Monday, October 08, 2012

Why Would Any Woman Vote For Romney?

The title of this post comes from a Facebook post by someone I know. This person linked to an article like this one, regarding Romney's position regarding eliminating taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. The recent Democratic Party Convention spent an inordinate amount of time ranting about a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child. They had speakers, like the idiotic Sandra Fluke, to whine about the evil Republican desire to deny them contraceptives and abortions. It seems the left is heavily invested in defending one's right to abdicate responsibility and damn it, the government must pay whatever it costs to do so. All that matters is that we can have sex any time with whomever we want and to hell with the consequences, all of which are to be shared equally by all, including those who act in a mature and responsible manner despite their own innate desires. So anyway, while I'm trying to decide how best to answer this question (as well as finding the time to do so whilst working over ten hours per day), the Weekly Standard was kind enough to run a four page article in their Sept 10 issue entitled, "Can This Be What Women Want?" It turns out that, according to polls, women aren't all that concerned about using tax money for Planned Parenthood or demanding coverage of contraceptives. No. They're more interested in the protection of their right to choose which job offer to accept, except that there are few jobs from which to choose. Damned if the ladies aren't concerned about the economy and jobs. It seems abortion "rights" isn't high on their list of important concerns. Who'd a-thunk it? Well, no one who buys in to the Democratic narrative that suggests a Republican war on women and uses Romney's position against tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood as an example. It seems, then, that the answer to the question is "Women would vote for Romney because they want jobs, a better economy, financial security to allow them to take care of themselves and their families." Or perhaps we should ask, "What kind of woman would vote for Romney?" It would be one for whom tax money for abortions and contraceptives is a decidedly impractical, if not immature, issue on which to choose a candidate. Even if we were to buy into the notion that birth control pills are the best way to deal with non-birth-control-related health issues suffered by some women, they're still only about nine bucks at WallMart. Before I go any further, I think it is important to point out very clearly that what is being discussed here is not outlawing abortion or contraception, but merely denying funding of these things with taxpayer monies. The Sandra Flukes of the world, AKA, the typical woman would wouldn't vote for Romney because of his stance against federal funding of Planned Parenthood, demand that the rest of us join in and facilitate their immoral behavior with our tax dollars. Pregnancy is 100% preventable without contraception and thus, abortion does not require funding assistance from those of us who understand and recognize the incredible immorality of snuffing innocent life. And there exists no women's health issue for which ONLY birth control pills are the solution. Therefor, there is no legitimate reason to demand that the taxpayer, the insurance companies or private corporations or companies must provide for these things. (As to the health issues where birth control pills are prescribed, how can the tax payer be certain sexual activity won't still take place during the period such treatment is ongoing? Birth control pills do not prevent all pregnancies, but will cause miscarriages. In other words, chemical abortions.) I wonder also about the person who asked the question originally. What must the person think of women in general to suppose that this issue is one that must be a major consideration for them in choosing a candidate? So here's another question: Why would any person believe that women must be turned off by Romney's unwillingness to use tax money to fund Planned Parenthood? I like my women to be a little deeper than that.

45 comments:

Marshall Art said...

I don't know why this post isn't separated into the paragraphs as I wrote it. I'm really losing my patience with Blogger.

Jim said...

It seems the left is heavily invested in defending one's right to abdicate responsibility and damn it, the government must pay whatever it costs to do so.

Sandra Fluke has never asked for the government to pay for contraception. She wants her private employer or private school to provide her with insurance that conforms to US law and covers contraception with no copay. The government has nothing to do with paying for it.

Jim said...

All that matters is that we can have sex any time with whomever we want and to hell with the consequences, all of which are to be shared equally by all, including those who act in a mature and responsible manner despite their own innate desires.

It's about time we heard from the Sex Nazi again. It's been about 84 days.

What "consequences" are "to be shared equally by all"?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I suppose you can be forgiven for not being able to read this post clearly, as for some reason, Blogger didn't separate the paragraphs as I intended. I've tried to fix it, but it won't input my attempts. It does make for difficult reading.

There. I've allowed for an excuse for you. But you obviously missed this:

"The Sandra Flukes of the world, AKA, the typical woman would wouldn't vote for Romney because of his stance against federal funding of Planned Parenthood, demand that the rest of us join in and facilitate their immoral behavior with our tax dollars."

