Fart_Machine: Leeds: Fart_Machine: Leeds: NateGrey: Threads like these are great.

Contards post lies like Government growing or Obama spending too much and get slapped down with facts and graphs, then move on to the next lie.

Republicans are morans.

Are you unaware that one could consider the government to be "growing" if they are discussing the influence of government?

You know, like declaring that tobacco is now regulated by the FDA, despite not being either a food or a drug. Or having the government take over the health care industry (which is something like 40% of the economy), etc.

The number of pencil pushers working for the government at any given time is not the only indicator of how much the government has grown recently. Although even those numbers have climbed...

No those numbers haven't climbed. In fact we've experienced a record decline in government jobs since Obama has been in office you farktard.

And there we have it. You've finally proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are a brain-dead moron unwilling to do so much as type shiate into google. One wonders who spoon-fed you the lies you seem not only to believe, but believe are self-evident.

From a January 2012 Article from CNN: Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Here's the source I quoted in case you develop the ability to think clearly in the next few minutes.

I have to assume that you are confusing the size of state and local governments with the size of the federal government. Don't keep making that mistake you arrogant, demonstrably ignorant, fool.

No I didn't confuse the two since I specifically said government jobs which doesn't differentiate between the two. Overall they have dropped 2.6 percent which is greater than Reagan. Do state governments not count according to your definition? Wow you really are stupid.

Let me get this straight- You believe that Obama is in charge of state governments?

Every single time you post you showcase your stupidity in new and unfortunate ways. It's almost like you've hijacked someone else's fark account and you're trying to troll the actual owner by seeing just how far you can put your own foot in your mouth.

By all means, keep going you mouthbreathing retard.

Leeds: a partisan Democrat with a radical socialist agenda.


Examples of "radical socialist" Democrats?

Like Obama the Wall St panderer and ruthless drone strike killer?

qorkfiend: WombatControl: mandatory personal health savings accounts are not a bad idea.

If HSAs are overseen by a private entity, couldn't you could conceivably run into the same constitutional question as the individual mandate?

Not really - the reason being that a mandate forces you to buy something. If you had a mandatory HSA system, you'd be putting money into an account that you could spend how you want - provided it's used for health care. It's basically a tax break instead of a mandate. Inasmuch as there are constitutional problems with that you could just implement it at the state level - which is probably a better idea anyway.

Serious Black: So what? We're not smart enough to figure out how to guarantee every American has access to affordable, quality health care? What the hell happened to American exceptionalism and the notion that we are the best damn country that has ever existed by an incredibly huge margin? Defeatism is not how you solve problems.

Which is like saying "what do you mean that America can't develop a perputual motion machine? What happened to American exceptionalism?!" American exceptionalism doesn't mean that America is free from the laws of physics or economics.

We can give every American access to affordable quality health care - but not by government fiat.

mrshowrules: Explain to me how I have less choice than you when I can go to any doctor, clinic, specialist or hospital in Canada tomorrow and not pay a cent. It doesn't have to be pre-approved by anyone.

Do you have an insurance policy that gives you that type of choice?

You can go into any doctor's office in Canada - and get on the waiting list. Remember, wait times in Canada got so bad that the Canadian Supreme Court called them a violation of human rights and mandated that private insurance had to be allowed.

Leeds: Fart_Machine: Leeds: Fart_Machine: Leeds: NateGrey: Threads like these are great.

Contards post lies like Government growing or Obama spending too much and get slapped down with facts and graphs, then move on to the next lie.

Republicans are morans.

Are you unaware that one could consider the government to be "growing" if they are discussing the influence of government?

You know, like declaring that tobacco is now regulated by the FDA, despite not being either a food or a drug. Or having the government take over the health care industry (which is something like 40% of the economy), etc.

The number of pencil pushers working for the government at any given time is not the only indicator of how much the government has grown recently. Although even those numbers have climbed...

No those numbers haven't climbed. In fact we've experienced a record decline in government jobs since Obama has been in office you farktard.

And there we have it. You've finally proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are a brain-dead moron unwilling to do so much as type shiate into google. One wonders who spoon-fed you the lies you seem not only to believe, but believe are self-evident.

From a January 2012 Article from CNN: Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Here's the source I quoted in case you develop the ability to think clearly in the next few minutes.

