American Extremists: "All or one, one or all"
American Extremists webcomic archive:
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/
Labels: American Extremists
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 9:26 AM
Monday, June 11, 2012
American Extremists webcomic archive:
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/
Order an AE T-shirt, now in stock! Union-made, 100% cotton white shirt. $25+s/h. US orders only. Look great, support my blogging, and have interesting discussions with the TSA!
64 Comments:
With Democrats -- rightly and for good reason -- disappointed in and disgusted with Obama and indicating their planned refusal to vote for him, and with Republicans full of confidence and zeal to elect not only Mitt Romney but a cartload of Republicans to fill Senate and House seats, maybe it's time to spend some time discussing what sort of a country this will be under Republican control.
Will we be better off than we are now (not that we are doing well now, we aren't -- but we can always do worse; for example: the Great Depression)?
Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect America's working class?
Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect Social Security?
Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect the American public from another Wall St. meltdown, and will Mitt & friends protect us from -- once again -- having to donate billions of our tax dollars to save Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, etc.?
Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect minority rights and/or women's rights?
Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect our Constitutional rights?
If you have answered "yes" to any of the above questions, you are dreaming of something that never will be.
If you accept that Republicans and Democrats are your only options, then electoral politics are an exercise in futility.
Republicans and Democrats ARE our only options.
Any belief that voting third-party will win the election for that person is MORE dreaming of something that never will be.
Voting third-party only helps the candidate you hate the most (or like the least).
Surely you are smart enough to recognize that.
REALITY CHECK:
One of these two men IS going to win the presidency: Romney or Obama.
No other presidential candidate will receive even one electoral vote.
I am NOT pleased to be noting this.
I don't particularly like or trust either man.
But the only remaining decent, kind, sensible and sensitive political figures on the scene are within the ranks of the Democratic party.
Within the ranks of the Republican Party there are the mean-spirited, the greedy, the odious, and the Tea Partiers who are pulling the Republican Party further and further to the Right.
As I noted, I do NOT like the choices we are presented with, but choose we must.
It's going to BE either Romney or Obama in the White House, and my choice -- as repugnant as it may be -- would have to be to stick with the Democrats. The Republicans are lusting to take away even more services and benefits from the middle class and from the needy to permit even more tax cuts for the already-wealthy.
That I cannot support.
If Romney wins -- and win he will if too many disgusted Democrats decide to sit out this election or waste their precious votes on a third-party candidate -- Romney will pull even more Republicans into Congress with him, and then we will surely see this once-great country become the home of the 1% of The Privileged and the 99% of The Despairing.
If you want the odious Koch Brothers to run this country, vote for Romney or vote for a third-party candidate.
If you want to try to hang on to some sort of remnant of decency, you will have to support the Democratic candidates.
Anything else is hopeless dreaming.
This blog explains on a daily basis why I'm done with (supposed) less-evilism, why I consider a statement like the following repellent and wrong: "If you want to try to hang on to some sort of remnant of decency, you will have to support the Democratic candidates."
Oh man that was so hilarious how 'Anonymous' kept using the word "harder" in his/her little rant. Oh god, I am having trouble ending my laughter. This is the new standard or logical chain for Dem apologists:
- Republicans will not be BETTER than Dems on doing progressive things - Not voting for Dems is helping Republcians because I said so (and also I can't do math) - thus you must actively support Dems otherwise we will be in a wordl of NOT doing BETTER
In 2010, an awful lot of disgusted Democrats (disgusted mostly with Obama, but disgusted with a lot of other Democrats as well) decided to "send a message" by voting Republican, thinking that would "show them" (the Democrats).
What they got was a Republican-controlled Congress with a lot of Tea-Partiers driving the House agenda.
If you are comfortable with a Tea-Party-driven House and a Republican-controlled Senate and Mitt Romney in the Oval Office making the Executive decisions, then just keep thinking your purer-than-God thoughts and vote third-party.
In a hypothetical election between Mussolini and Hitler, I would have voted for Mussolini, not because I liked him but because the alternative was so God-awful.
