tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1769659900634709753.post-22541915794631861692007-10-24T11:12:00.000-05:002007-10-24T11:12:00.000-05:002007-10-24T11:12:00.000-05:00<I>"It is very possible that a single person would vote differently on a healthcare issue than a married person due to coverage for maternity and children."</I><BR/><BR/>And it is evenly possible that they would not vote different. If you want to know what a candidate thinks about health care, why not ask them?<BR/>I really don't see the logic in looking up if a candidate is married and then somehow deducting from that how he will vote on certain issues.<BR/><BR/><I>"When a person runs for office, fairly or unfairly, every corner of their life becomes open to inspection and consideration."</I><BR/><BR/>I totally agree with you on that and I would say that it's unfair, unless those candidates make their private life part of their campaign.<BR/><BR/><I>"But, you can carry on an intelligent discussion without the mindless swipes at republicans."</I><BR/><BR/>Swipes, sure, but mindless?<BR/>I think it is perfectly good reasoning to point out that the party that paints itself as having "high moral values", shows itself time after time as certainly not having anymore morals than any other party. On the contrary, if you look at the long list of "revelations" the past years.<BR/><BR/>My point with the whole post was to show that just the mere fact that a person is married, gay or claims to be religious doesn't give you any guarantee on how that person will vote. On the contrary, you should be very suspicious of political candidates that make their marriage and/or religion part of their campaign, because in reality it gets proven day after day that those usually turn out to be the biggest perverts.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the nice words about the blog. Even if it seems that you usually don't agree with me, I'm glad you're here.Thierry Wernaershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18425107349559674853noreply@blogger.com