Note the bold above. Just a couple of sentences later, I wrote:

"Therefor, there is no legitimate reason to demand that the taxpayer, the insurance companies or private corporations or companies must provide for these things."

In the first, I referred to women like Sandra Fluke, not Fluke specifically. That's what "the Sandra Flukes of the world" means. Then, I tied her and those like her together in the second highlighted excerpt by virtue of the demands these women aim towards various entities, tax payers included. The point is women who think others should be footing the bill for their abortions and contraceptives, be it through tax monies used to do it or insurance companies or employers. I know you lefties are extremely eager to catch us with our facts wrong, but you've just made yourself look foolish.

"What "consequences" are "to be shared equally by all"?"

Anything for which coverage is expected: abortions, STDs, contraceptives...whatever. All of these are considered by some to be worthy of coverage by insurance or tax dollars. All are preventable very inexpensively by developing stronger morals and character. So I have to wonder...

Do you have some difficulty controlling your sexual desires, Jim? Do you have some goofy notion that sex for the sake of sex is somehow necessary for life, like food and water? Is this why you continue to foolishly run this "Sex Nazi" bullshit? I have consistently been speaking in favor of personal restraint and responsibility. You know. Maturity. And you have this fantasy that has me outlawing sexual behavior. You need counseling for this.

Parklife said...

So.. rather than reading about how wrong you are in the McDonald's coffee case, you post this nonsense. Bravo.. you have no integrity.

Jim said...

You need counseling for this.

This, I believe, is called projection.

Yes, it wasn't easy to stay on track reading your post due to format.

their immoral behavior is YOUR opinion and frankly none of your business.

97% of Planned Parenthood services are not abortion-related. Most is preventative health care and family planning, both of which SAVE money including tax payer dollars by lowering the overall cost of health care.

By your logic, why should others be footing the bill for your Viagra?

By law, tax monies do not pay for abortions. Insurance companies don't PAY for abortions or contraceptives. They may COVER those health care services, but they are paid by their policy holders to COVER them. Private corporations don't PAY for abortions or contraceptives. They COMPENSATE their employees for the work they perform by applying a portion of that compensation to insurance premiums for policies that cover a variety of services which individual policy holders may or may not choose to use based on their gender, family situation, religion, heredity and many other factors.

You better read that paragraph again, because it's important and it may be difficult for you to understand.

My sexual desires or your lack of same are irrelevant. Most people believe that sex is an important component of a healthy and happy life. How they practice it is none of your business.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

Integrity would entail describing exactly why you perceive this post as nonsense. It would not entail proclaiming I was wrong about something (where I wasn't) without explaining why. But then, as always, you likely have a far different understanding of the term "integrity" than do normal people. Thanks again for posting another comment that demonstrates you have absolutely nothing to say.

Parklife said...

heh.. "nothing to say".. says the liar and fool.

Wait.. how did your argument go.. We are not supposed to look at the facts and just jump to a conclusion. Fits perfectly with the right-wingnut world view.

Marshall Art said...

And speaking of misunderstandings...

Jim,

What you call projection is clearly explained. You continue to insist I seek to prohibit sexual activity when I never, ever have. I don't know if that qualifies as projection, but it is delusional to see what doesn't exist.

Sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman IS immoral. It's not my opinion. I'm stating fact. Ask your pastor. Better yet, get yourself a Bible and read for yourself. Also, abortion as birth control, as well as birth control drugs that cause miscarriages IS immoral, so that sexual activity that results in the use of either is also immoral.

Using PP's numbers won't win you any awards for honesty. Indeed, PP has shown a propensity for dishonest behavior. This article and this article give a more objective analysis of PP's numbers. Note that the second actually uses the 3% figure that the first shows is untrue. Between the two articles, the figure is closer to 20% at best (from PP's defenders).

What's more, those services not related to abortion in any way can be had by better clinics and organizations who exist to serve the needy. No tax monies, federal or otherwise, need be spent on such an outfit as Planned Parenthood.

If you can demonstrate that Planned Parenthood actually separates the cash that comes from the taxpayer so that it cannot be used for abortions, I'd like to see it. Also, recall that Obama reversed the so-called "Mexico City policy". Federal dollars are indeed going to abortion providers for abortions.

