CNN's Roberts: "We do definitely know that Mitt Romney is pro-family"
On the June 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while discussing Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, CNN anchor John Roberts said to host Wolf Blitzer: "[A]s the Reverend Jerry Falwell said before his death, 'As long as a candidate is pro-life and pro-family, he's all right with me.' We do definitely know that Mitt Romney is pro-family." Roberts added: "The jury is still out among some conservatives as to whether or not he is in fact pro-life or remains, as he was as governor of Massachusetts, quote, 'effectively pro-choice.' " While Roberts did not elaborate on his characterization of Romney as "pro-family," Media Matters for America has noted numerous instances of media figures equating "conservative" positions with "pro-family" positions.
On the January 20 edition of ABC's World News Saturday, while discussing Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) January 20 announcement that he will run for president, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos asserted that "there is a bit of an opening for [Brownback] on the Republican side" to "try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family values." On the February 5 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion of an executive order signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) mandating that, beginning in September 2008, all sixth-grade girls receive Gardasil -- a vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer -- host Chris Jansing introduced one of her guests, Andy Schlafly, as "a counsel for Eagle Forum, a conservative, pro-family organization." (The Texas legislature subsequently blocked the executive order.) Additionally, on the October 3, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King twice equated "pro-family voters" with "conservatives."
From the June 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
ROBERTS: A Pew poll found that 30 percent of Americans say that they would be less likely to vote for someone who's a Mormon, so he needs to bridge that gap. Now, what form that discussion will take, the campaign is not sure. They don't believe, Wolf, that it would take the form of a major speech like John Kennedy did back in 1960, explaining his Catholic faith. Maybe it more might be like answering questions as you posed to him during the debate up there in New Hampshire or having a discussion with people in smaller settings.
But, as the Reverend Jerry Falwell said before his death, "As long as a candidate is pro-life and pro-family, he's all right with me." We do definitely know that Mitt Romney is pro-family. The jury is still out among some conservatives as to whether or not he is in fact pro-life or remains, as he was as governor of Massachusetts, quote, "effectively pro-choice."
So, what's the mis-information? He's pro-family and by my definition, it appears that all the candidates from both parties are pro-family. This would be a legimate post if Roberts characterized other candidates as anti-family, but if he did above, I sure missed it. Perhaps MMFA is just stocking the w(h)ine cellar for the Friday afternoon party.
In context, it would seem that the host accepted the Falwell frame of "pro-family."
If you think Falwell would characterise Hitlery Clinton, or Barack Hussein Satan Obama as "pro-family," I got me this bridge I'm sellin on EBay...
The recently departed Fallfar would not have agrees with HRC and BHo being "pro-family" and I would respectfully have disagreed with him on that issue, as I would with Robberman and DodderingOne (Dobson).
"agrees" SB agreed and HBo SB HBO. Need to remember to use the preview button before the post button, my bad.
The frame would only make sense if someone could be pointed to that could reasonably be considered ANTI family. Its a classic propaganda technique. Meaningless jingoistic slogans used for emotional appeal. Its like asking someone if they are for or against the people of Iowa. Who would say no? Its like saying are you supportive of not strangling children in their cribs? High emotional appeal absolutly no meaning. There is no one outside of the set being referred to they dont exist.
Solon,
I agree with you. This whole "pro-family" slogan is worn out and tired. I don't even believe it gets the traction it used too anymore. Can we just retire it, please?
The conclusion is that if you're not pro-life and conservative, you're not pro-family as much. MMFA is absolutely correct in pointing out this ridiculous bias.
REPUBLICANS, "Pro-Family"?
Starting a WAR that kills our kids, which had NOTHING to do with a threat to the USA or terrorism, that's "pro-family"? Going in with too few troops, NOT equipping them properly, NOT providing them with armor, that's "pro-family"? Not taking care of injured vets upon their return, THAT's "pro-family"?
Giving billions in tax dollars to petroleum companies, WHILE they are making record profits, AND raising our national DEBT, WHILE gas prices for consumers are eating up disposable income of already strapped American families, THAT is "pro-family"?
Letting big Pharma write the laws on prescription drug availability to Americans, so now many Americans have to choose between vital drugs and FOOD? That's "pro-family"?
Wishing for the government to use FORCE to make sure every impregnated American woman carries to term, at the muzzle of state guns ... THAT is "pro-family"? The lost privacy and liberty brought on by abortion, gay rights, and "homeland security" provisions favored by the GOP ... all that lost freedom and liberty is somehow "pro-family"?
Granting a free hand to miners, loggers, and oil companies to exploit federally-owned lands for profit, while "rolling back" environmental concerns ... is that "pro-family"? Opposing unions, minimum wage, allowing access to courts to sue for damages, how in the world is any of THAT "pro-family"?
Watching health care costs skyrocket, while doing the bidding of HMO's ... "pro-family"? More and more Americans are uninsured, while healthcare providers make record profits, "pro-family"?
The government takes the side of corporations like ENRON, and against longtime workers whose pensions vanished in the corruption ... how can THAT be "pro-family"?
America invites the actions it takes worldwide to befall our own citizens ... and now we are a TORTURE nation, a nation that invades other sovereign nations without cause, a nation that uses "shock and awe" against people we claim we want to "liberate", killing tens of thousands of innocents ... "pro-family"?
It SOUNDS good for Republicans to claim to be "Pro-Family", but their record shows they are Pro-Corporations, Pro-Senseless violence, Pro-Police state tactics, and EACH of these political stances HARMS American families.
Further, Republicans are Pro-limiting freedom and liberty (in the name of "security"), Pro-reducing all safety nets for families in need, Pro-limiting research and science to cure dreaded diseases (they say for "religious" reasons), and Pro-having no restrictions on the use of overseas labor markets (to directly compete with American family workers). How is ANY of this "pro-family"?
Pro-Profits, Pro-increasing the national Debt, Pro-WAR, yes. The GOP is gung-ho for these things. But in each case, the Republicans set policy which harms the American family while enriching the few very wealthy.
Pro-Family my ass.
Tex,
This is a post for the ages. I am pasting it into a word doc to keep for my perpetual arguments with my right wing friends here in GA. Thanks!
