“Are you capable of making your argument without that type of language?”
I’ve used many analogies in many posts with regard to similar sentiments. Would you prefer an analogy to parrots or machines, lemmings or sheep?
I will use the analog I wish. ‘Slave’ is best because it refers to those who are sentient but content to be the chattel property of a master or masters. Their votes are spoken for, they will quote the party line and they will bow in whatever direction they are instructed to bow in. Thus slave is a fair description.
I know that the Romney for Caesar crowd is more comfortable with ‘traitor’, ‘troll’ etc. in presenting their party line, but I won’t go there. Not publicly, anyway.
Okay, I guess you are not “going” to make your argument without trying to be procative. I’m sure you are capable, you just choose to be provocative.
Here are a few reasons I will choose to vote for Romney in no particular order.
obamacare - Romney has vowed to give waivers to every state that requests it. I’m sure my state will. This law is beyond frightening.
our military - I believe ROmney will be more committed to our warriors, to ensuring their ROE fit with their mission to minimize their casualties.
economy - don’t need to explain this one