What makes you think I support "footing the bill" for Viagra? My position is that health insurance return to what it was meant to cover, and that was catastrophic illness or injury, with all other medical concerns being paid out of pocket. Thus, Viagra wouldn't be covered. However, this incredibly lame attempt to equate coverage for Viagra with coverage for abortion and contraception is typical of the deceit and desperation of the sex without regard attitude. Though regaining function of one's member can be to regain the ability to have sex for the sake of having sex only, losing the ability to procreate is a legitimate claim for coverage. But pregnancy is easily preventable and thus seeking funds to kill one's child does not equate to seeking funds to restore lost function of a body part.

continued....

Marshall Art said...

There's nothing hard to understand about your paragraph except the fact that you think you've made a logical point. All you're doing is what you've tried to do already. Each of those examples comes down to the average individual being made to pay, either through taxes, higher premiums or reduced compensation. And all for the ability of others to have sex without consequence.

My inquiries regarding your personal sexual situation is indeed relevant as I seek to find some reason for your completely illogical position and comments regarding this issue.

"Most people believe that sex is an important component of a healthy and happy life."

But it is not in the least required for either a healthy OR happy life. If it was, then you'd have a better argument for insisting on support for such heinous practices. As it isn't, your arguments are the usual cheap rationalizations.

"How they practice it is none of your business."

But how my tax dollars are spent is. Why my insurance premiums rise is. Why money that could be used to better cover my company health plan or increase my take home pay is. And when people engage in sexual activity and look outside themselves for money to pay to correct the consequences of their immaturity, it is.

Parklife said...

wow.. not only are you a coward for not finishing what you started at Dans, but... "But how my tax dollars are spent is. Why my insurance premiums rise is."... you are a complete idiot.

Marshall Art said...

""nothing to say".. says the liar and fool."

Wow. That's exactly what I said. Benny, the foolish liar, has nothing to say. Why repeat it? To prove you're foolish?

"Wait.. how did your argument go.. We are not supposed to look at the facts and just jump to a conclusion"

Integrity would demand some proof to back up this assertion. It's not remotely similar to anything I've ever said.

"Fits perfectly with the right-wingnut world view."

Integrity would demand some proof to back up this assertion. It's not remotely similar to anything within in the right-wing view.

"...not only are you a coward for not finishing what you started at Dans..."

Integrity would demand some proof to back up this assertion. I did finish what I started. Your inability to comprehend does not diminish this fact. Anyone can go there and see, provided they give a rat's ass what your childish opinion is.

"but... "But how my tax dollars are spent is. Why my insurance premiums rise is."... you are a complete idiot."

Integrity would demand some explanation for why this opinion makes me an idiot. But then, you're too much of a cowardly idiot to provide an attempt.

Craig said...


"By your logic, why should others be footing the bill for your Viagra?"

Perhaps I missed the part where anyone suggested that others should foot the bill for Marshall's Viagra.

Maybe, that format thing caused you to see things that don't exist.

Jim said...

Sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman IS immoral.

It's not.

It's not my opinion

Of course it is. You just stated it.

I'm stating fact.

No, you are stating your belief.

birth control drugs that cause miscarriages IS immoral

No it's not.

sexual activity that results in the use of either is also immoral.

No it's not. Even if I dissect that statement, it is illogical. You are saying if a married couple uses certain types of contraceptives, their having sex itself is immoral. Good luck convincing any married couple of that.

I wouldn't vouch for the honesty of your two PP sources if I were you. The first uses pretzel logic to fail to refute that abortion is only 3% of services. The second tries to redefine abortion counter to the law and the medical community.

Marshall Art said...

So as a professing Christian, you disagree with the God you claim to worship, is that it? Or is it that you simply go to church because the wife makes you go or some other reason not related to an actual belief in the God of the Bible?

If you don't believe in God, then you can't really speak in terms of morality because you are simply being subjective. There IS not morality without God.

So, since I base my understanding of morality on the clearly revealed Will of God, everything I've said regarding what constitutes immorality is NOT my opinion, but the truth as so clearly revealed in Scripture.

I have no trouble telling anyone that the use of the common birth control pill is immoral due to its affects on a living human embryo. Truly Christian married couples understand that this makes the use of BC pills immoral. Truly honest non-religious people would as well. That obviously doesn't include you.

The sources are using PP numbers to come to their conclusions. The problem you're having is putting your faith in an organization that has been proven to engage in dishonest practices. The dishonest practice of note here is to separate the effects of the common birth control pill (and its doubly dangerous sibling, the morning after pill) from abortion despite the fact that it is causing the miscarrying of living human embryos. As the second article clearly pointed out, prescribing or encouraging the use of morning after pills must count as abortion since its stated use is an after the fact action.