Uhm.. I think they are called left wing talking points. ;-)
yeah, left wing talking points that happen to be accurate and factual.
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
You begin your last post with the words "I think".
I still await proof of that assertion of activity by yourself.
Tex, I put the smiley face there for a reason.
ps. Nice rant. ;-)
That's it, I've had it:
Go home tonight Roberts, drop a load in the toilet.
Stand in front of the toilet (say softly to yourself: I am filth), and dunk your head. Hold for 30 seconds. Do 40 repetitions. Anything less and the treatment will not work.
Maybe when you're done with the cleansing, you'll be able to get your head out of your ass.
Are you always this hateful? Or are you just having a bad day?
We've seen your posts Rino.
You're hardly in a position to judge anyone for being mean-spirited.
I don't use personal attacks. I simply attack the liberal ideology.
Oh no. Look everyone, he's using the O'Reilly defense. We don't stand a chance.
Yes you do. You are a liar. Just because you personally attack people in large groups rather than idividually doesnt mean you dont make personal attacks you most DEFINITLY DO. YOUR frame doesnt define reality
Hahaha..... there ya go again.. I may be wrong but That's got to be the 15th person you've called liar this month isn't it? Wait, it's the 19th of June so make that the 19th person you've called a liar.
You crack me up!
Calling someone a liar, when they are lying is not a personal attack. Now if I pointed out you are a deluded fool that can't think for yourself, that could be construed as a personal attack. Although it would be an accurate description.
bing, I give that about a 1.2 on the zing meter.
You did a belly flop.
However keep on trying. :-)
I have a simple solution for you guys that dont want to be called a liar. STOP LYING. Simple elegant solution
"I don't use personal attacks. I simply attack the liberal ideology." -rino
hahahahaha.
stop it! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Yeah, right now you try to tone down your personal attacks, (maybe so you don't have to change your name again?). But you're still guilty of personal attacks.
Heck, even your name is an attack against any Republican that does not agree with your ideology 100%
My username is a criticism of those who claim to be Republicans but whose ideology is closely aligned with the Democratic Party. Not very many people actually fit this definition. Lincoln Chafee is one. There aren't too many others. Nobody agrees with the conservative ideology 100%. There will always be differing opinions even within conservatism on various issues.
"I don't use personal attacks. I simply attack the liberal ideology" -rino
ahhh......wait
"Not very many people actually fit this definition. Lincoln Chafee is one" -rino
Seriously rino stop joking....its getting to be too much
So calling someone a liberal is now a personal attack?
No, but in your name you are asserting that they are not truthful or are being dishonest by claiming to be a Republican, while having liberal values.
You do realize that in the past, pre-Reagan/pre-civil rights act the parties where a little more open and included a wider variety of opinions.
Rino, I thought you were a "libertarian". Am I wrong that you asserted that you are a right leaning libertarian? Just wondering. Seems like a lot of right leaning libertarians out there since Republicans are not really conservative any more. You did get the memo that your party has left you, right? That is if you are a Republican. But then I'm pretty sure there are lots of libertarians all of a sudden. Of course I may be wrong and thinking of someone else.
I would say that I'm a conservative with a libertarian streak on some issues. I oppose the flag burning amendment, oppose corporate welfare, oppose sodomy laws, want a smaller and less intrusive FCC, and I don't believe that pornography or internet gambling should be banned. I'll admit that the Republicans have disappointed me on spending issues. But the Dems aren't any better. Both parties have become big spenders.
I think the difference, albeit lately, is there were not the deficits with Clinton in charge.
Divided government often leads to lower government spending and more accountability. The Republicans got drunk with power when they had total control and got careless. In the 90s the two parties were able to keep each other in check, and it led to a stalemate. Sometimes divided government means more fiscal responsibility, although I wish it didn't have to be that way.
I think that's fair. Hopefully the Dems will see what one-party rule is like shortly ;).
Good post. That is my take on it as well. I don't lament it though, as I read your remarks to be. I think it should be used to our advantage. We should always prefer a divided government. That way, only the really important things will get done and all of the stupid things will hopefully be ignored.
Yeah, you make a good point. But it's just that the main thing that I don't like about the Democrats having the majority in Congress is that they get to block Bush's judicial appointees. When Republicans had control, most of Bush's judicial nominees sailed through. I don't believe that Bush could get another conservative Supreme Court justice through now. That's an important issue to me, and that's the main reason why I don't like the Dems to have control of Congress.
The liberal ideology. there's an oxymoron. most liberals can't agree on most things. The liberal ideology is as much a myth as the liberal media bias. Convenient labels used to dismiss actual thoughtful and factual views espoused by people you disagree with. Gimme a break. If we were were ideologues like conservative chumps we'd be running the show right now. I don't get talkingpoints delivered to my in box and none of the liberal sources of information I utilize have any commonality. What's your idea of ideology? Tax and spend? Hate America first? What jingoistic and inaccurate labels do you use to come up with this idiotic fantasy? Don't bother answering, I don't really care.
The liberal ideology is an ideology that advocates more government control over people's lives. They distrust an open and free market, and they believe that the government must regulate everything. They don't trust people to spend their own money the way they see fit, and they feel that they must tax them and spend their money for them.
On the other hand, they do advocate less government when it comes to issues of morality. Whenever there is something that is obviously immoral, the Democrats and liberals will fight hard to keep it legal. When there's something that is right and necessary to keep yourself safe from evil such as the right to keep and bear arms, liberals will adamently oppose it.
Whenever there is something that is obviously immoral, the Democrats and liberals will fight hard to keep it legal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PERSONAL ATTACK ALERT: RINO has just called Liberals protectors of immorality which means we must be immoral and not virtuous like he believes he is. Get off of it RINO , you're a liberal hater based on your delusional misconceptions of what a Liberal is.
That is not an attack. It is a point of view.
For further reference please see Tex's manifesto below.
oops.. Tex's message came earlier.
A point of view and a personal attack are not mutually exclusive. My point of view of Republicans could be that they are bigoted overly judgmental jack asses (which I don't believe) but calling someone a Jack ass I am pretty sure rises to the level of a personal attack, as does attacking the morality a millions of people that you don’t know.
