Anyone voting for Romney after hating on EV's in debates?

[auraslip]

Seems like he name checked Tesla once or twice in multiple debates as wasteful government spending.

I'd like to hear thoughts from conservatives and people working in the industry about that. Is it Mitt just saying what ever he needs to get elected, or does he actually believe "battery powered cars" are dumb?

 

[liveforphysics]

Anyone voting for Romney or Obama needs to get there head checked.

 

[fizzit]

Anyone voting for Romney or Obama needs to get there head checked.

Or they don't feel like throwing away their vote on a third party candidate that has absolutely no chance of being elected.

 

[Harold in CR]

Or they don't feel like throwing away their vote on a third party candidate that has absolutely no chance of being elected

And you don't feel that voting for either of the 2 "official" candidates is throwing your vote away. ?

Ross Perot didn't miss by much in getting elected to the Presidency.

Funny, when Jesse Ventura was elected, enough people threw away their vote to make it happen for him ?? He was completely out of the picture, before he entered the debates??

And people constantly ask me why I moved to CR

 

[neptronix]

Anyone voting for Romney or Obama needs to get there head checked.

Or they don't feel like throwing away their vote on a third party candidate that has absolutely no chance of being elected.

Lol.. If you like the results of >200 years of the 2 party system, then that's fine. I understand why you'd want to vote for them. If you are voting for them because you're scared of the other party ( who will take power in the next 4-8 years anyway ), then you are truly wasting your vote by ignoring another candidate outside the 2 party system that you would favor.

So yeah, if more war, more debt, more inflation, bigger police state, no answers to fixing the economy is exactly what you want, then go for it.

But if you are against those things, all 4 of the big 3rd party candidates agree that the above are serious problems that need addressing. But they will never be brought up in the 2 party debates. How do you feel about big bird or the GM bailouts? that's what's really important!

You can think of it another way though - if your intent is to hasten the demise of our country by voting for the 2 party system, then i totally understand why you'd want to do that. I'd rather see a republican or democrat steer the titanic straight into an iceberg rather than have someone actually try to fix it and fail such an insurmountable task.

Maybe fiddling while Rome burns is the best option.

 

[veloman]

Ron Paul

 

[neptronix]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not on the ballot. I understand why you would want to write him in, but i don't think the votes for him would get counted.

If you are a libertarian, then Gary Johnson is your man.

[youtube]e0vE5CTTSFI[/youtube]

^-- here is the big 3rd party debate that went down just a few days ago. Moderated by Larry King, and i believe it was shown on C-SPAN.

 

[dak664]

I'm going to write in Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Blackpool Rock Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable Brrroooo Norman Michael (rings bell) (blows whistle) Edward (sounds car horn) (does train impersonation) (sounds buzzer) Thomas Moo... (sings) "We'll keep a welcome in the..." (fires gun) William (makes silly noise) "Raindrops keep falling on my" (weird noise) "Don't sleep in the subway" (cuckoo cuckoo) Naaoooo... Smith.

Got to keep these alternative parties viable!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU (Monty Python election night skit)

 

[fizzit]

Lol.. If you like the results of >200 years of the 2 party system, then that's fine. I understand why you'd want to vote for them. If you are voting for them because you're scared of the other party ( who will take power in the next 4-8 years anyway ), then you are truly wasting your vote by ignoring another candidate outside the 2 party system that you would favor.

So yeah, if more war, more debt, more inflation, bigger police state, no answers to fixing the economy is exactly what you want, then go for it.

But if you are against those things, all 4 of the big 3rd party candidates agree that the above are serious problems that need addressing. But they will never be brought up in the 2 party debates. How do you feel about big bird or the GM bailouts? that's what's really important!

You can think of it another way though - if your intent is to hasten the demise of our country by voting for the 2 party system, then i totally understand why you'd want to do that. I'd rather see a republican or democrat steer the titanic straight into an iceberg rather than have someone actually try to fix it and fail such an insurmountable task.

Maybe fiddling while Rome burns is the best option.

There are third party candidates that I would much prefer to vote for over the big two. However, at this point in the election, it would be quite clear if one of the third party candidates had a chance at the election. I will support them in other ways to give them a better chance the next time around. Meanwhile, I care enough about the difference between the two big candidates that I feel that it's important for me to make a choice between the two.

