[brokenwind]

Well, at least one candidate is trying to focus on the important issues that matter to the majority in this country, instead of what matters to 3-10% of the people. I wonder is we will see this interview on the news networks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rom...ssues-of-significance-you-want-to-talk-about/

Romney Scolds Reporter: 'Aren't There Issues of Significance You Want to Talk About?'

As Obama was coming out with a new position on gay marriage Wednesday, Romney was inundated with questions about the same topic. In fact, a local Colorado TV reporter included a line of questioning on the topic during a one-on-one interview with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But that wasn't all, the reporter also wanted to know about Romney's stance on legalized marijuana. At one point during an interview with a local Colorado TV station, Romney had enough.

"Aren't there issues of significance that you'd like to talk about?" Romney snipped. "The economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work? The challenges of Iran?"

 

[hen3ry]

Does this mean that Romney thinks that gay rights and the legalization of marijuana are "insignificant" issues?

Why shouldn't we know his views on those and issues that he may not have a pat answer for? Can't he think on his feet?

Finally, when did an interviewee get to tell an interviewer what to ask about? Not all questions will be golden... that's just life. His reaction to unexpected questions says a lot about how he'd deal with unexpected questions from Putin.

How did this guy end up representing all of us Republicans? I never know which side he's really on. Huntsman would be a smarter choice...

 

[swanie]

I do think what he said is right those are state issues not fed. I too believe marriage is one man one woman. Mary jay I don't care one way or the other on it. But those are state issues. I do want to hear about jobs. I know that some people like to stir up stuff on here. I think he got the point across about what she was asking. So he asked the reporter about what was more important. I'm with him.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

[hen3ry]

Not to be argumentative or try to stir things up, but I don't think that civil rights is only a state issue. They used to say that about the civil rights of African-Americans back in my childhood.

I remind everyone that white Anglo-Saxons are on their way to becoming a minority in this country sometime this century. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready for the new majority to restrict MY rights someday claiming a precedent based on what exists today.

 

[brokenwind]

Does this mean that Romney thinks that gay rights and the legalization of marijuana are "insignificant" issues?

Why shouldn't we know his views on those and issues that he may not have a pat answer for? Can't he think on his feet?

Finally, when did an interviewee get to tell an interviewer what to ask about? Not all questions will be golden... that's just life. His reaction to unexpected questions says a lot about how he'd deal with unexpected questions from Putin.

How did this guy end up representing all of us Republicans? I never know which side he's really on. Huntsman would be a smarter choice...

Compared to the fact that the country has lost almost a million jobs in the last 2 months, yes those issues are insignificant. Why isn't the media reporting the job numbers? The economy is where the focus in this this country needs to be right now, not gay marriage. Maybe Obama should focus on "evolving" his views on the economy which will benefit more then 3-10% of the country.

I and most others I know are tired of hearing about Trayvon and gays everyday in the news. They are just distractions in this country, that the media and Obama are using to distract people away from the failing economy, rising energy prices, and foreign threats.

Why does the media continue to saturate us with the Trayvon killing, but ignore the brutal murder of an 80 year old veteran and his wife by an african american, after he raped her. I guess the media doesn't consider it a race crime if it goes the other way.

I hope when it gets to the debates, if the moderaters insist on discussing the social questions, and ignore the important issues, that Romney calls them out then too.

 

[LIBERTY 1]

Its already happening every time a republican brings up anything about our so called leader they scream racism its not hard to see where the racism lies. Let a republican say something and the news media is all over it. If the democrats say it nothing is said. The partiality is ridiculous like the shooting in florida if the races were reversed you wouldnt of heard a word about it. The black panthers had a bounty out on the shooter nothing was said if that had been reversed you would of never heard or seen the end of it.

 

[beck_trt]

If I had Obamas economic and fiscal record, I would be creating a social issue campaign as well!!!

 

[hen3ry]

... yes those issues are insignificant.

I'm a bit surprised to read that issues concerning the civil rights of Americans are considered "insignificant". To say that issues surrounding "all men are created equal" and our "pursuit of happiness" should take a back seat to financial concerns implies that money is more important than the people are. If we don't all have equality under the law, then the rest doesn't really matter, does it?

To put this into perspective, the civil rights issues of the '60s faced the same apathy. Four days after Kennedy was killed, LBJ was preparing for his first address to Congress and the nation. LBJ's advisors insisted that he shouldn't even mention civil rights and waste his credibility as there were more important issues.

LBJ looked at his advisors and said, "What's a Presidency for, then?" He went on to insist that the first legislation to be passed under his tenure in office should be (and was) the Civil Rights Bill.

If a President can't take on the unpopular issues and set them right, then he doesn't belong in the Big Chair. If he insists that he and people like him should have more rights than others, then he should get a refresher course in our system of democracy for everyone.

 

[brokenwind]

I'm a bit surprised to read that issues concerning the civil rights of Americans are considered "insignificant". To say that issues surrounding "all men are created equal" and our "pursuit of happiness" should take a back seat to financial concerns implies that money is more important than the people are. If we don't all have equality under the law, then the rest doesn't really matter, does it?

To put this into perspective, the civil rights issues of the '60s faced the same apathy. Four days after Kennedy was killed, LBJ was preparing for his first address to Congress and the nation. LBJ's advisors insisted that he shouldn't even mention civil rights and waste his credibility as there were more important issues.

LBJ looked at his advisors and said, "What's a Presidency for, then?" He went on to insist that the first legislation to be passed under his tenure in office should be (and was) the Civil Rights Bill.

If a President can't take on the unpopular issues and set them right, then he doesn't belong in the Big Chair. If he insists that he and people like him should have more rights than others, then he should get a refresher course in our system of democracy for everyone.

In comparison, yes they are insignificant. Who cares if 3-10% more people can marry, when around 20% are out of work? I bet those that are unemployed are really happy.

This move by obama is nothing more then a political stunt. If he truly cared about civil rights, why didn't he give his speech Monday, when it may have possibly had an effect in NC? Why did he cancel his planned visit to NC where he could have stood up for those rights personally?

It's not that money is more important then people, but the 20% of Americans struggling to feed their families is currently a more pressing issue then if Bill and Ted can marry. Sorry if you andObama think otherwise. You really should reevaluate your priorities.

 

[hen3ry]

In comparison, yes they are insignificant. Who cares if 3-10% more people can marry, when around 20% are out of work? I bet those that are unemployed are really happy.

This move by obama is nothing more then a political stunt. If he truly cared about civil rights, why didn't he give his speech Monday, when it may have possibly had an effect in NC? Why did he cancel his planned visit to NC where he could have stood up for those rights personally?

It's not that money is more important then people, but the 20% of Americans struggling to feed their families is currently a more pressing issue then if Bill and Ted can marry. Sorry if you andObama think otherwise. You really should reevaluate your priorities.

Please don't assume that this is an "either-or" situation. I'm sure that work on the economy AND jobs is still going on even as this issue is discussed.

By your reasoning, LBJ had bigger fish to fry than what would effect only about 13% of the population (the African-American segment). He should have been concentrating on Viet Nam or his election or anything else other than what such a small minority had to deal with.

But, the true test of any democracy is how it deals with its minorities. Putting off insuring an individual's rights harms our nation and can't be justified by claiming that they'll just have to wait to be equal until the time is more convenient.

I don't see any signs that Romney can think in those terms.

 

[jericho]

In comparison, yes they are insignificant. Who cares if 3-10% more people can marry, when around 20% are out of work? I bet those that are unemployed are really happy.

This move by obama is nothing more then a political stunt. If he truly cared about civil rights, why didn't he give his speech Monday, when it may have possibly had an effect in NC? Why did he cancel his planned visit to NC where he could have stood up for those rights personally?

It's not that money is more important then people, but the 20% of Americans struggling to feed their families is currently a more pressing issue then if Bill and Ted can marry. Sorry if you andObama think otherwise. You really should reevaluate your priorities.

This was totally for political gain. It wasn't because he really gives a hoot about gays getting married.
More than 3-10% care about this. Those on the right already thought he was for gay marriage. To those on the left, who have seen his double speak, it solidified them. Comparing gay marriage, which you don't have equal rights (which in itself is bull****) to unemployment rates is apples and oranges. Everyone has the "right" to work, but not all have the "right" to marry who the chose.
Your last paragraph is spot on. It was all for political gain. That being said: I don't believe the government should be in the business of restricting rights and gays, Mormons, me, you etc should be able to marry (join into contract) with whomever we chose as long as both/all parties are willing.
I wish more folks would realize that government doesn't "grant" you any rights, they only restrict the ones you already have.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

[jericho]

Please don't assume that this is an "either-or" situation. I'm sure that work on the economy AND jobs is still going on even as this issue is discussed.

By your reasoning, LBJ had bigger fish to fry than what would effect only about 13% of the population (the African-American segment). He should have been concentrating on Viet Nam or his election or anything else other than what such a small minority had to deal with.

But, the true test of any democracy is how it deals with its minorities. Putting off insuring an individual's rights harms our nation and can't be justified by claiming that they'll just have to wait to be equal until the time is more convenient.

I don't see any signs that Romney can think in those terms.

I thought we were a Republic?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

[bigal]

We are a republic...just don't tell a lib u'll ruin his day

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

[swanie]

And again there is something's that should be left up to the states to deal with. But me as a christian believe that a marriage should be one man one woman in front of god.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

[hen3ry]

And again there is something's that should be left up to the states to deal with. But me as a christian believe that a marriage should be one man one woman in front of god.

That's why our "Republic" (based on democratic ideals) separates church and state.

Everyone is allowed to believe in any religion they want but they aren't allowed to codify into law any effort to force others to believe the same thing.

A person's rights shouldn't be up to each individual state. That's why we have the Constitution... so we can all share in the same rights no matter where we live or what we believe.

To grant different rights to different people in different states harkens back to 1861 when we had this discussion before. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and come out on the losing side, again.

According to Gallop...

Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage Decreases Sharply With Age

Support for legal gay marriage decreases markedly with age, ranging from 70% support among those aged 18 to 34, to 39% support among those 55 and older. More broadly, support is highest among younger women and lowest among older men.

Compared with last year, support for legalizing same-sex marriage increased most among younger, 18- to 34-year-old Americans, and among men under 50.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

Let's not fight the future...

 

[JJR]

If religion should be kept out then why do the lgbt supporters keep trying to bring religion into it. Marriage is a Biblical act. It is described and defined throughout the Bible.

So if religion should be left out then why all the fuss over a religious act? Unless it is because they are against religion itself. If that is the case then we have a whole different set of issues.

Why not go a route that can be supported by the majority. Why not just make civil unions between two people legal.

Then again what's next in the pursuit of happiness? Multiple spouses? Is it not also a violation of ones civil right of happiness by telling them that having more than one spouse is illegal.

In the end it is about changing Religion not the laws.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

[RGJZ06]

I'm glad Mitt came out with his position right away when asked. He hasn't changed his position as BO has., in this case as he has in others. Most of this is money driven and he is bending his position to cover his base voters, (read money). As he changes, it makes it much easier to decide who to vote for in November. To a much larger extent, this is a distraction, to lead everyone away from the real issues. He can not run on his success as he hasn't had any, zero. Double digit unemployment, (real numbers, not the fake crap they are feeding us) out of control spending and debt. In addition, the DOJ's BS lawsuits against Az and Alabama, looking the other way when the "New Black Panthers" intimidated white poll workers in Pa. Taking credit to killing OBL when our military did the real work. Should I go on?

RGJZ06

 

[brokenwind]

I think this poll says it best. It shows what peole are concerned about right now.

Funny how Obama's top priorities are the bottom 4 on the list. Guess what is last on the list? He has made everything at the top of the list worse, so I guess thats all he has left to work with.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/poll-social-issues-unimportant-to-most-voters--74313/

A few other polls that show the same thing. Most don't even have Obama's priorities on the lists.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

 

[hen3ry]

If religion should be kept out then why do the lgbt supporters keep trying to bring religion into it. Marriage is a Biblical act. It is described and defined throughout the Bible.

I greatly respect your opinion and appreciate your perspective, but I think that there are more secular variables involved than religious ones.

Just because an act is mentioned in the Bible and done in religious buildings doesn't make it a "Biblical act". You can just as easily get married by a Mayor in his office or a Captain on his ship.

Marriage is a civil contract. The fact that various religions attach their own versions of ceremonies to it doesn't change the idea that it's a way to legally transfer property after death or share property during life.

To declare marriage to be entirely a religious act is to subvert its intent to simplify the dealing with possessions and to formalize family units.

If you take any and all religion out of your thinking regarding marriage, then this matter comes down to personal preferences that are unique to each individual. Those preferences should all be respected equally in a "democratic" society.

Some have insisted that such an attitude would lead to allowing multiple spouses, marriage to animals, or other extreme examples. In my opinion, who cares?

I've known men that were closer to their hunting dogs than their wives. If they wanted to legally marry their dogs and pass their property and name onto them, then who cares? It may be weird but then I've seen marriages between a man and a woman that have been weirder.

In fact, the entire act of marriage is on the decline with many folks thinking "why bother?". Fewer and fewer of us are taking the risk that our "marriage" will end as about half of them do... in divorce.

This amounts to just a lot of hoopla over a word. A word with several definitions with none being any more right or wrong than the next. Marriage is an individual's decision and should simply be left that way. All anyone asks is to be treated equally no matter who they "marry".

Unless, of course, you WANT the government to tell you what you can or can't do based on a religious attitude that may or may not belong to YOUR religion. If a Mormon becomes President, would you be OK with his religious views on marriage being forced upon you by law like Christians want to force their views about marriage on everyone now?

 

[swanie]

I greatly respect your opinion and appreciate your perspective, but I think that there are more secular variables involved than religious ones.

Just because an act is mentioned in the Bible and done in religious buildings doesn't make it a "Biblical act". You can just as easily get married by a Mayor in his office or a Captain on his ship.

Marriage is a civil contract. The fact that various religions attach their own versions of ceremonies to it doesn't change the idea that it's a way to legally transfer property after death or share property during life.

To declare marriage to be entirely a religious act is to subvert its intent to simplify the dealing with possessions and to formalize family units.

If you take any and all religion out of your thinking regarding marriage, then this matter comes down to personal preferences that are unique to each individual. Those preferences should all be respected equally in a "democratic" society.

Some have insisted that such an attitude would lead to allowing multiple spouses, marriage to animals, or other extreme examples. In my opinion, who cares?

I've known men that were closer to their hunting dogs than their wives. If they wanted to legally marry their dogs and pass their property and name onto them, then who cares? It may be weird but then I've seen marriages between a man and a woman that have been weirder.

In fact, the entire act of marriage is on the decline with many folks thinking "why bother?". Fewer and fewer of us are taking the risk that our "marriage" will end as about half of them do... in divorce.

This amounts to just a lot of hoopla over a word. A word with several definitions with none being any more right or wrong than the next. Marriage is an individual's decision and should simply be left that way. All anyone asks is to be treated equally no matter who they "marry".

Unless, of course, you WANT the government to tell you what you can or can't do based on a religious attitude that may or may not belong to YOUR religion. If a Mormon becomes President, would you be OK with his religious views on marriage being forced upon you by law like Christians want to force their views about marriage on everyone now?

It's not only Christians but Americans at least most wants to keep it this way.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine