How about they only contact people who want to be contacted? My time is valuable, and I don't have time to waste on polls that are actually advertising or polls that intentionally mislead people into thinking it's for one candidate when they're actually pushing for another candidate with misleading questions. Not only that, but it's insanely hypocritical for the do-not-call legislation to exempt these types of calls.

How about a full disclosure law where candidates have to register all the polling outfits working on their behalf? Then we'd all know who not to vote for.

Look at the last few federal elections. It's PACs paying for a lot of the advertising on both sides. Not only does it shield the parties and candidates, but if the commercial is just a bunch of lies, the party and candidate can say they had nothing to do with it. While it is not particularly democratic, it's how the system works. Hope and change couldn't fix it.

These are your own words:

"if you do something that impinges on the freedoms of others, you aren't exercising freedom, you are restricting freedom"

The story is about members of the public owning armored vehicles. Maybe you're having a conversation about a story that exists only in your mind, but I'm talking about the story right up at the top of this page.

You even introduced sexual orientation. That has absolutely nothing to do with the story or this thread of comments.

This is what generally happens in discussions about collectivism. When it gets down to details of implementation, it becomes indefensible, and the proponents resort to impugning the people calling out the problems.

I also find it amusing that the pro-collectivist is the one resorting to profanity instead of a rational argument. Nice. That's what you get when you don't base the value of something on its merits.

I'm not changing the topic. This thread is about the rights of individuals vs the rights of society as a whole. Your argument follows along with that. But this story is about members of the public owning armored vehicles. It's not about sexual orientation or any of the other popular "social causes".

You would ban private ownership of armored vehicles, would you not? If so, then you're taking rights away before a malcontent could use an armored vehicle to infringe on another party's rights. You may not use violence in your ban, but you'd be infringing on the first party just as they would infringe on the second party.

By your own argument, you want to restrict rights before others can use those rights to restrict other people's rights. You need to be stopped.

"you are against freedom."

I am against taking anyone's rights away, that includes owning armored vehicles. You can't say the same. I'm not the one against freedom. You are.

You've lost your argument in the first sentence. At best, there's a 50/50 split in the nation. If "most folks" believed as you believed, we would have struck down the 2nd amendment with ease. Yet whenever the political spotlight gets aimed at gun ownership all it does is drive more people to purchase firearms and ammunition. There is no popular support for putting collectivism ahead of individualism. Support stops the moment that someone is no longer able to have or enjoy a right they had previously.

"you really think i am the same as someone who denies rights because i stand against someone who denies rights?"

"if you do something that impinges on the freedoms of others, you aren't exercising freedom, you are restricting freedom"

Yes. You're twisting words like a politician. You're calling someone who exercises a right a person who restricts freedom. Let's say I have two neighbors. One buys an armored vehicle. The other starts campaigning to ban them. I would find one of them offensive, and it's not the guy with the armored vehicle.

You could pervert most anything into something that impinges on others. We banned firearms on planes and as a consequence, terrorists were able to hijack them with nothing more than box cutters. Do we ban box cutters now? I don't have a use for an armored vehicle, but celebrities do. Small business owners might if they want to transport money without having to pay a company to do it for them.

You're taking a juvenile view of what freedom is. It's not so clear-cut. You can't stop party A from infringing on party B by infringing on party A before they could get to party B. That's how your comment reads to me.

You're basically saying this:

Don't you dare exercise your rights, or I will have to take them away from you.

"it's the morons and malicious shitbags around you who don't respect your freedoms"

You.. for example?

Great society we have if we have to take people's liberties away in order to get them to live with one another.

Let me guess, fewer people are using /. so the bright idea is to post flaimbait stories to try and drive people back to the site?

Fail.

No doubt the work of another fine "UX Engineer".

The corps would never allow their executives or their hired legislators to be tracked this way. This is for the little people, like you and me.

You should be more precise. That's what you were whining about, right? I mean, there's three continents to choose from for "America", but yet there's only one nation. So if a list of one is too much for you, certainly a list of three is too much effort.

Pedant.

The taxes are way too lucrative on those. Your health stops being important when the dollar signs get big enough.

lol.

Parent just did the same thing he/she is whining about Americans of doing, except with the name of the continent instead of the name of the country!

How many countries on the American continents have "America" as part of their name, other than the USofA aka America? Do you really want the phrase "United States of America haters" to become a thing?