Romney: Gay couples should have right to adopt

Indeed. Romney does more flips than a cheerleader....hmm I wonder if this is saying something about Romney

 

says a man whoes religion did not even allow him to view black people as equal until a few decades ago.

 

You know...I look at all these Romney "flip flop" comments...I was baffled at first...and then I remembered what site I was on.

Umm...have any of you people even bothered to look at the President's history on same-sex marriage?

He was for it...then he was against it...then he had to think about it...now he's for it (although he still thinks the states should decide it)

So, I think it is safe to say that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are both equal opportunity flip floppers.

 

Some more than others. In the 1990's Romney said he would be a fiercer advocate than Ted Kennedy for LGBT rights, and just a few months ago he described himself as a "severe conservative." He went from one end of the political spectrum to the other. At least Obama has consistently stated that he believes in equal rights for LGBT citizens, regardless of his own personal views on "traditional marriage."

 

>>>he described himself as a "severe conservative"

Well good! It's about Goddamn time...glad he is heading in the right direction.

 

Chip, I completely understand and agree with the flip flopping notion. I'm not disputing that at all. But he's my guy and I will defend him when I see that those that live in glass houses are throwing stones.

You also know that I have no use for liberals...well...let me rephrase that because tons of my good friends are rabid liberals...I have no use for liberals that are in power. Like you for example, I actually have a lot of respect for you...but I wouldn't vote for you for even a dog catcher position...and I think the feeling is probably mutual I just happen to think that they are extremely dangerous to my way of life...but that's beside the point.

I don't trust anyone on that level of political achievement...mainly because I've worked around them my entire adult life. My basic point is that to have this notion that Obama is this pure political saint on this issue is folly. And further more...what politician hasn't backed-down, skirted or flip-flopped on any given issue. They all pretty much have.

 

I rarely defend politicians, but I think Romney is much more sympathetic to LGBT people than most on EC are willing to believe. A lot of this is based just on the feel I get from him, but so be it - a few things:

1. As far as his personal personal (not political) beliefs are concerned, I don't think we an trust any policy positions as actual moral positions. The fact that he flip-flops constantly in political positions, to me, ill-legitimizes those very positions, and certainly can not be made to be perceived as personal beliefs.

In other (hopefully less jumbled) words - his political flip-flops only define him as a politician. Beyond that realm, they would not appear to define him as a person.

2. He grew up in the relatively liberalized Detroit, son of a very moderate (politically, and presumably personally) father. I'm disregarding his bullying incident - a lot of people are like that in high school and grow up later (even LGBT persons stuck in denial). Further, he's spent the rest of his life (I believe all of it, after SLC?) in the hyper-liberalized Boston area. I would be shocked if this did not significantly effect his personal feelings toward LGBT persons - trust me, it's a true phenomenon; when conservatives move to more liberal areas, they are exposed to more social issues (such as LGBT issues) and they become more liberal.

3. From hearing from Romney and all of his campaign staff, it sounds like the gay employee (forgive me for not knowing his name or position) was highly respected within their group. I've also heard plenty of whispers about Romney's kind sentiments toward LGBT couples he knows. I know it's all hearsay, but the frequency of things I've heard on various news networks (and trust me, I can't stand fox and never watch it - so it's far from biased) makes me believe there's something to it.

Anyways, take it however you want to - I think Romney's a lot more kind than liberal-leaning persons tend to give him. And this is from someone who can't stand anything politically mainstream...

 

I'm finding it amazing that they're willing to compromise their own veiws in an attempt to get the votes of the people they've been alienating and making feel like less than human. >_>

I'm half tempted just to abstain from voting at this point. -.-

 

So you readily admit that you agree with chip's comment that romney's objectively more fickle of 'opinion' than obama, but then gladly revert back to the glass houses analogy, implying that people holding that view of your man instead of theirs are just pointing the finger in his direction because of political differences, not because of any objective difference between romney and (insert any other mentioned or unmentioned politician here). I suppose emulation is the sincerest form of compliment, and he is, after all, 'your guy'.

The shotgun defence without even thinking disturbs me. Chris Rock put it best when he said: [YOUTUBE]UIA4__0DIXE[/YOUTUBE]

This coming from a man completely closeted in his right-wing work environment, i wonder how many of your colleagues' attitudes would shift if you were out. When you treat politics with zeal instead of rumination, that's where true, genuinely scary danger lies.

 

You know what Jim, my work atmosphere, and who I associate with, is really none of your business is it?

Didn't think so.

But thanks for caring

Yes he is my guy, big deal. We all have our individual candidates..he happens to be mine...he also happens to think that there are more dire and pressing issues facing this country...and I agree.

My basic point was that back tracking, flip flopping or whatever you want to call it, is part of politics. Always has been and always will.

 

You've spoken about it publicly before, it was anyone's business then? Off the cards now?

No, we don't all have our individual guys, that's the point. I don't vote for a guy, i vote for a policy. Voting for a person (or party) and not their ideas turns politics into a personality cult for the voter.

As for the final paragraph... since my previous comment re: wilful ignoring of objective difference remains unanswered, and the wilful ignoring continues, i guess that's the end of that

 

Well of course there are objective differences between Gov. Romney and Pres. Obama.
I don't agree with everything that Romney has done during his tenure in public life...but I like him a hell of a lot more than what we have now.

So what? I'm voting for Mitt. So shoot me. Revoke my gay card or whatever.

You know what is interesting...completely off topic but interesting... I was at a gay club last night and when Obama was brought up just about the same thing was said: "Please..I'm not voting for that bitch again"

I didn't say we have our individual guys...we have our individual candidates. One would assume that you base your support for a candidate on their policy. Besides, a policy doesn't make law...a guy (or gal) does.

So support your policy all you want. I'm going to support the people that will make the policy I believe in happen.

 

so the glass houses thing WASN'T meant to imply that romney isn't any more fickle than barack obama, or any other politician for that matter? Because if it wasn't, it's a non-statement, and if it was, it's blatantly false. Either way, romney would be proud of the fickleness demonstrated.

gay club thing: cool story.

So it's semantics now, i see. 'Guy' is so different from 'candidate' that it warrants another non-statement. Let's go with 'person' then.

I vote for a party's policy. No leader in a democracy unilaterally declares policy without counsel. [edit] and it's not always the same party.

The statement that 'policy doesn't make a law, a guy does' is just naive to the point of vapidity for someone in your line of work. It goes right back to the personality cult issue.

 

Actually the glass house comment was referring to people here for beating up on Romney for flip-flopping when the President has done the same thing.

I support a policy. I vote for the people that will make it happen. I can't elect a policy...but I can people.

My last statement was not naive at all...it's just how it is...not thinking so is naive.

Sometimes the agreement with policy does guide decision making...but most of the time the desire to get re-elected trumps all reason.

 

I'm sure you unfalteringly will.

 

You betcha

 

Yes.... i know that. That's been clear from the very beginning. But you've answered my question. I guess instead of being a non-statement, it's a blatantly false one, since we've already established and you've agreed that those men have not at all done the exact same thing.

You're a consummate cultist, through and through. You go ahead and make the world a shitter place, i won't resent you for it, you can't help it. You don't comprehend what i'm talking about, it's like talking to a child. Let's just drop it.

 

I feel the same way when talking to liberals: "No NO! put those tax increases down"

But every once in a while the liberals will get it wrong and eat out of the ash tray or throw the dress shoes in the toilet.

Sometimes I'd like to look at the mind of a liberal...because everything...even the most PAINFULLY obvious is a new and complete surprise to them.

It's not being a "cultist"...is simply living and dealing in a place called Washington...it's a place called "political realville"

 

Yes, those repeated characterisations of the entire demographic of 'liberals' don't expose ingrained group-think mentality at all.

Chant away