I'm saying I'm familiar with your writing. You tend to be um, long winded. I didn't really think it would take you three weeks to reply. When writing, that's what's known as hyperbole.
I didn't read your reply to him, by the way. :biggrin-new:
Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Original post)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:01 PM
socialist_n_TN (7,494 posts)
3. As usual........
God, guns, and gays. Added to that there's a half-black guy running as a Dem. If you vote Dem you're going to Hell where you'll get fucked in the ass by a New Black Panther and the Devil will take away your AK-47.
The working class in the southern states is even more cowed by wealth, even ill gotten wealth (is there any other kind--it's all theft one way or another), than it is in the rest of the country. I blame the Calvanism.
That is pretty much my stance. Also this has been his position all along.Quote:
"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."
The source for the above quotes is hereQuote:
The second part of his statement is clear: Romney does not favor gay marriage. He supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars federal recognition of gay marriage, as well as a constitutional amendment to do the same.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney did everything he could to stop gay marriage there after the state's high court allowed it.
Romney responded to the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision by vowing to keep the state from becoming, as he put it, "the Las Vegas of gay marriage." At the time, Romney stated: "I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. ... Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman."
Now what about his stance on abortion. Here he and had similar positions that "evolved"
Source for this quote is hereQuote:
Lopez: In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, you said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” Further confusing matters, the Boston Globe reported in 1994 that “as a Mormon lay leader [you] counseled Mormon women not to have abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life was at risk.” Governor: What is your position on abortion today? On Roe? How do you account for what is obviously a change — certainly publicly — on the issue?
Gov. Romney: My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard. At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction — it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality. And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, “I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.” The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion. But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution. What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. The Republican party is and should remain the pro-life party and work to change hearts and minds and create a culture of life where every child is welcomed and protected by law and the weakest among us are protected. I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues.
My position for years was that I believed that abortion was wrong but I understood that everyone didn't see things the same as me so I took a 'to each his own' position on abortion. Over time, however, I began to put more focus on the life of the unborn. In the case of a choice shouldn't the choice be made long before a life needed to be taken? Shouldn't the choice be made to say no or use contraception? I guess I am still pro-choice but I think that the choice should be made a lot sooner in the process.
The main question here is not that he changed positions but why did he change position. Was it truly a heart felt change or was it a politically expedient one. I believed it was heart felt but I suspect that every person will make up his or her mind on this based on preexisting biases.
You're an over emotional lib, you've always been an over emotional lib, and you should be mocked by the members of this board who have wasted their experience and wisdom on you for all of these years.
I love it when people try to sound smart and then prove they're not. :smile-new:Quote: