I'm ready to talk, but I STILL cannot believe it!

Published by Starfish

Mitt Romney lost

Barack Obama won... a second term. A SECOND TERM?! Really? I mean, this just shocks me to the core.

It is frustrating to me that people are still saying that Republicans are racist and they are not saying anything about black people being racist. It is not clear that Republicans are racist, that claim is based on nothing valid. It is, however, quite clear that black people are racist (the majority of them), because 94% of them voted for Barack Obama. How is it that 94% of black people voted for Obama in this last election, and yet only sixty something percent voted for Bill Clinton? Suddenly this difference of  percentage changed their minds about politics, and even after these last four year which we all admit has pretty much sucked A? Uh, no. These people voted for Barack Obama because of his skin color, which means they did NOT vote for Mitt Romney because of his skin color, which makes them racist. They did not vote based on the content of character. Shame on them.

Barack Obama believes in taking money out of a bad economy (via taxation) to put it back into the economy (via stimulus), only to take it back out (via penalties via taxation) for his government programs which he will only allow to go to the government and not towards the economy in any way whatsoever. Make sense? I didn't think so.

The democrats cheated. This I am sure of. There had been instances around the country that were very mysteriously, yet obviously, corrupt. Democrats have been known to vote on the behalf of dead people, to kick out Republican auditors, etc. It is not believable to me to know anything other than a conspiracy on the behalf of the Democrats.

I had such hope in Mitt Romney's platform. Not a soul that I spoke with in person or online, believed that the last four years were a slam dunk for the nation, who believed that Obama should be re-elected (okay, maybe a few misguided souls). I just could swear that Mitt Romney had it. I knew it was going to be a great day for the nation, Election Day. I was so excited and ready to smile my way to the streets and yell, "HELL is over!"

But is it?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I still, weeks after the results, cannot believe it. Every once in a while, it just pops into my head that Barack Obama will still be our president come January, and that Mitt Romney will not. It makes me so depressed.

I am not sure I have much else to say regarding this at the moment, maybe my co-author will have some interesting musings to add.

Just some advice, get financially prepared.

Being judgy

Published by Starfish

This isn't a political post, so you can breathe easy. I was just thinking about something and need to get it off of my chest.

It is very easy to be judgmental of anyone who isn't, well... you. I am guilty of it myself. But at least I can admit when I am a judgy self-righteous jerk not long after I've been one. Some people just hold onto it and let it fester inside them until they have such distaste for another person over something so small.

I have an example of this in the following "story". And let me prelude this with the assurance that I realize I am completely speculating, BUT I have known people to completely base their entire opinion on one person based on something like this.

Several months ago I made my indoor cat be an outside cat. I made this decision for the health of my family, mostly my children and my babies. It was either make her an outdoor cat, or giver her to the Humane Society where she will not get adopted because she is too old. The cat, as much as I love her, was turning our home into a cesspool. She was peeing in places in the home that were NOT places for her to pee, but places where we sit and sleep. Since I grew up having pets, my first thought was that she had a UTI or the litter box wasn't clean. Well, the litter box was cleaned regularly. She was checked and found to NOT have a UTI and the vet said that sometimes cats just get into a habit of going wherever they want. That was the final straw. This cat was also irritating my son's asthma (which has pretty much become symptom-less since she was made to be an outdoor cat), and she was also often finding her spots to nap in my baby's chair and crib. Our neighborhood also has a bit of a potential rodent problem due to the empty fields being dug up for new homes, and it appealed to me to have a cat on "mouse-watch" (she truly has been, I've seen four mice placed dead on our porches since she's been out there). Now, I also have a dog who I do not let sleep on the bed or lay on the couch or eat human food. I also leave him outside in the back yard for long periods of time when I have two children napping (he barks really loud when anyone walks in front of our yard or knocks on the door) or if I am mopping the kitchen floor, or if there are too many people/guests in the house and he is getting too excited, etc.