I have to assume that you are confusing the size of state and local governments with the size of the federal government. Don't keep making that mistake you arrogant, demonstrably ignorant, fool.

No I didn't confuse the two since I specifically said government jobs which doesn't differentiate between the two. Overall they have dropped 2.6 percent which is greater than Reagan. Do state governments not count according to your definition? Wow you really are stupid.

Let me get this straight- You believe that Obama is in charge of state governments?

Every single time you post you showcase your stupidity in new and unfortunate ways. It's almost like you've hijacked someone else's fark account and you're trying to troll the actual owner by seeing just how far you can put your own foot in your mouth.

By all means, keep going you mouthbreathing retard.

Projection is a heck of a defense mechanism. You win the No U post of the day.

intelligent comment below: Leeds: Or having the government take over the health care industry

America has socialized medicine now?

No, but mandating that all citizens buy health insurance to artificially invoke the commerce clause has allowed the government to take control of it.

Just like when they declared tobacco to be a drug so that the Food & Drug Administration could take control of the tobacco industry.

Leeds: NateGrey: Threads like these are great.

Contards post lies like Government growing or Obama spending too much and get slapped down with facts and graphs, then move on to the next lie.

Republicans are morans.

Are you unaware that one could consider the government to be "growing" if they are discussing the influence of government?

You know, like declaring that tobacco is now regulated by the FDA, despite not being...a drug. Or having the government take over the health care industry (which is something like 40% of the economy), etc.

The number of pencil pushers working for the government at any given time is not the only indicator of how much the government has grown recently. Although even those numbers have climbed...

You're going to have to explain that one. Tobacco is just as much a drug as pot and alcohol.

Leeds: trippdogg: In that past 20 years America elected Clinton twice and little Bush twice. The common thread in both cases is "huckster". You simply need to be able to sell snake oil better than the other guy.
And while Romney might have the edge in this when going toe-to-toe with Obama, he's going to have a tough time beating the Chicago machine at it's own game.

But from an ideological standpoint this election is about a Moderate vs. a partisan Democrat with a radical socialist agenda.

I think it's pretty obvious that our country could use a moderate right about now. We really don't need any far right or far left nutbags in the oval office.

Wait, you think Romney is a moderate?

There is currently no .gif possible to show just how hard I am laughing right now.

Gary Johnson is a moderate. Mittens is (currently) an neocon, though given his flip-flopping, that's bound to change.

Cup_O_Jo: Ya know whats scary--is that although I think both sides suck. And no Gary Johnson is not going to be President dreamers. I dislike Obama for the exact reasons I disliked Bush. Felt that way years ago also. He is not the lesser of two evils he had his chance---lets see what the other pooh on a stick does.

Yeah, I'd rather not get any closer to theocracy, thanks. We've already had too many "Faith-based initiatives", and I don't want theocratic laws passing because we have a robot in a suit doing the signing.

ImpendingCynic: Is it the government's job to stay out of the way, or is it the government's job to subsidize? It can't be both.

Staying out of the way is synonymous for creating an environment where the private sector can thrive!

WombatControl: If you had a mandatory HSA system, you'd be putting money into an account that you could spend how you want - provided it's used for health care.

Right, but it's still overseen by a private entity that gets paid for its efforts. If you can't force a citizen to purchase a insurance from a private company, why can you force them to put their money into a bank account managed by a private company?

Cup_O_Jo: HeartBurnKid: Cup_O_Jo: He is not the lesser of two evils

Have you seen the other one?

Why is what he looks like important. They both are pooh on a stick. I have lived with this pooh on a stick for 4 years. The pooh on a stick before him for 8. I don't count Clinton as pooh on a stick because I was young and well stick rhymes with dick. All I know is that I think 4 years is to long. But it is only 4 years. So lets see what different pooh on a stick does.

The problem is the pooh on a stick that you're advocating for has cyanide and glass shards embedded in it.

Both sides may be bad, but one is most certainly worse.

mrshowrules: WombatControl: mrshowrules: Explain to me how I have less choice than you when I can go to any doctor, clinic, specialist or hospital in Canada tomorrow and not pay a cent. It doesn't have to be pre-approved by anyone.

Do you have an insurance policy that gives you that type of choice?