Exactly Lynn serious logic deficit in that post
Lynn,
I have to agree with AA. Some on the left post here all the time about conservatives cheering on death in wars and how hateful and mean they are when it comes to their fellow man......yet never get challenged, nor is it ever labeled a "personal attack".
RINO has his opinions on liberalism, I don't necessarily agree with him on this specific characterization, just as do you and others probably differ on conservatism. We are not all monolithic from one side and we don't always agree on those opinions......but a generalization about one's opinion on a specific ideology is not a personal attack, in my opinion.
Tommy, Calling a person who is pro-choice a baby killer is a personal attack, even if someone holds the opinion that a person like me who believes that women should have access to safe first trimester pregnancy terminations is a baby killer, it doesn't make it true and it is an insult and it is intended to be an insult. But I do understand you and AAs point. I find conservative philosophy particularly the dog eat dog philosophy of Libertarians to be very very selfish and yes calling someone selfish isn’t a nice thing to do.
Lynn,
I don't recall saying that personally calling someone a baby killer is not a personal attack. I don't condon, nor do I use, terms such as that.
some people do. I was talking about you.
I don't believe that I've ever called anyone a baby killer. I've just said that liberals don't want to do anything about it.
I wasn't singleing any poster out with that example. But think about this RINO, most Liberals have a fundamental disagreement with you as to when a baby becomes a baby, in my view stopping the early stages of a biological process that may and usually leads to the creation of a viable human infant is not the same as infanticide, you believe it is. That doesn’t make me evil because I believe that. Did you know that sometimes that the same process can actually go awry and lead to the creation of a rather aggressive cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_trophoblastic_diseases
I'll try this again
<[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Gestational trophoblastic disease, usually referred to as a mole, is a very rare abnormality of pregnancy in the reproductive female that involves abnormal trophoblast proliferation. It is the result of a (purely chance) genetic error during the fertilization process that in turn causes the growth of abnormal tissue (which is not an embryo) within the uterus. The growth of this material is disproportionately rapid when compared to normal fetal growth.
Choriocarcinoma is a malignant and aggressive cancer of the placenta. It is characterized by early hematogenous spread to the lungs. It belongs to the far end of the spectrum of gestational trophoblastic diseases (GTD).
"But think about this RINO, most Liberals have a fundamental disagreement with you as to when a baby becomes a baby"
I realize that and I respect your opinion. I simply believe that we should vote on the issue through the democratic process. But most liberals seem to be scared to even let the people vote on the issue. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue of abortion, and it should be an issue that is debated and voted on by the people. If the people want abortion, then they should be able to have it. If they don't want it, then the courts shouldn't force it on them.
The idea of the Courts forcing it on them is exactly why I am pro-choice RINO. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion as it stands now.
Do you think this should be a state-by-state issue or a single federal law?
Nobody is forcing you to rob a bank either, but I believe that you should be put in jail for doing it. I believe in the saying, "Your freedom ends at another man's nose." I believe that a fetus is indeed a human being, and I believe that abortion violates a human being's rights. That's why I oppose it.
I do believe that it should be a state by state issue. If Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, states like Alabama and Georgia would probably only have legal abortion in the most extreme circumstances, and states like California and New York would still have abortion on demand. You could then vote with your feet. If you were someone who thought you needed an abortion in the future, you could move to a state which had legal abortion. I simply believe that the issue should be left to the people and not the courts.
Tommy,
Don't know what happen to the message above. I wasn't referring to you as calling someone a baby killer. I was using this an example of an insult that could very well be somone's point of view
There is some of that but I know for instance the majority of the times I do that it is to satirize the post I am responding to doing the same thing. It is so easy to mischaracterize the position of the other side it does nothing to further the discussion and is dishonest. AA was wrong it is without a doubt a personal attack to tell us we are protectors of immorality and mischaracterize our positions. And Lynn was without a DOUBT right when she pointed out accuratly that a point of view and a personal attack are NOT mutually exclusive. By definition AAs point was irrelevant therefore a logical fallacy. Like saying the movie was long so it couldnt be bad.
I'm not saying that liberals are immoral in their personal lives. I'm simply saying that they don't want the government to make any judgements concerning morality. I simply feel that this is a dangerous position and I point that out. I'm not saying that liberals themselves are immoral.
Okay RINO,
Understood!!
Well, thanks for stating the obvious. I seem to be more moral than all the Republicans I know. My bible thumping bro dumped his wife after she bore him 4 kids and got him through medical school on food stamps. He also had 2 affairs in Medical school (he started at 40 btw) and then decided she wasn't good enough once he became a doctor. My Republican mother not only supported his actions but made every attempt possible to bad mouth the ex wife. My Republican sister is married to a guy (another Republican) who not only slept with my sister, but had an affair and employed the mistress in their family business. My other brother "lived in sin" before he got married. Thank goodness my other 4 sibs are Democrats, why they all have stable marriages and contribute greatly to society. Funny that. And don't get me started on my thrice married friend in Ca. who goes to church every Sunday, but was a long time alcoholic and substance abuser. Not to mention she has a mouth like a sailor. I have gotten her to clean up her language a good bit though.
As a liberal, RINO, I find nothing that I defend to be "obviously immoral." We have different standards. Why are yours absolutely correct and other people's obviously immoral.
I think people would respond less harshly if you prefaced your thoughts with the words "I think" or "I find"
By that definiton (liberals will defend anything obviously immoral), Dick Cheney is a liberal (if I read your views on gays having families correctly).
People feel attacked when you deem something that they hold dear to be "immoral" or "offensive."
I know its not the same, but the closest thing I can think of it is a stereotyping of liberals as you would stereotype someone else. People, as you can see, react almost violently when they are branded.
I see your point. I simply don't like to preface all of my posts with "in my opinion." I just assumed that most people would realize that it's my opinion and not an absolute fact. I gave my opinion about the liberal ideology, and I'm not backing down from it. I feel that the liberal ideology is dangerous and bad for America. I don't have anything against liberals as people. I know plenty and they all seem like nice and caring people. You seem like a pretty nice person who simply has a differing point of view. My point about immorality was mostly about abortion. You and I obviously disagree on that. I believe that life begins at conception, and that the government has an obligation to protect that life. I don't agree with the liberal mindset that "you can't legislate morality."
