If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Does it really matter? They were just going to write-in Ron Paul   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, write-ins, absentee ballots, Shindad Air Base, election officials, hanging chads, disfranchisements, Palm Beach County, cargo aircraft  
•       •       •

4381 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 09:03:49 AM
Man, the GOP is getting desperate.
 
2012-10-27 09:05:56 AM
We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat
 
2012-10-27 09:06:03 AM
You mean the postal service in a war zone sometimes has issues?
 
2012-10-27 09:06:16 AM
The comments on that article are full of the crazy. Not that I expected differently...
 
2012-10-27 09:06:46 AM
That's making a broad assumption, subby - what if some of them were going to vote for "Lizard People"?
 
2012-10-27 09:09:29 AM

hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat


Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it.
 
2012-10-27 09:13:12 AM
Screw sending a new ballot to anyone who requests one: send every American in that zip code a new ballot.
 
2012-10-27 09:20:38 AM
Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.
 
2012-10-27 09:22:18 AM

borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.


Chill.
 
2012-10-27 09:30:04 AM
 
2012-10-27 09:36:30 AM
Completely unrelated Benghazi WHAAARRRGARBL.

Just wanted to get it out of the way.
 
2012-10-27 09:36:38 AM

EngineerAU: You mean the postal service in a war zone sometimes has issues?


You would've never seen this type of trouble had FedEx been contracted!

/This is what deregulation advocates actually believe.
 
2012-10-27 09:36:59 AM

casual disregard: Anyone serving overseas can get essential voting assistance information at FVAP.gov.


For a second I read that as FAP.gov - talk about something both parties could agree on.
 
2012-10-27 09:37:28 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.


FTFT.
 
2012-10-27 09:38:23 AM
Yahoo comments make Youtube comments look like literary dissertations.
 
2012-10-27 09:39:51 AM

borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.


Gary Johnson *is* running, and you don't even have to write his name in in 48 states, so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name..

The only wasted votes are those cast for someone you don't agree with.

/swing state Johnson voter
 
2012-10-27 09:46:32 AM
Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?
 
2012-10-27 09:49:28 AM

GanjSmokr: ...so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-27 09:49:51 AM

badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?


I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.
 
2012-10-27 09:51:49 AM

IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.


If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%
 
2012-10-27 09:52:21 AM

badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?


No, no, no. Do not listen to this man. If you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president, please feel free to write in RON PAUL. Encourage your like-minded friends and family to do the same.
 
2012-10-27 09:54:07 AM
We all know how the gop loves to get rid of it's problems with a convenient plane crash.
 
2012-10-27 10:00:26 AM
Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?
 
2012-10-27 10:02:57 AM
What's funny here is that this is actual (albeit accidental) voter disenfranchisement yet the type of people that scream about it the loudest when they think that it's more likely that it will negatively effect their point of view are now making light of it because they think that it will help their point of view. It's quite telling.

I agree with Lunaville and say send them all a new one. Duplicates will be tossed at the counting stations anyway as absentee ballots are all identified by name on the inner flap of the envelope. First one in will be the one that is counted.
 
2012-10-27 10:03:46 AM
Ron Paul!!


WWWAAAAHRGAAARBLLLE!!!!
 
2012-10-27 10:05:45 AM

The Great EZE: badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?

I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.


No head'asplodin here - I'm perfectly fine with whoever people vote for as long as they've actually done research on the issues and the candidates.

The people I have a problem with are the people that cast a vote *against* the other guy - no matter their agreement/disagreement with the candidate they're voting for, or the people that vote for a candidate based purely on one issue (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc) and don't pay any attention to any other issues.

I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."
 
2012-10-27 10:10:43 AM

GanjSmokr: borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.

Gary Johnson *is* running, and you don't even have to write his name in in 48 states, so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name..

The only wasted votes are those cast for someone you don't agree with.

