What happened, Mitt? (tradition, abortion, marriage, Christian, service)

[jonny]

Originally Posted by lilithu

My original motivation for starting this thread is because I was surprised to learn that Mitt used to be more moderate than he is now, and from MY perspective, it saddens me that he's changed.

Honestly, that is something that we can agree on. I've stated before that I liked Romney before he started pandering to the religious right better. I still support his leadership abilities so I'm willing to look past some of the other issues.

[UnityNow101]

I respect George Bush 100% more than Mitt Romney....And I cannot stand George Bush at all! It is just that he, no matter how unpopular it may be, sticks to his decisions and doesn't sway just to make himself more popular. Someone who changes his mind as much as Romney is certainly not fit for leadership in my opinion...Seems like he is not clear about anything.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by UnityNow101

I respect George Bush 100% more than Mitt Romney....And I cannot stand George Bush at all! It is just that he, no matter how unpopular it may be, sticks to his decisions and doesn't sway just to make himself more popular.

It's admirable not to bend to popular opinion. But how about bending to the facts, or knowing to admit when you are wrong? I am questioning the motivations behind Romney's change of heart, but I don't understand how you can condemn him so vehemently and absolutely for it.

I didn't think that Kerry was all that inspirational a candidate, but there are two things that he said that I really wish the media paid more attention to because he was spot on:

1. "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong."

2. "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we on God's side."

[jonny]

Originally Posted by UnityNow101

I respect George Bush 100% more than Mitt Romney....And I cannot stand George Bush at all! It is just that he, no matter how unpopular it may be, sticks to his decisions and doesn't sway just to make himself more popular. Someone who changes his mind as much as Romney is certainly not fit for leadership in my opinion...Seems like he is not clear about anything.

Ummm...ok. So, you've bought into the "stay the course" rhetoric from the Bush administration. I'd rather have a leader who evaluates and changes his mind and course when appropriate.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by jonny

Ummm...ok. So, you've bought into the "stay the course" rhetoric from the Bush administration. I'd rather have a leader who evaluates and changes his mind and course when appropriate.

Like John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, then? *smile*

[des]

Surprisingly, I agree with you. I don't respect or like GWB and his "stay the course" regardless of any evidence. OTOH, I also don't respect someone who seems to me to
be changing positions for the religious right. OTOH, Romney does have a problem with evangelical Christians who will just dislike him no matter what, because he is Morman.
To me that seems inherently wrong. (Though I wouldn't vote for him.)

OTOH, I do kind of like him, so the statement of not agreeing with him and not voting for him are not really the same. I like John McCain, but very much dislike his position on the Iraq war.

Also I didn't really like Kerry but voted for him, as sort of a lesser of two evils.
I think a lot of people vote like that, too bad, but this is the way it works sometimes.
(BTW, I don't think that's unique to the US, look at France, there must have been a lot of people voting like that as the candidates were so different.)

--des

Originally Posted by jonny

Ummm...ok. So, you've bought into the "stay the course" rhetoric from the Bush administration. I'd rather have a leader who evaluates and changes his mind and course when appropriate.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by PureX

Like John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, then? *smile*

Yeah, but I'd like them to present a plan for winning the war AND pulling out. I'm not convinved that it is a completely lost cause yet.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by jonny

Yeah, but I'd like them to present a plan for winning the war AND pulling out. I'm not convinced that it is a completely lost cause yet.

There is no "winning" because there is no war. We have conquered and occupied another country. Now, we can either unoccupy it, or we can continue to occupy it. Those are the only choices available and neither of them is going to "win" us anything. So what exactly would you have the democrats, or any other political party propose? There is nothing for them to propose but to stay or to get out. We can get out quickly or we can get out slowly but what's the point? Whenever we get out Iraq will fall into open civil war. This is almost always what happens when countries are conquered, occupied for a time, and then abandoned. The British did this to many countries in the last century, and the results were much the same. Some of them, like Sri Lanka (called Ceylon under the British), are STILL fighting their civil war 30 years later.

America had a stupid attack and elected a moron to be it's president. And then the moron (who has likely never read one single history book) invaded and occupied another nation. And such actions have consequences. Negative consequences. Now, after supporting the moron through two elections, we want the democrats to figure out how to avoid the consequences of his moronic actions. And if they could think of a way, I'm sure they'll propose it. But the truth is that in life, our action have consequences, and most of the time they can't be avoided.

Bush "lost" his war the moment he lied and called it a war. There is nothing anyone can do about this, now, but to tell the truth. And the truth is that there IS NO WAR. There is only an occupation which must end, and when it ends will result in a bloody civil war, with all the negative consequences that goes with it, including Muslim extremists trying to take over Iraq (and possibly succeeding). The world and America is definitely not safer as a result of Bush's presidency. And many more people are probably going to die as a result.

Perhaps you should be thinking about why the republicans created this colossal mess instead of expecting the democrats to somehow magically make it go away.

[des]

I agree with this for the most part, though I think that Democrats and the Media were complicit in starting the war. If the media had questioned a little more, particularly.
They are now started to cover it in a realistic way but it is kind of too late to prevent it. Bill Moyers did an excellent documentary "Selling the War" on how the war was "sold' and then rallied around by most of the press. Many Democrats voted to fund the
occupation.

I agree that there is no win. There are no good answers, only bad ones and worse ones.


--des

Originally Posted by PureX

There is no "winning" because there is no war. We have conquered and occupied another country. Now, we can either unoccupy it, or we can continue to occupy it. Those are the only choices available and neither of them is

--snip--

Bush "lost" his war the moment he lied and called it a war. --snip--

Perhaps you should be thinking about why the republicans created this colossal mess instead of expecting the democrats to somehow magically make it go away.