|
we vs us
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: May 09, 2012, 03:26:52 pm » |
|
So why is it a flip-flop? Is it a moral failure every time a politician changes his stance on a particular issue, regardless of the circumstances?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DolfanBob
|
|
« Reply #106 on: May 09, 2012, 03:53:24 pm » |
|
So why is it a flip-flop? Is it a moral failure every time a politician changes his stance on a particular issue, regardless of the circumstances?
Your right. It's no more than him saying that's what Romney did on the subject of killing Bin Laden. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Changing opinions one mistake at a time.
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #107 on: May 09, 2012, 03:57:06 pm » |
|
So did you guys just miss the last half decade or more, during which time Obama consistently said that his views on gay marriage were "evolving?" Or is it more about the gotcha than any real logic?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
Townsend
|
|
« Reply #108 on: May 09, 2012, 04:20:31 pm » |
|
Looks like Romney's waiting to see the fall out from the President's announcement before he decides to flip flop again. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/09/_mitt_romney_refused_to_answer_.htmlFor all the derision it got, Eric Fehrnstrom's theory that Romney could evolve when the general election began -- the "etch a sketch" theory -- is being borne right out. Romney's on record supporting an aggressive anti-gay marriage agenda. And yet he gets to approach the issue as if he was teleported into politics one week ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #109 on: May 09, 2012, 06:45:56 pm » |
|
So did you guys just miss the last half decade or more, during which time Obama consistently said that his views on gay marriage were "evolving?" Or is it more about the gotcha than any real logic?
If it’s a ‘publican, it’s called flip-flopping. If it’s a ‘crat it’s an evolution in his/her thinking. Got it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
we vs us
|
|
« Reply #110 on: May 09, 2012, 07:21:41 pm » |
|
Of course I appreciate the snark, but let's answer the question. Is it always morally reprehensible to change your position? Especially, I might add, when our form of government is "representative?"
So Obama changes course. He either did it (as advertised) after much deliberation and soul-searching, or he did it in response to sustained polling indicating that (the NC result notwithstanding) a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Or -- third option -- a mixture of both. What's the problem with any/all of those?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #111 on: May 09, 2012, 07:22:18 pm » |
|
If it’s a ‘publican, it’s called flip-flopping. If it’s a ‘crat it’s an evolution in his/her thinking.
No, I take both at their word and don't really give a smile if they change their mind. Only the idiots and the ignorant so strongly believe in the fundamental correctness of their views that they never change. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
|
we vs us
|
|
« Reply #113 on: May 09, 2012, 07:53:02 pm » |
|
No nerve struck. I'm not smarting in a corner. I was just asking for clarification. Like I said, I appreciate snark as much as the next guy, but snark doesn't answer my question. Kind of like posting a link to an old thread doesn't answer my question. So, Guido: if you're a politician in a representative democracy, is it always morally reprehensible to change your position? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Teatownclown
|
|
« Reply #114 on: May 09, 2012, 09:27:18 pm » |
|
No, I take both at their word and don't really give a smile if they change their mind. Only the idiots and the ignorant so strongly believe in the fundamental correctness of their views that they never change.
well said! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #115 on: May 09, 2012, 10:05:18 pm » |
|
So, Guido: if you're a politician in a representative democracy, is it always morally reprehensible to change your position?
Not at all, as long as you don't mind not having....what's the word...oh, yes. Character. Testing wind direction in order to come up with a point of view is wrong, and if Romney does it, he's wrong too. Incidentally, here is a little timeline re Obama: June 1996--Obama signs letter “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight effort to prohibit such marriages,” Nov. 2008-- Obama says marriage between man and woman, and does not favor gay marriage. Then, what he said today.... http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/12424857-418/barack-obamas-ever-evolving-views-on-gay-marriage.html And maybe do a search of "Romney flip" in this forum and see folks in here chastising Romney on flipping. Hell, the biggest dumb@ss in this forum, the guy posting right above me, boldfaced "Only the idiots and the ignorant so strongly believe in the fundamental correctness of their views that they never change". 5 DAYS AGO he wrote this: If they were smart, they would quickly acknowledged POTUS OBAMA made a gutsy call and move on. By over reacting, they have simply kept the story in the news and exposed Romney as a flip-floper (It's not worth spending billions to get one man'. 'I would not violate the sovereignty of our ally', yada, yada, yada).
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18521.msg237419#msg237419 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #116 on: May 10, 2012, 12:08:16 am » |
|
And maybe do a search of "Romney flip" in this forum and see folks in here chastising Romney on flipping. Hell, the biggest dumb@ss in this forum, the guy posting right above me, boldfaced "Only the idiots and the ignorant so strongly believe in the fundamental correctness of their views that they never change". 5 DAYS AGO he wrote this:
Not to defend TTC, but you're coming dangerously close to saying that it's not possible for one to both disagree with the electorate as a whole on a subject and speculate on how the electorate will respond to that subject. I can hold the opinion that "flip flop" as some kind of gotcha is plain stupid and also allow for the fact that people who don't think the same way will see it differently. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
we vs us
|
|
« Reply #117 on: May 10, 2012, 06:50:22 am » |
|
Not at all, as long as you don't mind not having....what's the word...oh, yes. Character.
Ok, got it. So any change in conviction whatsoever is a failure of character. EDIT: My point is, there's a difference between what Romney has done on a host of issues and what Obama has done on this issue. Romney says one thing and hopes you don't zing him with the historical record. There's no attempt to explain the disparity, there's no attempt to create a logical reason, there's just what the current Romney says and everything he's said in the past. IMO, that's the source of his flip-flopper rep. At least here, Obama tried to create some consistency, explain how his thoughts have changed, put it in context of his beliefs. It actually also lines up with actions his administration has taken to date, including eliminating Don't Ask Don't Tell and pointing out through the DOJ certain parts of DOMA that are inconsistent/unconstitutional. Obama's got his faults but this ain't one of em. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 06:59:34 am by we vs us »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AquaMan
|
|
« Reply #118 on: May 10, 2012, 08:38:33 am » |
|
Well said Wevsus. The trend from the populace has been towards favoring unions in the last two decades. Now up to over half the population favors them. In light of that, Guido must feel the general population has no character and is guilty of flip flopping. Any elected official who doesn't agree with them is anti-marriage. Disagree and you're stubbornly ignoring the public.
So, as usual the anti-Obama, anti-Democrats, like to have it both ways. Its all about winning, not logic to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
azbadpuppy
|
|
« Reply #119 on: May 10, 2012, 09:04:40 am » |
|
So I guess we could say the entire country has "flip-flopped" on this issue. Just 26 percent of Americans favored same sex marriage in 1996. President Obama has said he was evolving on this issue, and as it appears, so are the majority now of all Americans.
Not so much of a "flip-flop" on the part of the president, as a mirroring of public sentiment- one that will continue to evolve untill full equality is finally achieved.
At least this sitting president has the balls to come out and say the right thing, for the first time in history, against extreme and hateful opposition, in an election year. To turn that into a negative is shameful.
Kudos to the president!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