You can go into any doctor's office in Canada - and get on the waiting list. Remember, wait times in Canada got so bad that the Canadian Supreme Court called them a violation of human rights and mandated that private insurance had to be allowed.

Single payer countries have slightly shorter waiting periods on average than the US. Canada's being slightly longer than the US for elective procedures. What is the waiting period for a knee replacement in the US if you have no insurance coverage?

That's not quite true:

The take-away message is that both the United States and Canada do pretty poorly, compared to most other industrialized countries, on how long patients have to wait to get a regular appointment with a primary care physician or after-hours care, but the U.S. does better than most on having shorter wait times for diagnostic procedures, elective surgery, and specialty care.

And the after-hours care part ignores the use of emergency rooms, which people tend to use instead of after-hours care even if they could get it.

WombatControl: Serious Black: So what? We're not smart enough to figure out how to guarantee every American has access to affordable, quality health care? What the hell happened to American exceptionalism and the notion that we are the best damn country that has ever existed by an incredibly huge margin? Defeatism is not how you solve problems.

Which is like saying "what do you mean that America can't develop a perputual motion machine? What happened to American exceptionalism?!" American exceptionalism doesn't mean that America is free from the laws of physics or economics.

We can give every American access to affordable quality health care - but not by government fiat.

I don't think the laws of economics mean that it's completely impossible to have a universal health care system. I do think it's a complicated problem, but it is by no means impossible. The lessons that we can learn from every other country on the planet and apply to us here make it a heck of a lot simpler than it would be if we were starting from scratch too.

Leeds: You believe that Obama is in charge of state governments?

Also please quote me where I said this.

What I said was government jobs have declined under Obama.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

Leeds: Just like when they declared tobacco to be a drug so that the Food & Drug Administration could take control of the tobacco industry.

Europeans used tobacco for recreational drug use as far back as the 15th century. The FDA must have a time machine.

Fart_Machine: Leeds: You believe that Obama is in charge of state governments?

Also please quote me where I said this.

What I said was government jobs have declined under Obama.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

"Under Obama"

You believe that State and Local governments fall, (and I quote) "Under Obama?"

Again, I am dumbfounded that you are willing to continue to showcase the bottomless depths of your stupidity.

Man up and accept that you had that one fact wrong and let the thread move on. Watching you squirm around claiming that you aren't an idiot is simply pathetic.

Leeds: Fart_Machine: Leeds: You believe that Obama is in charge of state governments?

Also please quote me where I said this.

What I said was government jobs have declined under Obama.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

"Under Obama"

You believe that State and Local governments fall, (and I quote) "Under Obama?"

Again, I am dumbfounded that you are willing to continue to showcase the bottomless depths of your stupidity.

Man up and accept that you had that one fact wrong and let the thread move on. Watching you squirm around claiming that you aren't an idiot is simply pathetic.

Did you actually click on the article genius? I guess not. It's the farking title you dipshait.

FrailChild: ImpendingCynic: Is it the government's job to stay out of the way, or is it the government's job to subsidize? It can't be both.

Staying out of the way is synonymous for creating an environment where the private sector can thrive!

Thank you for that pointless non-answer where you ignored half of the question.

Fart_Machine: Leeds: Fart_Machine: Leeds: You believe that Obama is in charge of state governments?

Also please quote me where I said this.

What I said was government jobs have declined under Obama.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

"Under Obama"

You believe that State and Local governments fall, (and I quote) "Under Obama?"

Again, I am dumbfounded that you are willing to continue to showcase the bottomless depths of your stupidity.

Man up and accept that you had that one fact wrong and let the thread move on. Watching you squirm around claiming that you aren't an idiot is simply pathetic.

Did you actually click on the article genius? I guess not. It's the farking title you dipshait.


You cannot possibly be a farking stupid as you claim to be. The article you linked talks about all government jobs, not just those Obama controls.

But even pretending that you understand that, it goes on to state: "If Mr. Obama had had his way, state and local government job losses in 2011 could have been reduced with more federal assistance, but such proposals were blocked by Republicans in Congress."

So not only has Obama (according to the White House itself) grown the federal government, but according to the very article that you yourself linked, he tried his damndest to spend more federal dollars to stabilize or even increase the public sector jobs on the state and local level.

GOOD LORD you are one incredibly stupid old man. I certainly hope you never figured out how to reproduce.

Leeds: You cannot possibly be a farking stupid as you claim to be. The article you linked talks about all government jobs, not just those Obama controls.

/global facepalm

I never said Obama controlled them. I stated that number has fallen under the time he has been in office (which is what "Under Obama" refers to in this context). The article says that as well. Your initial argument was that government is growing when it fact government jobs have declined when you count in the state and local levels. How do you get up in the morning without killing yourself?

Leeds: No, but mandating that all citizens buy health insurance to artificially invoke the commerce clause has allowed the government to take control of it.


Take control by... getting you to buy a private insurance plan? Seriously you must be joking


Leeds: Just like when they declared tobacco to be a drug so that the Food & Drug Administration could take control of the tobacco industry.


regulate =/= take control

btw tobacco is a drug. the FDA stands for food and DRUG administration

FrailChild: Staying out of the way is synonymous for creating an environment where the private sector can thrive!


The Gilded Age was awesome!

The roaring 1920's was awesome!

Long live free markets!

Leeds: he tried his damndest to spend more federal dollars to stabilize or even increase the public sector jobs on the state and local level.

Because a decline in jobs and government contracts also adds to the unemployment rate which is an entirely separate issue from what you were talking about. Now run along.

Fart_Machine: Leeds: he tried his damndest to spend more federal dollars to stabilize or even increase the public sector jobs on the state and local level.

Because a decline in jobs and government contracts also adds to the unemployment rate which is an entirely separate issue from what you were talking about. Now run along.

You proposed that Obama shrunk the size of government.
I pointed you to links on whitehouse.gov that show otherwise.

You suggest that he somehow shrunk the size of state and local governments and provide a link to an article you assume supports your opinion.
I post a quote from that very article showing that Obama tried to increase those public sector local and state jobs just like he did to the federal jobs but he was thwarted.

Now you suggest that what we're really talking about is unemployment in general, moving away from the initial topic of how Obama has increased the size of the government.

I am convinced that you are only playing stupid. In my 12 years on fark I've never come across someone as stupid as you claim to be. * Golf clap *

qorkfiend: and none of them I've seen

There's your problem.

DarwiOdrade: The stuff my cat leaves in the litter box is more though-provoking than AE - I don't care who writes it

It's a comic. Why would you even associate it with "thought provocation"?

ImpendingCynic: "government is always hiring meaning there are less people paying in taxes"

Are you somehow suggesting that people who receive their paycheck from the government are exempt from income taxes?

Give me a break. All it takes is simple logic to tell you that if only public employees are paying taxes, there will not be enough money to pay public employees unless they are paying 100% of their salary back in taxes!

You have to have some people not on the government dole to pay for those who are...

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

Leeds: You proposed that Obama shrunk the size of government.

Man those goal posts have moved quite a bit.

No, I found issue with your contention that government is growing.

Leeds: Now you suggest that what we're really talking about is unemployment in general, moving away from the initial topic of how Obama has increased the size of the government.

Gawd damn, you're an idiot. No, that point was as to why he'd want to spend federal dollars to stabilize state and local services. I guess the whole "entirely separate issue from what you were talking about" must have confused you. Too many words to digest apparently.

Leeds: In my 12 years on fark

Translation: I'm running out of alts to troll you with.

DarwiOdrade: Same reason you use it as a source of political commentary.

It is commentary.

Serious Black: I don't think the laws of economics mean that it's completely impossible to have a universal health care system. I do think it's a complicated problem, but it is by no means impossible. The lessons that we can learn from every other country on the planet and apply to us here make it a heck of a lot simpler than it would be if we were starting from scratch too.

I think that a "universal health care system" as Europe has it is not an economically sustainable proposition - because the demand for health care is infinite, and the amount of money at any given point is finite.

I do, however, think that the United States can have a much better health care system than we have today where quality care is affordable for everyone - and that's by unleashing the market and competition. The idea that health care is somehow sui generis and not amenable to markets is silly - and in those areas where health care is subject to market forces, the people benefit.

As much as liberals hate the idea Wal-Mart may well end up doing more to give people access to low-cost high-quality health care than Uncle Sam will.

