One more time, Todd are you going to be voting for BO in Nov?

I thought you cherished the 2nd Amendment ?

Sol Duc,

What bet did you settle on regarding POTUS? And with who?

I'm definitely voting for Obama over Romney.

I'm not a one issue voter, but if I were, here's one issue enough:

I think that the Citizens United case is one of the worst things that the SCOTUS has ever done, ever, in the history of our democracy.

Three Supreme Court justices are likely to retire during the next President's term.

Romney will appoint more who support Citizens United, Obama will appoint more who will vote to overturn it.

That right there is reason enough, all other issues aside.

The fact that Romney is also one hundred percent backasswards on every social issue (at least he is today, who knows where he'll be tomorrow), would not have gone into Pakistan after OBL, and would have let Detroit die, are all more good reasons.

His "economic plan" is just a re-hash of trickle down economics, they just call it "allowing the job creators to create jobs" this time...but it's the same ol' bullschit that gave money to the very rich with no benefits whatsoever to the rest of us.

Fish on...

Todd

That right there is huge for the winner of this next election. I'm not excited about Romney, to me he's BO 2.0. The plus side is he will attract a lot of Independents which will decide this race

One more time, Sol Duc, what bet did you settle on regarding POTUS? And with who?

Pretty sure it was with me, and a one month posting ban was the stakes

It's not huge for the winner...it's huge for America and Americans.

If you like that the richest few can buy the election for their desired candidate, then vote for Romney and Citizens United, and the idea that corporations are people, too.

I'll believe that when they start putting them in jail when they rip us off.

Romney isn't attracting any independents...not sure where you got that idea...and with his far right shenanigans to prove he's a "severe conservative" in order to get voters to hold their noses and pick him in the primaries, he's done exactly the opposite of what he needs to do, which is win independent voters in order to win the race.

With his stand on corporations, immigration, abortion, and gay rights he is going to lose independents, and then lose the election.

That's what happens when Republicans let the lunatic fringe become your voting base...you have to act like a lunatic to win the primary (how else can you explain Santorum even being on stage, much less finishing second?), and then spend the rest of the election explaining how you were just pretending to be a lunatic.

Fish on...

Todd

Todds post about the supreme court justices retiring does not hold as much weight as we would like. Being seated for life, many will just vegetate rather than let a president replace them with someone who will be on the other side.

This election is so messed up, I may abstain, as I can not vote for Romney for a number of reasons, and will not vote for 4 more years of Obama.

What really bothers me is the amount of Republicans that attacked Obama on his choice of Church, but suddenly think religion should have nothing to do with politics when it Romney. Would they feel the same if Obama suddenly admitted he was a Muslim. The truth is, everyone wants to us to believe that their religion is main stream and its a non-issue. When you try to question that, then they get upset. But if it is main stream and a non-issue, then that is what it is. Nothing, and I believe nothing, tells us more about a person in 30 seconds or less than his choice of Religion. From pagan to conservative Christian, we can draw all kinds of conclusions. Next we can try to find out if these claimed convictions are true. If anyone had believed that Kennedy believed the Pope was God's direct voice on earth, he never could have won.

In this election, We have Romney claiming to be a true Mormon, and most christians, the same ones that have claimed it was a cult for years, suddenly embracing that fact. He's moral, a good family man, etc. but lets ask the real question. Do you believe the following statement, "Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus, under the direction of Heavenly Father, leads the church by revealing His will to its president, whom adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator", and if so, how will you regard his opinion when it comes to policy. In the old Testament, when the leaders ignored the voice of the prophets, the nation was punished. Do you believe the same or is your conviction different then what you and your church claim?

Of course, by asking this question, I am a bigot and hate Mormons. His religion has nothing to do with this election, unless of course, he is a ....... Then we will attack him to no end.

So, in the end, Ron Paul or none of the above is looking real good.
In my perfect world we would have the pragmatic party. The one that looks at the real world and readily admits its convictions come from the majorities will and the world solutions rather than idealogical dreams.

I think, depending on who is elected and when, you can expect to see Ginsburg, Breyer, and Scalia all step down in the next few years...and in spite of them being "non-partisan", we all know that is only a paper designation.

Fish on...

Todd

Given his betting history, I think you're going to want to confirm that in a very public way with him. Have you considered upping the stakes from a month to, say, a year?

Thanks for the reminder, I forgot about that. You don't post much so you'll be ok :>)

I also have a 20.00 dollar bet with Dan, with the money going to WSC.

KriJack

Great post. Well reasoned and evenhanded. Sure wish there were more like that on here.

TFF.

Coming from the bastion of bipartisan 'evenhandedness'....sure wish you could be more like that which your illusions associate yourself with.

BTW...congrats on getting the balls to come back to the dark side. I figured that with your boy getting his a ss wooped you'd continue tucking tail.

Thanks for proving my point.

I have no idea who "my boy" is.

I decided to post less here simply because it seems such a waste of time, when so few on either side of most issues are inclined to hold discussions vs simply tossing around silly insults. A few here do try to discuss issues. Hankster can and does - occassionally, Salmo G, Aunty - occassionally, Dogfish, Stam, Chuck S - and a few others. But many just want to be obnoxious rather than have a serious discussion. I have no problem with that. i just have better things to do.

Krijack simply stated his views and his logic with no insults. I thought that was refreshing. I will continue to read posts from those who I feel have something to say.

As if you've ever attempted a 'serious' discussion on the dark side....you like your insults as much as anyone, it's just that you think you're untouchable and a little more coy (chickenchit) about hurling them. Keep kissin' a ss Dave. We know who your boy is and you know who your boy is. He's the one you constantly defend regardless of issue. You may fool yourself and some others here but your dopey-nice guy schtick doesn't fool the rest of us.

It's funny how butt-hurt you get at times..but KK and his comments only get you wetter.

You're a slippery ol'phvck ain't ya?

yup pretty much this. rvw is my new hero. so dave go home and get your fvckin shine box

FOAD

There he is.

Your left side profile (in your avatar) is hotter than chit. Has your left cheek lost weight? I hope you don't have cancer...