Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Columns
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
YES for Obama / Biden 2012, and hell YES on marriage equality!!
And why the fucking hell does the Seattle Times endorse Rob McKenna?!?
Here's a dumb question: why would guys want to have grapefruit sized balls?
No thanks.
Don't come bitching to us when your pie-in-the-sky third party candidate loses and the right-wing, christo-fascist plutocrats are finally enshrined. Please shut your mouth about the "there's no difference" malarkey when you find out that gays will NEVER get legally married (and homosexuality is outlawed entirely), Roe v. Wade is overturned (and the sin of Onanism carries a life sentence), the 10 Commandments are chiseled into the courthouse walls and Jesus is the final arbiter of all things legal. Whatever miniscule thread of human decency we were still clinging to today will be shredded forever. Good luck with the Oligarchy!
"Arguing for the re-election of a person…
...for now.
Vote Obama on Nov 6, ensure that we have reasonable choices for the Supreme Court in the next few years, and let's start working on third-party viability TODAY.
So you believe Obama has not been progressive enough, so you protest vote for Romney, who has vowed to be extremely regressive. This is extremely stupid, and exactly why republicans have been calling the shots and framing the entire game for years. As soon as one democrat is not pure enough for you, or not perfect, you cry, go home, and help the GOP.
When we get an electoral system that allows for more than two parties to actually be electable, I will vote for my favorite candidate. Until then, I'm voting against the guy that I really don't want to see in office.
But swing state voters (specifically OH, VA, IA, CO, WI, FL & NH), please hold your noses and go for Obama.
Also, folks in WA, MN, MD & ME: marriage equality on the ballot, get it right this time.
Any sex-positive person who casts a vote to put Mitt Romney in the White House--that is, any vote not for Obama--(or who declines to vote at all) is a damn quisling in the culture wars.
i agree that if she wants more (whatever that means), she should ask for it. but she shouldn't be surprised if he says no.
They've all actually been elected as independents, which makes any one of them, including fucking Joe Lieberman, a more credible third-party Presidential candidate, even in 2012, than all your protest vote party candidates put together.
If you consider yourselves serious parties, and want us to consider taking you seriously, put in the serious work and get some candidates elected into actual offices.
I miss the old columns, which had more stories about cool stuff like scrotum inflation. Or shoving condom-covered bananas up your ass and shitting them back out.
I'll be voting for Obama, but my husband is going the third-party route....which I think will be okay. Minnesota was the only state to vote for Mondale, so we're pretty firmly commited to the left as far as presidents go.
The Republicans have the hypocritical, grapefruit sized balls to try to shove their politics all up into my junk, your junk, and everyone else's junk; Dan's colmn has to acknowledge that, yes?
For myself, I was curious enough to click and now I am trying to unsee those "saline balls" in action.
I logged on to agree with @28.
I will go back to my swing state and apologize to Mrs. Horton for voting for Johnson over Obama.
Perot helped Clinton get elected in '92 by splitting the R vote & Nader helped Bush get elected in '80 by splitting the D vote. Third parties always help their worst enemies, so voting for them is worse than throwing your vote away. Just stick a fork in your eye & be done w/ it.
Think both parties are the same? Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Welcome to American politics. I'm glad you've started paying attention. Of course, they're not the same, although neither of them wants fundamental change to the socio-economic system, which is what most of us would like. Amiright?
Your vote for anything federal isn't going to bring that fundamental change, so at least vote for the guy who will negotiate some concessions when he sells you into slavery, rather than the guy who will sell your body outright to the dog food cannery. (I'm talking D v. R, here.)
"Meaningful change," if that is even possible, will happen at the local level. Vote for progressive candidates, initiatives, and laugh at the hypocrisy of living in "the land of the free." Unless a Constitutional Congress is convened, we'll just have to live w/ what we've got.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ob…
I see this similar to reasons why some big-busted women, experiencing chronic back pain, would seek breast reduction surgery.
Ummmm.... No. Thanks for thinking of me, though!
Personally, I see little difference between former Mass. Gov. Romney and Obama on big issues. Perhaps if Gary Johnson supporters, who are probably 5-10% of the population, voted for him, the major parties might adopt some of his positions on drug reform, etc. If I keep voting for a democrat because its the lesser of evils, and third party reformers keep getting .032% of the vote, Obama will continue to break promises and raid marijuana clinics, launch foreign wars without congressional approval, saddle our children with debts, etc.
