- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 20,120
- Reaction score
- 16,169
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's nothing to do with his beliefs. It's just that it was terribly gauche, and he didn't have the good sense to apologize.
Am rather skeptical that Romney walked up and plopped down at someone's table uninvited. Doesn't really pass the smell test. The article was a hit piece from a gay website and seemed to take some liberties. (at the end of the story is a link to that claim Romney is connected to the KKK slogans.)
Not sure if Romney was ambushed or just having bad luck/timing. At the bottom of the article they is a clip to the actual conversation at the restaurant table. Was pretty civil overall.....
It seems a matter of opinion whether going up to be people in such a setting is appropriate. I can certainly understand the thinking behind saying he shouldn't of approached anyone there, although I suppose it isn't their restaurant and if the owner wants it that might be another story. But aside from that I don't think it makes you much of a fool if this happens, unless you had good reason to think they were partners. Usually two men in a restaurant are not homosexual lovers, though I don't know how they were sitting or what sort of restaurant it was or anything else about the signals involved which might have suggested to a normally observant person that they were.Let us say, for the purposes of argument, that for whatever reason you were politically in favor of abolishing heterosexual marriage laws. Would you not feel bad-- and indeed, look like a major asshole-- if you invited yourself to sit down at a table with a man and a woman and ask them for their political support in abolishing their marriage? Because, regardless of whether you support gay marriage or not, that is exactly what Romney did to those two men. He should be embarrassed for himself, and perhaps look at his as an opportunity for learn from his mistakes and reconsider his position. He won't, but he should.
Won't stop me from voting for him, if he takes the nomination-- Hell, the President's position isn't any better-- but it is still a mark against him.
Let us say, for the purposes of argument, that for whatever reason you were politically in favor of abolishing heterosexual marriage laws. Would you not feel bad-- and indeed, look like a major asshole-- if you invited yourself to sit down at a table with a man and a woman and ask them for their political support in abolishing their marriage? Because, regardless of whether you support gay marriage or not, that is exactly what Romney did to those two men. He should be embarrassed for himself, and perhaps look at his as an opportunity for learn from his mistakes and reconsider his position. He won't, but he should.
Won't stop me from voting for him, if he takes the nomination-- Hell, the President's position isn't any better-- but it is still a mark against him.
If the history of presidential elections says anything, it says that taking an opposing stance to gay marriage is a winner at the polls.
One has to wonder if this "crash" was anything of the sort.
Most people are so sick and tired of the gay marriage issue that this incident will likely boost Romney a few points in the long run.
There is another thing to consider.
If one takes too many opposing stances , not only will the Republican party lose the gay vote which they oppose but others.
You say doesn't matter you would vote for him if he takes the nomination .
Would you be voting for Romney or would you be voting the Republican party line?eace
At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.
Actually, Obama and the Democrats have rather successfully taken a stance against those who provide the vast bulk of the country's tax revenues (a.k.a "the rich")
And from a strictly political strategy perspective, the Democrats probably have the advantage when the "60 second" commercial soundbite wars begin soon.....
At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.
Democrats take a stand for the freedom of individuals to make their own moral judgments.
It's nothing to do with his beliefs. It's just that it was terribly gauche, and he didn't have the good sense to apologize.
At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.
presluc, I'm not a Republican. I'm an Authoritarian and an Ultra-Conservative. In my mind BOTH parties are too Liberal in their spending of Government monies. I'd just rather see the money go to corporations who will do something with it than to worthless sacks of **** who spend it on cigarettes, booze, and the like.
What has corporations done with money from the government?
Just a hunch, but I think that more people are sick and tired of unemployment for unskilled workers, less opportunities for new College grads, outsourceing jobs, rich tax cuts and a bad economy.
People on Main street are sick and tired of struggleing to live while the rich and wall street get a pass.
Average workers are definatly sick and tired of whatching the cost of living go up while wages remain stagnant.eace
That may all be true, but it is relevant only in the capacity that one might argue that dissing the gays is a means of garnering support from heteros who comprise 98% of the citizenry and, though they may indeed be pissed off about all of the above, are also irratated by the seemingly incessant whining of the gay community about gay marriage at a time in history when there are much more important matters which need attention.