Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should Voters Be Held Legally Responsible?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 11:39:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think voters will vote more responsibly if more legal pressure was on them to vote responsibly.

For example, I should be able to sue someone who votes for a candidate that invades my privacy, throws me into war zones against my will, steals my money to give to dictators in other countries, takes my dollar bill and rips it to shreds through fiat inflation, and commits multiple violations of Constitutional law.

Their vote is their signature of approval and a green light to commit these acts against me.

If people walk into the voting booth knowing that their choice may result in them getting sued by the person who was sabotaged by their Presidential pick, they will go into that booth more cautiously and more knowledgeable.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 11:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:43:34 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
They will just elect someone that will grant them immunity... like they do now... Boom!

Thats not possible. Presidents arent omnipotent. They can influence policy, but they can't control the courts and who does and doesn't get sued.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 1:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:39:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think voters will vote more responsibly if more legal pressure was on them to vote responsibly.

For example, I should be able to sue someone who votes for a candidate that invades my privacy, throws me into war zones against my will, steals my money to give to dictators in other countries, takes my dollar bill and rips it to shreds through fiat inflation, and commits multiple violations of Constitutional law.

So you think how someone votes should be public knowledge, so that they can be harassed for voting a certain way?

I think that would deter voting. Also, if voting records are public knowledge, than politicians who get elected can black list and persecute those voted against them.
Their vote is their signature of approval and a green light to commit these acts against me.

If people walk into the voting booth knowing that their choice may result in them getting sued by the person who was sabotaged by their Presidential pick, they will go into that booth more cautiously and more knowledgeable.

We already have a low voter turnout, why would you want to restrict that even more. The people who would vote would be morons, who don't see any danger in voting a certain way. Those who will stop voting would be the intelligent people, who realize voting would put them at risk of being black listed by politicians, or sued by an opposing party.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 1:26:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:45:21 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 11:43:34 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
They will just elect someone that will grant them immunity... like they do now... Boom!

Thats not possible. Presidents arent omnipotent. They can influence policy, but they can't control the courts and who does and doesn't get sued.

The executive branch appoints people to the courts, and congress approves the appointments. Congress and the President/governor are elected.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 1:27:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just make it a law that only my vote counts and then I'll make sure you don't get any bone heads in. Although, I probably would be very tempted to put someone like Seth MacFarlane in power and make Family Guy mandatory beginning in 2nd grade.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 1:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:12:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:39:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think voters will vote more responsibly if more legal pressure was on them to vote responsibly.

For example, I should be able to sue someone who votes for a candidate that invades my privacy, throws me into war zones against my will, steals my money to give to dictators in other countries, takes my dollar bill and rips it to shreds through fiat inflation, and commits multiple violations of Constitutional law.

Their vote is their signature of approval and a green light to commit these acts against me.

If people walk into the voting booth knowing that their choice may result in them getting sued by the person who was sabotaged by their Presidential pick, they will go into that booth more cautiously and more knowledgeable.

The problem is that then you'd have to record who people vote for, when voting is anonymous.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:17:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:39:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think voters will vote more responsibly if more legal pressure was on them to vote responsibly.

For example, I should be able to sue someone who votes for a candidate that invades my privacy, throws me into war zones against my will, steals my money to give to dictators in other countries, takes my dollar bill and rips it to shreds through fiat inflation, and commits multiple violations of Constitutional law.

Their vote is their signature of approval and a green light to commit these acts against me.

If people walk into the voting booth knowing that their choice may result in them getting sued by the person who was sabotaged by their Presidential pick, they will go into that booth more cautiously and more knowledgeable.

I'm sure somewhere in your head, heart, whatever you use to think, you know what's wrong with this idea,...so why post it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:39:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think voters will vote more responsibly if more legal pressure was on them to vote responsibly.

For example, I should be able to sue someone who votes for a candidate that invades my privacy, throws me into war zones against my will, steals my money to give to dictators in other countries, takes my dollar bill and rips it to shreds through fiat inflation, and commits multiple violations of Constitutional law.

Their vote is their signature of approval and a green light to commit these acts against me.

If people walk into the voting booth knowing that their choice may result in them getting sued by the person who was sabotaged by their Presidential pick, they will go into that booth more cautiously and more knowledgeable.

Although I agree with this sentiment, you're really letting those who are elected off the hook. I think that the DOJ should not fall under the executive branch, but rather under the judicial branch, and there should be sincere and substantive investigations against elected leaders who violate the law. This would turn everything upside down, and perhaps take away some undue power from the president.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 2:17:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sure somewhere in your head, heart, whatever you use to think, you know what's wrong with this idea,...so why post it?

If you think there's something wrong with it, then post specifically what you think is wrong with it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:31:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:17:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sure somewhere in your head, heart, whatever you use to think, you know what's wrong with this idea,...so why post it?

