[SamInNebraska]

And a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. If it wasn't for skin color, you wouldn't be able to tell them or their policies apart.

What a cop out. Ignorant to boot.

Oh you have got to be kidding! You actually think that the big pharma, aerospace, military and multi conglomerates who gave money to BOTH campaigns did so because they thought there is any difference between what they will do, once in power? Naive.

[careinke]

And a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. If it wasn't for skin color, you wouldn't be able to tell them or their policies apart.

What a cop out. Ignorant to boot.

But true:

1. Both think it is a good idea to put out a hit on American citizens without due process.

2. Both will end up attacking Iran.

3. Both want to keep the income tax.

4. Both want to control what you do with your own body.

5. Both would continue tearing down mountains to get coal.

6. Both believe in make believe technology (clean coal).

7. Both are really bad at arithmetic so believe we can continue growing indefinitely.

8. Both are bought by big business.

I could go on....

[Pops]

Oh you have got to be kidding! You actually think that the big pharma, aerospace, military and multi conglomerates who gave money to BOTH campaigns did so because they thought there is any difference between what they will do, once in power? Naive.

Your posing as the wise cynic doesn't impress, especially the part rationalizing sitting on the couch as more a more effective tactic than voting against the powers you mention, who are no doubt not sitting on the couch.

Not to overload you with stuff to think about, but let me point you to one small example of a difference between the parties that bears directly on your point.
Democratic Platform Supports Amending Constitution to Reverse Citizens United

So yeah, there is a difference.

[SamInNebraska]

I could go on....

You shouldn't! Drawing aside the veil is apparently a sign of ignorance! Some drink the koolaid without thinking twice.

[SamInNebraska]

Not to overload you with stuff to think about, but let me point you to one small example of a difference between the parties that bears directly on your point.

Democratic Platform Supports Amending Constitution to Reverse Citizens United

So yeah, there is a difference.

Are you kidding? The platform? You seriously think that the platform is the same as intent?

Fine...how about this one. From the democratic platform of 1924.

Honest government.

To put none but the honest in public office; to practice economy in the expenditure of public money; to reverence and respect the rights of all under the constitution.

So, how much of the government debt was created in the past 4 years in this "economy in the expenditure of public money"? Nearly a century and the platform hasn't seemed to matter in the least...but oh no...THIS TIME they mean it! You slay me pops. Careinke has a good list, and like Seahorse and I, know better than to drink the koolaid.

[careinke]

I-502 passed tonight making possession of an ounce or less of marijuana for adults legal. I can't wait to see the fight between the Washington State and the Fed.

Washington, by its vote, became a national pacesetter in the drive to reform drug laws. The reform effort was led by former federal prosecutors, the Seattle City Attorney and an ex-top FBI agent — all former warrior in the 40-year “War on Drugs.”

Why Washington?

“I’d say the answer is probably a combination of the fact that the spirit of this Washington is to live and let live, and the character of Washington is very pragmatic: We have a low tolerance for policies that create more trouble than they’re worth, especially if they involve sticking your nose in someone else’s business,” said Alison Holcomb, an attorney who led the I-502 campaign.

Or, put bluntly by Western Washington University student Patrick Stickney as he explained overwhelming youth support for I-502:

“We see the moralistic ideologues who want to deny the rights of same sex couples but are on their third or fourth marriage, who decry marijuana but get caught doing hard drugs or abusing pain killers . . . It just doesn’t make sense why so many people spend so much time nosing into what’s happening next door, when we have problems in our own houses.”

The marijuana initiative was garnering just under 56 percent of the vote statewide, and 63.82 percent in populous King County.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/11/06/initiative-502-passes-to-legalize-regulate-and-tax-marijuana/

Colorado passed an even more liberal law allowing individuals to grow up to six plants.

Obama was mum on this during the election, soon we will see his true colors on this issue.

[SeaGypsy]

So married fags can smoke a doobie at home and it's nobodies business but their own.
So far Obama has resisted Israeli pressure at dictating war in Iran; for very good reason (if unspoken).
For the first time Americans will not become bankrupt over personal health issues.
America is growing up.