WombatControl: Serious Black: I don't think the laws of economics mean that it's completely impossible to have a universal health care system. I do think it's a complicated problem, but it is by no means impossible. The lessons that we can learn from every other country on the planet and apply to us here make it a heck of a lot simpler than it would be if we were starting from scratch too.

I think that a "universal health care system" as Europe has it is not an economically sustainable proposition - because the demand for health care is infinite, and the amount of money at any given point is finite.

I do, however, think that the United States can have a much better health care system than we have today where quality care is affordable for everyone - and that's by unleashing the market and competition. The idea that health care is somehow sui generis and not amenable to markets is silly - and in those areas where health care is subject to market forces, the people benefit.

As much as liberals hate the idea Wal-Mart may well end up doing more to give people access to low-cost high-quality health care than Uncle Sam will.

You didn't read the whole article apparently.

WombatControl: Serious Black: I don't think the laws of economics mean that it's completely impossible to have a universal health care system. I do think it's a complicated problem, but it is by no means impossible. The lessons that we can learn from every other country on the planet and apply to us here make it a heck of a lot simpler than it would be if we were starting from scratch too.

I think that a "universal health care system" as Europe has it is not an economically sustainable proposition - because the demand for health care is infinite, and the amount of money at any given point is finite.

I do, however, think that the United States can have a much better health care system than we have today where quality care is affordable for everyone - and that's by unleashing the market and competition. The idea that health care is somehow sui generis and not amenable to markets is silly - and in those areas where health care is subject to market forces, the people benefit.

As much as liberals hate the idea Wal-Mart may well end up doing more to give people access to low-cost high-quality health care than Uncle Sam will.

I don't hate the idea of convenient care clinics. I've been cheering for them for years now.

As for the other issue, with unleashing competition, that's not going to help out the 1% of people whose costs total over 20% of our health care expenditures by spending over $90,000 a year on average or the 5% that total 50% of spending and average $40,000 a year. Beyond that, the people who are in these top percentiles often aren't the same year-over-year; I don't have exact numbers, but something like 50% of those people drop into lower categories after a year. As you said, catastrophic health care is a good that has incredibly inelastic and unexpected demand. That in of itself means we must have some government intervention because there is simply no way to cover these sick people in a manner that they will be able to afford it. $90,000 is more than any household in the bottom 90% of income earners makes after taxes; what the hell are those people supposed to do when the inevitable happens and every health insurance company says "Sorry, we can't make your coverage actuarially sound, so fark you"?

coco ebert: What about those to the left of Obama?

Shills for American Extremists.

DarwiOdrade: s2s2s2: DarwiOdrade: Same reason you use it as a source of political commentary.

It is commentary.

Yet somehow not intended to be thought provoking? Ok troll, whatever you say.

Intended? Maybe. But I just think they are kinda funny. They don't provoke much beyond giggles for me. The reaction they get is funnier.

s2s2s2: DarwiOdrade: The stuff my cat leaves in the litter box is more though-provoking than AE - I don't care who writes it

It's a comic. Why would you even associate it with "thought provocation"?

Never read "Non Sequitor", "Bloom County" or "The Boondocks", have ya?

FrailChild: ImpendingCynic: "government is always hiring meaning there are less people paying in taxes"

Are you somehow suggesting that people who receive their paycheck from the government are exempt from income taxes?

Give me a break. All it takes is simple logic to tell you that if only public employees are paying taxes, there will not be enough money to pay public employees unless they are paying 100% of their salary back in taxes!

You have to have some people not on the government dole to pay for those who are...

There's a reason you're wrong here, but it'll take a while to explain, so excuse the TL;DR...:

