Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”
In 2013, Hillary Clinton
Quote:
“What DOMA did is at least allow the states to act,” she told NPR’s Terry Gross in an interview that turned contentious when Clinton was asked to trace her change of opinion on the gay marriage. “It wasn't going yet to be recognized by the federal government, but at the state level there was the opportunity."
Is her version of the famous John Kerry Iraqi War position? I was against it, before I was for it, and voted for it.
I'm pretty sure her previous position was something along the lines of, 'I really have no problem with it personally, but can't support it publicly for political reasons.'
Now her position is, 'The multitude supports it, so publicly supporting is no longer a political liability for me.'
So, yeah, pretty much the same as Obama, but I'd rather have someone with a reasonable position pretending to be unreasonable rather than an honest bigot.
Public opinion supporting gay marriage has gone from approx 25% in 2000 to 60% today. Attacking Hillary because her views have changed is not a winning election strategy - it just points out that rightwingers are out of touch.
Public opinion supporting gay marriage has gone from approx 25% in 2000 to 60% today. Attacking Hillary because her views have changed is not a winning election strategy - it just points out that rightwingers are out of touch.
Those are her public views which may not be her private views.
Public opinion supporting gay marriage has gone from approx 25% in 2000 to 60% today. Attacking Hillary because her views have changed is not a winning election strategy - it just points out that rightwingers are out of touch.
Nah, it just reinforces the strategy of the left to use media and culture to indoctrinate the low information voter and then use ridicule and bullying to keep them in line.
On the other hand, it also proves why there is such hyperbolic fear of conservative. We continue to think for ourselves and are not goaded into beliefs so that we can be one of the "cool kids."
Your "presumption" of bigotry is off. Sort of like the word 'hate'. It has become such a throw away word, it has lost its meaning, not to mention truth. BTW, only bigots make ironclad, black and white assertions such as yours. The very assertion itself is based upon prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle
I'm pretty sure her previous position was something along the lines of, 'I really have no problem with it personally, but can't support it publicly for political reasons.'
Now her position is, 'The multitude supports it, so publicly supporting is no longer a political liability for me.'
So, yeah, pretty much the same as Obama, but I'd rather have someone with a reasonable position pretending to be unreasonable rather than an honest bigot.
Personally, I could care less if she has evolved, the public has; or they have both flip flopped. I do care about the dishonest, disingenuous attempt by one party to portray an opposition party's candidate(s) as a crass 'flip flopper'. Realizing of course, that honest disagreement is not in favor at the moment. But, demagogue away. We know your stripes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
Public opinion supporting gay marriage has gone from approx 25% in 2000 to 60% today. Attacking Hillary because her views have changed is not a winning election strategy - it just points out that rightwingers are out of touch.
I'm pretty sure her previous position was something along the lines of, 'I really have no problem with it personally, but can't support it publicly for political reasons.'
Now her position is, 'The multitude supports it, so publicly supporting is no longer a political liability for me.'
So, yeah, pretty much the same as Obama, but I'd rather have someone with a reasonable position pretending to be unreasonable rather than an honest bigot.
Just the opposite for me. As a labor negotiator, I have dealt with both and would rather have to deal with the honest adversary than the slippery snake. With the honest adversary you know exactly what they believe and thus can find a way to rapproachement. With the slippery snake, you never know quite what they truly believe or are thinking, and you end up in a long term war where everyone loses.
Voice of experience here kiddos. Some wisdom too. If you will listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Just the opposite for me. As a labor negotiator, I have dealt with both and would rather have to deal with the honest adversary than the slippery snake. With the honest adversary you know exactly what they believe and thus can find a way to rapproachement. With the slippery snake, you never know quite what they truly believe or are thinking, and you end up in a long term war where everyone loses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