[Shaved Monkey]

As a non American
Whats the concept of voting on a Tuesday?
Is it designed to stop people who work from voting?

Here (Oz) its Saturday morning usually at the local school and you do a postal or absentee votes if you cant get there.
Obviously compulsory to vote too

[vision-master]

I-502 passed tonight making possession of an ounce or less of marijuana for adults legal. I can't wait to see the fight between the Washington State and the Fed.

Marijuana is very good medicine, side effects are zero and is way cheaper than pharmaceutical drugs.

The Many Health Benefits of ingesting Cannabis Marijuana

[careinke]

So married fags can smoke a doobie at home and it's nobodies business but their own.

I prefer to view as two more victories in the war for personal liberty.

[SeaGypsy]

I'm a part time doobie smoker with gay friends. I believe if there is no victim there can be no crime. The marriage issue is a weird one because it's really a religious issue where the line between church and state is thoroughly blurred. It seems though that inheritance law and hospital visiting rights etc. clearly discriminate very unfairly. A decade after gay marriage becomes widely legal, nobody will give a rats.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I believe if there is no victim there can be no crime.
...
A decade after gay marriage becomes widely legal, nobody will give a rats.

I'll sure second that Sea. Why anyone cares what people do in their OWN house if they're not bothering anyone else is beyond me. It's not like we don't have REAL issues to be concerned with!

My only issues with pot smoking, which I believe are valid are:

1). We need to have some kind of sobriety laws for it with driving. It's bad enough with kids driving while texting (and running into me and my friends while we sit at red lights) -- add being stoned to the mix, and that seems a valid concern. We have serious laws for drinking and driving, so this shouldn't be difficult.

2). One which may be more controversial, but long term is also rational. Health cost issues. Here we are banning the purchase of a large drink in a movie theatre in one part of the country (EVEN if it is a SKINNY person, BTW), but we force healthcare to cost the same regardless of health (or health habits) with Obamacare -- and we are legalizing pot for recreational use.
There needs to be some sort of rationality for balancing cost of health care with how we behave for PREVENTABLE things too. Even if pot isn't as bad for you as, say tobacco, it isn't exactly eating broccoli either.

[dinopello]

We had 83% turnout in my county for this election. Not quite the record (85%) but pretty good !

[AgentR11]

Gay marriage. Simple solution, strike all instances of the word "marriage" from official government documents, regs, and laws. Tada, no one will give a flip. Have government recognize civil unions between two or more vaguely human entities, and leave it at that.

2) That's just what an NHS (now in its infancy here) does, everyone's costs are the same premium wise. If you want to get additional funds from bad behavior, you use additional taxes on sugar/HFCS, tobacco, cars that can go over 85, parachutes, fuel, sporting equipment for risk sports (rock climbing & free diving I look at you!), etc. As long as you keep the scale of taxes in balance with the actual expenses, instead of trying to use them punitively to stop behavior, there should be no rational objection.

[vision-master]

Even if pot isn't as bad for you as, say tobacco, it isn't exactly eating broccoli either.

Way better than broccoli -> Indisputable Evidence Showing That Cannabis Could Be The Most Nutritional Vegetable In The World

[Pretorian]

I'm a part time doobie smoker with gay friends. I believe if there is no victim there can be no crime. The marriage issue is a weird one because it's really a religious issue where the line between church and state is thoroughly blurred. It seems though that inheritance law and hospital visiting rights etc. clearly discriminate very unfairly. A decade after gay marriage becomes widely legal, nobody will give a rats.

Seagypsy are you ready to pay more taxes and receive less of it back in services/hand-outs so your gay friends can marry each other ? If so, how much ? How much this gay thing is worth to you ?

[Outcast_Searcher]

I'm a part time doobie smoker with gay friends. I believe if there is no victim there can be no crime. The marriage issue is a weird one because it's really a religious issue where the line between church and state is thoroughly blurred. It seems though that inheritance law and hospital visiting rights etc. clearly discriminate very unfairly. A decade after gay marriage becomes widely legal, nobody will give a rats.

