Changing positions on economic policy or even foreign policy issues is not unreasonable. But should a persons moral beliefs really be that flexible?
If they're predicated on ignorance or political expediency, yes. Otherwise they end up like @gturner. Why else do you think he's obsessed with Hillary?
Stupid is as stupid posts: http://www.newser.com/story/208987/cnns-isis-flag-at-pride-parade-was-really-er-sex-toys.html Stupid.
I was just wondering why I don't neg rate many of gturner's posts, but then I realized we don't have a rating called "sad".
Um, my picture came from the story in the Hollywood reporter titled: CNN mistakes sex toy flag for ISIS flag at gay pride parade. CNN, your go-to source for news.
Something you failed to note, hoping the picture would fool Wordforge in the same way that it fooled CNN. Sorry, we are immune to your lying lies.
Sorry, but when you've had the same position on an issue as your opponent for most of your adult life you lose the right to criticize said opponent on it. If any of you believe she changed it for any reason other than political expediency then you're incredibly naive.
I believe she changed her public position for political reasons. I hope she changed her personal position, too, and leave open the possibility that she changed it personally at an earlier point. Regardless, she changed it, and it's never too late to do so.
She changed it, and she'll likely change it again if expedient. National Review article on her inconsistencies. Clinton isn’t the first politician who’s inconsistent – far from it. What she and her husband have pioneered is a mode of inconsistency, an entire lifestyle of ideological flexibility the goal of which isn’t public-minded but wholly self-interested. “The only way a man can remain consistent amid changing circumstances is to change with them while preserving the same dominating purpose,” Churchill wrote in “Consistency in Politics” (1932). But the dominating purpose Churchill had in mind was a public one: the common good. And the pursuit of the common good often requires the statesman to disagree with public opinion – to challenge his base, or indeed the majority. Earlier this year Bill Clinton identified the dominant purpose behind his family’s inconsistency: “I gotta pay our bills.” Blessed with loquacity, smarts, and personal charisma, the man from Hope, Ark. used political office as a means to acquire fame and fortune. Unable to go into business, or perhaps uninterested, convinced that his good and the public good are synonymous, he derived riches from his political talent: lucrative friendships, generous supporters, speaking audiences ready to pay. The maintenance of what Mickey Kaus calls the “Clinton mode of production” requires at least one member of the family to hold office, so that powerful and wealthy people might obtain a frisson of access and influence through financial gift-giving. What the Clintons understand is that the easiest way to hold office, and thereby keep up the mansions and private jets and villas and beach vacations, is to flatter and cater to the ever-changing morality and self-conception of the liberal ruling caste, to understand what troubles their guilty consciences, to put yourself forward as the representative of their fluctuating and malleable concerns. Such an approach requires a canny operator able to obscure changes in policy behind a smooth veneer of likability and guile – and if we have learned anything so far in this campaign it is that Hillary Clinton is not such an operator. She is clumsy, stilted, tentative, suspicious, rehearsed, monotonous. She might satisfy, but does she inspire? Do any of the voters nodding their heads at her latest declaration of the conventional wisdom consider themselves “Hillary Clinton Democrats”? What does she stand for besides her own ambition? That's a good question, and the answer is probably "nothing." Whereas dozens of Republicans have thrown their hat in the ring (Chris Christie is the latest), the Democrat field is pretty much just Hillary. I think too many other Democrat politicians are just intimidated by her massive fundraising operation and her ruthlessness to jump in, because opposing her might result in their destruction.
Actually, let's deconstruct this a bit. Federal Farmer seems to think that it's better to support somebody disagreeing with your position, just so long as they stand on the principle that change shouldn't happen. That's some serious fucked up shit right there. "Mr. Davis, I am personally opposed to slavery, but I congratulate you for standing on principle." Or perhaps, "Adolph, you are to be commended for never wavering in your belief in Aryan dominance. Fuck you and the holocaust, but standing on principle, bravo, sir!" and do it soon.
