Guns and gays
And the fact that she’s openly bisexual?
“Arizona doesn’t really care,” the 35-year-old lawyer says, dismissing the issue as irrelevant. “They just want to have low property taxes and no gun control.”
Doesn’t hurt that she’s kind of a babe, either. Via SIH who notes:
If we have bisexual Arizona State Senators running on a guns and money platform, gays aren’t the only political constituency becoming mainstream. This is a victory for our issue too.
Yup.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:07 am
The linked article says a lot of people are willing to vote for a gay as president. I’d like to add the caveat, “not if he’s Barney Frank”.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:10 am
If an openly gay candidate ran for president on a pro-gun, low-taxes, get-the-government-out-of-my-face platform, I’d not only vote for them, I’d chip in to help redecorate the White House.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Too bad she’s anti-gun and has a F rating.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:21 am
She looks like trouble. Sounds like it too.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:37 am
If that is a babe they must think 95 percent of the female population is hot… Simply not even close… Average at best if you are drunk…
July 20th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Yes, just because she recognizes the fact people want low taxes and no gun control, and articulates that recognition, doesn’t mean she agrees with it or plans to leave it alone.
July 20th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I’m keeping it simple. I don’t give a damn what the Sexual Orientation of one’s Trigger Finger is. If you run for Office, and you ain’t Pro-Gun, F.U.
July 20th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
She gets a ‘F’ from the NRA and she gets a 4/100 on taxes from Americans for Prosperity.
So I’m not really sure how she is running on a guns and money platform, unless it is fewer guns and more taxes.
July 20th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
NOT PRO GUN after all… What a shock.. Does that mean she is not bisexual either?
July 20th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Well, I have heard some gay folks say that bisexual women 9 out of 10 times = straight attention whore.
July 21st, 2011 at 9:57 am
Just because someone is supposedly pro-gun does not mean you should vote for her. Sure, it is an important issue, but to imply you basically don’t care about for what else they stand is less than wise. I would be willing to bet most folks thinking like that would have voted for Kirsten Gillibrand when she ran in NY for the House of Representatives. She ran pro-gun, anti-gay, anti illegal immigrant, and basically as a conservative Democrat. It was easy, if anyone looked, to see she was much the same as any RINO on the other side of the aisle. She never would have gotten my vote.
Then she ran, in a special election, for the Senate after having been appointed to fill Clinton’s senate seat. What happened to her pro-gun stance and to her other so called conservative values? Her true colors came out – most of her support for guns rights has disapopeared and she is pro-gay lobby and now not so anti illegal alien amnesty as she apparently once pretended to have been. She is now quite the progressive Demoncrat as she has cuddled up with Charles Schumer.
Why did she run as a conservative for the House – probably only as a trick to win out over a Republican in an area of NY State that had been traditionally conservative. Be careful of for whom you vote and why you vote for them.
All the best,
Glenn B
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:45 pm
You can say many things about Kyrsten Sinema, but she is not, by any stretch of the imagination, pro-liberty.