If you're voting either (R) or (D) for president...

[SheHateMe]

Vagina Power!

 

[bfdd]

A vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote also. Take your voter superiority and stuff it.

If you don't want anything to change, why vote at all? Just let the people who have their jobs keep them. Derp a der. Or do you still think things change from a high level perspective when we flip the sign from R to D or vice versa?


Also, you guys "two party system is the way it is and the way it always will be" bullshit. You perpetuate it then blame it for existing, it only fucking exists in the current form because you continue it in its current form. Deviate from your pre-programmed choices or else you're literally no better than cattle.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you don't want anything to change, why vote at all? Just let the people who have their jobs keep them. Derp a der. Or do you still think things change from a high level perspective when we flip the sign from R to D or vice versa?


Also, you guys "two party system is the way it is and the way it always will be" bullshit. You perpetuate it then blame it for existing, it only fucking exists in the current form because you continue it in its current form. Deviate from your pre-programmed choices or else you're literally no better than cattle.

Try to be less absurd. The vote of one person hardly matters. When folk like you stop crying in your beards and get off your asses and present me with a third party that gets 30% of the vote and I like what they have to say, I'll jump ship, but I'm not jumping ship in the oceanic vacuum lazy assholes offer.

 

[SheHateMe]

If you don't want anything to change, why vote at all? Just let the people who have their jobs keep them. Derp a der. Or do you still think things change from a high level perspective when we flip the sign from R to D or vice versa?


Also, you guys "two party system is the way it is and the way it always will be" bullshit. You perpetuate it then blame it for existing, it only fucking exists in the current form because you continue it in its current form. Deviate from your pre-programmed choices or else you're literally no better than cattle.

Well, Im voting for Roseanne Barr and the rest of you are stupid for not doing the same. :awe:

 

[zinfamous]

I choose beef jerky

 

[bfdd]

Try to be less absurd. The vote of one person hardly matters. When folk like you stop crying in your beards and get off your asses and present me with a third party that gets 30% of the vote and I like what they have to say, I'll jump ship, but I'm not jumping ship in the oceanic vacuum lazy assholes offer.

lol so you care more about doing what's popular than sticking to your convictions and what you believe? Why exactly should I respect you or your beliefs then?

To SheHatesMe, good for you. As long as you're casting your ballot for who you want to win and you believe in what they will do and what they stand for. Voting for someone who is the "lesser of two evils" is stupid. If Gary Johnson wasn't running I'd probably try to vote for Andre Barnett, but he's not on the ballot here in CA so I'd probably just not vote. Just like I'm not voting for Maxine Waters or the Democrat that's running up against her. Nor am I voting for DA and I'm definitely skipping the vote for my State Assemblyman because both the Rep and Dem to choose from are fucking retarded.

 

[zsdersw]

And I never said Obama was a "true advocate". I disputed your bullshit attempt to conflate his views and actions with those of Romney.

You said Obama had not acted. That was false. Period.

Your calling it bullshit doesn't make it bullshit. They're very much the same on GLBT issues; both acting in their respective party-mandated roles only when politically necessary.

Utter supposition on your part. I personally believe that Obama would have come out for gay marriage much sooner if he had felt it was politically viable, and that Romney never supported gay marriage, like the vast majority of those in his church. The actions he took came well before he was running for president.

It's not politically viable now for him to come out for gay marriage; saying he supports it, now, is only to fire up the Democratic base. He knows it has absolutely no chance at the federal level... so it's safe to come out for it in an election year that hinges upon turning out the Democratic base, just like it was safe for Ryan to push for and get passed in the House a budget that had significant cuts/changes to major federal programs; he knew it was never going to go beyond the House, but it would fire up the Republican base.

You should know that running for president occurs long before one officially announces one's candidacy. Romney's actions against gay marriage in MA were his attempt to create the conservative credentials needed to start a Republican presidential campaign. Obama began running for president when he gave a speech at the Democratic convention in 2004.

But again, you're flailing about all over the place. The point isn't whether either of these guys is acting without political motivations. The point is that they have made very different promises, stood up for different views, and taken different actions.

So cut the crap about them being the same. They're not.

Not flailing about at all. Everything you say they've done that is different is entirely motivated by immediate political expediency. To truly discern what their views are we have to look at their actions when they're not campaigning. In the case of Obama, he's not prone to act to advance GLBT issues. In the case of Romney, he's not prone to act to thwart GLBT issues. Their inaction when not campaigning is the same-ness on GLBT matters that I'm referring to.

There's no crap to cut, so perhaps you should settle down.

 

[Agent11]

Really.

Obama repealed don't ask don't tell. Think Mr. Holy underpants would even think of doing that?

He'd have his buddies hold you down and shave your head.

 

[zsdersw]

Really.

Obama repealed don't ask don't tell. Think Mr. Holy underpants would even think of doing that?

He'd have his buddies hold you down and shave your head.

It's good he finally did repeal it, but it took him way too long to do so.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's no crap to cut, so perhaps you should settle down.

Oh, there was quite a lot alright. Fortunately, you yourself have cut it out.

You started out saying there was no difference between the candidates. You are now instead saying that the candidates behave differently because of political motivations. Very different claims.

All politicians make statements and take positions based in part on political motivations. What matters is what they do. And these two politicians have behaved in different ways on gay rights and a number of other important topics.

I seriously doubt many of the gays serving in the military who now have the burden of DADT removed from their shoulders are any less happy about it because of the possibility that Obama did it for something other than perfectly-intentioned motivations. Sure as shit Romney or McCain wouldn't have done it PERIOD.

It's good that you finally recognize that there are indeed differences between parties and candidates, but it took you way too long to do so.

 

[zsdersw]

Oh, there was quite a lot alright. Fortunately, you yourself have cut it out.

You started out saying there was no difference between the candidates. You are now instead saying that the candidates behave differently because of political motivations. Very different claims.

I'm not saying anything different. With regard to GLBT issues, I've said before that their same-ness is on the inaction they take when they're not politically motivated to take action.

On other issues, they are exactly the same. Foreign policy? Both are carrying forward Bush's neo-conservative doctrine. Spending? Neither of them are serious about reforming the major drivers of federal spending. Taxes? One takes out of one pocket while the other takes from another pocket; hardly a difference that matters. Social issues? Neither is going to make a significant difference one way or another on any social issue.

I seriously doubt many of the gays serving in the military who now have the burden of DADT removed from their shoulders are any less happy about it because of the possibility that Obama did it for something other than perfectly-intentioned motivations. Sure as shit Romney or McCain wouldn't have done it PERIOD.

I don't care if they're more or less happy about it. The fact remains that Obama took far too long to do what he should've done from the start.. without needing political pressure. The fact remains that Romney only started against GLBT issues when he realized he'd have to generate conservative credentials in order to run for president.

The end result is that Obama isn't that much of a friend to GLBT people and Romney isn't that much of an enemy. That's why I regard and said they're the same on GLBT issues.

It's good that you finally recognize that there are indeed differences between parties and candidates, but it took you way too long to do so.

There are no differences between the parties and candidates; both will bankrupt the country with too much spending, both want to legislate morality, both use minority groups only for political gain, and both are not at all interested in preserving or expanding freedom. Both have and continue to work to curtail freedom.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You either don't understand what the words "difference" and "same" mean, or you're just too irrationally invested in being right to have a sane conversation with. Unfortunate.

 

[zsdersw]

You either don't understand what the words "difference" and "same" mean, or you're just too irrationally invested in being right to have a sane conversation with. Unfortunate.

None of the above.

 

[PJABBER]

I choose beef jerky

ROTFLMAO! :awe:

 

[PJABBER]

I'm not saying anything different. With regard to GLBT issues, I've said before that their same-ness is on the inaction they take when they're not politically motivated to take action.

On other issues, they are exactly the same. Foreign policy? Both are carrying forward Bush's neo-conservative doctrine. Spending? Neither of them are serious about reforming the major drivers of federal spending. Taxes? One takes out of one pocket while the other takes from another pocket; hardly a difference that matters. Social issues? Neither is going to make a significant difference one way or another on any social issue.

I don't care if they're more or less happy about it. The fact remains that Obama took far too long to do what he should've done from the start.. without needing political pressure. The fact remains that Romney only started against GLBT issues when he realized he'd have to generate conservative credentials in order to run for president.

The end result is that Obama isn't that much of a friend to GLBT people and Romney isn't that much of an enemy. That's why I regard and said they're the same on GLBT issues.

There are no differences between the parties and candidates; both will bankrupt the country with too much spending, both want to legislate morality, both use minority groups only for political gain, and both are not at all interested in preserving or expanding freedom. Both have and continue to work to curtail freedom.

I think this is actually a pretty fair assessment of how similar the Ds and the Rs are at this point, with the exception of economic policy, where you and I part ways.

Here I really expect that the R's have a much stronger motivation to act on reducing the national debt and to reform the footprint of government. It will be an uphill battle but of all the Rs that ran for the nomination, Romney and Ryan have been the most adamant about pushing through significant reforms. I for one will hold them to it, as will groups like Club For Growth, etc.

However, we all know how resolve evaporates after being in power for any length of time. The early efforts have to continue for an extended period and it is up to the electorate in the elections that occur every two years to make their wishes known (ie 2010's highly effective Tea Party revolution.)

On the social issues front, Romney and Ryan do not have any agenda. They are going to be tightly focused on the economy and international affairs, to such an extent that those who are expecting anything else are going to be disappointed.

If Obama gets to wreak economic and national defense havoc for another four years, I don't expect his social issues will be for anything other than abortion. No other politician in modern times has been so strong an advocate for killing the unborn as Obama. All other social issues seem not to interest him one bit.

 

[dank69]

I admire your ability to reason as far as it goes, but you seem to be unwilling concede points even when they are staring you in the face, that zsdersw has a political view that is religious and can't be reached by reason. He believes that 'a pox on both houses' is a superior moral position and that he is morally superior for believing it. He has a conservative truthiness brain but doesn't like conservatives either. As long as a person's ego is connected to his moral belief his intellectual power will go into deflection and denial.

You are talking to addicts who are addicted to belief. You are telling an addict not to use drugs, a hopeless task and especially so because you are addicted to reason.

The insane are proud of their insanity and oblivious to their immorality. Take away that pride and the addict will fall in the gutter when he may have a chance. Reason only reaches the addict that has bottomed out.

zsdersw has taken a lifetime of contempt for gays and hammered out a spear of contempt for parties on which to transfer that contempt. It's what we all do in one way or another.

This. zsdersw is a waste of time.

 

[zsdersw]

zsdersw is a waste of time.

Only on your days off.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm not ignoring any issues. At the federal level, particularly the presidency, there are absolutely zero issues on which any Republican or Democratic president will significantly move the goalposts. The issues play out much more directly and in bigger ways at the state and local level.

You're gay and you don't recognize the dramatic differences between Republicans and Democrats?

 

[dank69]

You're gay and you don't recognize the dramatic differences between Republicans and Democrats?

Like I said, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[zsdersw]

You're gay and you don't recognize the dramatic differences between Republicans and Democrats?

At the federal level, no.. there is no real effective difference.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're gay and you don't recognize the dramatic differences between Republicans and Democrats?

In fairness to him, I did only spend about 30 or 40 posts laying it out in graphic detail complete with references to anti-gay actions Romney took while governor.

 

[zsdersw]

In fairness to him, I did only spend about 30 or 40 posts laying it out in graphic detail complete with references to anti-gay actions Romney took while governor.

Doesn't change the fact that he did those things only when he realized he'd have to create some conservative credentials to run for president.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Doesn't change the fact that he did those things only when he realized he'd have to create some conservative credentials to run for president.

Not true, as already laid out. And saying they did things differently for political reasons is not a defense for a claim that they don't do things differently.

You are the one who said Romney took no actions against gays while governor. Too bad you seem genetically incapable of conceding a point on anything.

 

[zsdersw]

Not true, as already laid out. And saying they did things differently for political reasons is not a defense for a claim that they don't do things differently.

You are the one who said Romney took no actions against gays while governor. Too bad you seem genetically incapable of conceding a point on anything.

Yes it is true, no matter how many times you say it's not. Romney began running for president long before he officially declared his candidacy. Obama began running for president when he gave that speech at the Democratic convention in 2004.

True or False: Romney began running for president while he was governor of MA.

If you answered "false", you're an idiot.. plain and simple.

They both don't act on GLBT issues unless there is a political imperative to do so. This makes them both neither a friend nor an enemy... which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Romney talks about restricting GLBT rights but doesn't do it (because he was in a very blue state)...

Governor Romney actively worked against LGBT rights in Massachusetts:

Romney had vowed while running in Massachusetts to defend and expand the rights of gays and lesbians, although he opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions. When the court ruled, he initially promised to follow its decision, while also seeking a state constitutional amendment to overturn it.


But soon he devoted his attention to trying to block the ruling. Among his moves: resurrecting a 90-year-old state law, aimed in part at preventing interracial marriage, to keep same-sex couples from flocking to Massachusetts for weddings.