Fair enough. I think people just have a hard time when they hear what they believe in will be "bad for America."
Its also interesting people can look at one source for the basis of their beliefs and get two different outcomes. I know that is the case with you and me.
Forgot to say this with regards to legislating morality: the big problem is with the "moral" issues we are discussing is there is no consensus on it. If morals and morality were black and white, there would be no problem.
Good for you. I stand by MY characterization that conservative ideology is all about starving hungry children and getting as many Americans killed as possible for corporate profits. So it goes.
And the Conservative ideology is about starving hungry children. Getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can for corporate profits. Making Government just small enough to fit into your bedroom and giving as much as the nations public resources as they can to wealthy interests. Yada, yada, yada. It is so easy to just mischaracterize the other side. i guess thats why you like to do it. It fits into your limited skillset
You can bash the conservative ideology all you want. It won't bother me. I have strong beliefs and I can take it. It's certainly fair game. I just think that when you get into the personal stuff you diminish your credibility.
The characterizations I made were dumb. Just as dumb as the ones you made. THAT was the point. As for what you generously call thinking, I dont care what you think. YOU bash us, I return serve you have absolutly NO say in the matter.
Now Bing...lets give rino a break.
(at this point I'm defending rino)
He's working with limited material right now the american family ASSociation has not released it's talking points in a while. They're too busy trying to convince people that Hate Crimes legislation will equal the round up of pastors who speak out against homosexuality (never actually allowing people to read the bill first btw)
And the others are far too busy...its Gay Pride season! They're busy making their crude signs (you know, instead of feeding the poor or working to keep their marriages together.)
See rino, I can defend you if I want
I agree with Bing that, "The liberal ideology. there's an oxymoron."
However not for the reasons he cited.
True enough if you have two liberals in a room you have at least three opinions
Actually, after watching the Democratic and Republican debates so far, it's obvious that the Democratic candidates are in lock step on pretty much every single issue. They all toe the liberal line about 100% of the time. There is very little ideological diversity among the Democratic candidates. The only exception is Kucinich who is off the chart far left.
On the Republican side, however, there is a wide variety of ideological thought. There are a lot of different views on the immigration issue, for instance. Some Republicans like McCain and Brownback support a liberal policy on immigration which gives amnesty to millions of illegals. Other Republicans like Tancredo and Hunter have a conservative position on immigration. They favor border security and no amnesty for illegals. Abortion is another issue where there is a lot of diversity of thought. The Republican front runner, Giuliani, is actually pro choice. (Imagine having the Democratic front runner be pro life. It would never happen.) Romney has had different positions on the issue as well. It's pretty interesting watching the Republican debates since they actually disagree with each other on some issues rather than marching in lock step on every single issue like the Democrats.
Your take is ludicrous. What is Gravels position on Iraq? Taxes? Are you saying Edwards and Hillary agree on economic issues? As usual you spout off and the only thing you show is that you dont know what you are talking about. If you ever tried to find out what Democrats are saying you MIGHT learn something but all you do is pass everything through your biased lens of contempt for anyone to the left of Jesse Helms so you are wrong in almost every post you make.
"Are you saying Edwards and Hillary agree on economic issues"
Yes. They both support higher taxes and universal health care. There's no difference between them on economic issues or any other issue for that matter.
Sorry, I forgot that Hillary believes that there's a War on Terror and Edwards doesn't. That's the only difference.
As a soulless, godless liberal socialist communist, I am so grateful for all of the anti-family candidates the Democratic Party has put forth for this next election:
These anti-family candidates show in their personal lives - and in their support of increased minimum wages, better education, universal health care, etc. - that they hate the family and want to see it collapse.
As opposed to the "pro-family" Republicans:
- John McCain: Married twice, admitted adulterer.
- Rudy Giuliani: Married three times, serial adulterer.
- Fred Tompson: Married twice, known as the "Tennessee Stud" during his Senate career for his colorful love life.
- Mitt Romney: In fairness, a family man.
Most of these guys like families so much, they can't just have one.OOOOH! SNAP! "Can't have more than one!" Please go on TV as a democratic correspondent and say that!
Great line! Thanks for the laugh.
Ellington,
Great post. You forgot about the supposed model of coservatism Newt Gingrich, serial adulterer, married three times. So is he "pro-family" too?
Of course he's pro life. He tells it to all 7 of his grandma's every day.
The MISINFORMATION is in accepting the FRAMING presented by the Republicans, the narrative they write which PRAISES their guys and either directly or by implication slams the opposition.
Hillary is more PRO-FAMILY than the whole batch of GOP wanna-bes, including Romney, but does the so-called Mainstream Media spend time telling their audience how Pro-Family Hillary is? No, they do not. They present the Dems as the Rightwing talking points would HAVE the Dems presented: Godless, hypocritical, ANTI-family, cowardly, anti-troop and pro-terrorist.
And the more this narrative is followed, the more we can count on our rightwing posters to say, "What's the big deal?" and "Why is this here?" and "What's the misinformation?"
Part of making something the "conventional wisdom" is to act as if cleaving to the narrative is natural and honest, and that there is no harm in the characterizations. In truth, it is widespread and incidious, and the denials reflect those who swore that the emperor's new clothes were spectacular and elegant. He's NAKED, guys ... the deception is no longer working.
Roberts is absolutely right to label Romney pro family. Romney supports traditional marriage and the traditional family unit. Liberals want to undermine marriage and make the traditional family a thing of the past. It is 100% accurate to label Romney pro family and to label many on the left anti-family.
"Liberals want to undermine marriage and make the traditional family a thing of the past."
Hey, RH, that thing you posted about not making personal attacks and only attacking liberal ideology? Accusing half the country of wanting to destroy families is a personal attack, no matter how flimsy your strawman.
Attacking that strawman has absolutely nothing to do with "liberal ideology", and as long as I'm at it, repeating the talking points of Ann Coulter or whoever you got them from is not really attacking anything, it's just being a stooge.
Notice that my post, while it may look like a personal attack, is actually true, and directed at things you actually wrote, not BS I made up or memorized by listening to somebody else.
We need more serious conservative posters here to make it interesting, so try to put a little effort into it.
I believe RINO is trying as hard as he can, the poor guy seems nice enough but he is TOTALLY brainwashed. He doesn't seem to realize that he can be an independent thinker and still be a conservative, but one day I hope that original thought unfiltered through the RNC will show up and set him free.
Gomer,
Typical liberal logic. Attacking one person is not personal but attacking many is.
Typical.
Another American, I think everyone should get off of their high horses here. Almost everyone who posts here has on occasion in the heat of debate lodged a personal attack. This includes you and me. I remember a heated exchange between the two of us many many months ago. I'm sure I said some things to you that weren't kind and you did like wise to me. I don't even remember what the discussion was about, but at the end of it we apologized and moved on. But back to RINO. He routinely attacks Liberals and then ala Bill O'rielly pretends that he doesn't engage in such behavior, that he’s above that.
Barney, which of the voices in your head are you responding to ? :0/
Typical STRAWMAN, which seems to be the best you rightwingers can do, locial fallacy after logical fallacy. Cough up the example where ANYONE said that attacking one person was not a personal attack. I wont be holding my breath
In fairness, it is hard to tell with Romney. Was he pro-choice in Mass. just to get elected or is he really pro choice? Is he really anti-gay marriage?
I respect your view, RINO, but I think his past, and even recent changes of heart make his views less of a certainty that some others.
I agree. He has been inconsistent on the abortion issue, at least as far as rhetoric. But he did have a pro-life record as governor of Massachusetts, as he vetoed many anti-life bills. I believe that he is sincerely pro life now. I believe that he will be a pro life President if he's fortunate enough to get elected. If he wasn't, then conservatives would simply stay home and not vote for him the next time around. Romney knows that, and I don't believe he would turn his back on those who voted him in.
Lay off that RNC drink, it causes short-term memory loss. Bush turned his back on you, he used what I understand is derisively referred to by many of the powerful Republican strategists as the extra chromosome crowd to get elected and then he ignored them. Romney is a phony and he wants to be president more than anything in the world and he isn't going to be.
Lynn,
I see you have your own preferred flavor of kool-aid. Enjoy. ;-)
AA,
What, in your personal opinion, leads you to think that the latest views espoused by Romney are permanent?
I can't say they are permanent. He may change the minute he gets elected just like Clinton did when he raised taxes after being elected or the Democrats who voted for the war before they voted against it. Ya never know....
AA,
Trust me, I am peeved at those Dems, but I was not talking about them :). I was asking your opinion on Romney.
Fried, RINO is the one who has endorsed Romney. He has stated that he believes Romney's historically moderate to Liberal views on abortion, gun control, and Gay unions was just Romney bamboozling the Liberal voters in MA into voting for him, but this new socially conservative Romney is the real deal. I won’t put words in RINOs mouth, but apparently he is okay with Romney’s con-man past since he was only pulling the wool over Liberal eyes. That said Romney may very well have evolved in his point of view, but I just have a very difficult time with time line here, apparently this awakening happened just in time for the 2008 Republican primaries.
I hear you, Lynn. I was just responding to AA who had stated you were drinking "the Kool-Aid" because you had taken issue with RINO's point. I got your back ;).
He doesnt have an opinion. Hannity hasnt given it to him yet
as do you AA, as do you. But I am not under some kind of Vulcan mind meld like some of our wing nittier friends that post here. Am I Liberal, yup and I am a Democrat by default because they come the closest to endorsing MY carefully thought out point of view. I'm not chasing DINOS baby.
Don't worry AA no one is going to be raiding YOUR stash of kool-aid. Limbuagh, Hannity or whoever delivers YOURS has plenty
Bush has been the most pro life President our country has ever had. He's been solidly conservative on that issue. That's the issue that I was talking about.
I am not sure Iraqis would share in that assessment.
That of course is an outright lie, which you know very well AND a perssonal attack on all liberals. It just amazes me that someone can be so dumb they make personal attacks on people by the MILLIONS then turn around and snivel about a personal attack made on ONE PERSON. I fail to see how insulting a million people or LYING about them is somehow ethically better than insulting one person.
SOLON:
Make that, insulting 50 to 200 million people.
Actually, I clearly said SOME ON THE LEFT, not all liberals. And the most recent polls show that about 16% of Americans identify themselves as liberals, and so that means that I'm criticizing about 10% of the American people. Also, I have nothing against them personally, but I'm just pointing out that I believe that their ideology will lead to a more permissive society and an overall coarsening of the culture if they ever gain power in this country. This is one factor that will lead to the break down of the family unit.
There are many liberals who oppose gay marriage and support traditional marriage and the traditional family unit. I didn't mean to paint ALL liberals with such a wide brush. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
Interesting points, but then how do you explain the divorce rate being higher in the so-called "red" states where "liberalism" is more frowned upon?
For verification:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf
Thanks for the info Friedbergboy
There's also a report out there (looking for link) that shows the in so-called "red states" and among conservatives there is a disproportionate level of child abuse (both physical and sexual) and also extremely high levels of abuse against women (physical).
Wanted to throw that up and when I find the link again I'll post it (just upgraded my computer and lost a lot of links and data)
You are at a site that is primarily populated with liberals denigrating liberals your SOME is just weaseling out of your personal attack. If I went into a Pentacostal Church and told them that some Christians were brain dead for believing in an old bearded ghost in the sky will help them in their lives no one would take the minor disclaimer seriously and they would be offended. Keep spinning all you want you do plenty of personal attacks. You attack our beliefs with incredibly stupid mischaracterizations, you attack liberals themselves, you DO personal attacks its that simple. I dont care how often you SAY you dont. I dont care if you have deluded yourself into believing them. I have seen your posts over a long period of time and saying you dont do personal attacks is an outright lie.
As someone who calls everyone they disagree with a liar and who also insults the other side on a regular basis, I find your post amusing.
Pot meet kettle.
The above comments were meant for Solon.
And my answer is to YOU
He doesn't call everyone he disagrees with a liar. He calls people who lie liars. There's a huge difference. Just like there's a huge difference between Media Matters debunking right wing misinformation about Hillary that comes in waves and them being a pro-Hillary site. Media Matters is a pro-truth site when conservative misinformation rears its ugly head!
Also, as Solon has clearly stated many times, he doesn't shy away from calling a spade a spade, and will give back what he gets. I have never seen him throw the first punch, so for you to claim that he insults other people, like that's a bad thing to do when those people he's insulting have just gotten done insulting others, is ridiculous on its face!
Not,
I did not see RINO say anything derogatory to Solon so who threw the first punch?
I admire your loyalty but am suspect of your memory.
Rhino and I have history he has attacked me DIRECTLY and personally. However that wasnt mean to be insulting only flat out true. He lies when he says he doesnt make personal attacks. I didnt say it to be personally insulting I just dont know how else to tell a liar he is lying.
Solon,
You're always the one who comes here and starts personal confrontations for no reason. I simply come here and talk about the issues, and you have to resort to personal attacks when you know you can't win the debate. I've never attacked you for simply presenting a liberal view point the way you attack me for presenting conservative view points and bashing the liberal ideology.
You are lying again. I dont start the personal attacks. I respond. The terrible things you say about liberals DESERVE response you just like to DO the insulting and dont like that returned and on a post a week or so ago I simply pointed out that it was open to intepretation whether the World was made in seven 24 hr days since the day of the Lord is described as a vast period of time and the Sun wasnt even created until the third day and YOU immediatly called me an idiot. Stop lying so much. Did you think MY memory is as short as yours?
That's an outright LIE and you know it. I've never called you an idiot or a moron or anything of the like. Quit lying. If you have proof of that then link back to the thread that that's on. Otherwise, don't make up stuff that simply isn't true.
You are correct you did NOT call me an idiot you did say THIS
You're a complete jerk and a very hateful person.
It was later in the thread after I challenged you to show where the bible said over and over that life begins at conception WHICH IT DOESNT you told me I was misinformed. I repsonded you were a moron and you called me a jerk and a hateful person which by ANY standard is a personal attack. So it was inaccurate but not a lie. YOU saying you never make personal attacks however is an ABSOLUTE LIE
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060002?offset=140&show=1#comments
That is because you are not too bright. Can you cough up any example of me DENYING I make personal attacks like RHINO dishonestly did? If you CANT, and I KNOW you cant, then you have no point. I personally attack people when they start with me or with liberals overall. I never once denied it. Rhino does it too he is just fooling himself and trying to lie to us when he says he doesnt
A stupid tirade that cries out for equally stupid questions...
Do tell us, oh great defender of all that which is familial, just what is the looming liberal threat that faces the typical American family, such as my own?
How are the Democrats plotting to destroy my family?
What is Obama's strategy to invalidate or nullify my marriage?
What is Clinton's strategy to take my wife and my children away from me and turn me into a homosexual?
When did these speeches take place? Something like this surely would have made the news.
What power do Democrats wield to destroy an institution that is instilled in every culture throughout the world and has withstood world wars, plagues, genocides and the fall of entire civilizations?
What poison are the Democrats going to purposely inject into Americans that will alter or destroy the fundamental scientific basis of biological reproduction that Mother Nature, or God, if you prefer, has decreed unto a landslide majority of the human race?
What is the Democratic strategy to make men and women no longer desire heterosexual courtship, marriage, intercourse and parenthood?
I genuinely want to know these things because if my marriage is truly facing a threat, I want to know. Trouble is, I have been unable to find any "pro-family" philosopher who can explain it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage is divorce.
As this New York Times article indicates, divorce rates tend to be higher in the so-called "red states". The reasons for this aren't clear, but what is clear is that professions of "traditional values" and being "pro-family" mean exactly jack s**t when it comes to actually keeping a family going.
This whole meme of "anti-family" and "pro-family" is complete nonsense. I'd be very interested to hear of an example of a well-known liberal, hell, anyone, who thinks that the institution of the family is a bad idea. (The only example I can think of is Plato, a man thousands of years dead and hardly a raging liberal). Let me know if you find one.
We're only beginning to see the statistics come in for divorce rates since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, but it looks like the hardline Christian right won't be finding any ammunition for their war against gays.
Of course not. The Anti-Gay Marriage Neanderthals have no logic to back up their position. Their rhetoric predicting the demise of "the family" if Gay Marriage becomes legal is total bullsh*t. I've challenged conservatives time after time to come up with one LOGICAL reason to keep Gay marriage illegal, and they just can't do it.
Rino,
Name one liberal who is anti-family. What, do you think that somehow liberals don't have families? Do you think that liberals don't love their families? Do you think liberals don't think family is important? Do you have a clue as to how narrow minded you are?
"and the traditional family unit. Liberals want to undermine marriage and make the traditional family a thing of the past." -rino
Yes because conservatives are so great with marriage they are "pro-family."
The divorce rate has what? doubled? wow! there are a lot of liberals out there, that can only be the correct explanation.
How about this fact (many times misquoted or "altered*" by the right). "After Denmark legalized gay unions in 1989, the marriage rate climbed 20%, reversing a forty-year slide., while the divorce rate went down to the lowest levels since the advent of “no fault” divorce. Similar dramatic results were seen in Norway and Sweden.77" source
* i.e. lied about to the point it does not even look like the same report.
Like Jim says in his parody of anti-gay tracts, hopefully gay marriage can save "traditional" marriage.
Newt Gingrich's two ex-wives, Rush Limbaugh's three ex-wives, Giuliani's two ex-wives, and Bob Barr's two ex-wives got together and issued a statement: "CONSERVATIVES like our ex-husbands are STRONG on FAMILY VALUES! According to our ex-husbands, Liberals HATE families!"
Then they started a softball team, all having experience at going around the bases.
In the same way it is 100% accurate to label YOU a moron
You're absolutely right Tex...
But I wonder if framing is really the answer?
Could it be that the media is so filthy and corrupt--so right-wing biased--that mere re-framing is just not possible...Simply not enough to beat back the corporate right-wing media machine?
Maybe we have to just stuff dog crap right in their faces--period.
We do definitely know that John Roberts is pro-hair spray.
The real stuff, not the John Waters/Harvey Feirstein vehicle. He only does gay themes in the dark in a zippered mask.
John Robert, himbo.
Liberals want to undermine marriage and make the traditional family a thing of the past...rino hunter
==================================================
Rino, it's time for you people to give up this bogus argument. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for some time now. Please document, from a credible source, any negative effects seen since it was legalized.
Then give us your definition of a "traditional family."
And then explain how two men or two women getting married has any bearing on my marriage or yours.
Thanks!
If two women got married, then there's two less women for those bastions of family values (e.g., Giuliani, Newt, etct.) to hit on. Maybe this will keep Rudy from having a 4th marriage!
Sportsguy,
Glad to hear you have a strong marriage.
The argument postulated by many here is not that your marriage is in danger but that the institution of marriage and the 'traditional' family unit is in danger. The danger lies in diminishing still further the importance and acceptance of marriage as a life long commitment between a man and a woman.
Probably the greatest attack on marriage was during the Johnson era when the government mandated that only single mothers were to get federal help. That released the fathers of the fiscal responsibility of raising their children.
The advent of no-fault divorce further weakened the family unit. We see celebrity marriages withe prenups and divorces before the ink dries on the marriage license further erode the idea of a lifelong commitment.
Nowdays we see the argument that marriage is not even reserved for a man and a woman. You may argue that is okay, but it further diminishes the special legal, moral, and spiritual bond that has traditionally been between a man and a woman.
The legalization of abortion and use of contraceptives has effectively changed the dynamic of sexual relations that traditionally was reserved for marriage. Now days there is no commitment needed to engage in sex. That has diminished the family bond and lead to a host of other problems.
Studies are showing up almost daily that children of divorced parents are more likely to have trouble in school, cause more disruption, and have children themselves out of wedlock. That means a greater likelyhood of poverty among children and all the lifelong struggles that ensue.
Many people here make a good point about many of the Republican candidates and their failed marriages. My feeling is that the 'pro family' moniker has been applied to those who support policies that strengthen the traditional marriage and not their personal history.
So, why are Republicans not more against divorce? I understand your attempt to seperate personal history from the debate, but isn't that the "Do as I say not as I do" defense?
Also, wasn't Hillary Clinton ridiculed up and down a few threads ago for staying with Bill? I am not saying she should have stayed or not, but it was her choice.
Fried, I think you make a good point. Obviously there are many people out there, both conservative and liberal who believe differently than me and have different standards by which they lead their own lives.
I think many people are so cynical toward the Clintons that they probably see the Bill and Hill marriage as one of political convenience.
Hillary is so closely identified with Bill and her defense of his infidelities that it works against her in some respects. Traditionally, infidelity has been one of the few morally acceptable reasons for divorce. Hillary's decision not to divorce Bill is not in keeping with her feminist leanings. I think it confuses many on both the left and right.
AA,
I think, if people are truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they should focus on the divorce rate in this country first and foremost and not worry about how other "definitions" (for lack of a better word) of marriage in society.
I find the anti-gay rhetoric to be more hollow when it is advocated by those who don't work on their own marriage first.
As for the Clintons, I give them the benefit of the doubt as I would hope anyone would give any other marriage, but that's just me.
You make good points. I agree.
In my opinion, we, as members of society, should encourage both legal and societal initiatives that strengthen marriage rather than change it or diminish it.
It is a complicated issue no doubt.
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
Just so you know, "feminist leanings" would mean NOT listening to retrograde neandrothals like yourself, and doing what SHE thinks best. Making up her OWN mind, rather than following somebody's idea of what is "traditional" or "fundamentalist".
So, you see, you have NO IDEA what it means to be "feminist" ... you think it means to react per your own formula, and that's the antithesis of what it means.
Once again, with feeling.
How does gay marriage change heterosexual marriage?
You claimed that abortion affected heterosexual marriage. You claimed that the welfare laws of the 60's affected marriage.
How would two people in love making a lifetime commitment to one another affect heterosexual marriage in a bad way?
If marriage creates stability for heteros ,then it does the same for gays. The fact is that gays do have families, love their families and are more stable in a marriage situation for the same reasons as man/woman couples. How many times do we have to point out this obvious fact to the deadenders here. Your personal ideology is clouding common sense and common decency. That being the allowance of all rights for all people. Why should we restrict other people's rights because of your personal bias?
I see the point you are trying to make. I would argue that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.
I think we can all agree a homosexual relation is not.
I have no problem with homosexuals making life-long commitments to each other. I am okay with gays setting up a legal arrangement that gives them the same rights as married couples. It doesn't affect me. I just don't consider it a 'marriage'. I find it amusing when I read of two gays women, one of whom was referred to as 'wife'. I never did find out if the other is also a 'wife'. Are their two wives or is one the husband? It was left unclear but how can one be a wife without a husband? If they are 'partners' then it is not a marriage as a marriage has a husband and a wife.
It seems to me that if people want to redefine marriage they are not only weakening the institution. They are abandoning it. Now marriage can be anything anyone decides they want it to be. It is the slippery slope. Why then cannot three people marry? Why not four? Why not close relatives? Why not, as solon is so happy to point out, members of NAMBLA? If you can redefine marriage once, you can redefine it any number of ways. That seems to me to diminish the institution which I believe is one of the cornerstones of civilization.
So, by that "slippery slope" argument. The state of Virginia (in Loving v. Virginia) barred interracial marriages and defined (in a way) marriage as a man and a woman of like race, did that weaken marriage when it was changed?
Fried,
I never said anything about inter-racial marriages. Why did you bring it up?
I think that law was passed by Democrats. ;-)
AA,
I brought it up because it was a marriage issue that stoked at least this much outrage if not more at the time. It changed the definition of marriage for many and marriage still remained "intact."
Yes, it probably was passed by the same Dems who left the party after the Civil Rights Act.
former Democrats now known as the current Republicans
I have committed the fatal sin of having a bi-racial marriage for 16 years to the nicest, most decent and most lovable man in the world (yes, a bit hyperbolic but I love the guy). I'm sure that tore up several marriages.
AA, he brought it up for historical context. Same reasons given back in the day to disallow bi-racial marriages. I couldn't have married my husband back then.
Juliajayne, for shame for shame. I'm sure that "traditional marriage" will never be the same :-)
Congrats on your marriage and many many more years of bliss.
How about marriage is between two consenting adults. That leaves out multiples, animals and pedophiles. I want less government in my life determining morality based on some old white man idea of what is right and wrong.
But AA, what we find so odd about your arguments is very simple to understand. But no one on your "side" seems to be able to back up the claims. I think the thing that scared so many anti-gay folks about gay marriage in Mass. was the possibility it would show their arguments to be BS and they would lose the ability to scare the sheep with the "evils of gay marriage" (thus losing money).
They are doing the same thing with the hate crimes bill now. And its funny that not one of them can point to the "loop hole" they claim will allow the government to round up religious figures who preach anti-gay messages. But their literature is filled with warnings of this, followed by pleas for money, of course.
1. We are talking about consenting adults here, the slippery slope argument has been debunked so many times its almost silly now. Your little NAMBLA quip is barely funny. (see note below)
2. Data from Scandinavia already shows (in this case) a 20% increase in the number of marriages and a divorce rate that is falling. (to quote one of the researchers: "opening up marriage to all, has caused many to reconsider their views about why they get married. So they form better marriages.")
3. MA stats already show that their divorce rate is still the lowest in the nation, while the more conservative states have very high rates.
4. Legal per-cautions and forms do not provide all the rights of marriage. Also due to the recently passed laws in some states, if you travel outside your own state, even with paperwork in hand, you loss that protection. I have four families in my city who due to these anti-gay laws are about to lose their health insurance, at least two of these families have children who depend on these benefits. If you ever want to look it up, there are approximately 1138 "rights" given to married couples, most can not be acquired by gay couples through legal documents. HRC
5. As has been pointed out a number of times, marriage as we think of it today is not as it has always been. It has been redefined many times, in fact our concept of marriage for love would seem alien to people just a few hundred years ago.
6. When they say "wife" they are just joking. Usually we say husband and husband or wife and wife. And I'm glad we can "amuse" you
7. Polygamy has had a troubling history and there are many arguments against it. Although if you are a true Christian you should realize that many of the people talked about in the bible had multiple wives.
8. Incest, or marrying your cousin is illegal. This is due to the increased chance of birth defects should that couple have children.
9. And no I don't agree with you that a homosexual relationship is not a marriage.
Note: The anti-gay folks always bring up NAMBLA when ever they can, when talking about gay issues. Although in all my years I have yet to ever meet a member of that group or hear anything about them, except from right wing-fundies and homophobes. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe all the members of that group are right wingers and fundies, since they seem to be the only ones who know about NAMBLA? What do you think AA?
Wow! do I win the award for longest post or what?
Its a good one too, ADM. Post those abuse stats if you can find them.
The problem with AA's slippery slope argument is that it is not based in logic, hence its categorization as a classic "fallacy". The basis for the slippery slope is that once you start something, then you've unleashed a chain reaction which cannot be stopped. It's ridiculous, of course, except to those who find it useful in promoting their opinions. Using the same logic, we could have argued years ago that lowering the voting age to 18 would lead to disaster, because eventually you'd have to keep lowering it until babies could vote. You could argue the opposite point when they raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. Why, eventually, only retirees would be able to drink!
See the problem, AA? We don't have to let people marry goats or frogs just because we let men marry men or women marry women. If you can come up with the overwhelming evidence to demonstrate why that would happen, please share it with us.
So your argument boils down to a marriage is between a man and a woman because you said so and no I DONT agree. When are you going to admit that you cannot come up with ANY danger to marriage by extending it to gay couples. I have yet to see an argument against it that wasnt a retread of the support for miscegenation laws. They are gone. The sky didnt fall then and it wont fall when, and eventually it will happen gay people get the right to marry. 50 years from now I dont think this will be an issue and people will laugh that anyone ever thought it was an issue.
"but it further diminishes the special legal, moral, and spiritual bond that has traditionally been between a man and a woman."
Really? Please explain how.
Can’t, it's inexplicable. All this Gay unions will threaten the family is coverage for people who just feel really yucky at the thought of two men having sex. They can’t say that because that sounds too stupid.
You've nailed it. I call it the "ick factor". The thought of it gives them the heebie jeebies, so they think they have the right to outlaw it. And, you're also right that they can't admit it, so they make up all this horse crap about the "sanctity of marriage".
Well put. I think the "ick" factor was used about a generation ago with interracial marriages (Loving v. Virginia). Has that case diminished marriage?
So Lynn, Nerzog if it is jsut the "ick factor" maybe hte next time we get an infestation of Weiner bots, maybe I should go into graphic details about my husband and my sexual life.* Maybe that would drive them away?
(*although we are married, so nothing really graphic to talk about :) see we are just like "straight" couples)
Thats funny. I heard a joke not long ago. I don't remember who told it, but they said if you want to stop Gay men from having sex just let them get married. That stops it for heteros (smile)
So then your argument ISNT that marriage is in any way threatened. Your argument is that it might no longer be seen and defined the way you want it to be. Which itself is NO threat whatsoever to marriage. OK. Helping single mothers was such a bad idea. So much better a wife had to stay with a man who beat her, abused her children sexually because she couldnt afford to just leave. Yeah, that is a pro family attitude.
RINO is just repeating the GOP/Christofascist talking points that have been implanted in his brain. Of course, he can't back it up with any specifics, or logic, or facts...but talking points don't need no stinkin' facts, do they RINO?
Let's be honest; "Pro Family" is just a political buzzword to get the Knuckledragging GOP Evangelical base all lathered up. They've been doing this at least since Dan Potatoe Head Quayle used the term "Family Values" to attack Hollywood many years ago.
In their minds, Pro Family means Anti Abortion and Anti Gay Rights...it is, in essence, the war cry of White Southern Evangelical Republican Christians...most of whom have been suckered into voting for Rich White Country Club Republicans who don't really give a ratsass about religion. These are the same people who want to teach Creationism in our public schools and brand their Ten Commandments on every government building. As Tex so eloquently pointed out, their true agenda is anything but "pro family".