But by all means, Nick T and Vast, go on being purer than the rest of us and vote third-party; I hope you'll be happy with what your wasted vote produces.
Vast wrote:
"I'm done with (supposed) less-evilism"
I understand your frustration but with the Citizens United decision in place, I believe we will be seeing nothing but degrees of evil from which to select.
The rightwing billionaires are well on their way to designing and getting the country THEY want, the country that works best for THEM.
So, go ahead and vote for Rocky Anderson (if that is your preferred candidate); he seems to be a good man -- but he will NEVER win the presidency.
As Sam Goldwyn famously said, if you want to send a message, use Western Union. (Today, he would say to send an email!)
You don't realistically send a message when you vote; your vote just gets counted with all the rest of the votes and the winner is the one with the most votes.
Voting third-party just enables the candidate you hate the most (or like the least) to win.
Yeah remember when 2009 and 2010 were starkly different from 2011 and 2012. that was because of the Tea Party taking control.
Also some libs may have individually decided to stay home and "send a message" but that's not how it was portrayed or the prevailing narrative. So you're basically lying to try and make a point. What might work and is worth trying is a larger movement during a on-term election where a President was sent a messsage clearly about being a flat-out conservative will not fly with progressive voters.
What is true is that Dems keep getting a message loud and clear from people like you, that just being paper-thin-ly more progressive than some wackadoo Republican will get you defended, funded and supported by progressives. How is that working out? We have a neo-con in the white house!
Stop using garbage ad-hominems like "purity" and take on these arguments. If you want to show up on election day and vote lesser of two evils then fine, I respect that. But when you declare your support months/years in advance you encourage more conservative behavior.
Respect those who cna't countenance behavior they find repugnant, and cut this "not voting helps the other guy" bullshit because it's simply not logical and is thus pathetic.
Dear Anonymous O-bot,
The Democrats had the White House and a supermajority in both houses back in 2009-10. 60 seats in the senate (including Lieberman & Sanders) and over 2/3 of the house.
Did you see them do anything to stop the evil Republicans and their corporate masters on war, taxes, health care, the economy, human rights, or the environment? Or did they decide to enable them and feed from the same trough while paying lip service to their base? If you answered the former unironically, then there is no hope for you.
"The rightwing billionaires are well on their way to designing and getting the country THEY want," you say. This might come as a shock to you but...IT'S HERE! RIGHT NOW! YOU'RE LIVING IN IT! You just refuse to admit that you were suckered, as I was suckered back in '08. The difference being that I'm willing to admit it while you cling to some desperate hope that liberal Godot will come any day now!
I guess if you're going to vote for one imperialist, warmongering, corporate whore over another, might as well vote for the one who can carry a tune and speak whole sentences. Or you can refuse to participate in this charade by voting for either candidate.
Considering my current voting location, my vote will probably have the same effect in most races as if I just stayed home and marathoned episodes of Community instead, so that's why I'm not too concerned that 2012 will decide THE FATE OF THE REPUBLIC AS WE KNOW IT. We already kind of passed that point when Bush allowed to be in office in 2000, but that's a whole nother argument I don't feel like getting into.
D.H.:
I do not support Obama.
I do not like Obama.
You may have been "suckered back in '08," but I was not.
I did not believe Obama; I was "onto" him early on and did everything I could to prevent his nomination. So, guess which one of us has better insight, you or me?
Maybe you are having trouble understanding what I have written, but I feel that as bad as Obama is (and he is pretty bad), the Republicans terrify me. They are anti-science; anti-knowledge; anti-environment, anti-women; anti every child's right to have a free, thorough and efficient education; they hate the poor and favor the super wealthy.
If you think things cannot get worse, you don't know much about history.
I also did not vote third-party (for Ralph Nader) in 2000 and cause Al Gore to lose the presidency. Many so-called purists did vote for Ralph Nader; I hope they're happy with what George W. Bush did to this country. When President Bill Clinton left office, we were experiencing budget surpluses and beginning to pay down the federal debt.
Thank-you,. third-party voters (sarcasm).