But to your wacky accusation of the use of pretzel logic, the point is clear. Abortions account for far more than 3% of what they are doing if their total number of clients is 3 million and the total number of abortions performed was 332,278. That's ten percent, not three. It is obvious that PP is using the total number of services performed to make is seem as if abortion is just a once in awhile deal. And you dare question the honesty of the source I use. Then, as stated earlier, the second article defines abortion as any dictionary would. Abort means to end. Using pills that result in a miscarriage by preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterus aborts the pregnancy. But, in typical leftist fashion, you dishonestly appeal to the law (put forth by other dishonest lefties) and the medical community rather than the actual definition.

Marshall Art said...

A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!!

Just to be clear, I do not deal with any brand of erectile dysfunction drugs, such as Viagra. I do admit, however, that I find the four hour erection warning intriguing.

Jim said...

There IS not morality without God.

False.

So, since I base my understanding of morality on the clearly revealed Will of God, everything I've said regarding what constitutes immorality is NOT my opinion

It is not "fact". It is faith.

Truly Christian married couples understand that this makes the use of BC pills immoral.

Based on studies of usage and sales of contraceptives, either there is a plethora of immoral "Truly Christian" married couples out there or else there are simply very few who meet YOUR standards of "Truly Christian."

Abortions account for far more than 3% of what they are doing if their total number of clients is 3 million and the total number of abortions performed was 332,278. That's ten percent, not three.

That is Romney-math. That's like saying that if the corner store has 100 customers and at Thanksgiving 50 of them buy a can of cranberry sauce, then 50% of the store's business is cranberry sauce.

Romney-math.

And you dare question the honesty of the source I use.

You're damn right I do. Always.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Jim, that's a big part of your massive fail. Try to pay attention here:

A service is a product in the sense that a consumer purchases both. Thus, one customer buying a can of cranberry sauce is similar to a woman getting a pap smear at PP. Both are purchasing ONE product. As the first article so clearly and honestly points out, one person getting a can of sauce and a box of cereal is still one customer, just as the woman who got a pap smear together with a breast exam is one customer.

To cut to the chase, it's a question of which equation best describes what is done by PP. 10% of their clients in 2009 got abortions. That constitutes 10% of their business that year, not counting those receiving drugs that accomplish the same result. I would assume that at least some of that 10% also paid for other services. Remove that 10% and their profit picture looks much worse. It's just how one looks at the numbers. The dishonesty comes in using whatever method to make it appear as if abortion is no different than a shopper buying tape. Abortion is the main reason for PP's existence.

As for Romney-math, the guy's freakin' loaded. I'll take his math to Obama's any day. Obama's math has put us in a much deeper hole than we were already in.

It is true that there is no morality without God. What constitutes morality without God is personal subjectivity. There is no one who can prove any given behavior is moral or immoral. You might think it is obvious that murder is wrong. What difference does the suffering of others make if not for some eternal consequences? If a murderer can endure the earthly consequences, and has no "moral" issue with murdering people, he's living a happy life.

But God has decided what constitutes right and wrong behaviors. This decision exists regardless of whether or not we do. As an alleged Christian, this should not be news to you and I find it curious that it is. Just what kind of Lutheran are you? Be honest. You're not really a Christian at all, are you?

"Based on studies of usage and sales of contraceptives, either there is a plethora of immoral "Truly Christian" married couples out there or else there are simply very few who meet YOUR standards of "Truly Christian."

Just as Dan and other lefty christians like to believe, I have yet to express MY standards of what constitutes God's Will. I have no need to do this since His Will is so clearly revealed to us in Scripture. Those who claim to be Christians and do not find abortion to be immoral, or consider the action morally benign, or even a good, are not truly Christian. More specifically, they do not have a grasp of what Christianity is or what it is supposed to look like. What Christians do in their personal lives dictates their devotion to the faith and/or their understanding of it. Some people who claim to be Christians take liberties with their taxes. Some have been members of criminal organization. Are we to then state that such things are not immoral or evil or illegal? You'd be damned right to question your own honesty.

Jim said...

one person getting a can of sauce and a box of cereal is still one customer, just as the woman who got a pap smear together with a breast exam is one customer.

