Category: Presidential Debates ‘n’ Stuff


These guys have GOT to stop spending so much time biting at the lure that the moderators are dangling in front of them.  Brian Williams snapped the pole with Romney on the end in front of Gingrich and he bit. Romney was offered Gingrich for rebuttal and he gobbled with gusto. At least when Santorum got a question he went positive on his own merits, for the greatest part of the night. Paul did pretty well about this, and only criticized positions, not necessarily individuals. As my sister pointed out, if she were those boys’ mother, she would have taken them by their ears and sent them to their rooms for such childish behavior. I concur. She added that there is a difference between debating and two little boys having a pissing contest. I couldn’t have said it better.

Romney did catch (calmly!) the Gingrich spin on what he said he would call the “Mitt Romney tax.”  Gingrich said that he would make the tax rate what Romney pays. Romney said, wait a minute, in your plan what would the tax rate be for capital gains? Gingrich said zero. Romney countered that his tax rate, under that plan, would be zero. Busted, Newt. Romney lives off capital gains taxes. The capital gains he makes are from returns on investments made with income he ALREADY paid taxes on at a much higher rate.

Santorum had a great point of how Gingrich and Romney supported bailouts of “Wall Street.” Santorum didn’t support the bailouts. He wisely discussed how destructive capitalism was supposed to work to reset the system (that’s what bankruptcy and the slew of laws that go with it is for), but that with the bailouts, the free market was strangled such that now the tax payers are stuck with the bill. Paul agreed and discussed how the federal government created the collapse with ridiculous regulations and laws that made risky loans a requirement. Thus, the way to fix it is to get the feds out, repeal the laws and regulations that are continuing the problem, and let the system heal itself. If the feds had done this right away, our economy would be booming by this point, as history has proved again and again.

I think I need to sit down with politicians and journalists and tell them the difference between “talking to the people of a country” and propping up dictators. Smart sanctions cripple the government (good), regular sanctions cripple the people and allow the dictators to blame America for the problems of the dictatorship (bad). So, to say that “sanctions” work is too vague. What kind of sanctions? Who do the sanctions cripple? Ron Paul and Gingrich had what seemed like two totally different answers about dealing with dictatorships. They said they disagreed with each other, but that’s impossible because they talked about two completely different topics. If I say, “I think that the grammatical rules of the English should be fundamentally changed,” and my opponent says, “No, I disagree, we should not change the wording in Beowulf,” we are not even on the same topic.

Paul said that he thinks that talking on Iran would be a stupid thing to do and that by “blockading” the country we are committing an act of war. He likens it to someone blockading the Gulf of Mexico. But, that comparison does not match because we are not run by leaders who are calling for the return of the 12th Imam and for ushering in a season of global bloodshed (in other words, nuts).  Santorum knows Iran and laid out the best reasoning for a defensive posture where we mean business and actually protect America.

For the portion about immigration, they all seemed to do fine and advocated legal immigration and not ‘rounding people up.’ One thing I didn’t know what that Santorum’s father was left in his home country by his grandfather until he could legally bring the rest of his family. He is the perfect example of someone who could counter the false “racism” cry on immigration issues. But, Paul nailed the English only federal requirement. Gingrich and Romney made good points about how being one country means being able to communicate as citizens of that country…it’s unifying. Gingrich laid out how there are 200 languages spoken in Chicago alone. Do we offer ballots in 200 languages for everything federal? That would mean that each federal bill would have to be posted on a federal website that is built in every language spoken in the U.S. Each federal judge decision would have to be written in each language, etc. If someone, right now, sued for this, the lack of a national language would require the government to do this. It is not feasible. But, Paul stated it succinctly, when he said that at the federal level, we must have one language, but the beauty of our system of government is that the states, cities, and/or localities can offer ballots in whatever languages they choose.

Alright, I watched the debate, some parts twice. Here is my very long “summary.” If you have any specific questions about why I think any of these things, please comment and I will give you details.

 

Domestic policy: They all have a plan. Each of theirs is better than Obama’s. I think Paul’s and Perry’s are the best.

 

Romney answered the idiocy that is going around about Bain very well. Bain is not evil, Romney is not doing, and did not do, anything untoward. In fact, if it weren’t for Bain (or someone) investing in these companies, they would have gone under and ALL the jobs would have been lost.