Stay home on election day or vote third-party, if that's your choice, but it seems to me that when you opt out of the ACTUAL election process in that way, you sort of lose your right to complain about who wins.
"Reluctantly" endorsing Mussolini is a darkly amusing development in the annals of Pro-Obama hackery.
In a hypothetical election between Mussolini and Hitler, only a complete idiot would still be delusionally concerned with voting. The real choice at that point is between fleeing the country and armed resistance.
"I would have voted for Mussolini." Exactly.
"when you opt out of the ACTUAL election process in that way, you sort of lose your right to complain about who wins."
Sorry, you don't deserve respectful enaggement anymore. When you spout that bullshit you deserve a STFU. And so... Shut the Fuck Up!
"I also did not vote third-party (for Ralph Nader) in 2000 and cause Al Gore to lose the presidency. Many so-called purists did vote for Ralph Nader; I hope they're happy with what George W. Bush did to this country."
Sigh, I realize this is likely futile, but this myth gets under my skin in so many ways.
Nearly 50% of registered Florida Democrats stayed home in 2000 and over 200,000 of them voted for Bush. Of course, the tribalist will seek to put the blame anywhere except upon their chosen tribe.
http://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
As for the rest of your commentary here, this anonymous poster said it all:
"In a hypothetical election between Mussolini and Hitler, only a complete idiot would still be delusionally concerned with voting. The real choice at that point is between fleeing the country and armed resistance."
Ralph Nader garnered 95,000 votes in Florida in the 2000 election. Even if half of those voters would have stayed home (if Nader had not been on the ballot), Al Gore still would have won with more than enough votes to keep the Florida election results from having to undergo a recount.
Furthermore, Nader had promised NOT to continue campaigning in any state where the polls showed Al Gore and George W. Bush in a close race -- well, they WERE in a close race in Florida but Nader CONTINUED with his campaigning anyway.
"The real choice at that point is between fleeing the country and armed resistance."
Bye bye!
"Ralph Nader garnered 95,000 votes..."
You're obviously unwilling to be convinced that you're position is erroneous, as you clearly didn't bother to read the link I provided.
But like I said, that's the nature of tribalists: blame anyone except their own tribe.
I mean holy fuck, read what you just wrote. You're actually arguing that Nader's broken promise about campaigning was more instrumental than the 200,000 registered Democrats who voted GOP or the hundreds of thousands who didn't bother to vote. Be honest with yourself. It's nauseatingly pathetic to witness.
I'll follow Nick T's conclusion: you aren't worth engaging.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Who let David Atkins in here?
To the lesser of,
Try selling your shit about Republicans being worse to the people killed by Obama's drones.
"Now be honest, wouldn't it have been just horrible if you had been killed by a Republican?"
Romney is functionally equivalent to Obama. He would actually be better in some situations and slightly worse in others. Regan's admin put over a 1000 bankers in jail after the S&L, Obama has done nothing; absolutely zip. Romney could not be any worse than that and might well be better.
In civil rights, Obama would be decidedly worse. Romney doesn't have the guts (though anyone is going to be worse than they would have been otherwise, thanks to Obama). We gain absolutely nothing by keeping Obama in place. Nothing. By voting Obama, we send a message that hostage taking works beautifully and that our vote is utterly irrelevant.
Romney, on the other hand, would have to fight with the senate. It would be meager protection but probably the best we can hope for. And if the senate goes Republican, then they would have to take responsibility for their actions.
Enough with this fear card. If you want Obama so much, get him to do something about it.
Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect our Constitutional rights?
Are you crazy? Obama has done more to fuck up our constitutional rights than all other Presidents combined.
"Will Romney and his Republican friends work harder than the current crop of Democrats have to protect Social Security?"
Wrong way to ask the question. Will Romney do any worse than Obama? Probably not. He would probably be able to accomplish less than Obama will since Obama has the Democratic party in his pocket. Pelosi and Reid have both publicly stated they are open to cuts in the "entitlement programs". Our best hope is to create as much gridlock in Washington as possible and the best way to do that is to have a President from one party and a senate from the other.
Whew, didn't realize I'd stumbled onto a pro-Republican, pro-rightwing page.