/swing state Johnson voter


Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes, partly because some of the people who would have voted for Gore had those two been the only guys on the ticket heeded your advice and voted for this guy instead:
upload.wikimedia.org
so remember that no matter how many names are on the ballot and how much you actually agree with the also-rans, you've really only got two choices.

So if you live in a swing state, especially Ohio and Florida, vote not for the candidate whose stances on the issues you most agree with, but for which of the two major-party candidates you would rather have within arm's distance of the Big Red Button. And vote as if your life, the lives of everybody you know and love, and the lives of every living creature on the face of the Earth depend on it, because the outcome of this election will likely determine whether or not World War Three happens in the very near future.

/100% serious
//early voting in Florida began either 3 or 2 hours ago, depending on where you live
///will vote either later today or tomorrow
 
2012-10-27 10:12:43 AM

hasty ambush: About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%


The Military Times polls exclusively measure the active duty vote. There are over 60,000 Guard and Reserves currently mobilized - you'll generally find more political balance among the reserve components. Another thing that isn't measured - a very disproportionate number of servicemembers are from safely Red states in the first place.

The military absentee vote simply isn't going to affect swing states one way or the other. I wouldn't look for conspiracy on either side - just chalk it up to the utter and total lack of cooperation and planning on the part of large bureaucracies. This happens every election cycle, and they're stunned by it every time.

crab66: Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?


Don't ever do that.

I spent about a week playing around in Yahoo comments last month... never thought I could do anything about the hardcore loonies - just thought some actual facts and data would help influence the younger kids in there who probably don't know any better. I couldn't sleep the first two nights. So I changed my strategy from "reason and logic" to "openly mocking and making funny jokes at their expense." It still didn't help - I had to just give up on it completely.

As much as some of the usual trolls on Fark drive us crazy, they've taken barely two sips of Kool-Aid compared to Yahoo. Most of those commenters seem to be drinking it from a fire hose.
 
2012-10-27 10:13:23 AM

GanjSmokr: The Great EZE: badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?

I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.

No head'asplodin here - I'm perfectly fine with whoever people vote for as long as they've actually done research on the issues and the candidates.

The people I have a problem with are the people that cast a vote *against* the other guy - no matter their agreement/disagreement with the candidate they're voting for, or the people that vote for a candidate based purely on one issue (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc) and don't pay any attention to any other issues.

I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."


Stop worrying so much about what other people do.

It's none of your farking business.
 
2012-10-27 10:13:59 AM

hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%


That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.
 
2012-10-27 10:15:00 AM
I've been busy getting conservatives to vote for GARY JOHNSON instead of Romney. I lay out the reasons why Romney sucks balls, then say something like "if you don't like Obama, that's fine, but GARY JOHNSON may be a very good alternative". You would be shocked at how many people actually, once they listen, don't like Romney and would rather vote for an alternative. Remember kids, every vote that shiatt doesn't get is best.
 
2012-10-27 10:15:55 AM

clkeagle: hasty ambush: About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

The Military Times polls exclusively measure the active duty vote. There are over 60,000 Guard and Reserves currently mobilized - you'll generally find more political balance among the reserve components. Another thing that isn't measured - a very disproportionate number of servicemembers are from safely Red states in the first place.

The military absentee vote simply isn't going to affect swing states one way or the other. I wouldn't look for conspiracy on either side - just chalk it up to the utter and total lack of cooperation and planning on the part of large bureaucracies. This happens every election cycle, and they're stunned by it every time.

crab66: Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?

Don't ever do that.

I spent about a week playing around in Yahoo comments last month... never thought I could do anything about the hardcore loonies - just thought some actual facts and data would help influence the younger kids in there who probably don't know any better. I couldn't sleep the first two nights. So I changed my strategy from "reason and logic" to "openly mocking and making funny jokes at their expense." It still didn't help - I had to just give up on it completely.