 

[Philistine]

You guys don't need a third party, you just need some decent policies for your country, here are my suggestions:

- Legalise all drugs (this way we in the rest of the world can be freed of your punishing 301 trade process when we dare to violate your stupid internationally mandated drug laws, like when we tried to build a proper opium/pharm industry in Tasmania or a hemp industry), but tax all of them (the sale of untaxed drugs would be as illegal as selling tobacco or moonshine, so they would be illegal still in that regards, and all those fat cuntards you employ in the ATF would still have their dumb jobs....
- Introduce a minimum wage of say 20% above your current levels
- introduce real medicare, which is not administered by insurance companies, but is a state run operation like we have in the humane world (ie, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, Australia etc..)
- Correct the vertical fiscal imbalance between states and territories with a constitutional amendment, then cut your federal company tax rate by about 10%, increase your federal consumption tax by about 20%, but then take the difference and use it in direct payments/support to the poor or subsidies for state funded education
- reduce your defence budget by 20%
-reduce your intelligence budget in relation to the following countries or contintents by 100%:
-South America
-Mexico
-Russia
-South Pacific/Australia (excluding Indonesia)
Increase your intelligence spending re the following countries/continents by 20%:
- China
-The middle east
-The near east
-Indonesia
Properly train your intelligence officers in both languages and cultural sensitivities to engage with the Middle East and Muslims, not in an aggressive way, but in understanding those mad cunts, such that you actually befriend them and can
hence control them. Let me put it this way, say a guy moves in next door to me, with a crazy passion for explosives and a deep seated suicidal hatred of me and my sweet small children, deadset, I don't declare war on the guy, I take a slab and
some sticky weed over, and if he tells me he don't roll that way, I go home and come back with tea and scones (halal), only I lose in a war with that mad f(ck.....
-Learn the joy of sausages (i mean cheap mystery bangers)
-learn the joy of real cheese
-learn the joy of real coffee
-Learn that football should be played without a helmet
-get your womens to teach the world of womens that blowjobs don't count as sex
-get your womens to learn from Aussie and British women that only prudish bitches don't give it up on the first date....

I was spitballing and now I am running out....

But by all means, think that it makes two farts of difference whether you vote for the guy in the red shirt or the blue shirt.... damn straight it does.... right?

 

[MikeFairbanks]

Romney will say anything to get elected. While Obama is weak most of the time, I don't see him as trying to do anything that he didn't specifically set out to do.

As far as alternative energy is concerned, a lot of people on the right are complaining about government grants and businesses that fail after a year or so, but that's because they are not looking at the big picture or thinking long term. Yes, there will be failures along the way, but what are we supposed to do, just rape the land, water and air to get as much energy now as possible?

Besides, as long as we spend eleven billion a month on war I can't feel outraged about a half-billion dollar grant to a solar energy company that went bankrupt. At least they tried.


I won't vote for Romney. I'd piss on him if he were on fire. I don't mind that. But he won't get my vote.

 

[IBScootn]

Only two types of republicans: billionaires and suckers!

The logical choice is Obama for e-bikers. But our republican brothers are too emotionally weak to fend off the emotional corporate brain-washing that kepts them voting against their own best interests.

Shit happens

 

[liveforphysics]

Only two types of republicans: billionaires and suckers!

A common misconception.

The big illusion is that a difference exists. They are both the bigger corporatisim party.

 

[Chalo]

Most of us here are already doing what we need to be doing about national-level politicians-- working around them, finding another way, solving problems they won't even acknowledge. Going off the grid, figuratively or even literally. The people doing this are my real countrymen. The rest, well... to hell with the rest.

Finding the way forward is what we need to keep our attention on. It doesn't matter how or whether you vote, and it hasn't for a long time. That whole process belongs to your enemy. Don't fight him on terms he dictates. Undermine him.

 

[neptronix]

Y'all have collective stochkholm syndrome if you really believe Obama or Mitt are going to do crap for you.

If you are a liberal, look into Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein.
If you are a conservative, look into Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode.
If you are in between, you'd like either Rocky Anderson or Gary Johnson.

