Romney supports gay Boy Scout Leaders. No he doesn't. Yes, he does. No...

[techs]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...8/barack-obama-boy-scouts-gays-mitt-romney-/1

Last week, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the Associated Press that Romney's position hasn't changed from what he stated in 1994. At that time, during a political debate, Romney said: "I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

The Master at work.

 

[blankslate]

Wait wait...

Eventually he'll have a different position.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wait wait...

Eventually he'll have a different position.

Well maybe not this time, since he managed to actually take both positions at the same time. At least he can't be accused of flip flopping!

 

[mect]

We get it Techs, you don't have the mental capacity to understand that someone can support something while still recognizing that a private organization has the right to manage themselves as they see fit. This is perfectly clear for anyone with high school level reading comprehension. Mitt Romney personally advocates for BSA to allow gay scout masters. He also supports them having the right to make their own decisions, ie, he does not believe the government should be able to force policy onto BSA.

 

[mect]

Well maybe not this time, since he managed to actually take both positions at the same time. At least he can't be accused of flip flopping!

How did he take both positions at the same time? Did you read the statement. He thinks the boy scouts should allow gay leaders. He also thinks the boy scouts should be allowed to make their own rules in this matter.

Lets try another example, because people seem to be struggling with this one.

I advocate bicycling as a mode of transportation. Imagine what a difference it would make if everyone that lived within 3 miles of their work were to bike. However, I also support people having the right to make their own decision on how they would like to get to work. Are we understanding yet that these are two separate issues here.

 

[Howard]

We get it Techs, you don't have the mental capacity to understand that someone can support something while still recognizing that a private organization has the right to manage themselves as they see fit. This is perfectly clear for anyone with high school level reading comprehension. Mitt Romney personally advocates for BSA to allow gay scout masters. He also supports them having the right to make their own decisions, ie, he does not believe the government should be able to force policy onto BSA.

hahahhaa

 

[Howard]

He thinks the boy scouts should allow gay leaders. He also thinks the boy scouts should be allowed to make their own rules in this matter.

How could he possibly support either position without invalidating the other?

 

[mect]

How could he possibly support either position without invalidating the other?

One is how someone personally feels, the other is about the rights of a private organization.

 

[Jaskalas]

How could he possibly support either position without invalidating the other?

It is no ones place to impose on them.

 

[Howard]

One is how someone personally feels, the other is about the rights of a private organization.

Why is he talking about how he feels if he's not going to do anything about it?

 

[mect]

Why is he talking about how he feels if he's not going to do anything about it?

Because he was asked? So you believe that a good leader is going to try to legislate every belief they have onto every private citizen and organization. Holy shit I'm glad you're not running.

Edit: What does it matter why he is talking about it. The point is that what he said is perfectly self consistent.

 

[Howard]

Because he was asked? So you believe that a good leader is going to try to legislate every belief they have onto every private citizen and organization. Holy shit I'm glad you're not running.

No, but does it make sense to elect a politician whose personal beliefs frequently clash with his political platform?

 

[mect]

No, but does it make sense to elect a politician whose personal beliefs frequently clash with his political platform?

His personal beliefs don't clash with his political platform. His political platform in this instance is that private organizations have the right to set their own rules. Clashing with his political platform would be if he believed that private organizations do not have the right to set their own rules, but legislated to allow them to do so.

Lets try another example, we'll get one you can understand at some point. Many politicians are opposed to the excess consumption of soft drinks. The majority of them, with the exception of Bloomberg, acknowledge the right of people to drink them anyway. This does not mean that their personal beliefs clash with their political platforms. This means that their political platform is not shoving their personal beliefs down the throats of the people.

Edit: Maybe an example from the democrat side would help. There are many democrats that are personally opposed to abortion. However, they still support the right of a woman to choose to get an abortion. Is this having beliefs that conflict with their political platform.

 

[bfdd]

His statement in 1994 isn't contradictory at all. He believes everyone should be able to join the Boy Scouts, but that the Boy Scouts have the right to manage themselves how they like. I'm a rather big Romney hater, but that just doesn't strike me as an odd thing to say at all as I have said similar things. Though if him and I share the same meaning if we were to say, that's another question. He's still a tool bag and he's going to lose because he's a fucking snake.

 

[Matt1970]

Just remember, when Obama changes his mind it is his opinion is evolving. When Romney does it he is flip flopping.

 

[Howard]

His personal beliefs don't clash with his political platform. His political platform in this instance is that private organizations have the right to set their own rules. Clashing with his political platform would be if he believed that private organizations do not have the right to set their own rules, but legislated to allow them to do so.

Lets try another example, we'll get one you can understand at some point. Many politicians are opposed to the excess consumption of soft drinks. The majority of them, with the exception of Bloomberg, acknowledge the right of people to drink them anyway. This does not mean that their personal beliefs clash with their political platforms. This means that their political platform is not shoving their personal beliefs down the throats of the people.

Edit: Maybe an example from the democrat side would help. There are many democrats that are personally opposed to abortion. However, they still support the right of a woman to choose to get an abortion. Is this having beliefs that conflict with their political platform.

Thank you.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't see what the problem is. I don't agree with anything the Westboro Baptist church represents but I firmly agree with their right to express their beliefs. So do I support Westboro or not?

He supports their right, not their position.