june gloom on 5/8/2011 at 08:23

---

Jesus Christ can't you keep your bullshit in one post please?

Mr. K. on 5/8/2011 at 10:27

---

Thank you, I'm finding this whole thread very interesting and informative.

Rug Burn Junky on 5/8/2011 at 13:35

---

To simpletons like him, the former. To you, me and every other rational person out there, the latter.

But we both know that already.

CCCToad on 6/8/2011 at 03:45

---

Somewhat. If they were different about any issues of real consequence you'd be right. Also, bringing up Bork is an irrelevancy fallacy.

The issues that they're different on are generally more social-ideological issues and lifestyle. In the end though, they're ultimately going to have a trivial effect on life in America whereas economic and domestic security policies have the capacity to (and already have, to some extent) completely re-shape life in America.

I mean, I'm not really sure how funding abortion in other countires is even worth mentioning in comparison to the fact that, say, both Obama and Bush have worked to maintain the fact that the FBI can instantly and without a warrant start tracking your physical location through your cellphone, and both have vigorously defended people getting their cars tracked for no other reason than being Muslim.


And, I don't think it really is necessary for Obama to compromise with the "tea party" candidates. Between the Democrats and the "country club" republicans who reliably choose to side with Democrats over tea-partiers, the votes exist to ride roughshod over them.

Starrfall on 6/8/2011 at 05:37

---

This right here, this is why people like me think people like you are either ignorant, plain stupid, or a complete betrayal of the ideologies you purport to uphold. (I honestly mean this in the nicest, most trying-to-explain way.) To say that the social-ideological issues don't shape life in america is such an insane position that you can only be completely stupid or ignoring the evidence to the contrary. To use the education and access to birth control example, Perry, hot will-he-won't-he item (if not a real candidate yet), advocates abstinence only education despite evidence to the contrary. Guess what? The higher teen birth rate Texas is experiencing is (most likely) as a result is expensive. Certainly cheaper than using already-paid for class time to teach kids that if you must have sex there are ways to significantly reduce your chances of pregnancy. And if you ensure that cost is not a barrier to access to birth control, you increase the likelihood that people will actually use it.

Similarly, the fact that you think the global gag rule only affects abortions can only only be explained by ignorance or stupidity. You seem to try quite hard to present yourself as a reasonable in the know everyman, but little miscues like that betray you every damn time.

Here's the crux, though. You're still trying to tell me that the only differences you see don't matter. But if those are the only differences, they're all that matters. What else possibly can? Let's make this easy: Obama and Romney are your only candidates. They are absolutely identical on each and every, EVERY issue, including their non-advocacy for gay marriage, save one. Romney has pledged to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and Obama has not. Who do you vote for, and why?