 

Santorum talked about unemployment benefits impressively. Gingrich showed more true colors when he said he wants to “help” people learn how to get a job, get a better job, then own the job (work for themselves). Um, is he running for the office of dad? Or for president? Blurry line, there.

 

Social Issues: They all kept bringing the topic back to Obama, which is good. They need to compare their views to Obama’s.

 

Santorum brought up that under Obama’s regulations, the foundations that are to help at-risk youth (mostly young girls) cannot tell them what good choices are. They cannot tell them that they should graduate high school, get married before having children, or be sure to be a working citizen (all things the Brookings Institute found to reduce chances of poverty to 2%). Obama pulled the funding on a Catholic group who assist young girls who were sex slaves in the human trafficking trade because Catholics oppose abortion. The list goes on and on…and Santorum kept taking it back to the facts of Obama’s policies. In fact, most of them did.

 

Perry seemed to do pretty well. He had some solid proposals, and realized it would take an amendment to the Constitution to make the Congress meet every other year. Right now, it states they must meet at least once per year. The idea that the Congress should go home and get real jobs like the rest of us while facing their constituents sat really well with the audience…and me. AND he was asked what he would do to help the housing market. He said he would reduce taxes and get rid of excessive regulation that is killing jobs and investment (Dodd-Frank, et al). The moderator said, “So you wouldn’t do anything directly about the housing market?” He said, “If we do those other two very significant things, the housing market would right itself. It’s not the federal government’s business to meddle in the housing market!” Good answer. So help me, he had many good answers.

 

Gingrich had some good one liners, but he is still more into “big solutions” which means “government intervention of some kind.” I would still vote for him over Obama because, unlike Obama, I think Gingrich actually loves America and knows how America is exceptional.

 

To sum up: they are all pro-life (some more adamantly than others), they are all for protecting the sanctity of marriage and the family as the core unit to any successful society, and they are all opposed to constricting law abiding citizens from buying guns. They are all for making us energy independent by actually using the energy we have available by the boatload in the US – while encouraging alternative energy development*, securing the border, and stopping so much federal spending (most of them are, at least on the campaign trail). Some have rockier pasts than others have, and maybe should have thought about that before they became the governor of a super liberal state and then trying run for president as a full-blown conservative.

 

*Here’s the problem. None of them (maybe Ron Paul?) seem to get that if you subsidize anything you will get too much of it, and not know what it is that you lost by not letting people figure it out for themselves. If specific horse and buggy alternatives had been subsidized by the federal government, who knows what would have happened. We probably would not have gotten the car. If someone could have gotten it in their head that the best way to replace the horse and buggy would be to have sails on a wagon, the government probably, with the right lobbying, would have subsidized that. There would have been several models, trials, R&D money sloshing all around, and Henry Ford would not have had any investors who cared to back his combustion engine because they would have had to pay higher taxes to support the grants for R&D to the sail manufacturers. See? Clear as mud, right?

 

Ok, foreign policy:

I was on board, at first, with Ron Paul’s brand spankin’ new approach to explaining his foreign policy….at first. He was talking about how we should, in general, observe the sovereignty of other nations (don’t invade Germany…check!); we should secure our borders (with him so far); beef up military spending on important stuff…not mansion-like embassies (I can see that…be simple yet elegant); and how we could get info out of terrorists if we capture them instead of killing them (KSM info stopped the “second wave,” as opposed to Osama, who is deader than a doornail not spilling any proverbial beans). I thought all of that made sense, if you look at it in the right light. Then, the crazy started seeping out his wrinkles when he said that we should have a Golden Rule approach to other countries.

 

Well, okay. I can see that. If we were run by a madman who was threatening to eliminate Iran from the map, kill ALL its inhabitants with the weapons we were set on building, denied that the 1979 revolution happened, and funded lots and lots of terrorists that kept attacking Iran, I can see that country calling for sanctions against our country. Sure. But, that’s not what he meant…

 

He said that we should negotiate with the Taliban because they just don’t want foreigners on their land. That’s all. They are different from Al Qaeda. Ooohhhh! Is THAT all?? Huh. I thought the Taliban harbored and funded terrorists (and still do, specifically those who plot to harm the US), loved Osama so much they protected him while he plotted against the US, oppressed Afghan women horribly when they took over that country, and terrorized minorities when in control there. He must have been talking about a different Taliban than the one I’m thinking about.

 

Perry mentioned the zero foreign aid magic words. I thought that was bold. And Gingrich and Romney both said, about the direct enemies of the United States of America, “Kill them,” to much applause. Ron said that was us being warmongers, but maybe he was napping when the “enemies” were defined as “terrorists who are currently at war with us and plotting each day to kill each and every American man, woman, and child.”

 

Oh, one big “no, no” for Romney. He said he would have signed the NDAA. BAD DOG! NO! HEEL! Ugh. He said he didn’t think Obama would abuse that law, nor would he. Uh, newsflash, Mitt, THEN DON’T HAVE A LAW THAT STATES YOU CAN DETAIN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN INDEFINITELY WITHOUT TRIAL FOR ANY REASON OF SUSPICION, WHERE THE WORD ‘SUSPICION’ HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DEFINED IN THE BILL! But, maybe that’s just me.

 

Now, I think that after the debate, someone who loves him might just knock him across the head and notify him of the horribleness of that bill. Hopefully he’ll be ready with a better answer next time. Something like, “When everyone else seemed so upset about the bill, I went and reread it (he can pretend he read it the first time, that’s okay), and I see the language for the vague and horrible danger it is for the American people.” That would be good.

 

All in all, if you missed the debate, just know that any of these five would be better than what we have now. And, if they are smart, whoever gets elected will place any or all of the other guys in cabinet or advisory positions. Just don’t make Paul the Secretary of State. You’re welcome.

 

 

Remember how I wrote that I would SURELY come back and give my insights to the last debate? Yeah, well, that’s not going to happen. Buck up, it’ll be okay. You want the good news??

 

I messed around long enough that there is another one tonight. I promise to take notes instead of crocheting this time. Although, the afghan I am crocheting IS turning out nicely…

 

No! Sorry! Moment of weakness. I WILL take notes and keep you posted. 🙂 LLLLLET’S GET READY TO RUMMMMBLLLLLE! Or something more presidential…

Ok, I didn’t take notes while the debate was going on because I was crocheting. So, for in depth stuff, you’ll have to wait for a couple of days. Yes, I know, you could read about the debate somewhere else, but who’s funnier? Huh? You know it’s me!!

 

Anyway, the things that stick out in my really-ready-for-bed mind from the debate are:

-Sawyer asked what they’d be doing on a Saturday night, if not debating. All the others had normal stuff (mostly football). Even Ron Paul, who said he’d be with his family, but if they went to sleep he’d read an econ textbook, I believed. But Huntsman said some slobbery crap about talking to his two boys who are in the Navy and are an integral part of what makes this country great. Really? You would call your boys and tell them how you used them to plug yourself…one last time…for pres? Even after ALL the others had answered something rational?? Yeah. ok.

 

-For the first time in a long time, Ron Paul said something about foreign policy that I agreed with. Can’t quite remember it, off the top of my head (I said I was tired!), so you’ll have to wait until I watch it again and take notes.

 

-Santorum still knows his foreign policy. yea!

 

-So help me, Perry sounded pretty good. Yikes. He must have a debating coach now or something.

 

-If the candidates don’t stop saying things about each other that aren’t 100% true, I’m gonna have to smack ’em. They are not in 3rd grade. They had some spats, like they were 13 year old girlfriends having a tiff. Not cool. Most of it was fine, but the schoolyard garbage stood out. If it grated on me, guess what the NY Times will zero in on, hmmm?

 

-Newt is, if nothing else, hilarious. Well, he’s a lot of things, some of which aren’t fit to discuss in civil society, but I laughed out loud at some of his stuff.

 

-Romney made me laugh!!! He’s not made of plastic, y’all! And, he did point out the stupidity of a couple of questions. They are getting bolder…I like that.

 

-Could the moderators have asked any more stupid questions? And, I’d like to let Diane know that the “high minded” talk of the Constitution, that she thinks went on waaay too long (like a whole 3 minutes), is what is happening all over this country and people really do want to know what the candidates understand about it. Just because she thinks it’s irrelevant or over the head of the people who watch her show doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get it.

 

-Apparently, Huntsman still feels that there is a trust deficit between Americans and the government.  I wonder if that is a sound bite he plays in his head while he sleeps. He says that ALL THE TIME. We get it. You think there should be trust. However, even if George Washington himself were the president, I wouldn’t trust him any further than I could throw him. He’s a politician. By nature, you don’t trust any politician…ever. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place!!!

 

That’s it. I’m going to bed. I have a headache.

My friend, Rex, had amazing insights that he compacted into one paragraph. He touched on all the candidates, and I think it summed things up quite well! The beginning of this piece was in response to a discussion about the candidates, which had landed on Huntsman:

“I know, I’ve heard him talk about evolution, but it seems to me that missing links have still not been found, so I don’t see the necessity of believing in something about which no one can really know, unless he’s a time traveler, but all the candidates have certitudes that I can’t share. Gingrich has a certitude in his superior intelligence, but I wouldn’t put all my money on that roll of the dice unless he was writing a book about a Civil War that never happened that way. Romney has a certitude in his ability to make money, which is fine, but there are things we share together in a government that have no relationship to being a businessman, and I wish he’d talk about those things more. Bachman and Santorum have a certitude in their righteousness, but politics often forces us to choices where purity can be found on neither side. Ron Paul has a certitude that is a rough parallel of Obama, that his minding his own business will result in the other guy minding his own business as well. It’s not a very good defense to let your enemies surround you before you start to understand their hostility. Perry has always been successful before, so he sees no reason why he shouldn’t be this time. I would like it better if he had suffered a little more, because when he gets in the White House, things are going to start to go wrong, and it’s what a President does when that happens that is the measure of a President. Any of them are preferable to the indifference and disdain Obama has shown our country, but all the Republicans need to broaden their outlook.”  – Rex
My last post was over 1,300 words. Rex summed it up in about 300. Ah, to be succinct!

Ok, here is the remainder of the candidates and my take on them.

Romney:

Pros:

-has experience running a state

-he seems to have good morals, no cheating on the wife, taking money from Fannie Mae, etc.

-he has business experience

-can admit when he made a mistake

-seems to have a bit of knowledge about the Constitution. He’s not stellar on this.

Cons:

-when he makes those mistakes, they are whoppers that affect millions and can’t be taken back

-likes big government solutions, but didn’t seem to absorb the understanding that even if a program sounds good on paper, and may actually get implemented well, in the beginning, the fact that it will be run by unelected regulators will make the program bomb.

-he calls the U.S. a democracy. Big no-no. We are a republic. Despite historical revisionist history, we are a republic and our founders were very, very clear on this. If you want to know why, watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY. It’s 10 minutes of your time that you will be happy to have spent.

Ron Paul:

Pros:

-knows the Constitution. At least when one debates him, it is about how the federal government should implement its duties, not try to get him to read the Constitution first, so one can debate. He knows it.

-understands the Federal Reserve. This is HUGE. He is the BEST candidate for fiscal policy.

-understands what Jefferson was talking about when he wrote, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” It had nothing to do with Jefferson’s Christianity (he was, in fact, a Christian…he wrote about it in his personal diary…but, this is another discussion altogether)…it had to do with personal liberty. Paul gets that.

Cons:

-his foreign policy is bat-crap crazy. If you want more on this, I’ll put up links, but basically, he thinks it’s okay for a country to have nukes, when the leaders of that country clearly state that as soon as it gets nuclear capability, they will bomb us in an effort to eradicate America from the world. This is but one tiny example of the lunacy that comes out of his mouth about foreign policy. He seriously thinks that if we are nice and reasonable to others, that they will be the same for us. This does not jive with the radical Islamic jihadist plan. Those people run Iran. The have great sway in many other countries. This is NOT good foreign policy for anyone who wants America to be safe. If you want some history about our centuries old history with radical Islamists, let me know.

-he seems to interpret the Constitution as did the Anti-Federalists. They were in favor of keeping the government more like the Articles of Confederation. The problem was that it was too weak of a federal government. For instance, it could ask the states to pay for the Revolutionary War, but could not make them. The lack of power allotted to the federal government to do its duty in the A’s of C are responsible for the horrible suffering of the soldiers, who were fighting for independence, at Valley Forge. The government is to be limited IN SCOPE. But, the feds MUST be allowed the power to carry out their defined roles…one of which is to pay and direct the military. The A’s of C failed there, hence, the U.S. Constitution.

Huntsman:

Pros:

-I don’t think he’s cheated on his wife

-he says the right things about getting the economy running again. He understands that private enterprise is being hindered now, wants to repeal Frank-Dodd (bad, bad bill…if you are a business, like having a job, or like being able to buy the things you need and want), shut down Fannie and Freddie, and end too big to fail.

-wants the US to be energy independent

-he understands trade around the world. For more on this, I’ll have to write another blog. 😉

Cons:

-wants to make us energy independent by getting rid of subsidies that are hindering alternative fuels (GOOD)…by giving other subsidies. BAD! That will get us more of the same.

-his foreign policy stinks in some parts. He promotes the idea of spreading “democracy” – see video, and HUMAN rights. Natural rights (from God…that’s what our government is based on) and human rights (those rights given to people from those who run the government) are diametrically opposed to one another. Human rights can be changed, taken away, altered…while Natural rights are from God. They are unalienable; even if they are taken away by a government, they still stand; they are enduring forever, never alterable; and are applicable to each individual human being on the earth.

For instance, Social Security. It is a made up “right.” The government under FDR decided to ‘give’ this ‘right’ to the people. Here’s the catch: the government can take this away AT ANY TIME. There is nothing in the founding documents that say that money of any kind is a right and there is nothing in the bill that created SS (or any since) that preclude the legislators from altering it or abolishing it. This is what we get when we talk about human rights. Also, see Darfur and so many other places on earth where HUMAN rights are being “protected.” Yeah, right. Natural rights are a different thing altogether.

That being said, he seems to understand with whom we are at war and that we need to actually fight in a manner befitting the current sort of engagements. I have no idea what his views are of the current rules of engagement that endanger our troops. Guess that will be your homework assignment. 😉

Gingrich:

Pros:

-he knows about the skeletons in the closets of other political leaders. He probably has dirt on everyone, which could get some votes. Sad, but true. Now, they know his dirty deeds also, but those are being trotted out by the media, so he has nothing to lose here.

-he knows a lot of history

-he talks a good conservative talk

Cons:

-no substantial private business experience. We have that now in our POTUS, don’t need another round of that.

-he is a self-described Progressive, models himself after Woodrow Wilson, agrees with FDR, and loves HUGE government solutions. He says he orchestrated the Contract with America, but I don’t see his fingerprints on it. I think he just happened to be there, and the people wanted it, so he didn’t disagree with it publicly. Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve (wholly unconstitutional on several ways, and the founders warned REPEATEDLY about making a private bank in charge of the money system). He called for insanely high taxes on the rich (they went over 73%), which, among other big government interventions, in turn lead to an incredibly horrible economy, and he used class warfare as his method of getting votes. Sound familiar? Why do we want a guy who models himself after someone who ran the country into the ground?? Also, Wilson had no private sector experience. Just sayin.’ If you want more info on this, it will have to be a separate blog. I think I have a 100,000-word limit here. Lol!

-he does not understand the founding documents

-he does not walk the conservative walk, and he switches gears in a heartbeat

-he knows a lot of history…but doesn’t seem to understand reality…hence the Wilson stuff.

I could go on and on and on, but he is NOT a friend to anyone who considers themselves a conservative, a Constitutionalist, or any person who wishes to be able to make personal decisions without having to consult a regulator from the federal government for, say, which light bulb to choose to buy.

-he does not believe that human life is sacred.

Any questions, comments, concerns, etc? Please, let me know! 😀

Ok, I am a Conservative Constitutionalist (a.k.a. the same kind of Republican as the original…not *GOP faithful.* I vote according to who I feel will follow the Constitution, as amended, the closest, who has the best character, and, if applicable, best voting record.

Here is how I see the candidates as of today. Tomorrow, I may feel differently, but I’m pretty sure Santorum is going to keep my top spot. No matter what, I’ll vote whoever is running against Obama*.

Rick Santorum: Spot number 1.

Pros:

-has a consistently conservative (social and fiscal) voting record

-has a clean record, no messy divorces, etc. Walks the walk.
– as far as I can tell, ALWAYS votes his conscience – even when he ticks off the establishment GOP
– has won several races ‘against all odds’ and he says that it happened because he told the truth…I really like that!

– seems to really understand the Constitution really, really well – this is crucial to me

– has an understanding of foreign policy that is awe striking. He is willing to call a spade a spade and deal with the issues at the source.

– believes that the average citizen is not a moron

-he scares the heck out of the establishment GOP because he won’t conform and follow orders, if that means compromising his principles. He will cast his vote for the best outcome for the American people.