You "realized" this is a "pro-Republican, pro-rightwing page."
Do you "realize" a lot of things that are the opposite of the case?
I do not support Obama.
I do not like Obama.
But you're voting for him anyway, anon, so...is this your way of telling us you just gave up? Or is this your sad attempt to convince people that "no, really, I'm like one of you dirty hippies! Honest!"
A pro-rightwing page eh?
If my concern for the elderly and the underhanded cuts that await them if Obama stays in office is "right wing" then indeed, I'm right wing all the way.
If you're so hot for Obama to win, why don't you spend your energy on getting him to change his behavior rather than on trying to get those disgusted with him to change theirs?
What kind of fruit cake for fu*king retards is this? If a politician does absolutely nothing of what he promised then for you the answer is for the voters to change what they want? What an up is down, inside is out idiot!(and you're calling us Republicans?)
There are an awful lot of people posting here who think Romney would be a dandy choice.
Does anyone here actually believe Romney would be MORE progressive or liberal than Obama has been?
=============
from: http://tinyurl.com/735amvw
"Mitt Romney confirmed on Tuesday that he would allow insurers to deny coverage to millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare' later this month. During a speech at Con-Air Industries in Orlando, Florida, the former Massachusetts governor said that Americans who have not been 'continuously insured' would not be protected from discrimination if they suffer from pre-existing conditions."
Romney "would only protect Americans who already have coverage."
=============
I thought Vast was angry with or disappointed with Obama because Obama has not been liberal or progressive enough, but it seems some of the posters here think a rightwinger like Romney would be an "improvement" on Obama.
I am angry with and disgusted with Obama because he has not been enough of a liberal or progressive, but I certainly do not think the solution is to vote for someone who is even more rightwing and pro the wealthy, namely Romney.
"I thought Vast was angry with or disappointed with Obama because Obama has not been liberal or progressive enough."
I thought concern trolls were supposed to be subtle.
"I am angry with and disgusted with Obama because he has not been enough of a liberal or progressive,[...]"
Then insult him, not me. You think calling me a Republican is going to make me vote for that corporate shill?
You think threatening me with pre-existing conditions is going to get me to vote for someone who is doing everything in his power to set up a structure for the privitization of social security and Medicare and you think that is better than what Romney would do? Once it is accepted that we can be forced to buy junk insurance from private profit driven corporations, the other safety net programs will follow suit. The very definition of fascism, government forcing us into a coercive relationship with private enterprise. And you think Obama is better than Romney?
You're getting paid for this. There is absolutely no doubt about it.
Romney care is actually better than Obamacare, though only marginally.
Initially, the Democrats in Massachusetts fought against the mandate because they knew damn well what it stood for; FASCISM you jerk. Government MAKING you, FORCING YOU TO, buy from profit driven private enterprise! Forcing you to get used to it. Forcing you to accept the fascist model of things to come.
Romney, like Obama, fought hard for the mandate, but unlike Obama, Romney gave in to demands that some safeguards be put in place to avoid price gouging by the insurance behemoths. UNLIKE Obama who didn't even consider single payer and negotiated the public option away in secret meetings with the insurance giants and who never met a corporate giant he didn't love!
The meager efforts of Democrats in Massachusetts over affordability with Romney care didn't work anyway. The insurance giants in Massachusetts are raising prices with virtually no concern whatsoever about the laws. And why should they be concerned? How many executives have you seen go to jail recently under OBAMA?
Well, I am not a troll; I am stating as accurately as I can how I feel about Obama and the political scene in general.
I find the options and possibilities confronting us quite frightening, as we seem to have no liberals or progressives left in Washington.
I don't think it's just that politicians want to be bad; I think a lot of the cause for this poor political behavior is the awesome amount of money it takes to run a campaign nowadays, at least at the national level.
With the terrible Citizens United decision in place, I fear things will only get worse; average Americans will have less and less control over events and the oligarchs will have more and more control. The political future looks very bleak indeed.
The Republicans are determined to destroy the economic safety net, so I worry about what will happen to America's seniors. I know many seniors who will suffer greatly if Social Security benefits are cut or frozen.
