Am I the only one who is totally lost by this poster’s arguments?
Come back bj0rn, all is forgiven.
He’s trying to say that if the voting system is unreasonably non-transparent, then he feels that he is due to be awarded lifelong backtaxes and is unbound from constraints of law by an illegitimate government that is a totalitarian plutocracy until and unless the trust violation that pervades the electoral process is articulated and demanded for change.
Damn, I knew Lib could straight this mess out.
Thanks, as always.
So, because the voting system is open to fraud and abuse, the laws don’t apply to him?
Am I getting warmer?
If he can’t verify the elections for himself, then he is illegitimately governed. At least in his opinion.
I didn’t even try - I figured out what he was trying to say by what the other posters in the thread responded.
But what I don’t get at all is his handle. “Justhink”
Jus’ think?
Just hink?
Shouldn’t there be two "t"s in it?
The way he spells his username correlates well with this overall orthographical skills.
Is it just me, or are the nonsensical terms and definitions reminiscent of Hiyruu? If the concept of ‘Phi’ comes up, run away and hide.
Or his. Please excuse the typoe.
He spells poorly, but his terms and definitions are fairly mainstream.
Close, I think. I would say it’s more along the lines of
Because the voting system is open to fraud and corruption, and because a reasonable transparent alternative exists and has been dismissed, the laws don’t exist since they are based on a fraud. Kind of like when a criminal case is dismissed, because the crucial evidence was seized illegally. Because the foundation (the seizure/the voting system) is corrupted, the stucture (the case/the laws of our nation) can’t be upheld. That’s what I got from it anyway.
::shrug::
It’s actually pretty interesting, if you’re willing to wade through justhink’s horridly opaque writing style. As such, I hereby nominate him for the Either Potentially Interesting or Mildly Psychotic yet Frustratingly Incoherant Poster Award
bella
Yeah, I think the obfuscation is not in the vocabulary, but in the syntax.
I guess I shouldn’t point out the typo in the thread title? ::d&r::
The whole ‘non-transparent’ concept is misleading, and his definitions of political systems display a slightly unwieldy slant. For example:
Err, sure. :rolleyes: As opposed to:
He has problems that go beyond picking up copies of The Elements of Style and an OED.
Ah, bite me!
Bate you? 
:rolleyes:
for how come i’m nver wining the awars? i’m much more less cohairent than other guy i deserve the aeward i think
I can only assume that you haven’t read any of SeaHawk’s posts yet.
pan