Seagypsy are you ready to pay more taxes and receive less of it back in services/hand-outs so your gay friends can marry each other ? If so, how much ? How much this gay thing is worth to you ?

What handouts are you talking about? The same rights and priveleges traditional male/female married couples get? This sounds like a bizarre argument to me (and I happen to be single and straight).

Now, if you want to stop ANY tax preferences for married people, for kids, for houses, etc. for EVERYBODY, regardless of sexual preference, race, age, IQ, or any other idiotic way to exclude people -- that is a discussion worth having.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We had 83% turnout in my county for this election. Not quite the record (85%) but pretty good !

I think this is the single biggest thing that really surprised me -- was how energized people were about turning out. Heavy turnouts always favor the dems. With (in my view), two candidates, practically the same in quality of overall policies (IMO), to me it was a choice of bad or worse, and hardly worth voting. I was happy that there was no line when I went -- a long line and I would have tried later and then skipped it if the line never abated.

But apparently the Obama sales job really fired people up. Thus the claimed GOP "intensity" advantage, simply wasn't there. (So much spin going on, maybe it never was -- but with all the mediocrity in the economy and all the broken promises, etc. I was really suprised by the reports of how heavy the turnout was, basically everywhere I heard the commentators discussing it). OTOH, maybe Romney said so many stupid things that he really upset lots of people who were serious about voting "anything but Romney".

[SeaGypsy]

In Oz, my wife and I would get a hell of a lot more if we split up than we do being married. We take a kid each and both get 'parenting payment'; I could quit work and rent rooms out in each of our houses and make more than I make working full time. (As bizarre as that is).

I like OS' suggestion on zero tax rates under $40k and no more churning money for that bracket. Would wipe out a lot of meaningless jobs in the tax and SS offices, but hey, aren't we supposed to be actually productive under capitalism?

I totally agree on the stoner driving issue. We have very strict rules including spit testing to show if we are DUI here, for ganga, speed and barbs. 6 months no license and $2k fine first offense, doubling up each time thereafter; 3rd offense it's off to the big house for 3 months then doubling up thereafter. Machine operator jobs are almost always random tested as well as massive fines and jail time for those who injure/ kill others under the influence of any drug at work. Any road incident causing injury is mandatory blood test for all drivers/ operators.

The health issue is a tricky one; when so many people do stupid things to themselves. Prosecuting people for smoking who might otherwise be healthy etc. is heading towards DNA screening for risk factors and weigh ins for jobs and driver's licenses; police state again.

[Pretorian]

I'm a part time doobie smoker with gay friends. I believe if there is no victim there can be no crime. The marriage issue is a weird one because it's really a religious issue where the line between church and state is thoroughly blurred. It seems though that inheritance law and hospital visiting rights etc. clearly discriminate very unfairly. A decade after gay marriage becomes widely legal, nobody will give a rats.

Seagypsy are you ready to pay more taxes and receive less of it back in services/hand-outs so your gay friends can marry each other ? If so, how much ? How much this gay thing is worth to you ?

What handouts are you talking about? The same rights and priveleges traditional male/female married couples get? This sounds like a bizarre argument to me (and I happen to be single and straight).

Now, if you want to stop ANY tax preferences for married people, for kids, for houses, etc. for EVERYBODY, regardless of sexual preference, race, age, IQ, or any other idiotic way to exclude people -- that is a discussion worth having.

Interesting, I never see anybody ever thinking about the financial implications of gay marriage for married or even single straights, or to hell with it, even for unmarried gays!
Tax preferences? What about pensions, what about insurances! Do you have any idea how much more YOU are going to pay for those?
In order to save some naive, virgin brains from Math, I will give a very simple example. I know one old lady that gets about 0.00001% of an entire US Navy budget just because a long, long time ago she was married to a guy with a Navy pension. Now imagine if that guy was married not to an old lady, but to 18 year old gay boy. Considering how popular homosexualism is these days, I won't be surprised if even straight guys will be making such alliances, for financial or any other reasons. After all , having gay sex is not a prerequisite for having a gay wedding, right ?