The Republicans seem bent on privatizing America's school systems and turning them over to profit-making companies. The kids whose parents cannot afford to add to whatever voucher amount the student is given to enable him or her to attend one of these private, for-profit schools will be left behind in crumbling warehouses. The Republicans would be happy to have a population of uneducated young people who are not qualified to do any skilled jobs and will have to be "content" to work for menial wages with no benefits and no opportunity for advancement.
Obama has been a weak president and far too inclined to give in to Republican policy demands, but what will happen to this country if we have a Republican president who is only too happy to implement those same Republican policies?
I am not optimistic for our future, and yes, Obama has been too rightwing for me but any Republican will be even more rightwing.
"The Republicans are determined to destroy the economic safety net, so I worry about what will happen to America's seniors."
"The Republicans seem bent on privatizing America's school systems and turning them over to profit-making companies."
What the hell do you think Obama wants to do? Are you a poorly written shell script that someone accidentally fired up?
If you want to vote for Obama fine. Knock yourself out. But don't go telling others who to vote for, you jack ass. And try getting your facts straight about who is leading the charge in privatization.
During the Grand Bargain, Obama--not the Republicans--put Social Security on the table.
He took it upon himself to create an austerity-hawk deficit commission when Congress wouldn't give him one.
He tried to convince Iraq to let us stay there past the Bush-Maliki deadline.
He wrote out an executive order that prevents poor women from getting Federal money for abortions.
He authorized "signature strikes" that kill people in Yemen and Pakistan based on vague profiling.
And because Obama is so beloved by the "left," few even noticed.
And now you're, OMG, we might get a conservative you GOP-lovers.
You "thought" I was against the rightwing, and correct you are. I don't support the rightwing in either major party. You support it in the Dems. Takes all kinds, as they say.
And also get your head wrapped around the fact that there is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, weak about Obama.
Everything he is doing he is doing with full awareness and intent. He dosn't kill people with no judicial review because the mean ol Republicans told him he had to! He is HELL BENT on doing what ever corporate America and the Military Industrial complex wants him to do, and not one thing less. He is not bending to the Republican will, he is leading the charge and using Republicans as the bogeyman monsters to drive sheep and fools like you into going against all logic, all common sense, and all moral reason.
All out of nothing but fear.
Don't think for a moment that simply because people are fed up, they are "purists" in the name calling sense you like to use the term. That whole term is the most useless piece of crap anyone has ever come up with as a way of "shaming" objective people to go "tribal" against all common sense.
Many of us are simply ordinary folks who vote for people who at least make an effort to do what they say they are going to do and DON'T vote for people who do the OPPOSITE once in office (and who outdo right wingers themselves in many areas).
"I find the options and possibilities confronting us quite frightening, as we seem to have no liberals or progressives left in Washington."
Why do you think it is that we have no liberals or progressives left in Washington? Because the DNC along withe the RNC has realised that if you keep people in a constant state of fear, they will vote against their own self interest. If you tell them they MUST vote for some corporate shill that calls himself or herself a Democrat simply because the Republican is "ALWAYS" worse, then of course you are going to get more and more corporate shill Democrats.
There is absolutely no consequence for Democrats to move ever rightward and there is every financial incentive to do so.
Vast wrote: "I don't support the rightwing in either major party. You support it in the Dems."
Couple of problems there.
1.) the entire Republican Party of today IS rightwing
2.) You seem not to have read what I have written here. I was aware of Obama's flaws from early in the 2008 primary season and wrote to everyone I could pointing out his lies and exaggerations. I did not and do not support him; he has been too rightwing for me. I didn't support his candidacy but even I was shocked at how little his actions, once elected, matched his campaign rhetoric and promises. He promised to do all those things we liberals want a president to do, but he broke all those promises. I am painfully aware of all of the complaints here about Obama, and I agree with most of those complaints. As I have made fairly clear, I tried to stop him from getting the nomination in 2008, and I tried to get someone to challenge him for the nomination this time -- because I am a liberal and favor liberal policies. Obama is not a liberal and has betrayed liberals time and time again.
