So you are standing in the middle of the playground and stomping your feet. OK, got it.
You and I would both would prefer a steak dinner to a bologna sandwich or dog excrement.
The difference between us, is that after finding out that there is no steak, I still understand that bologna is a vastly better option than dog excrement.
You prefer to spend you time being pissed off that there is no steak, ranting about how bad bologna is, and generally cutting off you nose to spite your face.
Fine, I get it. You would rather eat the dog excrement than even be perceived as liking bologna. Good for you; you get to be a purist. Now go away and let the grown ups deal with the problem.
A grown-up would realize that this election poses a serious dilemma to a true conservative. There is no good choice (which by your example, you even seem to realize). You do what you think is best with this dilemma. Allow us who won't vote for Romney the same courtesy without name-calling.
Go away? You do realize that you came on to NorthernCrunchyCon's thread in the religion forum? Who is the interloper here?
Ah, I see where you’re coming from with your analogy.
My problem is not choosing to a eat a bologna sandwich. I was willing to eat it in 2008, only to be pleasantly surprised when the bologna man added Alaskan moose steak (one of my favorites as a hunter) to the menu.
No, my problem is that the man offering me a bologna sandwich in 2012 is the same individual who stomped on my bologna-and-steak sandwich in 2008 (after the bologna man added Alaskan moose steak to the sandwich) and gave me marxist manure one instead.
For this reason, I think I’ll pass on the deli this time around and try the tea shop down the road.
Others lean against the school building to shout.
(It protects their backside.)
Your analogy is wrong:
I would prefer a steak dinner to cat excrement or dog excrement; but since it is NOT on the menu; I think I'll fast a bit.