Now there are people who have made comments to me as if I am a mean person for treating my pets this way. As if ANIMALS come BEFORE humans! Uh, no. A dog needs to know his place, and it is NOT in equality with the humans in the home and a cat will not be tolerated indoors when she is leaving her filthy urine and dander all over the place. I love animals, especially cats, but I love and care for my children MORE. I have been made to think that certain people have based their entire opinion of me, of my whole character, over this.

Basically, I think animals are not actually meant to live indoors with humans. I believe some animals were meant to be companions to humans, of course. They provide wonderful companionship. But their natural habitat is meant to be outside where they can adapt. Why else would they have the physical characteristics that they have? Like claws, and K-9 teeth, and a FUR COAT, and exceptional ability to flee. If any of you are worried about my pets, please remove yourself from suburbia for a moment, and realize... you don't need to worry, they will be absolutely fine! I feed and water them and give them lots of petting time and love.

I am a good person. I am a good mother and I have love in my heart for humankind and I do my best to contribute in a positive way to society. I truly believe I do my best and that God is on my side. Now isn't that enough of a reason to think positively about me? If you think I should be doing something different in my life, as small as what kind of pet owner I am, it shouldn't let you affect your entire opinion of me. There are a lot of differences between me and many people close to me, but I do not love them any less or think of them any less. Sure, sometimes I have to work a little harder to look past some things, but as long as someone believes about themselves as I do about myself, (stated at the beginning of this paragraph), then they are great in my book.

Bottom line, let's just love each other and realize we are all doing our best based on what WE know and what each of us as individuals have experienced. Let's not find excuses to be contentious, hateful, spiteful or gossipy. These things hurt and distance us all from each other.

I'm still going to be saying "illegal".

Published by Starfish

I will be referencing the article, "Immigrants Protest 'Illegal' Label", found at Newsday.com

Let me speak generally about political correctness (or "being PC") first. It is stupid. It drives me mad when I see or hear someone corrected for using a term that is not PC. This is a free country, with something called the 1st amendment, we can say whatever we want. Now, there is a definite distinguishing characteristic between being just plain rude and condescending and using a simple word. Why should someone else's choice of having their feelings hurt over an innocent WORD, keep us from using it? Well, I refuse to step around egg shells in this society. I will say "black" instead of "African American", because it's what I'm use to, and honestly, I feel silly saying things like, "Caucasian", when "white" is just so much easier! And guess what? It isn't offensive! I mean, we can't even say "retarded" anymore, we can't say, "special" we have to say, "mentally handicapped"... or wait, did that change too? I had a friend on Facebook that used the term "mullatto" to refer to our president, being used to argue that he isn't even totally black. She is the sweetest girl and would never say anything offensive or mean, yet someone felt the need to inform her that the term "mullatto" is racist and offensive. Oh boy, it seems like someone went out of their way to say something to someone to make them feel bad for something they didn't even do wrong. It is just so stupid.

I just want to highlight some of my thoughts while reading the above referenced article.

"By saying illegal, they're assuming that we broke a criminal law," said Jackeline Saavedra, 27, of Bay Shore, a Touro Law Center student who identified herself as undocumented. "Not everybody enters illegally."

Uh, I must inform you Ms. Saavedra; you HAVE broken a criminal law, you are a criminal. If someone steals a piece of candy from a drug store, they are a criminal. You are not here legally, therefore you are illegal, and people who do things that are illegal are criminals. Just work at not being one, then we all don't have to be confused, m'kay?

Osman Canales, 23, an immigrant rights advocate in Huntington who organized the protest, said using the word "illegal" criminalizes a whole community. "It's a racist word against our community, so we're just here to raise awareness," he said.

HA HA HA HA HA, I can't contain my laughter at this one. "It's a racist word"? What? How is it racist to look at any person regardless of color or ethnic background, recognize that they are law-breakers, and call them "illegal"? And furthermore, what is this about "raising awareness"? Are you trying to educate someone about a disease and how to prevent it? Because if this really is a preventable disease then more people DEFINITELY need to know about it.