But my point is that electing Romney -- who is even more rightwing than Obama is -- would not be the solution; in fact, things would get far worse with a Republican president, a Republican House, and a Republican senate controlling the country.
Think of it from a liberal's point of view: If I am disgusted that Obama has failed to be the liberal or progressive he promised during his campaign to be, why in god's name would I vote into office a person who is even LESS liberal and, in fact, takes ever more extreme rightwing stands on issues to please the aggressively rightwing Tea Partiers?
Nobody is trying to convince you to vote for Romney. They just believe that he can't be any worse than Obama, and there might even be a slight possibility for Romney implementing less severe right wing policy because the Democrats will fight him, whereas they blindly follow Obama no matter how horrendously right wing his policy is.
Again, nobody is putting their hopes in Mitt Romney to be a true progressive of any sort. They disagree because all these things you fear-monger about, Wall St. deregulation, gutting Social Security, Medicare, Obama is leading the way in DC for these things. There is no substantial difference between the two candidates. You think the guy who has received way more donations from the financial industry, yes more so then Romney (even from Bain Capital -the private equity company Romney founded), is somehow going to stand up for your interests instead of theirs? YOU are the delusional one, not us.
Personally, I find all this fear-mongering about a Mass. moderate pretty pathetic. There is no fundemental ideological difference between the two; don't try to paint it as such.
The other thing, who the fuck takes Mitt Romney for his word? He was for everything before he was against it; whole-heartedly endorsed Obama's individual mandate until he decided to run for the Republican nomination.
He's pretty much going to base his actions on what the current political climate is like. If the Democrats, and the left at large, fights him, he will cave. Obama cuts social security; you folks will follow him like sheep. That's basically what you're doing right now; telling us by you're going to vote for him.
Your vote for Obama proves this, no matter how disgusting the policy, there is no political cost, since libs are going to line up to vote for him; no matter what.
"You seem not to have read what I have written here" -- this from one who blundered in here impugning a "too left for Obama" site as being a hotbed of rightwingers who think Romney is just swell and who will destroy all decency if we don't suck it up and vote for the purported party of "less-evil."
Vast:
You claim to be "too left for Obama" but you will vote for Romney who is even further to the right than Obama is.
Some logic.
Darn it. You really have me there, O logical one! Other than the fact I have no intention of voting for Romney and have never, ever said I would.
It's going to be a lot easier for you to get Obama to change his mind and than it is for you to get me to change mine, your insults and insinuations notwithstanding.
If you review what you have written on this thread, you have made virtually zero (0) substantive arguments. You are worried, you are concerned, you fear Romney will be worse than Obama but you have zero facts to support that assertion. Instead you have fear and insults.
Rather than call people here Republicans, why don't you instead explain to everyone here what incentive corporate Democrats will have to enact anything OTHER than right wing legislation if they continue to receive the hostage support you are trying to elicit (be afraid... lesser of evil) no matter what they do?
No, your mind is starting to form a scream (but, but, ... I'm going to wet my pants). Don't simply repeat that the monsters will be farther to the right than Obama. We've already heard that, thank you. Explain why voting for Democrats already drunk out of their minds on the corporate teat will get them to stop moving to the right.
You've come in here and smeared a left-liberal site as a hotbed of right-wingers and have fabricated the idea that I intend to vote for Romney, and you're whining about "insinuations"?
Please take your trolling elsewhere.
"...but you will vote for Romney..."
It never ceases to amaze me. What exactly happens in one's brain when they make that conclusion?
Observations: Person X criticizes Obama from the left. Person X is disgusted by Obama's right-wing policies. Person X dismisses fear mongering about Romney and the GOP.
Conclusion: Person X will vote for Romney, and must be a pro-right-wing Republican.
Vast:
Your definition of a troll seems to be someone who holds a different point of view than you do.
Interesting.
There have been many posts here from people who say Romney would be a better bet than Obama; why don't you attack them?
I am, apparently, to the left of you, Vast. Maybe I am too liberal for you.