So if an auto company sells a mini-van and a light pickup truck to one customer and sells 1,000 step vans and 50 tractor-trailer rigs to UPS, then 50% of the company's business is mini-vans and light pick up trucks, right?

The dishonesty is pivoting to a nonsense calculation of a meaningless number.

There is no one who can prove any given behavior is moral or immoral.

There! You've said it!

What difference does the suffering of others make if not for some eternal consequences?

So, except for your belief in God, you would kill your brother if you could get away with it, right?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"So if an auto company sells a mini-van and a light pickup truck to one customer and sells 1,000 step vans and 50 tractor-trailer rigs to UPS, then 50% of the company's business is mini-vans and light pick up trucks, right?"

It would only indicate that 50% of their customer base purchased those items. It is not me saying it constitutes any percentage of anything. PP wants to posture itself as more than an abortion mill, so it looks to diminish the amount of its abortions by adding it to the numbers of other services customers consumed.

A dealership could sell two models: one @ $10K and the other at $75K. If it sells only one of each, 50% of its business is split between the two models. But the expensive car accounts for far more than 50% of it's profits. Either could be used as an example of where their business is at to get across whatever point it is they're presenting.

As I said, the deceit is in PP's decision to mix abortion in as a service offered versus how many of their clients get abortions.

What's more deceitful is to presume that any percentage is a justification for using federal funds at all, especially for an outfit like PP that doesn't need federal donations.

"There! You've said it!"

Yeah. I did. No one can prove what is moral or that morality even exists. God can and has. Without him, it's all subjective. Just because you think murder is OK, doesn't make it so. Just because you think murder isn't OK, doesn't make it so. We, as mortal beings trying to get through life, establish behaviors as good for us or bad. That doesn't make them so except as it affects our earthly goals. Thus, it is still subjective.

But morality as revealed by God is for us objective and fixed. It exists regardless of whether or not we do.

Jim said...

Either could be used as an example of where their business is at to get across whatever point it is they're presenting.

Is one of them dishonest?

Jim said...

It's really simple. Planned Parenthood performed over 10 million services in a year. 300,000 of those were abortions. That's 3% of services performed being abortions.

Neil said...

"Sandra Fluke has never asked for the government to pay for contraception. She wants her private employer or private school to provide her with insurance that conforms to US law and covers contraception with no copay. The government has nothing to do with paying for it."

She wants the government to force others to pay for birth control and abortifacients (and surgical abortions, of course -- just see the Democratic platform). Pretending that the gov't has nothing to do with paying for it is comical.

Neil said...

"97% of Planned Parenthood services are not abortion-related."

That is true. Much of the services are tied to hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking -- http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p

And the 97% sound bite is perpetuated by the ignorant and/or deceptive people who don't realize how PP twists that. They count all the individual steps of the process as activities, so someone who ends up with an abortion may have had several other services such as pregnancy tests, some condoms, etc. So an abortion client could have "only" 20% of her services as the actual abortion.

Then consider where PP makes their money: Abortions, not giving out condoms.

Neil said...

Finally, there is the absurdity of boasting that "only 3% of our business involves crushing and dismembering innocent but unwanted human beings."

Anonymous said...

This is the most idiotic blog I've come across in quite some time. Bravo.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Marshall,

I found a video of your brain talking!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iqyUU66qNuE

Marshall Art said...

Anon,

A sterling example of substantive analysis. Bravo. I'm sure your blog is a plethora of deep and profound insights. I can't wait to be underwhelmed.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Your link did not take me to a video, but to a Twitty page of some wacky member of the Westboro Baptist church, a group with which I bear absolutely no similarities whatsoever, except to really, really stupid people on the left. I'm surprised such a Brainiac as yourself hasn't figured out how to link directly to a youtube video. It isn't all that hard.

Feodor said...

Takes me right to the video.

Try again, but this time use a computer made after 2008.

Marshall Art said...

My computer's just fine. Maybe you could find someone to teach you how to use hyperlinks.

Neil said...

"a Twitty page of some wacky member of the Westboro Baptist church"

Trivia fact that you probably knew: The leader of that "church" is a Democrat. Somehow the media always forgets to mention that.

Parklife said...

"Why Would Any Woman Vote For Romney?"

Great question. Romney has binders full of reasons.

Parklife said...

"The leader of that "church" is a Democrat. Somehow the media always forgets to mention that."

