Council Member Obie Patterson, D-8, hosts Community Mtg

[bowian]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

And I think that's where the problem lies with Baker. He's coming off as a typical politician. He completely changed his stance on this and his reason was because he "never thought PG had a venue that could successfully host gambling", so now that he sees the National Harbor, he thinks it will work. That sounds like hogwash. To me, the way he campaign it appeared to be a moral thing, but now it's like let's do whatever we can to save this county.

Yep. Baker and the other politicians, despite any good intentions, are looking for an economic jump-start for the county. The casino at National Harbor appears to be it. I received a phone call survey the other day asking just one question -- do I support, oppose or take a neutral stance on the casino. To be honest, I wasn't a slots fan, but I am neutral about this project until I see how it is shaping up. But my overall view? Desperation by any other name...

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

But why wouldn't he come off as a politician. He is a politian. Just like a doctor should come off as a doctor. And there is nothing wrong with someone changing their stance because everyone does. Even on morality issues. If that didn't happen the emancipation proclamation wouldn't have been drafted, nor the civil rights amendment, nor the women's voting act etc., etc., etc. I am sure that there is something that you felt one way about and then, at a later date changed your mind. So changing your mind is not a crime. There are far more politicians and lawmakers that need to change their minds.

I disagree. The problem with him coming off as a politician, so to speak, is because as a resident, you can't take any value with his words. There a few, very few people in politics who say what they mean and mean what they say. The moment when people start questioning everything you say is when you will be heavily scrutinized to the point that everything you say will be question. For example, he was wholeheartedly against gambling before, but now he has decided that it's okay. He has also said that he is wholeheartedly against 'pay for play', why would anyone believe that he really means that, when he has shown that he will change his mind?

I also disagree with people changing their views on moral issues. To me it's a sign of a morally unstable person, who can change their opinion with the wind. It reminds of the saying, a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. At some point in life you will go through things that will shape your idea of what is right or wrong and sometimes people haven't reached that point with certain issues. But for this, he made a clear stance on gambling and his stance was made clear even when he was a delegate. There are certain moral things that should never change in my opinion. If you believe gambling is wrong, what could every happen to change that? To me that says that he isn't clear with his own convictions and that he can change his mind on anything that he stands for. Is there the type of person you want leading you? Let me put like this, if you go to church, would you want your pastor to change the way he views the Bible by going one day and saying that it says this and then the next says the complete opposite? I would think you would think he's nuts and that you need to find a new church right? Where is he leading you if he doesn't understand what his stance is? To me Baker is the same way.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

I disagree. The problem with him coming off as a politician, so to speak, is because as a resident, you can't take any value with his words. There a few, very few people in politics who say what they mean and mean what they say. The moment when people start questioning everything you say is when you will be heavily scrutinized to the point that everything you say will be question. For example, he was wholeheartedly against gambling before, but now he has decided that it's okay. He has also said that he is wholeheartedly against 'pay for play', why would anyone believe that he really means that, when he has shown that he will change his mind?

I also disagree with people changing their views on moral issues. To me it's a sign of a morally unstable person, who can change their opinion with the wind. It reminds of the saying, a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. At some point in life you will go through things that will shape your idea of what is right or wrong and sometimes people haven't reached that point with certain issues. But for this, he made a clear stance on gambling and his stance was made clear even when he was a delegate. There are certain moral things that should never change in my opinion. If you believe gambling is wrong, what could every happen to change that? To me that says that he isn't clear with his own convictions and that he can change his mind on anything that he stands for. Is there the type of person you want leading you? Let me put like this, if you go to church, would you want your pastor to change the way he views the Bible by going one day and saying that it says this and then the next says the complete opposite? I would think you would think he's nuts and that you need to find a new church right? Where is he leading you if he doesn't understand what his stance is? To me Baker is the same way.

Well PGT we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It is evident in your response that you have a strong distrust for politicians so arguing this point is moot. As for Baker, his views didn't change overnight, it has been over a period of years. Even he stated that there were several factors that led him to alter his position to be open to a high end concept (while still not being interested in a low-end proposition). I believe that anyone can and should be able to change their minds over the course of several years. Besides the concept of gambling in this county is not new. Aside from it being a law pre-1970. There are still forms of gambling in the state/county today. If gambling was such an immoral issue then why haven't the citizens of PG stood up and asked for it to be abolished in the county if not the state.

Also the concept of morality is subjective and based on the individual or culture. That said it can and will change given the social and environmental factors currently at play.