Notwithstanding the above,I am ready for the election to be over so we can back to more important topics.
ONLY the LP is interested in true liberty and equality.
Marriage equality, yes!
:o)
People who watch porn—even to excess—are generally more fun to fuck, date and/or be friends with than are people who don't, in my experience. I'm not on-board with Dan's anti-porn sex and anti-porn enthusiast agenda.
I would vote third-party if we had instant-runoff voting; however, since we don't, I'm voting for the most-likely person to win who isn't Romney. Obama hasn't been perfect, but there is some wisdom to that cliché about not letting perfection be the enemy of the good enough. Relative to Romney, Obama is good enough. How many right-wingers do you think will vote for a third-party candidate over Romney because he's not genuinely conservative enough? Not many, I bet. They're just voting for the guy who's most likely to win who isn't black.
Precisely. I'm not even from the US but it seems fairly obvious to me why undecided voters should vote for Obama over Romney.
The plurality rule system of the US means that Duverger's Law applies. There's no chance of an effective third party in the US without considerable social and political upheaval, hence there is no value to a third party vote.
Gore never became president for many reasons. But one big reason was because a handful of fools (in Florida and New Hampshire) voted for Nader.
As mentioned, if you live in a state that is going for Romney anyway, vote for whoever you want, but don't expect it to make a difference. It never does. Seriously, here are some names for you:
Teddy Roosevelt -- Split from the Republican party because he thought it wasn't progressive enough. The Republican party then became the business party (and it remains so).
George Wallace -- Split from the Democratic Party because of segregation and civil rights (he didn't want them). The Democratic Party then moved more to the left and continued to push for civil rights and thus because the opposite of what Wallace wanted.
John Anderson -- Split from the Republican Party because Reagan was too extreme. Almost every election since then has seen the Republican Party become as extreme, if not more extreme than Reagan.
Ralph Nader -- Ran because Clinton wasn't progressive enough, and Gore was not enough of an environmentalist. The Democratic Party has since nominated more centrists and made modest progress on environmental issues -- the strongest environmentalist was probably the man Nader helped defeat.
All of these candidates have the same thing in common. Not only did they lose in the short term (playing a part in electing someone they didn't want to see elected) but they lost in the long term. Their desire to see their party move in the direction they wanted it to move never happened. The opposite happened. I know of no counter example, by the way. Maybe one of you can point to history to justify your vote. Good luck.
Savage knows a butt load about both politics and sex. Hold your nose and vote for Obama.
Something tells me it's probably mostly men who are into grapefruit-sized balls, whether it's their own or someone else's. I imagine there's some psychology at play in the grapefruit balls fetish that's kind of exclusive to people who have balls. I'm pretty sure most women are just going to think, "dude, why'd you do that to your balls?"
On the other hand, people being what they are, it stands to reason that there must be at least a few women out there who are turned on by it. And I'm sure there are kinky women who dig administering the saline solution.
If you're really interested in making major, long-term political change -- it's gotta start at the local level. No third party is going to have a chance nationally until it is well represented at the local and state levels. So the real question is, would you rather support a candidate who is likely to win and who supports some of your interests, or throw that support away out of pride and principle?
By voting for Nader et al you are essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If the relationship changes, then by all means one can rethink that, but it didn't. And I DO think CAM is being taken advantage of, but possibly not intentionally. He might just figure she's being nice and hasn't clued in to her evidently heightening emotions. He might not realize he's in a unique position with her. Time to let him know that.
While there may be some ladies who love it, grapefruits must be more of a guy thing.
If your *only* concern is the economy & not any social issues at all, then brutally logistically speaking, he's not far off. I did some research on spending by the most recent administrations. Although Gore likely wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq, historically there's not actually a huge amount of difference between Dem's & Repub's spending percentagewise - ie, what portions of the national budget get allotted for XYZ thing.
So, his argument is, we're going to hell in a handbasket economically & neither candidate has a clear idea about what to do about it, so why vote for either?