"Using a phrase like 'illegal aliens' or 'illegals' . . . reinforces the notion that you could treat another individual as less than a human being," said Alina Das, assistant professor of clinical law at New York University. "One action -- whether it's a crime -- shouldn't be used to define a whole group of people or one individual."

So let me get this straight, because I recognize that someone is breaking the law, I think they must be, somehow, less human, and that they deserve to be treated like they are monkeys or dogs. Okay, well I'm sorry, I didn't know that me using the term "illegal" defined my religious testimony as a Christian.

"We also have feelings too," said Llivicura, of Bellport, who came to Long Island from Ecuador at age 8. "It makes me feel like I'm different from everybody else," he said. "It makes me feel like really bad inside."

Well I guess if it hurts your feelings, then I should just stop using it.

And that last sarcastic sentiment is exactly my point. No matter what anyone says and does in life it will offend SOMEONE. There is no way to ensure that everyone's feelings are protected. The only way to do that is by "raising awareness" about self awareness and how to control your feelings. You can let something bother you, or you can see it for what it is and let it go. It only hurts a society to stifle free expression. For crying out loud people. I am so done with cry babies!

Not relatable?

Published by Starfish

I saw a snippet of an interview with Diane Sawyer and Mitt Romney last night on the internet. One thing that bothered me is that she kept insisting he wasn't "relatable". That because Mitt Romney is rich, he can't relate to the average American, because he drives a "Cadillac". All I could think in my head was, "huh?" Mitt Romney responded by explaining that he believes Americans want a president who can lead, and who can fix the economy, and that he is the best person to do that in the current situation. I thought this was a great answer, quite sufficient. Then Sawyer asks again, "But does that make you relatable?" I started getting sick of the word "relatable" in just this small minute clip that I was watching.

We can debate all day long what makes each American relate to one another. Bottom line is, we all struggle in life, money doesn't solve all problems. And even for those who are poor and "relate" to each other financially, they don't "relate" to each other in EVERY SINGLE aspect of life! To me, relatability is not the issue. Here is the issue.

America DOES need a leader. America DOES need someone who can fix the economy and improve our quality of life by allowing US to take control of the economy, and not the government. America, needs someone who knows a lot about the economy and how it works. America needs someone who has knowledge of the affairs of the government, has experience in leading a government. Does America really want some average Joe who struggles to pay his bills? Do we REALLY want someone "relatable"? Really? I don't want someone who can relate to me financially, I want someone who knows what the heck they are doing so that I don't have to worry about it! You put these Socialists/Progressives in office and then I really start to worry about how the heck I'm going to pay my frickin' bills!

Another thing, B. O. has no relatability whatsoever. How come it wasn't an issue then? He was living a posh lifestyle without explanation as to how he even paid for it?! Suddenly, a guy called Mitt Romney comes in with his full story in his pocket, explained without gaps, showing how hard he worked to get where he is (which should no doubt leave us inspired about the true American dream), and he's questioned about being relatable. I could list a whole slew of Democrats put in office that were very rich, many of them rich by entitlement and not by hard work. Again... why does it matter now?

What she "meant" was just as bad.

Published by Starfish

I came across this article and find that it explains just what I think about Hilary Rosen's explanation of what she "meant" by saying, Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." I wanted to share.

http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/04/16/what-hilary-rosen-meant-was-just-as-bad/

What Hilary Rosen Meant Was Just as Bad

Unless you’ve been under a rock for a week, you’ve heard about Hilary Rosen’s comments Ann Romney didn’t “work a day in her life,” and the firestorm that started.

Ms. Rosen certainly stepped in it. But this post is not about the words she chose. Others have written plenty on that topic. My problem is with what she was really trying to say, which was just as bad, or worse.

Ms. Rosen was unartfully trying to say that because Ann has not held a paid job, or in other words because Ann is wealthy, Ann has no credibility to speak on economic issues. This is wrong. It’s anti-American and undemocratic.

Mitt has been attacked with comments he is “out of touch,” or that he (and now Ann) can’t understand people because of their wealth, or the insupportable statement that he somehow “isn’t connecting.” I could trot out numerous examples of how Mitt’s words have been taken out of context to try and make the point he’s one of “them,” not one of “us,” or, in OWS lingo, part of the one percent.