Now please stop worshiping your corporatist socialist/fascist abusers as my forehead is getting bloody from smashing it on the desk everytime i hear you thinking that there is no other way.

There are 6 presidential candidates on the ballot, not 2.
Yes, the popular vote can override the electoral vote. It's happened before.
Yes, a third party candidate can win. Ross Perot came very close more recently.
No, a vote for xxx is not a vote for yyy. If you understand basic mathematics, a vote for xxx is a vote against all other options.

I would write Philistine in, if Gary Johnson was not on the ballot. Agree with every point!

 

[Beachcruzer]

You guys don't need a third party, you just need some decent policies for your country, here are my suggestions:

- Legalise all drugs (this way we in the rest of the world can be freed of your punishing 301 trade process when we dare to violate your stupid internationally mandated drug laws, like when we tried to build a proper opium/pharm industry in Tasmania or a hemp industry), but tax all of them (the sale of untaxed drugs would be as illegal as selling tobacco or moonshine, so they would be illegal still in that regards, and all those fat cuntards you employ in the ATF would still have their dumb jobs....
- Introduce a minimum wage of say 20% above your current levels
- introduce real medicare, which is not administered by insurance companies, but is a state run operation like we have in the humane world (ie, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, Australia etc..)
- Correct the vertical fiscal imbalance between states and territories with a constitutional amendment, then cut your federal company tax rate by about 10%, increase your federal consumption tax by about 20%, but then take the difference and use it in direct payments/support to the poor or subsidies for state funded education
- reduce your defence budget by 20%
-reduce your intelligence budget in relation to the following countries or contintents by 100%:
-South America
-Mexico
-Russia
-South Pacific/Australia (excluding Indonesia)
Increase your intelligence spending re the following countries/continents by 20%:
- China
-The middle east
-The near east
-Indonesia
Properly train your intelligence officers in both languages and cultural sensitivities to engage with the Middle East and Muslims, not in an aggressive way, but in understanding those mad cunts, such that you actually befriend them and can
hence control them. Let me put it this way, say a guy moves in next door to me, with a crazy passion for explosives and a deep seated suicidal hatred of me and my sweet small children, deadset, I don't declare war on the guy, I take a slab and
some sticky weed over, and if he tells me he don't roll that way, I go home and come back with tea and scones (halal), only I lose in a war with that mad f(ck.....
-Learn the joy of sausages (i mean cheap mystery bangers)
-learn the joy of real cheese
-learn the joy of real coffee
-Learn that football should be played without a helmet
-get your womens to teach the world of womens that blowjobs don't count as sex
-get your womens to learn from Aussie and British women that only prudish bitches don't give it up on the first date....

I was spitballing and now I am running out....

But by all means, think that it makes two farts of difference whether you vote for the guy in the red shirt or the blue shirt.... damn straight it does.... right?

Philistine I'm on board with everything but bangers and football. You are one back-dated Hawaiian birth certificate from getting my vote.

I would add one item to your list: Cut income taxes 10 percent across the board, and raise fuel taxes enough to make up that difference plus $100 billion per year. Apply the $100 billion to energy research. As soon as we get off the oil tit we can tell the middle east to take a flying frock, and our intelligence operatives can quit studying Arabic and concentrate on the blowjob problem.

But, until you get on the ballot, I'm voting for the man who steered the ship of state through the shitstorm the last guy left him, and did a pretty solid job all things considered.

 

[auraslip]

OMG. BOTH PARTIES ARE JUST AS BAD. POLITICIANS SUCK, AMIRIGHT? Look, no one thinks the two party system is good. But throwing your vote away as a political act of protest in any election isn't going to change that. That's why I'm gonna say this, and you can hate me for it all you want: people that think voting for a third party is a good idea have the political practicality and philosophy of a high schooler. Seriously. It's rude of me to say that, but it needs to be said. Especially in an election this important. How many supreme court seats are up for grabs? 2-3? Right now it's a 5-4 with conservatives leading. Say goodbye to reproductive rights if romney wins and manages to appoint enough justices. Say goodbye to decriminalization of weed. Say goodbye to gay marriage.

Shit pisses me off, but it reminds me of me when I was younger and I thought graffiting anarchy signs on the school bathroom stalls was a profound act of political disobedience.