I sat him down & read w/ him many articles form both sides of the fence about how the economy is slowly improving. But he basically just wanted to have a Libertarian tantrum.
In theory, fine concept. In application, less so.
The moment you deviate from the topic of the economy, even a little, there's huge ideological differences between Obama & Romney & I get so freaking pissed off when people just write that off. Especially 'cause we live in a swing state. (I miss my home state of NY, so much!)
Was wondering the same thing, then I clicked on the link Dan provided depicting a guy banging a woman with his giant balls slapping every which way against her ass. The added stimulation of a set of huge balls slapping your ass while being fucked seemed like a nice benefit.
If my state's electoral votes weren't certainly going to Obama, I'd not have protest voted for a third party, but he leads Romney by such a margin that my vote isn't going to be worth much.
And since the vast majority of people I'm surrounded by end up voting pragmatically for the Dems, I'm not worried about a surprise result upset. I don't see 800,000 people doing what I did...
If either of these things wasn't true, I'd not have voted the way I did. It felt good not to limit myself based on fear though.
The one decision I'm regretting is voting so early...a little more suspense than I'm used to, since I usually do it last minute!
Right, that's because we have a winner take all system that requires Obama to play the game if he wishes to stay in a position of accomplishing anything. Basically, we have candidates who would like to do the right thing, but would immediately lose if that puts them outside the majority. So, they do the best they can within the constraints of the winner take all the system.
The problem isn't Obama's personal politics and motives, it's winner take all. If you want 3rd, 4th, and 5th party options, you need to replace winner take all with a system of proportional representation. Until we have proportional representation, voting for 3rd parties is effectively not voting at all. It sends absolutely no message, other than who cares about the 3rd party because they won't win.
I hear that said a lot, but it ignores the realities of our political system. A 3rd party local politician can win if he's representation a small, homogeneous community of outliers. That isn't going to help at all in a national election, which isn't restricted to the outliers.
The fact is, an outlier party will never win an election that requires a majority. They can win proportional elections, however, such as those in the German and Isaeli parliamentary systems. If you want fringe parties in office, you need to lobby for a proportional election system.
The British Labour party managed to overtake the liberal party in the 1920s, and the liberals never really recuperated from that.
This "don't waste your vote" argument is old and tired -- it is the argument used by both Democrats and Republicans to keep the system as it is. If more people voted third party consistently, placed them in city state house and senate, and federal position, we would have a viable democracy where there are actual choices.
Vote for who you want not against the one you don't want.
Please don't lump "supports homeschooling" in with all the "bad stuff." Have you tried it? Have you been involved in any homeschooling communities? Lumping homeschoolers in with religious or conservative nuts is inaccurate, like lumping all straights in with homophobes. Homeschooling well done provides an education that is as good or better than a public or private school education. There are *lots* of liberal homeschoolers- half of all the homeschoolers in our community belong to the secular group, not the religious group, and some of those in the religious group share liberal values. Most of the homeschoolers, whether they claim a religion or not, are homeschooling for educational reasons, not religious reasons or a shelter-my-kid-from-anything-with-which-I-could-possibly-disagree philosophy. Do not dismiss us, especially from what i suspect is an uninformed position.
More importantly, I'm voting for McKenna.
This can happen if:
1) the 3rd party effectively co-opts the platform of one of the two-parties. The net result is still a two party system with one party switching names. Nothing but a game of musical chairs.
2) there is a revolution, usually under desperate circumstances, such as the one that put Hitler's national socialist party into power. Again, the result is still a two-party, or more likely a one-party system.
If you want multiple parties, you need proportional representation. If you want a revolution, you need to hope things get much much worse so that a majority of people start believing your "sky is falling" platform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-run…
In fact, the field itself is so full of ridiculous quackery, that sorting them by the ideological underpinnings of their beliefs does not usually garner one additional insight or respect.
It's not impossible, but a couple letters like that ending up on a few different sex/relationship advice columns might convince a few people, still holding somewhat of a grasp on reality, to whip out their CC. Probably wrong here, but it's almost funny how it's a reverse-Penthouse Forum letter.
And in particular: "If you want a revolution, you need to hope things get much much worse" ...and also accept the enormous number of people who will be maimed and die young for your revolution. Those are the stakes.
