The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

ss...

 

Do you think that you can be religious but not believe in every core belief of that religion?

 

For instance, can you be Catholic, but believe women should be allowed to be priests? Or that divorce is acceptable? Because, just because you believe in a religion doesn't mean you have to side with their beliefs ABSOLUTELY, IMHO.

 

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying your personal core beliefs aren't going to change. There is a difference.

[StrangeSox]

People change their personal core beliefs over the course of their life thanks to new evidence/experiences and introspection.

[Rex Kickass]

Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs.

You don't think a formerly tortured POW in Vietnam doesn't have a core belief about the treatment of prisoners of war?

[southsider2k5]

People change their personal core beliefs over the course of their life thanks to new evidence/experiences and introspection.

 

More like new political opportunities in this case.

[Soxbadger]

Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs.

 

I changed my opinion on abortion (was pro-life when I was young), I know another poster on this board changed his opinion the opposite way.

 

People change their minds, and you cant define what another persons "core" beliefs are.

 

My"core belief" is utility, sometimes I change my opinion on something because after reexamining the issue I believe that the utility has changed.

 

That does not mean I changed my core belief, it means my core belief caused me to change a less important belief.

 

I wouldnt call abortion a core belief of mine, its actually pretty irrelevant. My core belief on the issue is limiting govt power/intrusion, so I would be as against a rule that forced people to get abortions as a rule that restricted abortions.

 

Its hypocritical if you look at it as abortion versus abortion, its perfectly acceptable when you look at it as a "anti big govt" position.

[Jenksismyhero]

I changed my opinion on abortion (was pro-life when I was young), I know another poster on this board changed his opinion the opposite way.

 

People change their minds, and you cant define what another persons "core" beliefs are.

 

My"core belief" is utility, sometimes I change my opinion on something because after reexamining the issue I believe that the utility has changed.

 

That does not mean I changed my core belief, it means my core belief caused me to change a less important belief.

 

I wouldnt call abortion a core belief of mine, its actually pretty irrelevant. My core belief on the issue is limiting govt power/intrusion, so I would be as against a rule that forced people to get abortions as a rule that restricted abortions.

 

Its hypocritical if you look at it as abortion versus abortion, its perfectly acceptable when you look at it as a "anti big govt" position.

 

The problem in this case is nothing has changed but Obama's need to fill his war chest. Different story if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and he decided it was acceptable (hey, like Cheney in 2009!). But this is just "oh, yeah I should probably make that statement to help my campaign."

 

Edit: And not to derail the thread, but SB, you've said this libertarian stance on gov't intrusion before, yet a lot of your viewpoints from what I can remember are pretty pro-government intervention. The gun issue from the Trayvon Martin stuff comes to mind.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

I changed my opinion on abortion (was pro-life when I was young), I know another poster on this board changed his opinion the opposite way.

 

People change their minds, and you cant define what another persons "core" beliefs are.

 

My"core belief" is utility, sometimes I change my opinion on something because after reexamining the issue I believe that the utility has changed.

 

That does not mean I changed my core belief, it means my core belief caused me to change a less important belief.

 

I wouldnt call abortion a core belief of mine, its actually pretty irrelevant. My core belief on the issue is limiting govt power/intrusion, so I would be as against a rule that forced people to get abortions as a rule that restricted abortions.

 

Its hypocritical if you look at it as abortion versus abortion, its perfectly acceptable when you look at it as a "anti big govt" position.

 

This is a preplanned, studied, calculated move by Obama, unveiled at a very specific political moment. This wasn't some revelation he had. For God's sake immediately after this news came out there was tweets about this being added to the Dem's platform.

[Soxbadger]

The problem in this case is nothing has changed but Obama's need to fill his war chest. Different story if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and he decided it was acceptable (hey, like Cheney in 2009!). But this is just "oh, yeah I should probably make that statement to help my campaign."

 

 

And as I said, it may matter what his motivation was if Romney came out and said "I support equality too", then maybe I would actually care which one of them was doing it for the right reasons.

 

But when you have person A saying "If I am President I will deny you rights" and person B saying "If I am President I will give you rights", you just cant care about the reasoning.

 

No one cares that Lincoln freeing the slaves was partially a political stunt. Why? Because something good came from it.

 

Ends justify the means, this sheep is Machiavellian.

 

This is a preplanned, studied, calculated move by Obama, unveiled at a very specific political moment. This wasn't some revelation he had. For God's sake immediately after this news came out there was tweets about this being added to the Dem's platform.

 

 

Good, he would be stupid to not make the announcement at a time that would help him.

 

This reminds me of Philosophy 101, you can argue any good deed is done for selfish reasons.

[StrangeSox]

The problem in this case is nothing has changed but Obama's need to fill his war chest. Different story if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and he decided it was acceptable (hey, like Cheney in 2009!). But this is just "oh, yeah I should probably make that statement to help my campaign."

 

Edit: And not to derail the thread, but SB, you've said this libertarian stance on gov't intrusion before, yet a lot of your viewpoints from what I can remember are pretty pro-government intervention. The gun issue from the Trayvon Martin stuff comes to mind.

 

You don't have to have one of your family members come out gay to be in favor of same-sex marriage. Yeah, personal experiences are the greatest motivators, but they aren't the only ones.

[southsider2k5]

And as I said, it may matter what his motivation was if Romney came out and said "I support equality too", then maybe I would actually care which one of them was doing it for the right reasons.

 

But when you have person A saying "If I am President I will deny you rights" and person B saying "If I am President I will give you rights", you just cant care about the reasoning.

 

No one cares that Lincoln freeing the slaves was partially a political stunt. Why? Because something good came from it.

 

Ends justify the means, this sheep is Machiavellian.

 

 

 

 

Good, he would be stupid to not make the announcement at a time that would help him.

 

This reminds me of Philosophy 101, you can argue any good deed is done for selfish reasons.

 

That's not true. That has become a very chic thing to talk about in Lincoln history.

[StrangeSox]

And neo-Confederacy circles!

[StrangeSox]

More like new political opportunities in this case.

There is no possible way you will ever believe Obama actually supports SSM, right?

[CanOfCorn]

This is a preplanned, studied, calculated move by Obama, unveiled at a very specific political moment. This wasn't some revelation he had. For God's sake immediately after this news came out there was tweets about this being added to the Dem's platform.

 

So, if Amendment 1 in NC never happened, Obama would never have said this? Because, if that's the case, maybe I should THANK the voters of NC for passing such a horrifying amendment.

[StrangeSox]

So, if Amendment 1 in NC never happened, Obama would never have said this? Because, if that's the case, maybe I should THANK the voters of NC for passing such a horrifying amendment.

 

It's also possible that such a callous act finally convinced some people (maybe even Obama!) how awful reality actually can be for some people.

[southsider2k5]

It's also possible that such a callous act finally convinced some people (maybe even Obama!) how awful reality actually can be for some people.

 

the first 29 states didn't do that? It just happened to be the 30th. Yeah, not buying that either.

[Rex Kickass]

Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs.

I should also point out that Reagan was a union president before he decided that unions were wrong. Things like that are HUGE red flags to me. Almost more so than abortion or gay marriage. At least abortion and gay marriage are at their essence, very personal decisions - that allow for a change of heart with personal experience. Although Bush became Pro-Life to get the VP nod in 1980, and for no other reason.

[Rex Kickass]

the first 29 states didn't do that? It just happened to be the 30th. Yeah, not buying that either.

33rd actually. Not that I've been keeping score....

[StrangeSox]

the first 29 states didn't do that? It just happened to be the 30th. Yeah, not buying that either.

 

I don't know that the other ones stripped civil unions from those that had them. The NC amendment goes further than a simple ban on SSM. It bans any legal recognition of SS couples. It is truly a disgrace for the country.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't know that the other ones stripped civil unions from those that had them. The NC amendment goes further than a simple ban on SSM. It bans any legal recognition of SS any unmarried couples. It is truly a disgrace for the country.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Jenksismyhero]

You don't have to have one of your family members come out gay to be in favor of same-sex marriage. Yeah, personal experiences are the greatest motivators, but they aren't the only ones.

 

If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here.

[StrangeSox]

Thanks, that's more accurate. Do you know if other bans have had similar provisions, and how many were legislative instead of amendments?

[StrangeSox]

If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here.

 

You realize it's a s***ty position to hold that violates equality before the law, something you're pretty concerned with based on your past history of community organizing?

 

The thing is judging on how "firmly" someone held a certain position in the past. The FRC reversing their opinion on gay marriage would represent a complete ideological shift on homosexuality in general. Moving from ending DADT, abandoning DOMA and supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage isn't some tectonic shift.

[Soxbadger]

If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here.

 

Why cant it just be some one articulated his position in a way that was a "eureka" moment and thus he realized that by being against equality for gays, he was no better than "separate but equal."

 

For better or worse, I have changed peoples opinion with argument. On the internet its hard, but in person, when you know someone, they dont want to be the only guy in the room with a terrible ideology.

[Jenksismyhero]

You realize it's a s***ty position to hold that violates equality before the law, something you're pretty concerned with based on your past history of community organizing?

 

The thing is judging on how "firmly" someone held a certain position in the past. The FRC reversing their opinion on gay marriage would represent a complete ideological shift on homosexuality in general. Moving from ending DADT, abandoning DOMA and supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage isn't some tectonic shift.

 

So fine, he didn't believe what he said before, which just means he was, again, selling out on his beliefs to get votes. Still reflects poorly on him and it's ridiculous that people are applauding what he's just done (even while agreeing that the end result is what they want).

[Soxbadger]

So fine, he didn't believe what he said before, which just means he was, again, selling out on his beliefs to get votes. Still reflects poorly on him and it's ridiculous that people are applauding what he's just done (even while agreeing that the end result is what they want).

 

I just dont care about motivation.

 

Everyone is motivated by selfish reasons.

 

Obama is a person.

 

Therefore his motivation is selfish.

 

It doesnt matter the motivation, what matters is the result.

 

I dont care what Obama believes, I want him to do what will make me happy, even if it goes against what he thinks. Because I am selfish, and I care more about my beliefs than his beliefs.