, his desire in his heart was the same, some people not voting, the execution of the desire was never the point, it is now just an excuse to try and get out of what he said.

 

 

Joe in his heart believes some people should not vote, and that was my point.

 

Actually, semantics are pretty relevant here. He said some people should not vote. And he's quite correct. I know a few people that shouldn't vote. And they don't. Because they know they shouldn't. It's not that they don't want to. They're doing the responsible thing and not voting when they know nothing about politics and don't give a sh t.

 

He never said that some people should not be able to vote. Just that some people shouldn't vote. Big difference.

 

And how do you know the desires of his heart? By reading the text he posted on the internet?

 

It is not about the desire of his heart, it is the actual words he said. He said some people should not vote, I said the exact same thing, trying to make it "sound" different is simply silly.

 

 

As usual this is all about Joe trying to play "gotcha" and later getting his words tossed back at him and he is not man enough to admit it.

 

Hm.

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Everyone should have the right to vote, but uninformed, ignorant people should stay home.

 

Sounds simple enough.

 

I remember you one time saying I was a bad person for saying only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. You claimed I was trying to advocate a "ruling class" and limiting who can vote was very bad.

 

Oh, I get it. He said that you shouldn't limit who CAN vote. Hm.

 

So I agree with you and want everyone to vote and suddenly "YOU" are advocating a "ruling class" and wanting to limit who is allowed to vote? Flip flop much?

 

Haha, ok. You must not know how to comprehend what you read.

 

Everyone should have the right to vote, but uninformed, ignorant people should stay home.

 

Did he once try to advocate limiting who had the right to vote, Times?

 

If "some" people in your opinion should not be allowed to vote, it is the exact same thing no matter what semantics you try to play Joe. The only difference is what reasons we each use to justify limiting their ability to vote.

 

Except he didn't say that. You're putting your foot in your mouth trying to put words in his.

 

You say you would restrict the ability to vote based on what you see as "stupid"

 

He didn't "SAY" that. At all. You fail at reading.

 

while I said voting should be limited to those who pay taxes (I never said anything about property by the way, just to keep you on track, not sure where you got that). So the "ruling class" according to IWS is those who IWS believes is smart while my idea of the "ruling class" are those who pay for Government to function. Same thing, different justifications.

 

So YOU said voting should be limited. He never advocated a ruling class, you did. I've quoted what he said VERBATIM, proving you're reading it incorrectly and attributing things to him he didn't say/do/believe in. You're WRONG. Try to grasp that concept.

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Your words Joe, not mine, lol

 

I said voting should be limited to those who pay taxes

 

I said that uninformed, ignorant people shouldn't vote, not that they should lose the right to do so.

 

Hm. Sounds like Joe DIDN'T want to limit who could vote. You did. EXACT QUOTE.

 

And that's word to your mother. Peace.

[ImWithStupid]

As you all saw long ago and joker proved in the previous post what separates most of us from an insufferable dumbass, like TJ.

 

Where, unlike him, we all have at least the amount of spelling, reading and comprehension skills required to graduate 6th grade in most school districts in the United States, when proven incompetent, he tries to justify his ignorance in verbal/writing skills, by deflecting, and to cling to ignorant, juvenile concepts like this...

 

How can I "reply" to something if you don't first make the coment I reply to? Everything staerts with something, and in this case, it started with you.

<p.s. coment has two "m"'s and what is a "staert"?>

 

This comes down to the mature, "He started it." defense.

 

Where most of us see the futility on getting a complete moron to say the most and inferior debater to say the least, like TJ, to see the folly of his argument, sometimes means you just take the high ground and "don't reply'.

 

Now, a lesser person like TJ, often mistakes this as "dodging". As we all know from experience, he is almost always, if not always wrong and can't see just how obtuse he is.

[timesjoke]

 

Not everyone should vote.

 

Direct quote and no other way to take it than he believes some people should not vote.

 

The reason we both gave for this is different, but the desire for some people to vote and other people to nbot vote is exactly the same.

 

 

 

All the excuses and personal attacks do not change what he said. You are wasting a lot of time on things that have nothing to do with the fact that Joe is a hypocrite.

[jokersarewild]

Not everyone should vote.

 

Direct quote and no other way to take it than he believes some people should not vote.

 

The reason we both gave for this is different, but the desire for some people to vote and other people to nbot vote is exactly the same.

 

 

 

All the excuses and personal attacks do not change what he said. You are wasting a lot of time on things that have nothing to do with the fact that Joe is a hypocrite.

 

He believes some people shouldn't vote of their own volition.

 

You believe in limiting who has the ability to vote.

 

The two are totally different, kid.

[timesjoke]

Not everyone should vote.

 

Direct quote and no other way to take it than he believes some people should not vote.

 

The reason we both gave for this is different, but the desire for some people to vote and other people to nbot vote is exactly the same.

 

 

 

All the excuses and personal attacks do not change what he said. You are wasting a lot of time on things that have nothing to do with the fact that Joe is a hypocrite.

 

He believes some people shouldn't vote of their own volition.

 

You believe in limiting who has the ability to vote.

 

The two are totally different, kid.

 

Bull, Joe clearly said he felt some people should not vote because of the "way" they would vote, that is the exact same reason I offered.

[ImWithStupid]

 

He believes some people shouldn't vote of their own volition.

 

You believe in limiting who has the ability to vote.

 

The two are totally different, kid.

 

Bull, Joe clearly said he felt some people should not vote because of the "way" they would vote, that is the exact same reason I offered.

 

That's a flat out lie.

[timesjoke]

 

Bull, Joe clearly said he felt some people should not vote because of the "way" they would vote, that is the exact same reason I offered.

 

That's a flat out lie.

 

uninformed, ignorant people should stay home.

 

Okay, I admit I took this to mean the people would not vote right because in your opinion they were ignorant and uninformed.

 

 

So I ask you to explain and if I was wrong I will gladly say I am sorry.

 

 

 

So you mention being ignorant and unformed as your reason some people should not vote so if that does not mean they will vote incorrectly what did you mean? How was being ignorant and unformed related to how they will vote mean they should not vote in your opinion?

[jokersarewild]

They'll vote ignorant of the issues, and that's never a good thing.