As much as some of the usual trolls on Fark drive us crazy, they've taken barely two sips of Kool-Aid compared to Yahoo. Most of those commenters seem to be drinking it from a fire hose.


I take pride in how many down votes my comments get. The more fact-baswed and rational, the more down thumbs it gets. Kinda sad.
 
2012-10-27 10:16:18 AM
Of the few military guys I know, most of them seem to be leaning towards Obama. The one thing I heard mentioned more than once was that they felt he was trying to work towards a peacetime strategy and they liked that. They also mentioned their concern that Romney would take us straight into a war with Iran.

Granted... I don't know a whole lot of active military folks, but that's what I got from the ones that I do.
 
2012-10-27 10:19:12 AM

King Something: GanjSmokr: borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.

Gary Johnson *is* running, and you don't even have to write his name in in 48 states, so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name..

The only wasted votes are those cast for someone you don't agree with.

/swing state Johnson voter

Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes, partly because some of the people who would have voted for Gore had those two been the only guys on the ticket heeded your advice and voted for this guy instead:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 245x290]
so remember that no matter how many names are on the ballot and how much you actually agree with the also-rans, you've really only got two choices.

So if you live in a swing state, especially Ohio and Florida, vote not for the candidate whose stances on the issues you most agree with, but for which of the two major-party candidates you would rather have within arm's distance of the Big Red Button. And vote as if your life, the lives of everybody you know and love, and the lives of every living creature on the face of the Earth depend on it, because the outcome of this election will likely determine whether or not World War Three happens in the very near future.

/100% serious
//early voting in Florida began either 3 or 2 hours ago, depending on where you live
///will vote either later today or tomorrow


The bolded part is where we disagree completely.

You tell me to vote for the person I agree with *most* out of the 2 majors. According to my results at http://www.isidewith.com, I side with GJ 95% and both O/R ~50%.

I will not vote against my morals to make someone else happier with my vote. If one of the major candidates loses by a close margin, that's their own damned fault, not mine.
 
2012-10-27 10:19:16 AM

King Something: GanjSmokr: borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.

Gary Johnson *is* running, and you don't even have to write his name in in 48 states, so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name..

The only wasted votes are those cast for someone you don't agree with.

/swing state Johnson voter

Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes, partly because some of the people who would have voted for Gore had those two been the only guys on the ticket heeded your advice and voted for this guy instead:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 245x290]
so remember that no matter how many names are on the ballot and how much you actually agree with the also-rans, you've really only got two choices.

So if you live in a swing state, especially Ohio and Florida, vote not for the candidate whose stances on the issues you most agree with, but for which of the two major-party candidates you would rather have within arm's distance of the Big Red Button. And vote as if your life, the lives of everybody you know and love, and the lives of every living creature on the face of the Earth depend on it, because the outcome of this election will likely determine whether or not World War Three happens in the very near future.

/100% serious
//early voting in Florida began either 3 or 2 hours ago, depending on where you live
///will vote either later today or tomorrow


THIS. It's scary that our future literally lies in the hands of just a few idiots. We've got two very clear choices and these idiots don't know who to vote for yet.
 
2012-10-27 10:19:20 AM

crab66: Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?


Apparently it was so I could have a small laugh of wry recognition.

thanks for taking the hit!
 
2012-10-27 10:22:05 AM

clkeagle: crab66: Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?

Don't ever do that.

I spent about a week playing around in Yahoo comments last month... never thought I could do anything about the hardcore loonies - just thought some actual facts and data would help influence the younger kids in there who probably don't know any better. I couldn't sleep the first two nights. So I changed my strategy from "reason and logic" to "openly mocking and making funny jokes at their expense." It still didn't help - I had to just give up on it completely.

As much as some of the usual trolls on Fark drive us crazy, they've taken barely two sips of Kool-Aid compared to Yahoo. Most of those commenters seem to be drinking it from a fire hose.


