Here a flip, there a flop, everywhere a flip flop!

reply to post by oxykerfluffle

Actually, I'm simply pointing out that both we have to choose from are equally poor about keeping their word if their word on issues is taken as entirely sincere and reflecting their values and not simply political expediency.

It's a different definition of flip flop I tend to think of. It really comes down to a very simple definition in my mind, actually, and what side of an issue I happen to be on doesn't matter all that much. The reason for that is simple. If a man has no character and cannot stand for positions sincerely on any one major example then I can't trust them on anything, regardless of specific position.

Thinking changes and positions do evolve, true. Those changes usually have reasons and on a major position. I absolutely need to see a reason to believe it's sincere. They are selling themselves to US, and so it's up to them to explain it. Failing that, it's a flip.


I'll even throw out an example of an apparent flip flop, which wasn't and BENEFITS Obama. Prior to being elected he was very much the man to put an end to detention policies and interrogation methods of the past. Gitmo would close. All manor of changes would come to the entire detainee program, he declared. My own fear then? He'd actually DO it.

Did he flip flop?? Many say yes. No, I don't think he did because a definite change explains why he went from one side to another. He was lowly little Senator Obama who got told what President Bush wanted told. Not much more. Then he got elected. President Obama got the 'scary' briefings that turn President's hair gray (notice they all age noticeably?) and so his naive concepts of singing Kumbaya quite THAT quickly vanished.


No such reason seems to exist on the example I chose for the thread, and it happens to cover them both so it's a far more apt comparison point. That's all.

I can't compare Romney to a change on Gitmo or detainment policy, as I'm not aware that he has on that one. Romneycare on the other hand? Well.. Romney sure flopped on that flip, but Obama has no such point to compare there. He has been consistent about wanting socialized health care to one form or another and degree is all he ever changed on.

If that helps explain the focus vs choice of examples and logic a bit more?

Romney said he would champion Gay Rights, not gay marriage. While in office he attempted to satisfy the SJC with civil unions so gay marriage would not become legal. His position has not changed. I'm from MA, and lived there during his term. He did a great job working in an ultra corrupt state government.

Obama on the other hand has clearly been a politician on this matter, and has done what he believes would get him votes.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Oh I guess it's all a moot point now. Paul all but dropped this afternoon when be stopped seeking more contests. It's Mitt or Obama and how I feel about Mittens doesn't change a thing about the fact I'll personally never vote the other way on principle and values. Mittens it is....for pure lack of options. Could be worse I guess. It could have been Newt. Oh what ever would we have done on that choice? (not far from it now... ugh)

About Liberty University, and why making a speech there sends a subtle message about Romney's stance on LGBT issues:

Liberty is heavily invested in the anti-gay and ex-gay movement. The school withdrew from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2010 to protest the inclusion of a gay rights group and hosted a one-day symposium to address the consequences of being gay. The event offered sessions on “understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences” and “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?” Liberty University law professors Matt Barber and Judith Reisman have also linked gay and lesbian rights to “the pedophile movement,” while the school’s affiliates describe marriage equality as a “rebellion against God” and claim that gay people are more likely to commit suicide because they know “what they are doing is unnatural, is wrong, [and] is immoral.” *

Gay Republicans not happy about Romney's choice of venue:
Gay Republicans decry Romney’s decision to speak at Liberty University

“With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University,” wrote LaSalvia, “it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.”

Obama came right out and said: Same-sex couple have as much right to marry as anyone else.
Romney? Did a song and dance and dodged the issue:

Mitt Romney Dodges Gay Marriage in Liberty University Speech



Last, how can you "champion gay rights", like some are claiming Romney is doing, and NOT support same-sex marriage? Is Romney saying you can have some rights, just not all of them? That LGBT members are only-sorta semi-equal to "normal" people?

It's an all or nothing thing - you are either 100% equal to everyone, and can marry just as anybody else can, or your still a second-class citizen with fewer rights than other people, based on THEIR prejudices.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Marriage is between a man and a woman. They have the right to marry, any man of legal age can marry any women of legal age and vice versa, they choose not to utilize it, which is also their right. There are hidden benefits to marriage that should be available to all couples, regardless of who they choose their life partner to be or why. Two sisters who wish to spend their lives together should be entitled to these rights and the government should have no business in it.

Championing rights should be a job for everyone, and the term gay rights should never even come up. Marriage however has a set definition, no one has the right to change that definition. Just like a pedophile doesn't have the the right to marry a child, or someone into bestiality the right to marry their dog.

Facts are facts regardless of if you like them.

No one is saying a man and man have a right to be married in a church, but they should have the right to have their civil union be officially recognized by the government, just as everyone else can.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I completely agree, anyone should have the same state/federal benefits, and it should not be based on marriage or even sexuality. If I want my brother to be my lifelong best friend and I have no sex drive or urges whatsoever towards men or women no one should have any say about it.

I personally believe homosexuality to be wrong, but they have the right to do what they wish to do, and I will love them just the same. This has nothing to do, and should not have any bearing politically, with choosing a life partner.