I’m not surprised: Just weeks ago, Romney came out in favor of Gay Couples, and believe it or not said that at the state level Gays should be allowed to adopt children.
Just another reason not to vote for Mittens.
That’s one of the biggest reasons to not allow them to marry. Gee...what do you think’ll happen to these boys adopted by these gay men?
But for the life of me, I don't get this guy. He is so .... lifeless .... bland ... he makes me feel as if I ought to run up to him and hold a mirror under his nose before I call the Emergency Squad.
His lame ripostes to Team Obama's skillful lies are so namby-pamby "I am NOT, You are!" seem to be the limit of his commo skills.
Please advise.
Which is a euphemism for "The state should be allowed to force adoption agencies to accommodate homosexual couples who want to adopt kids." That's what happened in Massachusetts, and after 109 years, Catholic adoption charities closed their doors rather than relinquish the precious, innocent children entrusted to them to oblige this depraved social engineering.
Voting for that is a bad idea, and that's what a vote "against" Obama is a vote FOR because that is Romney's philosophy in principle and practice.
I'm voting to make sure that if this bastard wins, he will be denied a mandate, because if Romney wins in a landslide, the consequences would be horrific; he and the GOPe and Moderate Republicans and progressives and the MSM would GUARANTEED define it as a popular mandate for Romney's "progressive style of governing." It's all about Obama now, but in 2013 and 2014, it would be all about Romney. ABOers, you would not be voting "against" Obama, you would be voting FOR Romney. Who and what you voted FOR is all that would count in the years ahead.
Stand and fight. Vote to deny either winner, Obama or Romney, a mandate. Your vote for a third party candidate will serve to weaken the mandate of EITHER ONE that wins. If you decline to vote at the top of the ticket, your lack of vote will increase the relative proportion of votes for the winner in terms of percentage of the vote split.
Is voting for a plurality split to deny a mandate to the winner risky? Yep, but consider this: Obama is in trouble with his supporters, he is polling low, many who voted for him last time are disillusioned, and it's likely he would be denied even 50% of the vote. Of ALL YEARS to forfeit your voice in influencing whether the Dem or Rep wins and exchanging it for the ability to force whichever guy wins into a plurality so he lacks a popular mandate, this is the year. Obama is as weak as Romney in terms of support. LET'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT and DENY a mandate to either one of these depraved and dangerous assclowns.
Pray for a plurality, vote for a plurality. Vote third party at the top of the ticket.