 

[IBScootn]

Auraslip +1

 

[liveforphysics]

OMG. BOTH PARTIES ARE JUST AS BAD. POLITICIANS SUCK, AMIRIGHT? Look, no one thinks the two party system is good. But throwing your vote away as a political act of protest in any election isn't going to change that. That's why I'm gonna say this, and you can hate me for it all you want: people that think voting for a third party is a good idea have the political practicality and philosophy of a high schooler. Seriously. It's rude of me to say that, but it needs to be said. Especially in an election this important. How many supreme court seats are up for grabs? 2-3? Right now it's a 5-4 with conservatives leading. Say goodbye to reproductive rights if romney wins and manages to appoint enough justices. Say goodbye to decriminalization of weed. Say goodbye to gay marriage.

Shit pisses me off, but it reminds me of me when I was younger and I thought graffiting anarchy signs on the school bathroom stalls was a profound act of political disobedience.

You vote for the lesser of two evils, you vote for evil.

Nobody wants either of these f*cking clowns. They buy into the media driven illusion that they don't have a choice.

You're only throwing your vote away if you vote for evil when you didn't want evil.

Do you know the instant a democracy has failed? When the people don't vote for what they want, they don't vote for what best represents them, they vote for the evil they think will be a lessor one.

The only way to waste your vote is to vote for the big government corporatist party. (unless that's actually what you're looking for, then by all means vote for it)

 

[neptronix]

It's not good, but you'll vote it back into power because you're not willing to stand alone.
That means you endorse it and what it does.

You will not get legalized marijuana with Obama. Obama has stepped up federal raids of dispensaries and grow operations that are legal in the states they were busted in. I can pull up dozens of links on that if you don't believe me.

With Romney, it would still be illegal on a federal level.

Defense of marriage act is getting struck down regardless of who wins - the wheels are in motion for that one, but gay marriage is already illegal, and Obama hasn't done a thing to change that in 4 years. Could the situation get worse? i don't think so.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/new-york-appeals-court-doma/index.html

I think the idealistic one is you here - for thinking that either of these guys are different on anything other than how they would treat big bird.

I'm sorry you bought into faux-anarchism as a youngster, but real change is possible, if you actually try.

I love ya auraslip but hearing this kind of attitude from you and others really makes me want to leave the country knowing that people would rather continue this ~200 years of democrat-republican dominance than change.

 

[Dauntless]

You vote for the lesser of two evils, you vote for evil.

Yeah, the way to handle these situations is to always give the kewl response and throw up your hands. Boy, you're really teaching THEM a lesson. Did you know that Lucille Ball so hated the U.S. Government that she refused to vote? Made HER mark! Meanwhile long time staunch Republican Bruce Willis says he "Doesn't care" who wins this election. Ah, the strong opinions of weak minds.

I remember 2 years ago when there were people at school off arguing. . .I hate to call it politics, mainly they were just playing the 'I'm right/you're wrong game.' So the Obama supporter starts to menace people for daring to disagree with him about Obama. I'm over doing what I'm supposed to be doing, we were in a workshop. You know how some people can be when they're supposed to be getting something done. So I walked over and told him he was going to have to shut up about Obama and never say another word about him on campus, because in the State of California he has already committed a crime he can go to jail for, threatening or menacing someone at an educational facility, so one more word and I was calling 911. Ooops, the words were coming, directed at me now. I pulled out my phone while stepping toward him and he stopped midsentence.

The point being that while he would later tell ME oh he was sorry, yeah, he shouldn't have been threatening those people, he tells everyone else it was none of my business, etc. Ah, the strong opinions of weak minds. Funny how Obama supporters think they're entitled to their hate speech. Mostly that's what you have heard from Obama supporters during his presidency, hate speech. The crying stopped and the threatening and berating began. Another good reason I'll be so glad when he's gone, they take a cue from O Duce. Oh, those evil campaign speeches of his, getting soundbytes while I'm listening to news radio all the time.

Oh, let's get to the actual Romney quote and forget the spindoctoring the hate mongers want you to believe.

"[D]on’t forget," Romney addressed his debate audience, "you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into—into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this—this is not—this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure."

So Romney did NOT actually call Tesla a loser, hmmm. (So why is there hate speech that proclaims that he did?)