I'm just wondering when Yahoo as a news outlet stopped being part of the "Liberal" media. I have a throwaway E-mail address on yahoo and whenever I go to clean it up there's always some bearish factually-dubious headline about Obama that would make even the most dedicated Fark Concern Troll stop and take notes. I'm not expecting hearts and rainbows regarding the President, but maybe they could not be so obvious about the manipulation of reality.

Today I learned Obama's going to lose the election because an AP poll found more americans prejudiced against blacks than 4 years ago. The other day Obama was going to lose because some celebrity put out a video in favor of him. Earlier than that Obama was going to lose because Romney is a shameless flip-flopper.
 
2012-10-27 10:22:32 AM

Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: The Great EZE: badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?

I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.

No head'asplodin here - I'm perfectly fine with whoever people vote for as long as they've actually done research on the issues and the candidates.

The people I have a problem with are the people that cast a vote *against* the other guy - no matter their agreement/disagreement with the candidate they're voting for, or the people that vote for a candidate based purely on one issue (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc) and don't pay any attention to any other issues.

I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."

Stop worrying so much about what other people do.

It's none of your farking business.


Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.
 
2012-10-27 10:29:01 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.


Blatant racism? In an organization with a disproportionate number of minorities and no way to choose who you share a foxhole with? You'll find more racists in whitebread rural parts of northern states than you will in the military today.

73% Bush, 18% Kerry. Link

2000 was something like 84% Bush, 15% Gore. Can't find any sources because all my Google searches come up with are "stolen election" articles about the lost absentee ballots.

The military is sliding closer to balance. Two continuous warzones and increased education benefits are the biggest contributors. A growing number are also paying attention to what the parties actually do. Republicans "support the troops" by shoving overpriced, unusable garbage like the F-22 down our throat (see also "smallest navy since WWI"). But the second anyone talks about reducing the defense budget by a single percentage point, they go after troop pay and benefits instead of reducing acquisition contracts.

Democrats, on the other hand, have done more for veteran health and employment in the last ten years than Republicans have since Eisenhower. They also care about quality of life for current military - the major increases in troop pay during W's administration were signed into law by Clinton. Reagan and Bush had kept military pay down well below civilian equivalents.
 
2012-10-27 10:31:47 AM

trotsky: I've been busy getting conservatives to vote for GARY JOHNSON instead of Romney. I lay out the reasons why Romney sucks balls, then say something like "if you don't like Obama, that's fine, but GARY JOHNSON may be a very good alternative". You would be shocked at how many people actually, once they listen, don't like Romney and would rather vote for an alternative. Remember kids, every vote that shiatt doesn't get is best.


There are also a lot of libertarian liberals that think Johnson is a good alternative. They feel very strongly about their right to smoke pot. VOTE GARY JOHNSON!
 
2012-10-27 10:33:07 AM

GanjSmokr: I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."


On the other hand, I think it is perfectly fair to vote strategically for a major candidate who you agree on a lot or some subjects but not others while the opposing major candidate you disagree on most or all subjects, rather than a third party candidate who you agree mostly with but has an extremely low chance to win.

Our system of voting in the US ensures that the strategically optimal way to vote to maximize the chance of getting the most issues you care about on the forefront is to vote for the one of the two major party candidates who is closest to your position. The exception being when the two major party candidates don't differ in any way that matters to you, then you have nothing to lose by voting third party.
 
2012-10-27 10:33:15 AM

GanjSmokr: Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.


Kiddo? Seriously?

Good grief.
 
2012-10-27 10:35:33 AM

The Great EZE: I'm just wondering when Yahoo as a news outlet stopped being part of the "Liberal" media. I have a throwaway E-mail address on yahoo and whenever I go to clean it up there's always some bearish factually-dubious headline about Obama that would make even the most dedicated Fark Concern Troll stop and take notes. I'm not expecting hearts and rainbows regarding the President, but maybe they could not be so obvious about the manipulation of reality.