If you think there's something wrong with it, then post specifically what you think is wrong with it.

Voting is tantamount to free speech, and legally attacking those who vote for individuals you don't like is the same as controlling their opinion and the power thereof...moreover, what qualifies as your "freedoms" is ambiguous and open ended inviting fascist control in the name of some pseudo-liberty. Directing who people can and cannot vote for is defeating of voting in itself, and renders democracy quite meaningless...

I'm not spending any more time on this conversation though. We both know your idea is crap.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:08:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:31:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:17:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sure somewhere in your head, heart, whatever you use to think, you know what's wrong with this idea,...so why post it?

If you think there's something wrong with it, then post specifically what you think is wrong with it.

Voting is tantamount to free speech, and legally attacking those who vote for individuals you don't like is the same as controlling their opinion and the power thereof...moreover, what qualifies as your "freedoms" is ambiguous and open ended inviting fascist control in the name of some pseudo-liberty. Directing who people can and cannot vote for is defeating of voting in itself, and renders democracy quite meaningless...

I'm not spending any more time on this conversation though. We both know your idea is crap.

Voting is crap so by extension any attempt to make it better is crap. In that sense I agree. In the sense that you're saying voting is speech, that's crap. By voting you're not just saying who you want to win, that would be free speech. What you do when you vote is decide who gets a certain job and such a job (as in the President's case) has a direct causal effect on others i.e., those who the President has a hand in killing. So if you voted for Obama you had some causal influence on the things which Obama has done and the same applies to any other form of voting. Lol since when does voting equal speech? I don't understand liberal logic.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So Charles Manson goes to prison for allegedly telling a few people to kill another person and he gets life in prison, but a voter can approve and co-sign a man who has killed thousands of civilians and children in the Middle East, funds and arms Al Queda terrorists, funds and arms Mexican drug cartels, illegally spies on Americans, steals trillions of dollars and gives it to criminals; this person receives no legal repurcussions?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:11:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:09:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So Charles Manson goes to prison for allegedly telling a few people to kill another person and he gets life in prison, but a voter can approve and co-sign a man who has killed thousands of civilians and children in the Middle East, funds and arms Al Queda terrorists, funds and arms Mexican drug cartels, illegally spies on Americans, steals trillions of dollars and gives it to criminals; this person receives no legal repurcussions?

hell yeah a voter can vote for whoever he wishes to vote for. Maybe the solution in such an extreme and obscure scenario is to prevent the man from running in the first place.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:11:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:09:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So Charles Manson goes to prison for allegedly telling a few people to kill another person and he gets life in prison, but a voter can approve and co-sign a man who has killed thousands of civilians and children in the Middle East, funds and arms Al Queda terrorists, funds and arms Mexican drug cartels, illegally spies on Americans, steals trillions of dollars and gives it to criminals; this person receives no legal repurcussions?

hell yeah a voter can vote for whoever he wishes to vote for. Maybe the solution in such an extreme and obscure scenario is to prevent the man from running in the first place.

You're trying to say that a choice to vote for someone is simply a speech act and ignoring the existence of any and all causal effects of voting.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:28:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:18:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:11:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:09:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So Charles Manson goes to prison for allegedly telling a few people to kill another person and he gets life in prison, but a voter can approve and co-sign a man who has killed thousands of civilians and children in the Middle East, funds and arms Al Queda terrorists, funds and arms Mexican drug cartels, illegally spies on Americans, steals trillions of dollars and gives it to criminals; this person receives no legal repurcussions?

hell yeah a voter can vote for whoever he wishes to vote for. Maybe the solution in such an extreme and obscure scenario is to prevent the man from running in the first place.

You're trying to say that a choice to vote for someone is simply a speech act and ignoring the existence of any and all causal effects of voting.

okay, 2 things.

first of all, I'm having a conversation with Geo, your responses isolate my comment rather than seeing its meaning in the context of our argument. What you just posted, has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Furthermore, you seem to have this deluded idea that speech and casual influence are mutually exclusive, and somehow, something with the property of cause cannot be classified as speech. No. What happens when you yell fire in a crowded theater? What happens when you insult people to their faces? What happens when you relay false information? Speech and voting both have consequences,...but they are forms of modest and not overly-coercive communication.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:39:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Voting for Obama = Hiring an assassin

Speaking about your opinions = Exercise of free speech

By going into the voting booth, you are pushing a button that authorizes a candidate to commit the acts he both promised and didn't promise to do.

Voting is not expressing opinion, it is hiring someone to do a job.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:42:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:39:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Voting for Obama = Hiring an assassin

Speaking about your opinions = Exercise of free speech

By going into the voting booth, you are pushing a button that authorizes a candidate to commit the acts he both promised and didn't promise to do.

Voting is not expressing opinion, it is hiring someone to do a job.

