I'd rather the folks I vote for hold MORAL convictions rather than political convictions.
But I'm not convinced of Romney's sincerity. And I'm definitely not convinced that he's good for the US.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd rather the folks I vote for hold MORAL convictions rather than political convictions.
And what do you think distinguishes the two?
I could point to plenty of people who have moral convictions about how they treat their families, say their prayers and so forth but whose political convictions I find highly immoral.
I would far rather have a athiest womanizer who supports care for the poor, universal medical care, diplomacy, environmental responsibility and social justice for President than a Christian family man warhawk who is determined to loosen environmental regulations, cut medicaid, medicare and social security, favor the rich and destroy the social safety. In my experience, the kind of moral values a person demonstrate in their private life have very little correlation with the kind of ethics and morality they value in politics. A president has far more impact on the moral questions involving things like human rights, how we care for the poor, the sick and the elderly, war and peace, than a president has on question like whether people choose a gay lifestyle or an abortion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, Mucus, I'm sorry for everything I said prior to what you just posted. And since what you just posted was provoked by me, I'll have to take part of that on my head. And I'll take your slams against Mormonism as an odd sort of compliment, since I think there are groups you wouldn't tease.
Oh, thats ok. There is no need to apologise. I figured there was an honest miscommunication and it did not seem like you were trying to take offence or anything. Thats why I wanted to clear it up.
As for the second part ... maybe. Although I wouldn't go that far myself.
As a quick analysis, the only groups that I can think of that I would not tease are groups that would be inclined to take hurtful offence for what I consider a justified reason.
e.g. making fun of Jews for the holocaust, Chinese people for the Nanjing Massacre would be supremely jerky. For something more close to the topic, I would be personally disgusted by someone that made fun of mothers that had abortions. For something more grey on this forum, I am a little uncomfortable with making fun of Lynn Johnson for her failed marriage
That said in those cases, it is not so much that they are different in a fundamental way from groups that I would tease, but that any reasonable person in their positions would be hurt.
I dunno, how did you originally read that as a backhanded compliment? Simply because I figured Mormons would be tough enough to take the abuse? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reasons to be sceptical of Romney's conversion story are not evident in the story itself but rather in the context. Romney's "conversion" to opposing legal abortion happened at a point when he transitioned from being a politician in a liberal pro-choice state to courting the conservative religious right for the republican presidential nomination. It is that context and not the details of his conversion that make the story suspect.
I agree - and pretty much stated so above when I mentioned convenient timing. If the story itself wasn't believable to me, I wouldn't bother trying to resolve my suspicion one way or the other. Since it is, I need to move to the next step of the analysis.
To be honest, I doubt I'll actually have to resolve this particular issue. Because of the screwed up primary schedule, the nomination is almost certain to be locked by the time I get to vote.
If Romney is the candidate, I'll have 8 months or so to figure this out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you like Romney better than McCain, out of curiosity?
I don't, yet.
With McCain, I think he has too cavalier an attitude about free speech.
Moreover, his grandstanding during the baseball steroids scandal annoyed me. Not enough for me not to vote for him (I haven't decided that yet) but enough, coupled with several other instances, to think that he might be as much of a political opportunist as Romney is accused of being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you mean he is too quick to stem free speech?
The word that folks kept using for him during the 2000 run was "temperment". He didn't have the "temperment". But he's no Kerry or Dole, either.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll check around. 2006 Okay, that does sound familiar. How ironic that it was probably not their intended effect.
I'm a little alarmed at the claiming of a constitutional right to free speech by a group, as opposed to a citizen. What do you think, should I bump that thread to discuss it?
I believe your case at UVA had to do with equality of access by groups, and certainly what's fair is fair. It just suddenly jumped out at me as written in the Post article that my link rests on.
P.S. My thinking on language, intent, and groups is all influenced by my field (linguistics) so I'm prone to radical statements.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