Heh.. yet you share the same views. Funny how that works.

Marshall Art said...

"Romney has binders full of reasons."

And yet, in typical Parkie fashion, you don't provide even one.

"Heh.. yet you share the same views. Funny how that works."

Really? You find it amazing that two of opposite political perspectives might share some views? Do you find murder an appropriate method of resolving disputes? Wow! We share a view! Ah! But you obviously speak to opposition of homosexual behavior? No. You think our views of homosexuals are the same. That, too, is typical of you, to assume what is blatantly not true.

Parklife said...

"And yet, in typical Parkie fashion, you don't provide even one."

LOL!!!!

"You find it amazing that two of opposite political perspectives might share some views?"

.. rolling my eyes...

Feodor said...

Wow, the Simp found something to like about Mr. Phelps. That he used to be a Democrat is probably why he hasn't resorted to guns yet. It would be his support of Civil Rights which remains as whatever redeemable aspect he has.

His hate, though, is fueled by his Calvinism. Just like Neil.

Feodor said...

Marshall, you need to be taught how to copy and paste?

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You need to be taught how to use hyperlinks? I copied and pasted your offering and got nowhere.

BTW, you simp of a false priest, Neil hardly finds Phelps' Democratic leanings something to like. How far do you have reach to pull something like that out of your hindquarters? How much deeper a reach to assume Phelps not resorting to guns is guided by his Dem leanings. His hate is fueled by his stupidity which distorts his understanding of Scripture, just like you.

Marshall Art said...

Benny-boy,

You can "LOL" your ass off, but that just suggests a defect in your mental processes (clinical idiot). That was "binders full" of reasons why women wouldn't vote for Romney and yet you can't provide one example. Nor have you provided any examples of how Neil shares any views of Fred Phelps. You're pathetic as expected.

Parklife said...

lol.. marsha.. that reading comprehension thing continues to escape you. Worse.. it seems that you missed the debate this week.

As for Phelps and Neil.. and yourself.. all three of you hate gay people. Does it make you feel better that Phelps hates gay people more than you?

Marshall Art said...

Reasons, Benny-boy, reasons. You said "binders full of reasons". Obviously another sad attempt at cleverness. I fully doubt you believe women have good reasons to vote for Romney. Thus I assumed you were knowledgeable of what reasons Romney would have for them to vote for him. Of course you don't provide anything but pathetic attempts at humor.

No, I have not seen the 2nd debate yet. I have heard continuously of the left's irrational fixation on Romney's mention of having had binders of women. Apparently this common term in the world of hiring and human resources is lost on the left.

As for Neil and me, I know it makes you feel better to pretend we hate homosexuals. Why you'd think either or us, or even Fred Phelps, would hate happy people is beyond me. But you have yet to prove in any way that Neil or I hates homosexuals, so that means you're a liar. No surprise there.

Thus, if you have no reasons why women should or shouldn't vote for Romney, or if you have no evidence of hatred for homosexuals or gay people from Neil or myself, I'll just have to delete whatever lame and pathetic comment you're sure to post instead.

Parklife said...

"why women should or shouldn't vote for Romney"

LOL.. Marsha.. check the binders. I think your answer is in there.

You didnt watch the debate? Aww.. thats kind of sad. As a responsible voting person you should be engaged in these type of events.

You hate gay people because you dont want them to have the same basic human rights as every other couple. Either you hate gay people or you love to discriminate. You can pick.

Marshall Art said...

One more time, troll:

You offered the "binders of reasons". You must provide one of them. Without doing so, you prove you're worthless and just spouting what other lefties are saying.

I can't watch anything in prime time as I work during those hours. I watch when I can. I, however, don't need the debates because I pay attention as a matter of routine. All those who do that AND are honest can easily see Obama is not a choice as he clearly wasn't in '08. People like you, being neither honest nor willing to pay attention have hurt the nation.

Homosexuals have always enjoyed equal rights. To deny this is to lie and lying in this manner is typical of the activists and enablers like you (whether you are one or the other--or both--I have no idea nor do I care). I do not discriminate against any group of people, but it is a mature adult's duty to discriminate between good and bad behaviors. That leaves you out, but you could repent and become a mature adult---at least theoretically.

Now...last chance...any reasons why a woman should or shouldn't vote for Romney? Any evidence of hatred and discrimination on my part? List them or be deleted.