"Takes cyanide pill"
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 11:39:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think voters will vote more responsibly if more legal pressure was on them to vote responsibly.

For example, I should be able to sue someone who votes for a candidate that invades my privacy, throws me into war zones against my will, steals my money to give to dictators in other countries, takes my dollar bill and rips it to shreds through fiat inflation, and commits multiple violations of Constitutional law.

Their vote is their signature of approval and a green light to commit these acts against me.

If people walk into the voting booth knowing that their choice may result in them getting sued by the person who was sabotaged by their Presidential pick, they will go into that booth more cautiously and more knowledgeable.

This would turn the law upside-down.

Is a parent held accountable for the actions of their offspring? They elected to carry the child to term and elected to raise the child poorly, which led to the child's actions.

If I lend my friend money for food, as he is having money problems, and he uses that money to buy a gun and robs a store, killing people in the process, am I responsible for those crimes? It was my money, just like it was my vote.

If a politician lies, why am I held accountable for their fraud? For example, if Obama says he will close Gitmo, and doesn't, why is one legally responsible for false imprisonment when the guy one voted for failed to act?

But, I should be able to sue my neighbor (and those that voted like him) because he and they voted someone in that used my tax money to fund a dicatorship? There is no legal, or logical, distinction between these scenarios.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:43:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
This would turn the law upside-down.

Is a parent held accountable for the actions of their offspring? They elected to carry the child to term and elected to raise the child poorly, which led to the child's actions.

Parents are not responsible for their offsprings actions in that sense.

First of all, most people do not elect to bear children, they are by chance impregnated. Sex is a natural urge like thirst for water and needs to be fulfilled, but has the unfair and unfortunate consequence of childbirth gambling.

Secondly, unless your child is mentally ill (also likely the parents fault for improper carriage) the parent raises the child and thus is partly responsible for their behavior til 18.

If I lend my friend money for food, as he is having money problems, and he uses that money to buy a gun and robs a store, killing people in the process, am I responsible for those crimes? It was my money, just like it was my vote.

There's a difference between giving money to help a poor/broke person live and giving money to someone who needs money for a specific purpose or cause.

If a politician lies, why am I held accountable for their fraud? For example, if Obama says he will close Gitmo, and doesn't, why is one legally responsible for false imprisonment when the guy one voted for failed to act?

But, I should be able to sue my neighbor (and those that voted like him) because he and they voted someone in that used my tax money to fund a dicatorship? There is no legal, or logical, distinction between these scenarios.

There will be some leniency for candidates who don't have accessable background information. However if a candidate openly supports fascist policies and you vote for him, zero leniency will occur.

Here's an example: In 2008 (when I was 18), I voted for Barack Obama. I made a careless vote that could have been avoided if my suing proposal existed back then. I voted carelessly because there was no accountability for my vote. I researched Obama, went to his website and viewed his policies and even his campaign contributors, wrote an essay on his politics and experience, and went to his rallies. But Alex Jones and David Icke told me that Obama will be a nightmare worse than Bush and I didn't listen. I was so blinded by his charisma, young age, supposed grassroots background, minority status, his empty rhetoric, and lies that I failed to look into what Alex Jones researched.

If I was a responsible voter with the pressure of accountability, I would have researched the fact that Obama was handpicked, bred, endorsed, and mentored by global fascist Technocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski and had I known and understood sound political philosophy and Constitution principles, I would have picked Ron Paul.

I was wrong and they were right, Obama is worse than Bush and I had no excuse because Jones and Icke knew better, and so should have the entire populace.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:35:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Again, voting is an anonymous practice for this very reason.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:43:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sure nobody would use this as a way to imprison their oppositions voters, or make it impossible to vote, or pressure them into voting for them.

Also, under this logic, if an employer puts a CEO in power, who proceeds to con someone, they should pay the price. Ect.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are going to have a very large problem defining "breaches of privacy" and "violations of the constitution."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 5:46:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You are going to have a very large problem defining "breaches of privacy" and "violations of the constitution."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:48:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 5:46:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You are going to have a very large problem defining "breaches of privacy" and "violations of the constitution."

False.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:49:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 5:48:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 5:46:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You are going to have a very large problem defining "breaches of privacy" and "violations of the constitution."

False.

Uh oh guys, he said false without actually saying how anything was false. Well, that settles it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:53:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 5:48:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 5:46:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You are going to have a very large problem defining "breaches of privacy" and "violations of the constitution."

False.

Lol, great argument. Laws are composed by society. Even if it is fascistic, it doesn't mean that the country will think that it is fascistic.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:55:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 5:53:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/25/2012 5:48:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 5:46:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You are going to have a very large problem defining "breaches of privacy" and "violations of the constitution."

False.

Lol, great argument. Laws are composed by society. Even if it is fascistic, it doesn't mean that the country will think that it is fascistic.

Unless they are trying to be Fascist.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-