This is just ignorance, and it's particularly infuriating to me. My wife was diagnosed with a disease this year that has no cure but can be managed through meds. We are both self-employed, so the only insurance option available in Washington state was a shitty individual plan that would have left us with $50,000 in out of pocket medical bills. Every year.
Thanks to Obama's health care reform, however, my business now qualifies for the better plans available through group coverage, and they couldn't exclude us based on her pre-existing condition.
Obama has made a huge difference to us, and millions of others who have been screwed by the previous insurance laws. A vote against Obama, whether for Romney or an unelectable 3rd party candidate, would have real, disastrous consequences to us and so many others in the same boat.
And that's not mention reproductive rights, gay rights, education, etc.
That would be a wonderful improvement to what we have. Unfortunately, our country is too divided, and the voting population so flooded with ignorance and distrust, that making structural improvements such implementing preferential voting, or getting rid of the electoral college, is all but impossible.
This sort of disfunction makes it easy to understand why throughout history great empires inevitably crumble.
Because Romney doesn't believe in:
-affordable healthcare (affordable birth control)
-Planned Parenthood (again affordable reproductive healthcare)
-Abortion (oops, your stuck as God intended)
So, that mean your left with Men and Dogs. I forgot, Romney doesn't support Same Sex Marriages.
Guess you're stuck with dogs.
And are the deaths and injuries any worse than the current situation where enormous numbers of persons in far off lands are being maimed and killed, directly due to our current system? Those atrocities are kept just beyond our eye so we don't feel the impact so great.
Anyway, who are we joking, a revolution in America? Many many decades away, if ever.
Thank you for clarifying the obvious.
I was stating Men who vote for Romney forfeit their access to Women. If some Man is voting against my best self-interests, he will never get in my pants, nor should he feel entitled to it. I was going along the lines that Women tend to vote Democratic (community) and Men tend to vote Republican (self). Of course, there are people of both genders who will vote differently. Save the blast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/pol…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/us/pol…
And for Women who vote for Romney: shame on you.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON
I have on - again off- again experience with various Dommes. I must say that my current mistress is fascinated with mine, enough that I might consider doing this for her. For some odd reason I am flattered by her attention to them, and wish to please her. (hell I am flattered by any female attention, no matter what it costs)
She seems to know just how much mine can be, ah, manipulated to get various responses from me, and just at the dge of what is painful. (she has never had a pair, how does she know this?)
Just my 2 cents.
SB
Anyone honestly disenchanted with the system as it stands who isn't then working to make the system better, but instead just throwing up his hands and throwing his vote away, needs to grow up. You have a responsibility as a citizen to either play your part in the system, or to play your part changing the system. There isn't a "government fairy" anymore than there is a "laundry fairy" - pick up your damn dirty underwear and start washing.
What kind of "results" are you looking for from your revolution, exactly? A historical review of revolutions suggest the most probably outcome would be a massive reduction in civil liberties, mass execution of and imprisonment of dissidents, and rule by despot. Our little American revolution, of which you should be proud, is a notable exception.
As a wise man once said, democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. If you're looking to better people's lives, I'd suggest working to shore up our democracy against the forces that are trying to erode it. On the other hand, if you're just angry and bored and want to see humans killed, imprisoned, or otherwise oppressed because they've failed to live up to your lofty ideals, then revolution is probably the way to go.
"who are we joking, a revolution in America? Many many decades away, if ever."
I hope you're right.
I am not going to ask you to cite sources for your statistics, as your "you lack personal knowledge" note #66 and a sniff test indicate that your inviting me to engage in scat play. Instead, I am going to point out that you seem to have conflated "liberal" with good in a way that may also be problematic.
Home schooling can be incredibly useful, proper and rewarding, but given the regulations and practitioners across this country, I'm afraid you'll have to fix it or just take your lumps.
seandr, based on a perusal of that site, I am not convinced the bottom was a woman.
No, but You "Bullballs By Oxballs" are a man (if you wanna call yourself that) AND a bottom: on the bottom, slithering around with your secrets, neuroses and bullshit. Go fuck yourself and I hope your fucking treehouse burns down with you in it, you hate-inducing motherfucker!
Eat right and exercise, boys and girls.