Reply With Quote
What am I saying? I'm asking you for your opinion...
That's what I thought.
Bottom line is I don't believe he supports quota systems, and he denies it. It is impossible for me to read everything to find a single incident that he might, hence, "as little I know."
If any of you are so obsessed by someone to read that much material. Have at it.
What am I saying? I'm asking you for your opinion...
That's what I thought.
That'll do. Got a link for that?
I actually googled it. Here:
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories...p_413767.shtml
"Reading everything" apparently isn't so hard. Thx for the link.
His views pre-1999 seem to be somewhat different though, from the stuff you can read out there. But I really stopped there since I don't care that much about the guy.
From Cain, more crap about, "I did it, everybody can" and "everybody in America has equal opportunity and everybody can be a big winner, just believe in God and work hard".
How about poor people holding down 2 or 3 ty jobs and who will very probably never "make it" or "make it big", like being CEO of a junk food company. Is that "hard" enough?
Why has social mobility stagnated these last 30+ years, corresponding to the ascension of conservative financial and social practices?
The evidence is so overwhelmingly against Cain's fairy tale.
This sort of inconsistency doesn't bother me. People's political views drift and evolve, sometimes dramatically.
Not too many election cycles ago, the evolution of a political viewpoint was derided and mocked by people waving sandals during a partisan convention. Anything to win, of course, but the seeming popularity of criticizing a candidate for having the temerity to change his mind on an issue was striking.
I happen to share your viewpoint on the evolution of views; the example, however, shows (sadly, I think) that such changes are so easily spun -- to the agreement of many -- into evidence of weakness.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 07-20-2011 at 02:31 PM.
I remember that.
The problem with that, though, is if you elect a person expecting them to hold X view on an issue, and then they change to Y view midway through their campaign. I think it's a legitimate gripe in some instances.
I don't mind if people change their views on an issue, but I think they should at least explain why. For instance, Obama ran heavily on civil liberties, but then has abandoned many of his stances, for no apparent reason.
Did you expect otherwise?
He's a Chicago style politician!
Eh, I was hoping. He's done some good things that I support: took out those pirates, took out Osama, signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, working on taking away the execrable "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and a few other things.
But he's been on civil liberties, which is one of my key concerns.
Well, the first two would have happened anyway. The 3rd? Don't know. I do have a problem with it being an "ex post facto" law.
PUBLIC LAW 111–2.
DADT... You know my thoughts already.
It's a legitimate gripe in all instances, and the explanation does make a difference. Because it doesn't bother me doesn't mean I make that into a principle.
I see what you mean, but I doubt Kerry lost because of the flip-flops. The Swift-boat furore was probably more damaging to him.
I would disagree. I believe the flip-flops did him more hard.
Would liberals ever win if they didn't lie about their compe ion?
, you could be right.
Half right.
Everyone lies about the compe ion; therefore, nobody wins without lying.
You do realize that not all laws with retroactive application are violative of the ex post facto clause, right?
Undoubtedly, Senator Kerry had more flaws than his willingness to revisit past political decisions and revise his views of those issues. But the adamant disdain for his having engaged in such introspection fueled the opposition's masses in that campaign -- moreso, I believe, than any substantive policy position or campaign gaffe.
The widespread willingness to believe that politicians' conclusions should be ironclad once reached was stunning.
Or that changing one's opinion signifies a lack of principles and thralldom to political expediency...the evident point of the windsurfing ad, for example.
"to ban a new Christian church out of fear that the Christians in the community were going to impose "Bible law" on the country"
Of course!!
If the "Christian" group was known to be Cons utional law violator (establishing their militant, extreme, treasonous, exclusionary cult of "Christian" supremacy as the official US religion), then I would support blocking the establishment of their "church".
If they wanted to establish their "church" but not impose their weird morality on tax-payer ins utions, then I'd be quite content to let them drink their own Kool-aid in private in their "church".
Likeability and how you look on TV has more electoral significance than policy positions. Sad, yes. I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Indeed, there is ample reason to suspect that Governor Perry's vapid responses to occasionally-challenging policy questions will have little to no bearing upon his ultimate electability in 2012.
His hair, however, will likely have a say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