All of these attacks are meant to create and perpetuate a culture of blame, an us vs. them mentality and to divide us based on our economic circumstances. As pointed out by our own David Parker in another post tonight, they are certainly not in the spirit of Barack Obama’s promise to go above partisan politics as usual and the politics of division. The American dream to me, and I believe to the entire GOP, is that all people should have an opportunity to make of themselves what they will. To point at someone like Ann Romney and tear her down because she is fortunate enough to have had success is clearly what Ms. Rosen was trying to do, and it is just plain wrong. I’m offended because Ms. Rosen’s words try to solidify that economic divide solely to keep a Democrat in the White House. Her comments were mean spirited and misguided. There is no hope in them, only, I believe, a knowing mis-representation intended to solicit the support of the poor, who, ironically, are in the situation they’re in due to President Obama’s failed economic policies.

Mitt has said it very well: if you vilify success, you’ll have less of it. The left has been vilifying Mitt’s success since he started in order to shift the blame from their own failed policies and solidify their hold on power. This just cannot stand.

With those thoughts in mind, here are my top ten reasons why what Ms. Rosen meant was just as bad as what she said:

1. Mitt and Ann Romney have just as much to contribute to the conversation as anyone else, and of course actually have more. Even if Mitt has more money than 99% of the populace, that’s not a disqualifying fact, it’s uniquely qualifying. Being successful means he and Ann likely understand more about the economy than I or another average Joe like me does. I want my president to have been successful in his or her chosen field, and suggesting that one economic class of Americans is not qualified to serve is wrong.

2. Mitt’s father worked himself up from nothing to become the president of a car company. He had no college education. He had been brought by his parents from Mexico, where he was born a U.S. citizen, to start a new life. I don’t expect life was easy on George Romney. And when you grow up in a home like that, especially as Mitt did to a parent that lived through the great depression, I’m pretty sure that being wasteful of money, or being lazy, just was not tolerated in George’s household. I know it wasn’t in Mitt’s. I’ve mentioned before that once in a while I get to observe the Romney family from a step or two outside their central family circle. And I’ve never, ever, observed any wastefulness with money. To say the members of the clan I’ve met are frugal is an understatement. They appreciate the value of money more than many others I know of lesser means, understand their fortunate position and are very, very responsible not to take it for granted. To suggest that Mitt has no appreciation for economic difficulty is just wrong.

3. Ann Romney’s family similarly came from humble circumstances. Ann’s grandfather was a coal miner in Wales, and came to the United States after suffering a significant injury in the mines to make a new life. Upon arrival the family understood that education was critical to success, so the entire family sacrificed to send one member of the family to college by working and pooling their resources. The selected family member was Ann’s father. I imagine that when he attended school, he did so with a special sense of responsibility for the sacrifice of his family on his behalf. As a result of his education, he was able to get a good job upon graduating. Again, sacrifice at that level becomes part of the family DNA, and similarly from what I’ve observed there is no sense of entitlement on the Davies side of the family; on the contrary a healthy respect for what they have. To suggest that Ann Davies Romney knows nothing of economic hardship is also just wrong.

4. Mitt Romney is living solely on what he earned. While people try and say Mitt was born into privilege because of the success of his father, they may not realize that what Mitt has, he earned. It’s not a family fortune that makes up his wealth. Whatever he received from his parents was donated to charity years ago. No, Mitt is an example of the American dream. He had an opportunity to go to college, and made the best of it by becoming valedictorian. You don’t achieve that by having a sense of entitlement, only through a combination of innate ability and a lot of hard work. Mitt then went on to get a joint JD (law degree) and MBA. Having pursued the same path I know it’s not easy. Nothing is given to you. To suggest that Mitt had everything given to him and therefore “can’t relate” is just wrong.

5. Mitt’s and Ann’s charitable contributions are noteworthy. Not only have they given a significant percentage of their income to charity, the sheer dollar numbers are staggering. Their commitment to helping others is worthy of respect. To say they’re out of touch or don’t understand others’ suffering is just wrong.

6. Mitt and Ann have both contributed their time in charitable causes. Mitt has served as a lay minister in his church, counseling those who are facing sometimes severe economic, emotional or spiritual trials. Ann has similarly served in volunteer positions in church and in charitable organizations. Ann has worked with at-risk youth and supports multiple sclerosis research. They have both seen the devastation joblessness can create. To suggest Ann is not in a position to speak on the economy is just wrong.

7. Mitt learned through his profession how the economy works. He knows what a disaster Obama’s economic policies have been and saw it coming. In 2008 he made the comment that electing a Democrat with a Democratic Congress would be like giving the president of a company a blank check, which would inevitably result in overspending. In the case of the country it would be ruinous for the deficit. Now four years later President Obama has added more to the deficit than all other presidents combined, and the Republicans’ unwillingness to go along with these spending habits has led to an unhealthy gridlock in Washington. Mitt saw this coming. To say he has no perspective on economic issues is horrifically wrong. To re-elect Obama with a Democratic Congress would only make things worse. And to re-elect Obama with a GOP Congress would result in continued logjams. The only path to success is to elect Mitt with a GOP Congress.

8. Ann has been WORKING on the campaign trail for about a year now. She has MS. Her efforts are continually a sacrifice. Why does she do it? Because she also saw the effects of Obama’s policies and wanted them undone. As I’ve reported before, she was a catalyst in getting Mitt to run again, even though it’s always an uphill battle to unseat an incumbent. Mitt and Ann want Mitt to win so he can fix the Obama mess, precisely because they do understand economic issues.

9. In the interview in which she got herself in trouble, Ms. Rosen was trying to take issue with Ann’s saying she knows women’s concerns. Ann’s been on the campaign trail for a year, and this special privilege has allowed her to hear the voices of women about the prospects for success for their own immediate families and their children, and the concern that the staggering national debt will cripple our children’s ability to have a better life. Ann has a perspective from being on the trail a year that Ms. Rosen, inside the beltway, can’t comprehend. To discount that because of personal bias is just wrong.

10 Most offensive, Ms. Rosen seems to want us to believe that because Ann has not worked outside the home her views are worthless on the subject of the economy. It’s one thing to slip, if it was a slip, and say stay-at-home moms don’t “work.” Even Ms. Rosen now admits they do. But it’s another thing altogether to truly mean that stay at home moms should have no voice in the democratic process or that their views are worth less than those of working women. This is anti-democratic and wrong.

Hilary Rosen may or may not have meant what she got in trouble for saying. But to me, what she meant to say was just as bad.

Today's feminists need to go away.

Published by Starfish

I'm sorry, but I am feeling very angry about that Hilary Rosen character and what she said about Ann Romney. Let me cite this online article: http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/04/12/dnc-advisor-hilary-rosen-insults-ann-romney-anns-rapid-fire-response/

Wow... just wow, the things that are rolling around in my head and heart right now. I have to start off by saying that I think it is a completely selfish point of view, that today's feminists have, to think that women should put themselves first and have a career over family. When these women become mothers they fool themselves by rationalizing  that they are working away from the home "for their children, so they can have a better life." Children do not need THINGS, they need their mother and their father. Anyone with a human heart knows this, and convincing yourself otherwise is just a ploy to satisfy your own selfish needs to feel fulfilled and accomplished in a world that says corporate status says more about a person than what kind of family they have.

This Rosen person also said that stay-at-home-moms are "lucky" to be able to stay home, that they can afford it. and not every woman can. That is the second time I have seen this misconception in the last couple of days. I am a stay-at-home-mom. It is a sacrifice, and we are not by any means financially rich or "lucky". My husband works very hard for us so that I can stay home and provide my children of THE BEST POSSIBLE UPBRINGING. I also work tirelessly all day, I maybe get to take a break for myself for maybe 1 hour per day until the kids go to bed. I know many families with stay-at-home-moms who work very hard to budget and save money just so they don't have to go  back to work. And here is the thing about going back to work after having children; someone has to watch the kids, someone has to be PAID to watch the kids. So some woman will go back to work just to leave their baby with a paid stranger? And what about this paid stranger? Would Ms. Rosen say that they haven't worked a day in their lives as well? They do what SAHM's do, I guess that means that they don't work. Oh wait... they get PAID to do it, so I guess that counts as work.  ...Wait - huh?

