1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Mitt running for president again?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Jan 20, 2015.

  1. ifilus

    ifilus Well-Known Member


    After several hours of contemplation, a most profound tweet:


    Scott Walker @ScottWalker Follow

    Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

    4:22 PM - 11 Feb 2015
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    At what point, in your opinion, is one permitted to credibly decide that one believes that life evolved rather than that a magic Gipetto in the clouds made us all, as presently, constituted, in six days? Is reading multiple books and magazine pieces and watching documentaries on the topic enough? Does one need a PhD in biology to credibly say that life on earth evolved from its earliest forms?

    The sky is blue. We evolved.

    I'm very comfortable stating both.

    Love,
    Cliff
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    LOL. But lying about your opposition to gay marriage -- and invoking religion while doing it -- because some in your base are not supportive of it, is a brilliant strategy, and should be celebrated.
     
    old_tony likes this.
  4. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

  5. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    To me, this is fine and would have been perfect as a first answer. Up to each of us if we want to deduct points for the delay - I'm ambivalent. Cynically, it means that he ran the question through the pollsters to see what he believes. OTOH, I want even politicians to be able to consider questions before answering them off the cuff. We would have a generally higher level of discourse if we addressed questions hours after hearing them instead of seconds.
     
    Riptide and RecoveringJournalist like this.
  6. RecoveringJournalist

    RecoveringJournalist Well-Known Member

    Well-said. I liked the tweet. I wish that was his original answer.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I'm always a little surprised when you take up for the mouth-breathing anti-evolution crowd.
     
    bigpern23 likes this.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    He still doesn't answer the question.
     
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Here's a little known (apparently) fact: The sky isn't blue.
     
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I'll repeat what I said about YF: You are a quite unlikely creationist apologist.
     
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I've been called worse. In those instances, as in this, the accusations were false.
     
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I'm not taking up for the "anti-evolution" crowd.

    If I'm taking up for anyone, it's for politicians to be able to pander to folks of all stripes, and get treated evenly by the press.

    Look, Terry Gross knew that Hillary Clinton was not against gay marriage:

    Hillary Clinton: The Fresh Air Interview : NPR

    And, the entire media knew the same about President Obama.

    And, now David Axelrod takes us into the art of the pander:

    “I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

    Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.

    The insider’s account provides the clearest look yet at Obama’s long-established flip-flop, one of the blemishes on his record as a progressive. The admission of Obama’s embrace of deception also calls into question the President’s stated embrace of a new kind of politics in 2008, when he promised to be unlike other politicians who change their views to match the political winds. “Having prided himself on forthrightness, though, Obama never felt comfortable with his compromise and, no doubt, compromised position,” Axelrod writes. “He routinely stumbled over the question when it came up in debates or interviews.”

    As a state senate candidate in 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire saying “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” But 12 years later as a candidate for president, Obama told Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church that marriage could only extend to heterosexual couples. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” Obama said at the time. “Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”


    David Axelrod: Barack Obama Misled Nation On Gay Marriage In 2008

    Now, why is the media so concerned with Walker's pander, while they gave a pass to Obama & Clinton's pander?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page