"Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is
very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great
Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of
forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedomloving
blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the
South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust
and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny' . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . .
segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever."
http://web.utk.edu/~mfitzge1/docs/374/wallace_seg63.pdf

Your view of the world Con_Alma leaves nothing for personal growth. People who abandon racist, homophobic and misogynistic views should be supported not punished. Our greatest leaders Washington and Lincoln both showed personal growth in the evolution of their views on race. Your view gives no hope for the redemption of the bigoted.

My view is one of expecting a candidate to identify his position on such core convictions so that we might know what we are voting for. That's not too much to ask.

If we are not to expect a candidate to be consistent in his core convictions, what's the point in even knowing what they are for it really doesn't matter.

I am not speaking of growth and adaptation but rather those firm rooted convictions that make up a person character. There's a difference.

If a person is a bigot I won't vote for them. I don't need to give them a chance to grow and be redeemed.

Con_Alma;1168646 wrote:My view is one of expecting a candidate to identify his position on such core convictions so that we might know what we are voting for. That's not too much to ask.

If we are not to expect a candidate to be consistent in his core convictions, what's the point in even knowing what they are for it really doesn't matter.

I am not speaking of growth and adaptation but rather those firm rooted convictions that make up a person character. There's a difference.

If a person is a bigot I won't vote for them. I don't need to give them a chance to grow and be redeemed.

Gosh a ruddies what were Ronald Reagan’s stand on the core issues during the New Deal, he was an FDR liberal. And in the 1960s and 1970s the core beliefs of the large majority of Americans on the issues involved with homosexuality would be defined as bigoted today. When the Loving decision in 1967 making laws against mixed marriages unconstitutional the large majority of Americans were against those marriages.

My views on same sex marraiges have evolved over the years...I don't see why politicians can't do the same. I think they need to state a 'change of position' so that people who find that issue important know where that person stands. I don't hold a change of position against the candidate unless they are trying to play both sides of the fence or being disingenuous.

isadore;1168590 wrote:You preferred George Wallace when he said, in his inaugural address for governor
“
I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. “
To later in life when he said it was his biggest regret.

Well.... To be fair, he has been shot since then, and the he turned into an old man trying to get into heaven.

isadore;1168687 wrote:Gosh a ruddies what were Ronald Reagan’s stand on the core issues during the New Deal, he was an FDR liberal. And in the 1960s and 1970s the core beliefs of the large majority of Americans on the issues involved with homosexuality would be defined as bigoted today. When the Loving decision in 1967 making laws against mixed marriages unconstitutional the large majority of Americans were against those marriages.

I don't know what Mr. Reagan's "stand" was.

I don't care where the large majority of Americans were in 1967.

I am not considering to vote for any of those people. What does any of that have to do with my post above??

I would like a candidate thats' firm in his core convictions. That's all.

Devils Advocate;1168887 wrote:Well.... To be fair, he has been shot since then, and the he turned into an old man trying to get into heaven.

and he knew what he used to believe would never get him in.

Con_Alma;1168896 wrote:I don't know what Mr. Reagan's "stand" was.

I don't care where the large majority of Americans were in 1967.

I am not considering to vote for any of those people. What does any of that have to do with my post above??

I would like a candidate thats' firm in his core convictions. That's all.

gosh many of the people who serve iin our government today were around in 1967 and alot of them have changed their core beliefs on race and sexuality. your ignorance on the beliefs of Ronald Reagan are no surprise as is the fact of your support for ossification.

isadore;1168918 wrote:gosh many of the people who serve iin our government today were around in 1967 and alot of them have changed their core beliefs on race and sexuality. your ignorance on the beliefs of Ronald Reagan are no surprise as is the fact of your support for ossification.

I don't deny many public officials have changed their beliefs nor to I deny that many will in the future. I'm not sure what that has to do with my original point. Core convictions are a must greater make up of an individals than simple beliefs.

Views are not core convictions. Positions aren't core convictions. Political stances aren't core convictions.

I would rather a candidate be consistent in his core convictions for if he is not there's no reason for me to know what those convictions are or are not. There's nothing for me to rely upon in evaluating if he would be representative of my views.

A stead fast core is indicative of someone who will not waiver under fire. You may seek something different in a candidate. That's why we vote.

Con_Alma;1169040 wrote:I don't deny many public officials have changed their beliefs nor to I deny that many will in the future. I'm not sure what that has to do with my original point. Core convictions are a must greater make up of an individals than simple beliefs.

Views are not core convictions. Positions aren't core convictions. Political stances aren't core convictions.

I would rather a candidate be consistent in his core convictions for if he is not there's no reason for me to know what those convictions are or are not. There's nothing for me to rely upon in evaluating if he would be representative of my views.

A stead fast core is indicative of someone who will not waiver under fire. You may seek something different in a candidate. That's why we vote.

Since I didn't pay attention to the actual "disclosing I'm cool with gay marriage" speech or interview he gave, did he say or use the words "core conviction" when talking about it? As in a way that makes you believe he looks at this issue as an actual "core conviction"?

I'm just curious, because I don't see how this particular topic really qualifies as anything more than a soundbite for anyone other than gays, religious people and bigots. Like, on a personal level, if you asked me on my stance on this issue, it'd probably be along the lines of, "Meh, sure. I don't have any problems. Straight people screw up marriage all the time, so give the gays a chance to do it too!" In other words, it's not exactly a core conviction unless you consider simply feeling that other groups should have the same rights/privileges/etc. that I have to be a core conviction.

Just seems an interesting choice of words for an issue that I don't consider to be remotely "core".

Heretic;1170824 wrote:Since I didn't pay attention to the actual "disclosing I'm cool with gay marriage" speech or interview he gave, did he say or use the words "core conviction" when talking about it? As in a way that makes you believe he looks at this issue as an actual "core conviction"?

I'm just curious, because I don't see how this particular topic really qualifies as anything more than a soundbite for anyone other than gays, religious people and bigots. Like, on a personal level, if you asked me on my stance on this issue, it'd probably be along the lines of, "Meh, sure. I don't have any problems. Straight people screw up marriage all the time, so give the gays a chance to do it too!" In other words, it's not exactly a core conviction unless you consider simply feeling that other groups should have the same rights/privileges/etc. that I have to be a core conviction.

Just seems an interesting choice of words for an issue that I don't consider to be remotely "core".

None of my comments have referred to the President or his coments on this social issue. They were an expansion/response to a post made earlier that was general in nature.

at the time of the loving decision in 1967 most Americans had the core belief that blacks and whites should not marry. that core belief changed for the better
30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago the majority of Americans had a core belief against gay marriage. But their core beliefs changed. But according to you people growing tolerance are fundamentally flawed.

isadore;1171024 wrote:at the time of the loving decision in 1967 most Americans had the core belief that blacks and whites should not marry. that core belief changed for the better
30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago the majority of Americans had a core belief against gay marriage. But their core beliefs changed. But according to you people growing tolerance are fundamentally flawed.

Nowhere in my posts will you see me stating that being tolerant is "fundamentally flawed".

In fact if you read my previous post in this topic, I stated the position isn't as important as the consistency. One could be in favor of gay marriage and be consistently in favor of it and have more credibility with me than one who was in favor and changed their view to be against it...or vice versa.

I would think a person developing tolerance, abandoning narrow mindedness would be a positive. But for you it isn't

isadore;1171045 wrote:I would think a person developing tolerance, abandoning narrow mindedness would be a positive. But for you it isn't

Correct, I'll choose the person that has consistently been tolerant and hadn't been narrow minded to give my vote to.

I don't need them to be on their way their but someone who is already there.

Abe Lincoln's core belief on black voting could evolve but of course he would fail your test. just not living up to Con_Alma's standards.

isadore;1171088 wrote:Abe Lincoln's core belief on black voting could evolve but of course he would fail your test. just not living up to Con_Alma's standards.

Correct. I wouldn't have voted for him when he ran for President if he had the belief that a black man couldn't vote. Would you have?

Con_Alma;1171102 wrote:Correct. I wouldn't have voted for him when he ran for President if he had the belief that a black man couldn't vote. Would you have?

so you would not have voted. no candidate supported black suffrage.

isadore;1171125 wrote:so you would not have voted. no candidate supported black suffrage.

Supported black suffrage???

No, I would not vote for a candidate that didn't believe a black man shouldn't vote. Would you?

Con_Alma;1171128 wrote:Supported black suffrage???

No, I would not vote for a candidate that didn't believe a black man shouldn't vote. Would you?

Abe Lincoln lived from 1809-1865. He came to support suffrage for black veterans near the end of his presidency. gosh George washington did not support it. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc did not support it. But lincoln came to it. They were men of their times. none of them supported gay marriage, I am for black suffrage and gay marriage. We have become more tolerant, our core values evolved.

isadore;1171138 wrote:Abe Lincoln lived from 1809-1865. He came to support suffrage for black veterans near the end of his presidency. gosh George washington did not support it. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc did not support it. But lincoln came to it. They were men of their times. none of them supported gay marriage, I am for black suffrage and gay marriage. We have become more tolerant, our core values evolved.

I would not vote for a candidate who did not believe in a black person being able to vote. Would you?

Black Sufferage was a party driven issue from a government perspective. I want an individual who is steadfast in his/her convictions before taking office.

"...Republicans in Congress overruled Johnson and began their own Reconstruction, which included black voting rights in the South. Republicans believed Southern black suffrage was the only way to guarantee African-American freedom and liberties. Southern blacks would also be likely to vote for the Republican Party. Federal troops stationed in the South made sure that African-Americans were able to exercise the franchise, and African-Americans across the South were elected to public office in the 1860s...."

[LEFT]
Read more: The History of Black Suffrage | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5435706_history-black-suffrage.html#ixzz1uvl3DQ8N
[/LEFT]

I dont consider a stance on gay marriage a core conviction at all...and he is announcing his new "core conviction" before the election so im not sure im getting your point. I have changed my views/stance/convictions on many things as I have gotton older gained more experience and continued to grow. i would hope everyone in america does the same.

Thank you for the information, the history of the mid nineteenth century Republican party shows expansion of tolerance in their core beliefs

Republican party first presidential election was in 1856 in that contest, and in 1860 and 1864 the party did not endorse black suffrage
http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm
http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29621#axzz1uwI5IV75
But in 1868 the party’s delegates core beliefs had expanded to include black suffrage.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29622#axzz1uwI5IV75
Of course you could have voted democrat that year, they opposed black suffrage as they had since the party’s inception.

isadore;1171415 wrote:Thank you for the information, the history of the mid nineteenth century Republican party shows expansion of tolerance in their core beliefs

Republican party first presidential election was in 1856 in that contest, and in 1860 and 1864 the party did not endorse black suffrage
http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm
http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29621#axzz1uwI5IV75
But in 1868 the party’s delegates core beliefs had expanded to include black suffrage.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29622#axzz1uwI5IV75
Of course you could have voted democrat that year, they opposed black suffrage as they had since the party’s inception.

I vote for candidates not parties.

I would not vote for an individual that didn't believe in a black person's right to vote. Would you?