In an effort to refrain from offending anyone, I must express that I am no naive person and I realize that many married women do have to work. All circumstances are very unique. My own mother was a single mom, so of course she had to work, but her desires were NUMBER ONE to make sure she was a good mom. I doubt those like Ms. Rosen give a rats behind about being a good mom in the truest sense. It is probably number 3 or 4 on their priority list. They probably feel relief instead of guilt that they don't have to deal with their children most of the time.

She should read up more on Ann Romney, this woman worked her butt off being a SAHM. She volunteered doing many many things for charity, and I suppose that doesn't count.

 

There are so many more mean things I want to say about that ugly woman, but I will refrain because I don't want to be considered as ugly as her.

I'm educated

Published by Starfish


My husband and I were talking the other day about "when our children grow up". We both agreed that we wouldn't pressure them into college unless of course they wanted to be something where a college degree would actually help you get something out of all that debt.

For example, if our child grew up and wanted to be a doctor, a veterinarian, an engineer, an accountant, a nutritionist, or a teacher, etc. then we agreed that a college degree is very necessary. If he wanted to be a salesman or the owner of an insurance franchise, then college would obviously be a waste of money AND time. If our kids want to go to college for learning and just get a degree in something like English or Philosophy that doesn't really help you get a job, then we will support them in that, but we just think college, for the most part, is a rip-off, unless you are going to get some real training for a contributing JOB.

I'm sure many people disagree with me very much. I am not a college graduate, but don't think I did not give higher education a whirl. It wasn't for me. I was going into debt, taking classes I hated, had no direction because I was so unsure of what I wanted out of it, and I had no time for myself! I eventually decided that if I wanted to have a career that required a college education then I would go back and be fully invested. I also didn't feel like the style of teaching that went on in college was much different from my public school education (except that it was more demanding), which I felt was not the style I learned well with (lectures, tests, group projects, etc.)

The church that I belong to stresses that everyone get an education. Well sometimes I feel irritated that every time this subject comes up in Sunday School people always talk about a college education. Okay, hello there? There is information EVERYWHERE these days, we live in an incredible age and generation right now where we have the internet and, well I'll be... BOOKS, that one can READ and comprehend and self-EDUCATE with. Ta da! You don't have to go into 10's of thousands of dollars in debt, just to learn what you could learn from a textbook on your own. Some might say that it helps to have a mentor or teacher who is wise in the area in which you want to learn about. To that I say pisha! Anyone who truly learns anything is self-learning, and good mentor just nudges you or inspires you. The internet is also full of people who are wise on any subject. I refuse to feel like less of a person just because I did not get a college degree. I know just as much about things from all that I have read and sought out to learn on my own and anyone with a standard bachelors degree in a useless major. (And by useless, I mean useless job-wise). Education is great, and I agree, very important. But you don't need to pay any institution to teach you what you want to know, go out and learn it yourself! (Unless, of course, you want to become any of the type of jobs I mentioned in the second paragraph).

Education does not equal college.

Seven Deadly Sins

Lust, Laziness, Greed, Gluttony, Wrath, Envy, Pride.

What GOP candidate has all the qualities that represent the Seven Deadly Sins? I'll let you guess.

It is the candidate who lusted unto adultery more times than he will admit. Having an affair when his wife had cancer and calling her on the phone to tell her he is getting a divorce is so low.

It is the candidate who is so lazy he wouldn't make an effort to be a stand up guy when he was speaker of the house, resulting in Congressional ethics violations. He also takes credit for actions by others because he was a no good congressman. For example, he keeps saying he and President Reagan created (blah blah) number of jobs (which were really created by the retail boom of the 80s and the paradigmatic shift of women going to the workforce, having a huge economic impact. And, he takes credit for the jobs Bill Clinton created which were the dot com boom, that later became the dot bomb. (Does he take credit for the post Y2K recession?

