I said “on govt time”. I dont agree with his view of relationships, but I am not going to agree with job discrimination based on that view, as long as its not on company time and does not compromise his job.
I never said it was a smart move on Romney’s part, just dont think its all that important with national financial solvency on the line and destructive defense policies at risk.
Dont think “O” doesn’t have a few alternate lifestylist working for him.
My attitude towards homosexuals is about the same as towards Mitt: toleration. I won’t accept it, or certainly approve of it, as they would like, but I tolerate it as long as they don’t push their lifestyle on their time or my time.
Just as I won’t stand in Mitten’s way—but I won’t support, endorse or work for him. And I thought I erred toward the libertarian ... you don’t think that the fact that this fart-knocker is a “gay activist” will “compromise his job”?
Your last line: this is why Mittens is Rombama.
"Includes topics like universal health care, gun rights, energy, NDAA, the Patriot Act, Iran, sanctions, economic stimulus. bank and auto bailouts, civil rights, TARP, the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, campaign donations, and more......"
We agree, basically, but here’s the conumdrum: I do want to give 0 his walking papers, like everyone here and you, but the best conclusion we can hope for is exchanging the devil we know for ... the devil we know.
I don’t know how Romney could be any worse unless one objects on principle to being stabbed in the back (ala McCain) instead of in the chest. So he does this and confirms again that it will be: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Romney is doing this so the entire Republican party can be brought down in the next election.
What a horribly bitter old man ~ bet his dad made him do girls rather than what he obviously wanted to do ~ dress up in fancy clothes and primp for his boyfriends.