Voting has always been and still is voting for best of two two evils..
Unless you man up and run for office yourself..
Who says I'm not?
Also, is your argument so weak that you're forced to resort to an ad homonym to try to make it stronger?
When in the course of events citizens of a so-called free republic are forced to pick between collectivist despot #1 and collectivist despot #2, then we're not free and our votes are pro forma and meaningless - regardless whether you think despot #1 is a little less despotic then despot #2.
It seems to me the only rational argument that you can make that makes sense is that Romney will transform into a champion of liberty. It may well be true, but many among us remain unconvinced.
As a businessman, I've applied the art of running bigger competitors out of markets by forcing them to make a “lesser of two evils” decision over and over again until I own all their customers. Once you've maneuvered your competition into a position where you're dictating those kinds of trade-offs for them, you've already won.
When was the last time we got to vote for a real champion of freedom within the two party system (outside of a primary)? My last time was Reagan in 1984. I've been voting for lesser of two evil candidates ever since. Several of them have won, and look where it's gotten us: the brink of national ruin. Why continue to do the same thing and think you'll get a different result?
These are the arguments before us and they're good solid debatable points. No reason to accuse each other of not being men.