The right wing really lost it this time. I have not seen a meltdown this good since Obama won the last election. Bobby Jindal wants to toss out the supreme court. Mississippi is actually making good on the whole threat to destroy straight marriage if gay marriage won. Local magistrates are deciding the constitution is not what they were put there to preside upon. Some people are even threatening to light themselves on fire. The world is supposed to end soon all because some gays got to get married. This is what a do nothi8ng party has to offer. Threats they will never go through with or that are well beyond their capabilities like making their imaginary friend destroy us all. But still we can expect all of the hissy fits and bullshit from them. Tomorrow life will go on because the conservative right is nothing unless it is a skinny little white boy in SC they will all just sit on their asses and bitch like they always do, but in the end they will end up seeing gay marriage because jail scares the fuck out of them, and their guns are just for show. The one thing that does bother me about all of this is the obamabots. Get his stupid ass off the victory bus. He can go hang out with the republicans for his opposition and foot dragging on the gay marriage issue. Obama did not do this. Obama wanted civil unions, and has never done any real action to stand up and fight for gay rights. Good, he has some fucking cheap ass words about evolution, but in the real world we call that political bullshit because we know he would never have evolved had it not been for the need of votes. He is an amoeba. He has no spine. I do remember his statements when he first ran. He is a christian first and his church opposes gay marriage so he might toss people a bone with civil unions, but he is not going to propose anything. Let me just say had there not been a hard push by the GLBT community, corporations, and allies to change things Obama would still be offering us whatever the republicans would allow him to. So people like @Federal Farmer you should be praising your president because he did everything in his power to shove gay marriage and any change under the rug. I have been saying the court system was the only place where equality can come for a minority who is suffering from democratic oppression by bigots, and even though it took a while they came through just as predicted. I was in other places at the time, but I told you republitards that putting the bannings into law was a huge mistake because it gave the courts something solid they had to combat.
I am not really sure why he is bothered with Obama. He has done more to stop change than Bush. He has the least number of executive orders. He kept the insurance industry afloat. He made sure to squander the dem congress so that the reps could block everything he tried to do. Despite evolving he never made even a single symbolic attempt to get rid of DOMA despite 40+ symbolic attempts to get ris of the ACA. Aside from being elected president he has chosen to do nothing for civil injustice. We are still in our old warzones. He did kill OBL when he was pretty much trapped in pakistan and other people had taken over. He did not tighten up any of our strikes to stop killing civilians. We are still waiting for an Iranian deal. TPP couldn't get passed. He cannot even get ted nugent to leave the country.
Responding with anything more would be beyond your comprehension since you can't even understand five words like, "exchange established by the states". Apperantly that's too much for you and Justice Roberts to understand.
Neither Obama nor Clinton gets a whole heck of a lot of courage points on this issue. But going along with progress and embracing change when it comes, even if you changed your position and never really took a leadership role, is still a damn sight better than digging in your heels and throwing temper tantrums over the idea of coming into the 21st century.
Christian Post story Coalition of African-American Pastors Threaten Civil Disobedience If Supreme Court Passes Gay Marriage Law A coalition of African-American pastors vowed this week that there will be massive civil disobedience if the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage in a ruling on the matter expected this month. At a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, members of the Coalition of African-American Pastors joined Christian ministers at the Church of God in Christ's historic Mason Temple to warn the Obama administration to prepare for massive civil disobedience among pastors and clergy if state bans on gay marriage are deemed unconstitutional. "If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we're going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement," said Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of CAAP. "We will not obey an unjust law." "The politicians and courts have tried to take God out of this country," continued Owens. "This country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back." Rev. David Welch, president of the Pastor's Council in Houston, Texas, spoke out at the conference explaining the lengths people of faith might go to resist gay marriage. "God created marriage between a man and woman and no Supreme Court jurisdiction can define this," said Welch. "We stand clearly saying we will acknowledge God's law no matter what the cost, no matter what the price. If they want to fill jails with pastors across the nation of every color, denomination and every size who will stand for the laws of God and His truths." Welch also compared Christians resisting gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and encouraged pastors to fight for their right to worship freely. I for one, welcome the millions of new Republican voters.
