Quote for the day -- the moralists
"An example: In Virginia, the republicans ran on economy and jobs. As soon as they got in power their priorities switched to inserting vaginal probes into women wanting an abortion. Another one: in 2006 before elections, in order to please the base, the republican Senate majority leader Frist, together with Kyl of Arizona, sneaked a piece of legislation (UIGEA) together with a must pass Port Authority act, by which they practically destroyed the online poker in US. The weasels didn’t dare to go after the American players, but they banned the banks processing of credit card transactions. So if you, like millions of other Americans (estimation was around 3 millions), enjoyed playing a hand of poker online for a few dollars, with your after-tax money, in the privacy of your own home, then bad luck. You can’t do it. Why? Well, because the bible thumpers don’t allow you to. No country in the world (save the dictatorships) banned their citizens to play online. They did it in the “land of the free”. Recently Romney and Santorum told a Nevada tv station they are against online poker. Why? Because it’s “bad for the people”, especially “poor people”. So here they are, the “fighters for freedom”, ready to enforce the nanny state’s power to protect people from themselves, exactly what their hypocrite base claims to hate the most.
"So why anybody loving their personal freedoms would vote for Romney? Everybody saw the appeal that contraceptives, porn banning and other such issues had in the primary. Forcing a 14 year old girl raped by her father to another atrocity like actually carrying the child? The bible thumpers justify such an atrocity with a straight face. I saw Santorum on CNN doing just that. Sure, the far right was against Romney, who is sane and balanced, but once he’d win the election… birds of a feather stick together. At least, with the Dems, you know where you stand. Maybe some more taxes, but if you are not rich, it doesn’t touch you too much. And if you are rich, do you really care? Maybe more regulations, but at least those might bring some cleaner air and water. However, the dems don’t itch to control your bedroom and basic personal freedoms. Personally, I would rather starve then trade my freedom for the so-called “morality” of bible thumpers. Millions others think the same way. They will vote democratic, especially the women.
"For such a competent candidate like Romney, being so behind in the polls has but one explanation: social issues. Fiscally conservative? Good. Conservative on defense ? Perfect. In the same boat with nutty social conservatives? A deal-breaker. If you are voting just the man, the competency and accomplishments, then Romney deserves to be elected. However, if you look at the whole picture, at the constituency that a candidate must keep happy, then Obama should win hands down. Sure, the environmentalists, the unions, the socialist egalitarians and the peaceniks day-dreamers are a pain in the neck, but are far more benign then the bible thumpers. So let the dems win, then have the SoCons justifying the loss by “we didn’t choose a real conservative” and in 2016 nominating a real far-right nut job, only to lose even worse, and so on until they go into oblivion. Good riddance."
Conservative (?) commenter "TruthTeller" here