Today I learned Obama's going to lose the election because an AP poll found more americans prejudiced against blacks than 4 years ago. The other day Obama was going to lose because some celebrity put out a video in favor of him. Earlier than that Obama was going to lose because Romney is a shameless flip-flopper.


That's been driving me crazy lately. I still hear many die-hard Republicans refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network." CNN and Yahoo have been firmly in the Republicans' pocket for at least four years now. The sensationalism of electing the first black president has faded, so now they're only interested in paying the bills. They also refer to MSNBC as "the most liberal of all liberal news outlets." MSNBC would have been considered right-of-center even in the 80s.

Think about what would happen if a Republican candidate ran on a modernized version of Eisenhower's platform and policies. You'd hear the words "socialist" and "communist" so much that you'd think Red Dawn was on TV.
 
2012-10-27 10:36:55 AM

Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.

Kiddo? Seriously?

Good grief.


Yes, seriously. And "Good grief"?? Who are you, Charlie Brown?
 
2012-10-27 10:39:15 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.


in WWII, soldiers probably voted overwhelmingly for FDR, but it's completely irrelevant to this election.

I can see McCain's popularity as he was an actual veteran with a notable service record, but why would they possibly support Uncle Pennybags? Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.
 
2012-10-27 10:41:52 AM

GanjSmokr: Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.

Kiddo? Seriously?

Good grief.

Yes, seriously. And "Good grief"?? Who are you, Charlie Brown?


Maybe I am Charlie Brown.

What of it?
 
2012-10-27 10:42:24 AM

Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.

Kiddo? Seriously?

Good grief.


Don't worry, it's not just you, I think pretty much everyone who read that deducted about 15 IQ points from their estimation of him.
 
2012-10-27 10:47:51 AM

Gwyrddu: GanjSmokr: I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."

On the other hand, I think it is perfectly fair to vote strategically for a major candidate who you agree on a lot or some subjects but not others while the opposing major candidate you disagree on most or all subjects, rather than a third party candidate who you agree mostly with but has an extremely low chance to win.

Our system of voting in the US ensures that the strategically optimal way to vote to maximize the chance of getting the most issues you care about on the forefront is to vote for the one of the two major party candidates who is closest to your position. The exception being when the two major party candidates don't differ in any way that matters to you, then you have nothing to lose by voting third party.


I decided there was just too much I don't approve of with both O/R that I couldn't vote for either and be happy with myself.

I don't care for our drones over other countries dropping bombs on groups of people who we're pretty sure are terr'ists. From what I've seen, neither of the majors will stop that practice.

I don't care for provisions in the NDAA. Again, neither of the majors will do anything about that - they like their power too much.

As my name says, I like to smoke the devil weed. I know that both of the majors are going to continue the war on drugs.

Those are all pretty important issues to me. On all those issues as well as many others, Gary Johnson shares my views of what should change. That's why he got my vote. And I didn't have to feel dirty afterwards.
 
2012-10-27 10:50:22 AM

Great_Milenko: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.

in WWII, soldiers probably voted overwhelmingly for FDR, but it's completely irrelevant to this election.

I can see McCain's popularity as he was an actual veteran with a notable service record, but why would they possibly support Uncle Pennybags? Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.


They don't care how much money he has. They know he will protect American lives and not abandon them under fire.
 
2012-10-27 10:52:37 AM

Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.

Kiddo? Seriously?

Good grief.

Yes, seriously. And "Good grief"?? Who are you, Charlie Brown?

Maybe I am Charlie Brown.

What of it?


I liked most of your holiday television specials but I never cared so much for your comic strip.


theinsultabot9000: Tor_Eckman: GanjSmokr: Stop worrying so much about what I worry about if it bothers you that much, kiddo.

Kiddo? Seriously?

Good grief.

Don't worry, it's not just you, I think pretty much everyone who read that deducted about 15 IQ points from their estimation of him.

Only

15? I'll take the hit. It was all in fun.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report