What does Elon Musk have to say:

. . . .Tesla is actually on the verge of becoming cash flow positive. . .However. . . .

Ooops. So Elon knows better than to disagree. Sounds like Elon. Wouldn't be on the up and up if he used hate speech to distract from the truth, now would he? Lets just say if the man were here, he'd likely ask you to NOT use him or Tesla as an excuse for hate speech.

Meanwhile, there is one simple truth: "This is NOT the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure." No amount of hate speech is going to get you around that. Haven't heard him comment on that particular thought, but I'm sure Elon Musk would be glad to have me say he'd agree with it.

Romnesia. (I'd insert the eyeroll here, but I really don't like those thingees.) Dang, Obama and his insults. In my lifetime, BEFORE my lifetime reading history, I just don't recall such a petty president. Not even George H. W. Bush, who went to work deriding Buchanan for getting near as many votes as him in 1992 primaries, who smartassed at Ross Perot when Perot was leading the polls as an independent, who ultimately took to calling Clinton "Panderbear. . . ." Well, George H. W. Bush lost that election. Even Rush Limbaugh admitted that Bush had noone to blame but himself. Haven't heard him comment on this particular thought, but I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would be glad to have me say he'd agree that Obama has only himself to blame for fans that show their support only with hate speech.

If something doesn't work, you fix it. If you can't fix it, you get rid of it. There's the decision making process, in logic it's "If/then." To all those who just don't care how bad the Obama presidency is, going to top 6 trillion in deficit spending in 4 years while you look the other way, etc., I just remind you if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. At that point it doesn't work to try to find fault with Romney, he remains the backup quarterback, who, if you know your football, is the most popular guy in town when the starter is failing. If the Democratic committee (Who are NOT the party, though they obviously think they are) wanted the presidency the next four years, they should have replaced Obama as the nominee, as parties did with such incumbents as Polk, Hayes, Arthur, etc. Taft was defeated in the primaries but the Republican Committee (Thinking they were the party again) changed the rules to renominate him and the real winner ran as an independent to pick up more votes that Taft.

Oh, before I leave this this thread thread forever so that the illogical diatribles can really get over the top, let's harken back to one other memory of George H. W. Bush in the 1992 election. With 'Beverly Hills 90210' in maybe the top 50 in the ratings (Not sure FOX was reaching the whole country yet) they brought Shannen Doherty to the convention to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. I just don't remember if she was actually speaking to the convention or if she just had some opportunity for a soundbyte, (Tried to find the exact quote but Google didn't bring it up) she summed up her support for Bush with something like: 'Look, I admit Bush hasn't been a good president, but I don't see any reason that other guy would be any better. What's his name? From what I KNOW. . . ." I'm sure the Repubicans wished they had someone there to get a hand over her mouth. Ah, the strong opinions of weak minds. The 4 times a year comedy publication 'Quayle Quarterly' lost it's reason for being with the vice president replaced, so they became 'I Hate Brenda' in honor of Doherty's 'Beverly Hills 90210' character. . . .

 

[Harold in CR]

All those here, from Michigan, raise your hands. Are all y'all proud of letting Nestle Co. from FRANCE drill wells upstream from the great lakes, far enough from the lakes, to circumvent the laws that prohibited taking the water "FROM" the lakes, to sell for profit ?? Have y'all noticed that the lakes level has dropped drastically since they did this ??

All those from Texas, raise your hands. Are all y'all proud of T. Boone Pickett, that arrogant Billionaire, that has used distractive actions, such as wanting to put wind turbines and gas lines down the easements of power co's, just so he could silently buy up the greatest water shed in the USA, so HE can bottle and sell it, charge for irrigation and every drop y'all use INSIDE your homes ?? That watershed is known as the OGALALA (ring any bells here), watershed, extending clear up to the Dakotas.

Has any of the Nevada people looked at the Lake Mead Reservoir, lately ?? Down over 20' from normal levels. Can't remember who is responsible for that ?

How about when the Supreme Court was bought off, so they could CHANGE the laws, that declared that corporations were, in fact, the same as individuals, so therefore, could contribute to every politico and NEVER be held accountable for whom and how much they paid ??

