The Real Mitt Romney

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy...

Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.

Not "progress", the word was "progressive", which is pretty much a synonym for liberal ideology.

Apart from the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, (like inalienable rights), once you try changing the Constitution, you can quickly run into trouble. Most of the time, those who want to change it (or ask you to believe their new and subtle interpretation of it), do so only to benefit either themselves, or their party, at everyone else's expense.

[Sheldonrs]

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...nal-amendment/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...he-presidency/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?

The subject of gay or homosexual marriage, was not mentioned in the Constitution. So any amendment would be an addition, not a change in any existing part of the Constitution. Similar to the 14th amendment, etc.

Again, this is political posturing to get his conservative base more motivated to support him and come on out and vote!

Romney wasn't even in Congress, so the writer is making a huge flight of fancy that Mitt was serious about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

I thought a good way to go was to have civil unions with full marriage rights, for gay couples. Thus "protecting" the word "marriage", for those more likely to produce the next generation.

That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

I'm not sure this is the best compromise, but I'm thinking it's one of the better ones and could be done.

Mormons are strongly against abortions except for medical necessity or rape. I don't believe Romney will budge on his anti-abortion stance.

That one is NOT a political posture.

[piercehawkeye45]

I'm usually very supportive of political compromise (energy, gun rights, etc.) but I completely disagree when it comes to gay marriage. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage that isn't based on homophobia or blatant hypocrisy.

Civil unions may be a more politically realistic solution currently but I think it will be a bad choice in the long run.

[Spexxvet]

"We had a lot of things in common," Romney said of Doherty, recalling the two had skied at some of the same places, and that when they met Doherty had discussed his care and concern for people he had met working in the Middle East. "You can imagine how I felt when I found out that he was one of the two former Navy SEALs killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11th."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-in-benghazi/
There were others killed in Benghazi, but since Mitt didn't know them, he didn't feel bad about their deaths.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

So Mitt's the kind of guy who helps a friend in a little bit of need, but not a stranger in great need.

I hate assholes like that.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters...

Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.

[Stormieweather]

~snip~

Originally Posted by Adak

...gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

from some of our hetero...

[DanaC]

Yeah, please don't posit anti-gay marriage as a 'hetero' position. It is a religious position (usually) and is neither representative of hetero opinion, nor exclusive to heterosexual people.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.

Point taken, but I'm in Calif., and here, we HAD a gay marriage law passed, but then there was a backlash, and now we have NO gay marriages allowed by law. (A judge has held up it's implementation, but that's what has been passed by the electorate).

So I don't believe (surveys show slightly more than 55% don't want Gay marriage), that the Feds can force it through as a a law, at this time. Whatever party did it would be in for a beating at the next voting cycle. That leaves it up to the states, to sort it out, as best they can.

Do you believe the Feds can pass a Gay marriage law in 2012-2014 time frame? I don't believe that is possible. Change my mind.

@DanaC: "hetero" sounds more descriptive than "religious (usually)". I agree that it's certainly not a strictly hetero position at all.

[Trilby]

Mitt Romney is in the pocket of every millionaire and billionaire in this country.

that's all we need to know.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Trilby

Mitt Romney is in the pocket of every millionaire and billionaire in this country.

that's all we need to know.

Just because you're very successful and become rich, that doesn't mean you're an evil person! Morality doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor. It's what's in your heart.

ANY day, I'll put a prominent Mormon up against a Chicago politician!! You have picked an obvious loser in a morality contest.

In the world of politics, everybody knows a politician gets elected, because he had lots of $support$, and you don't get that kind of support, from the poor.

(Watch "Charlie Wilson's War" DVD for a great look into it. Great video, and based on history.)

I'm not saying the election process we use is ideal, I'm just saying that's how it works, at present. Obama uses it just as much as Romney does. The cost for a Presidential campaign, is now over a Billion dollars - for BOTH Republican and Democrats.

[glatt]

Adak, as a Romney supporter, how do you feel about him walking away from his conservative stances from just a few months ago and becoming moderate now? For example, he clearly said in the most recent debates that we need government regulation of private industry.

Do you think he's just saying what he needs to so that he gets elected, and he's really deep down a conservative? Or do you think he was saying what he needed to during the primaries and he's really deep down a more liberal guy than a conservative guy?

I'm curious how you reconcile in your own head the different things he has said to different people in just the last 6 months.

[infinite monkey]

Tril didn't say he was an evil person. She said he's in the pocket of Millies and Billies. Does that imply evil? No, it implies he's swayed by money. That's all we need to know.

Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to argue with you...but you're so over the top I can't help it.

Oh, as an aside, I have met, spent some time with, had adult beverages with one of Charlie's Angels...a beautiful tall lady Texas lawyer on Wilson's staff. One of the best friends of ex sissy-law who was on staff for another congressman at that time. She's a cool lady, and she said they pretty much nailed his personality in the movie...and she said it was a great time. She said "think about it...there weren't that many opportunities were there for women in politics at the time." She told me about hanging out with Tom Hanks at the premiere party...great stories.

Your recommended viewing assignment is Wag the Dog.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

Just because you're very successful and become rich, that doesn't mean you're an evil person!

And just because you're poor, that doesn't mean you are a lazy, good-for-nothing bum, looking for a handout.