SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: calgal who wrote (55917)9/17/2012 12:55:03 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
of Mitts and Muslims






Sep 17, 2012














    • Dear Mitt: Despite the fact that I really do not trust or respect you, I have decided to give you some free political advice. I do it for two reasons: First, I would rather have a president I do not really trust (you) than one I actually despise (Obama). Second, the advisors and spokesmen you are paying are doing a woefully inadequate job of directing your campaign. Let me give you a couple of examples.



    After the Chick-fil-A scandal consumed the country for weeks on end, you stated that you wanted to stay out of the controversy and focus on the economy. That was fine, I suppose. But, shortly thereafter, one of your spokespersons went public with the revelation that you oppose the Boy Scout policy of excluding homosexuals from membership. You did not need to weigh in on this issue and alienate social conservatives. We simply cannot imagine why you are bothered by the fact that an organization promoting clean living would want to exclude sodomites. Perhaps you were trying to appease voters who think they have the right to lead pre-pubescent boys on weekend excursions into the woods. But that is an issue for less than one percent of the population. So I am inclined to think you were trying to appeal to independents by saying “Mitt isn’t anti-gay!”



    Later on, you really blew it on the abortion issue. The Republicans finally got it right and decided that abortion was not permissible in cases of rape because the baby conceived in rape has more of a right to life than the rapist who is protected from dismemberment by the Eighth Amendment. It was a common sense decision you should have left alone. But perhaps you were trying to appease those who have been impregnated by rapists because you incorrectly assumed that they usually abort under those circumstances. But, again, that is an issue for less than one percent of the population. So I am inclined to think you were trying to appeal to independents by saying “Mitt isn’t anti-woman!”
    Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
     Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

    HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
    Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
    © 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News