TSR MHoC General Election September 2012

Original post by tehFrance

Hey, don't drag the Queen of Queens* into this, poor Freddy :sad:

*Because he was in Queen :wink:

Be nice to an original performer and of course, respectful of both Her Majesty and the late Freddie Mercury.

And vote for barnetlad!

Reply 982

SciFiRory

16

the last day of the election :moon:

Reply 983

Vote Lib Dems and win a secret prize!

Reply 984

Original post by eff01

Instead of negging this voter, isn't it appropriate to have a debate with him? If you disagree with the way he has voted, then raise your concerns and state why instead of being immature and negging him. My opinion anyone :smile:

.

I agree with this. Negging that person might mean they do not get further involved.

Reply 985

An immensely rich man whose has a closeted secret, I think Batman is a Tory.

Have we won yet?

Original post by thunder_chunky

I agree with this. Negging that person might mean they do not get further involved.

If only we'd tried it on internetguru :moon:

Reply 988

Original post by eff01

Instead of negging this voter, isn't it appropriate to have a debate with him? If you disagree with the way he has voted, then raise your concerns and state why instead of being immature and negging him. My opinion anyone :smile:

.

What is there to debate? It's a non-post deserving of negative voting. It's not because it says Lib Dem and I'm not a Lib Dem, but because it's a useless waste of internet space.

Reply 989

Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi

Naturally but it would not do to admit to illegal actions in public now, would it?

Should people not admit they were gay before homosexuality ceased to be a crime?

Reply 990

Original post by jesusandtequila

What is there to debate? It's a non-post deserving of negative voting. It's not because it says Lib Dem and I'm not a Lib Dem, but because it's a useless waste of internet space.

Utter crap. A person saying who they are voting for is neither a non-post or deserving of being negged. There is nothing wrong at all with a person simply stating who they are voting for. I find it laughable you think it's a "waste of internet space." What's wrong is the internet running out of space? Do we need to build an extension?

Jog on.

Reply 991

TheJ0ker

11

Original post by jesusandtequila

The Libertarian Party already legalised all narcotics.

Yeah come to think of it I remember voting for you in the last election for that reason

Reply 992

LETSJaM

16

VOTE UKIP - we have biscuits!

<3 x

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 993

Original post by jesusandtequila

Should people not admit they were gay before homosexuality ceased to be a crime?

Homosexuality per se wasn't a crime, male homosexual acts were criminalised. Admitting you were gay was not tolerated as it is today but it was still fine to do; buggering someone in a toilet in Soho wasn't.

Reply 994

Original post by thunder_chunky

Utter crap. A person saying who they are voting for is neither a non-post or deserving of being negged. There is nothing wrong at all with a person simply stating who they are voting for. I find it laughable you think it's a "waste of internet space." What's wrong is the internet running out of space? Do we need to build an extension?

Jog on.

It's 2 words, just a name. It adds absolutely nothing to anything. It doesn't have any reasons, doesn't talk about anything. Hell, it might not even be who they voted for, but just a random naming of one of the political parties in the UK (not even the TSR version). I mean, whatever, you think it's a worthy post, I don't. So I neg it, and you don't. What's the problem? We're not allowed to hold different opinions? I should be vilified for voting down a post I think is absolutely useless?

And yes, I know the internet is not running out of space, it's like we don't run out of air and yet the phrase about wasting air by breathing exists. :rolleyes:

Puh-lease.

Reply 995

Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi

Homosexuality per se wasn't a crime, male homosexual acts were criminalised. Admitting you were gay was not tolerated as it is today but it was still fine to do; buggering someone in a toilet in Soho wasn't.

It wasn't until 1967 that male homosexual acts even in private were decriminalised, unless I'm very much mistaken? So perhaps my analogy is a little off, but should one not admit to having gay sex prior to it's decriminalisation? I mean, I don't know, even the POTUS admits drug use in his youth these days. It's not really that taboo, especially with cannabis.

Reply 996

Original post by jesusandtequila

It wasn't until 1967 that male homosexual acts even in private were decriminalised, unless I'm very much mistaken? So perhaps my analogy is a little off, but should one not admit to having gay sex prior to it's decriminalisation? I mean, I don't know, even the POTUS admits drug use in his youth these days. It's not really that taboo, especially with cannabis.

It's perhaps just me but if you had/have broken the law, my view is you keep shtum about it even if it has now become legal. By all means talk about what you do now but leave the past sleeping soundly.

Reply 997

And on and on vote the six hundred.

Through Greens and trees and things that sneeze.
For 'snot the Tories who say -UKIP at my place for I have to Labour.
Since we all know that we, not they, are the ones who de-Liber.

And on and on vote the six hundred.

Through squished Lib Dems and Socialists a-three.
And so for once, through bad rhyme and metre, I say:
There are truly none for me.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 998