This only holds true so long as government employees make up 100% of ALL the workforce, and, for some reason, people buy and sell EVERYTHING THEY USE from stores not on their soil and not subject to their laws. No tax money from sales, commerce regulations, etc. comes in. Of course, for such an economy to even BEGIN to exist, it must (a) be REALLY FARKING SMALL, and (b) produce something the whole world wants, that can't be gotten anywhere else for cheaper. Without that, things would collapse. If it was too big, the people in the heartlands would have jack over shiat and would likely leave at the first opprotunity. If other countries could get this resource elsewhere for cheaper, the government is making no revenue. Of course, if "government workers" included everyone, from waitresses to chefs to CEOs, then technically no money EVER leaves the government, unless that currency somehow leaves the country via travel, which, in that scenario, would possibly be considered smuggling or a related crime. If stores, restaraunts, etc, remain OUTSIDE of governmental employ, then guess what? Government employees pay for goods and services from restaraunts, stores, etc. which then pay taxes on those sales, and then pay their workers, who then pay taxes. Now, what would happen if all those government employees were fired, ESPECIALLY in an economic situation as this one? That's a LOT of freshly-jobless people, no longer able to spend money, which means less taxes from sales, which are happening less often; this leads to layoffs in the private sector, which leads to less income tax. Of course, and this is farking important, infrastructure jobs (and some additional bureaucracy jobs) would lead to MORE sales, and MORE income tax. And, according to what I am assuming is your capitalist dogma, more demand means more hiring in the private sector, which leads to more recovery. That means that your little "LES PUBLIK SEKTUR JERBS!" tripe is actively causing harm. There's a balance here, and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's more unstable in the "too much" direction than it really is.

mrshowrules: WombatControl: mrshowrules: Explain to me how I have less choice than you when I can go to any doctor, clinic, specialist or hospital in Canada tomorrow and not pay a cent. It doesn't have to be pre-approved by anyone.

Do you have an insurance policy that gives you that type of choice?

You can go into any doctor's office in Canada - and get on the waiting list. Remember, wait times in Canada got so bad that the Canadian Supreme Court called them a violation of human rights and mandated that private insurance had to be allowed.

Single payer countries have slightly shorter waiting periods on average than the US. Canada's being slightly longer than the US for elective procedures. What is the waiting period for a knee replacement in the US if you have no insurance coverage?

I have a friend who had to have her artificial hip replaced due to recall. The metal levels in her blood were so high it was deemed urgent by her Dr. She had to wait a month for the surgery. Yep everything is perfect with health care in the good old USA.

They must be getting pro tips from Fark Liberals ^(TM)

coco ebert: What about those to the left of Obama?

Personally, I like the idea of voting for Bernie Sanders for president, but he'd never win a national election. If you're to the left of Obama and you support Romney or an unelectable third party candidate, you might end up with a president who will disappoint you even more than Obama.

They are already placing the blame on Republicans and their dishonesty, brutal campaign tactics, abandonment of principles, obstinance and just plain gratuitous opposition for opposition's sake as the reasons for the sinking of the righteous Obama ship, bigotry in all forms, including but not limited to homophobia, racism, sexism, and actively promoting warfare based on that; attempting to establish a theocracy; and demonizing anyone who calls them on it.

Added that in for ya. Also, the best part?

You've done every single one.

FrailChild: Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan


Says the man who raised taxes over 15 times, including the largest tax increases in history

Hypocrite, thy name is Republican.

Try living in this deep red state. Been around people that go beyond calling him a muslim, or kenyan, they outright call him the N-bomb president.

Keep telling me it's not about racism.

Now, AE shills for me:

s2s2s2: Now, AE shills for me:
[americanextremists.thecomicseries.com image 421x543]

That implies that Mitt Romney is a liberal. Which is completely moronic.

Mrtraveler01: That implies that Mitt Romney is a liberal. Which is completely moronic.

No it doesn't. It implies that too many people don't realize they are deciding between a conservative, and an arch conservative. The key there is "helps". You think a vote for a third party "helps" a conservative. The question then becomes "which one?"

s2s2s2: Mrtraveler01: That implies that Mitt Romney is a liberal. Which is completely moronic.

No it doesn't. It implies that too many people don't realize they are deciding between a conservative, and an arch conservative. The key there is "helps". You think a vote for a third party "helps" a conservative. The question then becomes "which one?"

The arch conservative.

Unless we go to a parliamentary system (which will never happen although I kinda wish it would), we won't have a sustainable third party like other countries do.

That's why I pick the lesser of two evils, which in this case is Obama. Because Romney will just be a yes man to every right-wing interest. At least with Obama, that won't be the case.

s2s2s2: Mrtraveler01: That implies that Mitt Romney is a liberal. Which is completely moronic.

No it doesn't. It implies that too many people don't realize they are deciding between a conservative, and an arch conservative. The key there is "helps". You think a vote for a third party "helps" a conservative. The question then becomes "which one?"

Hey, you actually posted one that wasn't farking retarded.