Cons:

-polls low…for now. But, so did Reagan and see what happened there?

Michele Bachman**:

Pros:

-Superb voting record

-Has read the Constitution and seems to understand it quite well

-loves her husband and 4 million children (okay not that many, but she has had, I believe 5 kids, and has fostered, what 23 or something?  A. Lot.)

-her foreign policy is the second best of all the candidates

Cons:

-her voice. I know this should not matter, but dangit, it just grates on me sometimes. Maybe if she’s elected I’ll get over this. Plus if this is her biggest “con,” I’ll take it!

-she used to talk around the answer to a question to finally get there. She’s more on point now, which is nice. But, I think the tendency is still there.

-She has mouthed off (more than once) about something before she had all the facts, or verified sources. This is not huge as our own president condemns doctors, policemen, and average citizens without any facts at all, and just about everyone forgives him. I’ll do the same here.

Rick Perry:

Pros:

-has experience governing a state

-has recently began reading the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and economists like Hazlitt and Williams, so he is starting to realize that Keynesian economics fail. Every. Time.

-didn’t use his back surgery as an excuse as to why he did poorly in the debates even though he was in lots of pain. No wonder he looked like he had a rod up his back and didn’t turn his head much…

-recently has done some pretty good governing of the state of Texas. Here’s the catch, basically, he just let Texas prosper and didn’t do anything to intervene, “help,” or, whatever.  Of course, that’s what he’s supposed to do, so there ya go.

-stated that he wants to make the federal government as inconsequential to each American as possible. Which means, he has read he Constitution.

-he’s not a pansy

Cons:

-he has had some crappy views in the past, a couple of the super crappy. But, people are capable of change, so…benefit of the doubt?

-apparently he has lots of cronyism going on in Texas (but I don’t really know what…just what my sister, who has lived in Texas for decades, told me. She can’t stand him. I got here only 4 years ago, so I figure I’ll go with her take for now.).

– he’s not great on the immigration issue, but is coming around. Just wish I knew what to expect.

-there are more, but I have run out of time. Suffice it to say that he is not the devil, but he’s not an angel either. He would be a better president than Obama.

So sorry, but I don’t have time for the rest right now. I’ll get to it, I promise!!

* He states unequivocally that he does not believe in following the Constitution; he, along with the Congress, have increased the debt by incredible amounts (added, so far over $6,000,000,000,000.00 JUST TO THE DEBT); and he keeps using FDR and Wilson economic playbooks when he should be using Harding and Coolidge. He is calling for policies that have proven to elongate recessions/depressions.  One of the required reading books for WH staffers is a Saul Alinsky book, titled Rules for Radicals; he called the TEA party people (basic slogan: let us keep more of the stuff that is already ours!) names, but supported the OWS crowd (basic slogan: gimme their stuff!); he claimed doctors will cut off diabetics’ feet just to make a buck; and said, when he had no facts of the situation that he knew the police “acted stupidly.” He is an anti-colonialist. The list goes on and on. If you want more reasons, just say so and I’ll go on.

**A dear, dear friend of mine noted that Michele’s family’s business benefits from federal subsidies and that she is hypocritical for accepting that money, while lobbying for their abolition. I did some research because I thought she had a point. It turns out that if her family run business gives up the subsidies while others get them, they would be bankrupt overnight. Here’s the deal: the government has made such a mess of the economy that if they don’t take the money, they will be gone. So, what she is advocating is that everyone play by the same rules. YES, take away their subsidy, but do it across the board. To do it alone is economic suicide. Also, she gets no money from the family business…it goes to her mother.

There are those who condemn her and her husband because they have what is known as a ‘pray away the gay’ clinic. There is more to their business, but we’ll just go with that description for time and space purposes. Even with the best of subsidies available today (which I am not sure if the business does or not get, you’ll have to research that for yourself), that business would go under if it didn’t have willing consumers. It’s not like GM. Whether you agree you can pray away the gay or whatever, if people willingly want to try, why should I stop them? I don’t stop people who wish to BE gay, and according to the Christian religion, homosexual acts are an abomination in God’s eyes. Let people have some personal liberty and choose for themselves. I came to this conclusion after researching and pondering. I don’t claim to be always right, but that’s how I see it.

%d bloggers like this: