kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#407,551
I'm registered for the green party and voted for Obama. Though he's filthy, so is every other politician and Romney is possibly the anti christ.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,553
What is wrong with being the anti christ?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,555
@previous (C)
Possibly nothing lol. I feel like Mitt Romney is an evil, and rich man who has no idea of what the "common man" goes through, but feels like he's been appointed by god to rule the unwashed masses.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,556
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You knows what its like for the common manwoman to go through.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,557
@previous (D)
lol He was born wearing a platinum jock strap.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,559
Both presidential choices sucked total fucking ass.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 33 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,561
@407,551 (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > Romney is possibly the anti christ
Please don't slander the Antichrist like that. :(
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,563
@407,551 (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > Though he's filthy, so is every other politician and Romney is possibly the anti christ.
Why the anti-Christ? I mean he's a chameleon who tries to change his views to whatever he thinks will work, but he's no worse in that regard than say Bill Clinton. He doesn't murder kittens for lulz or anything.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,568
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Bill Clinton wasn't born a millionaire, who was also a higher up in a church that directly worked against abortions, and didnt call himself a "Christian" while worshipping a whoremonger. He just wouldnt stop fucking.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,572
And no he murders kittens to survive. He consumes there life force and fashions tanning oil from their fat.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,573
@407,568 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Well, being born into wealth is morally neutral. And a lot of churches are against abortion. I'd probably say the Catholics have more power than the Mormons in that regard. And what is wrong with polygamy among consenting adults?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,575
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I'd say that being a rich leader of a church is never morally neutral. I'd have a problem with a very rich Catholic running for president and acting in that manor as well. I also have no moral problem with polygamy is long as its consensual.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,576
@407,573 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Oh you were referring to Joseph Smith? My problem with him was that he was a
liar who cheated people out of money by using glorified witchcraft. he also basically excommunicated a man who accused him of cheating on his wife (which was true), but also sent men away and took their wives, and claimed that they had been married to him first in heaven. He also claimed that he could read High Egyptian and falsely translated ancient writings by this culture, to spread more tall tales.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,578
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
No, I was referring to how Romney was born into wealth. I wouldn't call Romney a "higher up" in the Mormon church though. He was a stake president which is the rough equivalent of a parish priest. He was (probably still is) a big opinion leader in the LDS church but was only a minor, regional (county) leader in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
The state of Massachusetts has four LDS stakes (kind of like Catholic parishes) and Romney was president of one, to put it in perspective.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 19 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,584
@407,581 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney has a lot of influence on Mormons but he's not like the Mormon pope or anything.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 59 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,602
Mitt Romney was also a downright hilarious choice to fix the job problem. How could anyone place their trust on this issue in a man who used to make a living firing people?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,605
@previous (H)
He also would say that government cant make jobs, but he would be able to do so if he was president.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,606
@407,551 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Also, if both major presidential candidates were bad, why vote at all?
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,611
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Because then you'd be an apathetic cynic. You might as well vote for the candidate you feel is the least shite, or even for that crazy fringe politician you like, if that's what you really want.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,612
@407,606 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
To pick the lesser of two evils. By not voting, the worse person (Romney) might have won. It wouldn't be worth that to prove a point.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,614
@407,606 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Would you really want a man called the "corporation killer" to be able to be the president? Seriously?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,617
@407,612 (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > To pick the lesser of two evils. By not voting, the worse person (Romney) might have won. It wouldn't be worth that to prove a point.
The lesser of two evils mindset perpetuates the two party problem. There will be no real change as long as everyone keeps voting for the less bad Red/Blue team. In fact, voting for a candidate who won't win (Perot in 96, Nader in 2000) sends a message to the parties that they need to change in order to get more votes. It's a vote of no confidence. Also, unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter terribly much due to the way the Electoral College works. @previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Obama has been called far worse. All I know is, Obama fellates the Wall St. banksters and blows up kids in Afghanistan just as well as Romney could.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,618
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
There is no option for I dont want either of them. You still have to pick one, and Romney seemed like the worse choice, and had no knowledge of the common man.
Sends a message. Okay.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,645
Fuck it I'm done trying to talk about politics on this fora. Everyone is a hipster Democrat who loves Obama.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,646
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
What is it you want out of political discussion here?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,647
@previous (I)
I don't know. I was trying to make some vague point in favor of free markets and civil rights.
Biden-Clinton 2016
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,648
@407,618 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I'm not angry at you or anything. I've just been up all night and got angry about not being able to find enough documentation to prove a point in the Ron Paul WIPO domain name dispute argument in that other thread. But you're right, Romney doesn't know the common man. Sorry for the outburst.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 17 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,649
@407,645 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Don't you think it's a little pretentious to assume that people only vote for Obama to be hip instead of feeling that they have legitimate reasons to vote for him?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,650
@previous (H)
Like I said, I'm done trying to argue the libertarian thing. Obama's awesome.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,651
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Not necessarily, some just see him as the best choice present and don't like any of the alternative parties like the libertarians. Were I eligible to vote in your fine elections, I'd vote for Obama despite being aware of the man's flaws, since the information I have presents him as the best candidate.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,682
I love how American politics boils down to "who's less of a cunt?"