After that last posting, it seems as though I might look for something beyond a man's religion for which to vote ...

Clearly, a man's (or woman's, I suppose) facial profile is a bit more of an issue than one's religion and this photo in a Google Search caught my attention as well as my admiration.

Indeed, I am looking at as many of the real issues as possible such as:

Romney is concerned about 53% of the American people and Obama cares about almost all Americans--as well as the rest of the world's population; Romney is ready to take out Iran and Obama is likely to wait a bit on that; Romney is pro-life (today) and Obama is pro-choice (BTW, I'm not); Obama leans in favor of gay marriages whereas Romney's party has a platform explicitly dissing it; I'm not gay, but don't see how the President should be involved in such a non-issue to begin with; Obama's running mate is not named, "Ryan" (certainly a great name), whereas Romney's is indeed a "Ryan"; Romney appears more concerned about the National Debt (as am I!), whereas Obama's party seems to want to spent us out of existence; Romney regards spending 150% of the Pentagon's (stated) requirements as more important than continuing to provide food, shelter, clothing and health care to the neediest among us, which he regards as ... well--a signal that the 99% are willing victims and not concerned for their own welfare--and Obama? Well, he does appear to have the neediest among us as a prime concern (as do I); Romney could be a handsome movie-star whereas Obama might make it in the NBA (at least he might were he 6 inches taller and 100 pounds heavier); and last, but not least -- Obama has Michele and Romney has Ann.

Ann growls. Michele smiles. There you have it. Now get out and vote!

We are all still Americans, aren't we?

Since when is it in good taste to remind voters publically about a candidate's religeon--or lack thereof? Whether you support Romney or Obama--or neither, you should be offended by Time Magazine's latest cover.