Do any of y'all realize that now, China, for example, could throw massive money support through a dummy Corp, and set policy for the entire USA, people, plants, resources, housing codes, etc., etc.

If ANYONE does not think Corp's have effectively BOUGHT the US of A, that right there is the high school mind set.

Just wish I could talk my family into getting out.

This ought to set off some debate. Are all y'all aware, that OBAMA, in his younger years, had worked for the US CIA ?? How do y'all think he managed to keep this fake Birth Certificate under wraps so well ?????

YUP, I'm just a high school mentality, here.

JERRY said it all very well. Some people are educated WAAY beyond their intelligence. Boo Yah

 

[V_Mark]

Or they don't feel like throwing away their vote on a third party candidate that has absolutely no chance of being elected.

throwing your vote away as a political act of protest in any election isn't going to change that.

The fact that a 3rd party candidate has "absolutely no chance of being elected" exposes how flawed our current voting system is. In the Bush/Gore/Nader election, exit polls showed that most of those that voted for Nader would rather have seen Gore elected instead of Bush. The liberal votes were split between Nader & Gore, enabling a Bush victory (barely) even though more people preffered Gore over Bush. The fact that a 3rd party hurt Gore's chances of winning and undermined the democratic process supports the idea that we need to reform our voting system.

It is important to realize that our voting system, called plurality voting, is not the only system out there. There are many other options that would decrease the "throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party" mentality and bring us more democratically elected officials. Many 3rd party candidates support a form of runoff voting. The problem is that the two parties in power would never support a reform that would jeopardize that power.

Instant-Runoff Voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Approval Voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

Range Voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting

Two-Roud System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

 

[Philistine]

I would add one item to your list: Cut income taxes 10 percent across the board, and raise fuel taxes enough to make up that difference plus $100 billion per year.

See that is brilliant, couldn't agree more. The main reason that we can't get proper tax reform (in any country), is because of the wedded ideologues that suggest cutting income taxes is the preserve of the right. The dumbest idea to ever gain root is that income taxes are equitable. They aren't, both on a philosophical basis and on an administrative basis. Whilst I hate government interference that isn't necessary, I support universal healthcare and education, so I passionately support the need for taxes to fund necessary public services. But you don't do that through income taxes, you do it through consumption taxes such as Vat/GSTs and as you say fuel taxes. It is totally nuts to say that if I deliver a highly needed and demanded set of services to a society, I should pay more tax than the next guy. You should pay taxes on the basis of what you take out of society (ie consume). It then marries up with administration, because as a practitioner in the field, let me tell you that wealthy people with half a brain pay less income tax than your poor granny, but hard working blue collar workers, who are generally tied to inflexible salary arrangements get smashed on tax, and have no scams available. But you can't cheat things like consumption taxes, so it is both more equitable to tax people on the basis of what they use, as well as being more administratively efficient. The problem is the left fail to understand that just because you broaden your tax base with a consumption tax, doesn't mean you can't then use rebates and other forms of government support to account and care for the poor and less fortunate.

The great problem with reform of society in general is that not only are people generally pretty stupid, they are also lazy and hate thinking. The minute you try to start discussing policy issues like an ageing population, or intergenerational wealth transfer, or tax, people go to sleep. People want a decision and value system that is plug and play and off the shelf out of the box. That is why we have two party states. that is why we have religion. Most people are too f8cking stupid to analyse everything afresh on each issue. They want a "system" that takes moral responsibility out of their hands.

It is why I always cackle at people's shock at the ideas of Peter Singer (the Australian philosopher and ethicist). He is the chair of Ethics at Princeton, and people are always shocked at his ideas. I find his ideas and books painfully boring, because they are merely common sense, and anyone who finds what he says challenging or shocking is just a moron who can't think rationally. He recently caused a stir by writing an article saying that beastiality was OK if the animal was willing, consenting, enjoyed it, and was free to leave at any time. People were outraged. I was bored. Of course that is correct, and if you don't agree you are just stupid (in fact you are worse than that, you are cruel to animals).

See, we aren't even in the Biker Bar and I managed to bring it round to something filthy and vile....

I will get my coat....

 

[REdiculous]

Using common sense then, if Big Bird consents, Romney would be free to ruffle those tail feathers..lol..wow. :lol:

℆