Why are you voting for Mitt Romney?

"All of Bush's policies"? Really? If I asked you to enumerate them and indicate how they're exactly the same, could you do it?

It didn't start out that way. There's this thing called "Congress," yanno? And if you followed the course of that legislation from its original form, you'd understand how it ended up the way it did.

But I guess you'd have preferred to just leave the mess alone, eh?

What's the troop strength in Iraq as of today? Do you have a better solution for Afghanistan than the 2014 withdrawal date?

And how many American lives were lost in those "new places"? I won't even ask you what you perceive to be the reasons for the joint military operations during the Arab Spring.

You have a point there. Michelle's legislation shutting down Applebee's was way out of line. And those troops stationed by your refrigerator are decidedly a violation of the Third Amendment. Time to clean that musket and take arms against a sea of troubles!

They don't. You have every right to stay home on November 6th.

As she does every day.

A fourth, and IMO better, option is to vote for whichever party's candidate you most strongly believe will represent your interests. I dislike seeing this called a "vote for one or the other or stay home" kind of game. There are more candidates than just the two with the most special-interest backing.

Does anyone here click on a Wordforge poll to be "on a winning team"?
Or, do you just click what your honest fucking answer is?

I'd think that would be the first option.

Having done write-in voting, I agree.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Sure. I guess we could talk about why you're not allowed to leave your house.

I'd have thought a lawyer would know more about the risks of libelous romans a clef.

A roman a clef isn't libelous. It's a way to avoid libel. Just like all my satirical tongue in cheek posts.

Ankle monitor? Or did somebody just padlock the outside of the sarcophagus and lock you in?

See he jests too! No one really lives in a sarcophagus.

Having written same, I can assure you that publishers' legal departments think otherwise.

Too bad they're not just as careful about tell-all blockbusters, q.v. Dutton and the Seal...

What did you write about that they wouldn't let you publish?

Take care with your words, effendi, lest you provoke the wrath of Garamhotep!

That's not what happened. I simply spent an afternoon with someone from Legal going over things like the characters' physical descriptions ("Does he really have a scar on his right cheek? You'd better change that to his left cheek."), where they were born/grew up, any small detail that they or their lawyers might say "That's unmistakably me and nobody else. I'm suing!"

Well that last part was clearly libel.

Um... dumbass? The results of Obama's policies are proven. Who the hell do you think has been President of the U.S. for the last 4 years? Romneys Presidential policies, on the other hand, are as yet untested.

That's why I said that we don't know whether or not Romney will be a good President, but we do know that Obama's a shitty one.

Now if you'd like another opportunity to explain why you think swing states would vote for a candidate known to be a shitty President, feel free.

Or a great addition to the quotes thread.

Except for the fact that that is simply not true. The Affordable Care Act actually caused the Insurance Companies to have to GIVE BACK money b/c it only allows 15% overhead/profits.

The 150 thousand troops NOT in Iraq would disagree with you.

Yeah we are still in Afghanistan, but 6 on 12 off is a HELLUVA lot better than the 6 on 6 off we (PsyOp) were doing when both wars were hot.

They are not the same. there's always at a minimum enough variety to provide the illusion that electing my guy will save the country and electing the other guy will doom the country.

How they are the same is that neither of those illusions are real.

And they were not four years ago, or 8, or 12.


More specifically - they vary on equality - and the Dems are better on that score

They differ on foreign policy (though apparently not on warmaking) a little bit but likely not enough to redirect the course of history.

They differ on HOW they will dick around the economy to the benefit of their puppet-masters, but little on the ultimate effect.

They differ on things like regulation and such like, usually I feel the GOP is slightly ahead on that account, but both will grow government in most areas of influence, it's only that the Dems will grow government faster. (arguably)


It's not so much an argument that they will behave exactly the same way as it is an argument that the ultimate outcome of their behavior, in terms of the economic issues that most people speak of when you ask then why they vote as they do, will be pretty similar. different trains to the same station.

I will happily grant you that if i were casting my vote ONLY on the equality issue, Obama would have earned re-election. But I can get everything he gives me on that issue - and more - from Johnson PLUS sane policies elsewhere.

All that said - you ducked my question and i did not fail to notice it.

in one post you insulted those who claim to vote for Johnson as being disingenuous and not sincere, and in this one you again imply ulterior motives.

I call bullshit. If i say "I vote for the man not the party" you say "you are just trying to make yourself look smart" and when I call you on it you say "I vote for the man not the party."

How is that an answer?

You say that the claim "both parties are exactly the same" is not a sincere point of view but a cover for something else, and when I call you on it you point out that both parties are not the same - which you already said wasn't a serious claim anyway.

Please.

I didn't challenge you to state both parties were not the same - I challenged you to admit that EVERY voter things they are smarter than the one who voted for someone else - including you. Your condescension was obvious and juvenile, if i may say so.

Point blank: do you or do you not think your presidential vote will be smarter than, say, Tuttle's?

If you do, then you have no grounds to cast condescension on me because I think my vote for Johnson is smarter than yours.

^One person's actual vote, if cast with some awareness of the issues and not knee-jerk party-line or abject silliness (women voting for a candidate because he's "cute," men refusing to vote for a female candidate, that kind of thing), is no more intelligent than anyone else's.

Internet posturing, OTOH, is what it is.

Oh, no, no! It is what it isn't! It's not what it is! It wasn't what it weren't, and it d'ain't what it do!

I refer you to my previous post. Also, the idea that Romney's policies are some great unknown to which we've no idea what the outcome would be, is stupid.

Not to mention that Romney's "policy" proposals would certainly result in higher deficits and unemployment than anything proposed by Obama. That's what happens when your "policy" proposals are limited to "steal from the poor, give it to the fantastically wealthy, and fuck infrastructure up the ass."

I'm voting for Romney for the same reason I vote for any other candidate: his views more closely align with my own.Plus the guy in office has done a shitty job and I don't believe in rewarding failure.

So, Dubya with his track record in business should have never gotten near the presidency, right, right?

Politicians these days seem to be in the business of rewarding failure.

That is true, especially this President.