AxCx
You're a Cop

Aborted
Gurgling Rotten Feces

I know, I know, but it's actually a pretty good song.

Congratulations! You hit the fourth popular Kansas Joke!

1) Do you have a dog named Toto?

2) Is there a yellow brick road there?

3) Do you take wagons to school?

4) Something with 'not in Kansas anymore" in it.



Oh, and here's your prize:

Seriously, that's it?  Goddamnit, I was hoping for at least a coupon or something.  And I'm pretty sure I hit the most popular Kansas joke, so yeah.

Which is the problem with the system anymore.

It's not about voting for the best candidate.  It's an exercise in placing your bet on who you think has the best chance of winning among the candidates you hate the least.

That's so wrong, on so many levels.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

As I always have, I will vote for the person whom I think will do the best job, even if that person has the least chance of getting elected ever.

Because I refuse to be party to electing someone that shouldn't be there.

To be fair, Leo, I'm not bashing you or your logic in your methodology.

I'm bashing the system that makes this the only way for people like us to feel like our vote counts for anything anymore, even if it's just to fool ourselves a little bit.

I do agree with what you're saying, as it's how I feel about voting myself.  I tend to always vote according to my ideals, so if no candidate fits them to my satisfaction, I just simply vote for someone I can trust and write myself in.  I'm no stranger to what most people would call "wasting my vote", but the opportunity I see with Paul strikes me more than the slightly closer ideological similarities between me and Phillies.  I'm ideologically similar enough to Paul (excluding the religious beliefs, which I think with him are pretty much a non-issue) that I'd have to say he fits them to my satisfaction, and I would feel no guilt or shame towards myself for voting for him under any circumstance.  Ideology is still unquestionably the main factor in my decision on who to vote for, but if two candidates fit my ideals satisfactorily, then and only then does electability become a factor in my decision.

I know that your post wasn't against me in any way, but I just wanted to clarify the role electability played in my decision, because at first I think I made it seem like it carried weight with the factor of ideology, when in fact it carries weight only after ideology is considered, as a tiebreaker of sorts.

And yeah, the system does suck.  That Paul was excluded from the Fox News Republican debates even after he won their poll (which I believe was one of their criteria for being admitted; I believe they later discredited their own poll), shows that any libertarian, socialist, etc. candidate will just be ignored my the media and dismissed as a fringe fluke.  This is a severe hindrance in the campaigns of those candidates.

I'm sorry.  I couldn't read your post beyond where you said Obama.  How can you possibly go from Paul to Obama?  They are completely opposite ends of just about every spectrum.

It's not easy, but I just sure as hell don't want Guiliani, Romney, Clinton, or Huckabee, and Edwards and McCain seem like impotent candidates.  There is a very wide margin, however, between Paul as my first choice and Obama as my second.  Though on second thought, my second choice would not be Obama, but probably the Libertarian Party's candidate, which seems like George Phillies.  Obama would probably instead be my fourth choice, immediately behind myself.

I probably agree more with Phillies than with Paul, but I'm close enough in agreement with Paul on most of the issues that he'd be my first choice as he stands the better shot of getting elected.  Granted, electability is certainly not the largest factor in determining my choice of candidate, but it does carry some weight; just enough to tip favour towards Paul.

I just knew it was a matter of time before I got cotton one of these pun threads.

Band:  Cryptopsy
Song:  Phobophile

Gravity is your friend.

Gravity is only a friend on the condition that you stay firmly where it intends to have you.  If you move elsewhere, it quickly becomes one of your worst enemies.  Some friend; more like a slave master.

But here I am firmly on solid ground, so we're getting along just fine, though I do resent its overbearing nature...

I must say, I'm not a pilot, nor do I know much about aviation, so I won't be able to answer your question as you see fit.  But the way I see it, if God wanted you to fly, he would have miracled wings onto you.  Think about that, and I'll think about why I even bothered to type this out...

What if we don't have a job?  Because that's kinda sucking ass for me right now when I have bills to pay.

Not working sucks.  I should get a job...

Is this a beer and cheese occasion?

Happy birthdays.

Is this a beer and cheese occasion?

Congratulations.