I care. Fags should not lead our foreign and national security issues. So if China hits us with a missile, the proper response is glitter?lentulusgracchus has realized gay spies are everywhere!
When you see guys clustering like that, especially gays, you're justified in suspecting ulterior agenda and shunning the whole bunch. Which the entire GOP needs to do -- a purge of the homosexuals infesting the Party. They seem to be overrepresented ..... which means they're deliberately climbing aboard, like shiprats, and running cabals behind the scenes to expel non-gay-friendly people from the GOP. Well, guess what, girls -- turn about is fair play.cripplecreek laments how this means Republicans can't rage against the sodomites quite as well:
The way Mittites are trying to make it all OK are a perfect demonstration of what’s wrong with electing RINOs. People who sweep dirt under their own rugs have no room to point fingers as democrat filth.muawiyah thinks hypocritical to dislike pedophiles and not homosexuals:
MARK FOLEY did a really great job helping the Republicans lose their political hind ends in the 2006 election. Even though the public tolerates Democrat homosexuals (assuming most of them are probably homosexuals) they punish the Republicans for turning more of these people loose to run for office or make policy.Psalm 144 makes with the funny:
Well, when you read Richard Grenell’s lips, just try not to think about where they have been.Psalm 144 now gets serious, laying out Mitt Romney's Mormon anti-baby Agenda:
There is a pattern here. Willard promotes abortion and formal homosexual copulatory arrangements as public policy, but not within amongst his own co-religionists. He encourages fecundity and stability narrowly within his own group, and sterile, self destructive behavior amongst ALL others. Willard is not hypocritical, nor schizophrenic, nor empty. He is a malefactor, and works to as certain a purpose as did his moral and intellectual equivalent, Margaret Sanger.huldah1776 takes Romney being a liberal to it's logical conclusion:
Anyone thinking what I am thinking? That Romney actually wants to lose so all his radical ideas (those of the current administration) can continue to become policy? Romney is the dividing point, and he doesn’t need to be president.