NationStates

It is generally accepted that war can be waged in domains other than physical confrontations on the battlefield. We hear talk all the time of "cyberwar," "economic warfare," "electronic warfare," etc., and it is widely recognized that these acts are very real attempts at forcing the victim of the aggressive act into submission.

Mitt Romney's stated platform constitutes yet another form of warfare against the United States: social warfare. He intends to squeeze the 99% until we capitulate to the 1%'s demand that we become their outright slaves, turning over all the fruits of our labor into their hands. This clearly satisfies one of the two Constitutionally permissible definitions of tyranny, namely "levying war against the United States."

Since ballots are secret it'd be impossible to convict any given individual, given the requirement for either two eyewitnesses or "confession in open court," of course, but still at least we'd know what to call the act itself.

No, seeing as you need to vote in secret and treason requires the testimony of two witnesses.

War as a metaphor =/= actual war

Silent Majority wrote:War as a metaphor =/= actual war

Don't be ridiculous. That would imply that Romney isn't Hitler, which is obviously not the case.

Laerod wrote:No, seeing as you need to vote in secret and treason requires the testimony of two witnesses.

Did you even read my post? If you did, you'd notice two things:

1. That I acknowledge that obtaining convictions would be impossible for that very reason
2. That the impossibility of obtaining a conviction for the act does not change the nature of the act itself

Even if we can't prove who exactly voted for Mitt Romney to legal standards, we will know that a vote for Mitt Romney did in fact occur X number of times.

An interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think it would count, no.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:It is generally accepted that war can be waged in domains other than physical confrontations on the battlefield. We hear talk all the time of "cyberwar," "economic warfare," "electronic warfare," etc., and it is widely recognized that these acts are very real attempts at forcing the victim of the aggressive act into submission.

Mitt Romney's stated platform constitutes yet another form of warfare against the United States: social warfare. He intends to squeeze the 99% until we capitulate to the 1%'s demand that we become their outright slaves, turning over all the fruits of our labor into their hands. This clearly satisfies one of the two Constitutionally permissible definitions of tyranny, namely "levying war against the United States."

Since ballots are secret it'd be impossible to convict any given individual, given the requirement for either two eyewitnesses or "confession in open court," of course, but still at least we'd know what to call the act itself.

Are you saying under Romney the wealth gap between the 99% and 1% in the US will widen? Corporations will see record profits while prices raise and the middle class hurts? So, its Obama all over again? I don't see how a vote would be consider treason due to that for one but not the other.

Silent Majority wrote:War as a metaphor =/= actual war

So, say, China using hackers to disrupt the computer operations of major ports of entry in the United States to force capitulation on trade policies would not be an act of war?

I find it highly doubtful that those in power would consider it anything but.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:War as a metaphor =/= actual war

Don't be ridiculous. That would imply that Romney isn't Hitler, which is obviously not the case.

And I wouldn't be able to justify voting multiple guys because I'm a machine gun.

Nope, sorry. But I accompany you in the sentiment.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:War as a metaphor =/= actual war

So, say, China using hackers to disrupt the computer operations of major ports of entry in the United States to force capitulation on trade policies would not be an act of war?

Sorry, how is an attack via digital means in any way comparable to half of the country voting for a shit candidate?

Oh for fucks sake.

Is everything extreme with you?

Tubbsalot wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:War as a metaphor =/= actual war

Don't be ridiculous. That would imply that Romney isn't Hitler, which is obviously not the case.

You know who else wasn't Hitler?
Stalin.

No, a person can vote for anyone he wants, that is his right. Is his choice the best choice? Not necessarily.

New Sapienta wrote:Oh for fucks sake.

Is everything extreme with you?

^ This

Your topics of bigotry are getting really OLD really FAST.

Should we silence those who do not support the idea of global warming?
Should we call it treason to NOT vote for Obama? Because come on, that's the real title of this topic.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:War as a metaphor =/= actual war

So, say, China using hackers to disrupt the computer operations of major ports of entry in the United States to force capitulation on trade policies would not be an act of war?

I find it highly doubtful that those in power would consider it anything but.

That's cyberwarfare, not metaphorical warfare.
And yes, it would technically be a cassus belli just as an act of war would be according to wikipedia. Though it's a bit of a gray area when a certain act should be considered an act of war and when it shouldn't.

Zephie wrote:Your topics of bigotry are getting really OLD really FAST.

Yeah, mix it up with a few topics of anti-liberal bigotry so poor ol' Zephie can join in every once in a while.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Zephie wrote:Your topics of bigotry are getting really OLD really FAST.

Yeah, mix it up with a few topics of anti-liberal bigotry so poor ol' Zephie can join in every once in a while.

And so I can join in as well!

The class war has been ongoing for a very long time. The bad guys are winning as there's no shortage of quislings who dream of some day becoming evil overlords.

Aethyopea wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
So, say, China using hackers to disrupt the computer operations of major ports of entry in the United States to force capitulation on trade policies would not be an act of war?

I find it highly doubtful that those in power would consider it anything but.

That's cyberwarfare, not metaphorical warfare.

And voting for Romney is social warfare, not metaphorical warfare.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Aethyopea wrote:That's cyberwarfare, not metaphorical warfare.

And voting for Romney is social warfare, not metaphorical warfare.

And sneezing at you is biological warfare. You can call anything warfare.

Let people vote for who they want to vote.

New Sapienta wrote:Oh for fucks sake.

Is everything extreme with you?

For some reason, I can't help but think of this whenever I see a thread by Bluth.

New England and The Maritimes wrote:The class war has been ongoing for a very long time. The bad guys are winning as there's no shortage of quislings who dream of some day becoming evil overlords.

Maybe the "bad guys" are winning because they are more intelligent, or have more money, or actually apply themselves to their goals?

Lowell Leber wrote:

New England and The Maritimes wrote:The class war has been ongoing for a very long time. The bad guys are winning as there's no shortage of quislings who dream of some day becoming evil overlords.

Maybe the "bad guys" are winning because they are more intelligent, or have more money, or actually apply themselves to their goals?

Yet more nonsense from a quisling and a sycophant.