I wrote to Obama criticizing him for not fighting for single-payer or at least the public option in his healthcare bill; did you?
I wrote to my two senators urging them to fight for single-payer or at least the public option; did you?
I wrote to Obama and my two senators criticizing them for reducing the F.I.C.A. tax revenues; did you?
Do the Romney supporters here actually believe Romney will fight to alter Obamacare so that there is a public option?
Romney has already said he will NOT support legislation to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions who are denied health coverage by an insurer -- that he "would only protect Americans who already have coverage."
You say you are "too liberal for Obama," but you attack the only liberal posting here.
Interesting attitude.
Anonymous writes: "But the only remaining decent, kind, sensible and sensitive political figures on the scene are within the ranks of the Democratic party."
Since "only" can be refuted with a single example, I'll give one: In Wisconsin, Walker's proposal for an iron mine, that was awful both environmentally and on the permitting process, was defeated with a single Republican vote: Dale Schultz's.
So your proposition is false. Please revise it.
I have asked you to leave, you lying troll. Goodbye.
Well, now we know, Vast, that you are really a rightwinger hiding behind your slogan of "too liberal for Obama."
"Well, now we know, Vast, that you are really a rightwinger hiding behind your slogan of 'too liberal for Obama.'"
People like you simply cannot be reasoned with. You are not interested in logical arguments or facts. You base your positions on dogma, not on principles or evidence or direct observations.
It's like arguing with a climate change denier. No matter how much evidence one provides, you just dig into your denial even deeper.
It's a waste of time attempting to engage with you.
That guy has to be a shell script. Some attempt at automating trolls. No one is that stupid.
Can't be a full blown program. Again, too stupid for current ai.
Or, as mentioned above, it could be David Atkins.
Can we get a better way to differentiate between which anonymous poster is which? Maybe dummy names for each thread?
How bout, lO-botomy-bama, for the Obot?
you can call me "pissed-fu*king-retard" for even replying to jack-asses like that.
Some of the posters here are using grotesquely twisted logic to insist -- despite all I have written here -- that it is I who is the troll. In reality, most of the posters here are rightwingers posing as leftists that are "too liberal for Obama."
I am to the LEFT of Barack Obama, to the LEFT of Vast, to the LEFT of every poster here; yet one poster even seems to think I am a climate change denier. I am not; but you would be correct in saying that about most of the leading Republicans. As for Mitt Romney and climate change, his opinion depends on what day it is and who his audience is.
The truth is that I am not enough to the RIGHT to please the posters here, including Vast.
Most of you will be voting for Romney and telling yourselves -- at the same time -- that you are "too liberal for Obama."
It would be funny if it weren't so truly scary.
Wow dude,you're actually like a broken record aren't you? I'M NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA ≠ I'M VOTING FOR ROMNEY . Wjy in hell is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
If being a true liberal in your definition requires having to vote for Obama, fine. Looks like noone else here is principled as you then.
Nick, was right; you're really not worth engaging..
Obama has been a HUGE disappointment to liberals who had expected or at least hoped he would follow liberal principles; he hasn't.
But to vote for someone who is even LESS liberal than Obama makes NO sense at all to any rational person.
Obama is too rightwing for me; Romney is even MORE rightwing than Obama. Therefore, I cannot vote for Romney; that leaves only Obama.
One of the two of them will be president. I don't want to vote for Obama but I will not vote for Romney or any other current-day Republican.
One of the two of them will be president. I don't want to vote for Obama but I will not vote for Romney or any other current-day Republican.
Vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson and you won't have to live with supporting either Obama or Romney. Problem solved.
Also, dear computer scientist who unleashed this bot on us, could you please fix your code? This current version is stuck in an infinite while loop that keeps repeating "SO YOU'RE VOTING FOR ROMNEY THEN?" over and over regardless of input.
You can "Vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson" all you want to but one of two people IS going to be the president: Obama or Romney.
You are just sitting out the election and refusing to make the tough choice; if you can't have things your way, you just won't participate.
Voting for Jill Stein, who actually represents my values, is sitting out the election? I guess that I learn something new every day!
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home