It is the candidate who shows his greed by taking money from an organization (Freddie and Fanny) that takes money from tax payers for doing nothing more than giving them advice. And, it is ok for him to make millions of dollars but none of the other candidates can make money without his criticism.

It is the candidate who represents gluttony just by looking at him. (ew, gross!)

It is the candidate who shows his wrath when his negative characteristics are exposed.

It is the candidate who wears his envious heart on his sleeve whenever he is not the most powerful personality in the room.

It is the candidate who has so much vanity - he could beat up Donald Trump in an ego match.

Who is this candidate? Well, it is not Mitt, Ron, Rick or Rick. Since John and Michelle have dropped out, that leaves only one option. If you still can't guess, I will give you a hint - his initials are Newt Gingrich.

Was America Ready for a Black President?

Published by Starfish

Woops! Did I just say something wrong? I'm so sorry, so so sorry. I shouldn't have said it, I am so rude... and such a RACIST am I. I just can't believe myself.

Wait, let me take that back. I am NOT sorry for saying it, because I believe there has to be some balance in the universe and this question should be being asked just as much as "Is America ready for a Mormon president?"

The latter question is starting to make me feel nauseous, I'm so tired of turning away from it only to see it again, and turn away, and see it again and again and again. People need to get over it already. People need to understand that the "fears" they have about Mormons are unfounded, have no basis on reality but rumor, and are only because they love to stir up controversy.

The first question has more basis on reality, reputation, and concern. No, I am not racist, just observant. I am of the mind that you get to know someone before you judge them, the color of their skin does not matter to me. But when you ask such a blanket question like either one of these questions, you have to have a reason as to why it's being asked. Just about every reason that someone would ask the Mormon question, all the stereo-types, can be de-bunked. The black stereotypes can only be further proven with actual visual aides! (Again, NOT racist, I love all of God's children).

I'm just making a point.

I know that I will just have to get use to all of this idiocy, because when Mitt Romney wins the nomination the politics on Barack Obama's side will just be dirty and rotten and you can bet the Mormon garbage will come up again and again and again, because there is not much else bad to say about Mitt Romney (maybe two things politically) unless you talk about his "perfect" hair.

Who will I vote for?

Published by Starfish

It has been down to Ron Paul or Mitt Romney for me for a long time. But awhile ago I decided that Mitt Romney has my support this time around and while there are many reasons why, here is the main one:


Out of all the republican candidates for president right now, I gotta say that I just respect Mitt Romney the most. I follow it all, the ads, the debates, and everything. He seems to not go after his opponents like the others do and takes a hit pretty well. Someone said to me that a general Republican organization has been putting out ads supporting Mitt that attacks his opponents and that Mitt Romney simply said that his campaign was not the one who put it out and he doesn't have control over what that organization does. This person commented that she doesn't like Mitt Romney much for that reason because all he has to do is say that he doesn't like them and doesn't want it put out. Well to this person, I say, "You don't know much about politics, do you? He doesn't have control over that!" Also, wouldn't it political suicide right now to tell that organization to basically stop supporting him. Come on!


I also gotta say that negative campaigning totally turns me off as a voter and I notice when it is NOT going on. I do like Ron Paul, and I wouldn't hate it if he were president, he and Mitt are on the top of the list for me. But RP just loves to nit-pick at his opponents and that just makes me not respect him very much. He says something every day on Facebook attacking one of his opponents. Just tell me what your going to do as president and what you believe should happen in society and how the government plays a role in that and that is all I need to hear. When you are concentrating on the negative things about others I can't help but think about how that wont make you a good leader. You need to be able to get along with others and see the potential in them and encourage them (that is what conservatism is about), I don't think RP has that quality and I think Mitt Romney does. (And I cringe to say it but Huntsman is a congenial guy too, but he really is a joke)