Posted on 03/21/2008 7:08:20 PM PDT by kingattax
"I think that All people should be able to participate in Scouting."
Now, previously you have argued that this meant Gay people should be Scoutmasters, arguing that since scoutmasters are participants, participate must include being scoutmaster. But using your OWN words from the referenced post:
I would think you mean that all people should join, attend functions of, volunteer, or in some other fashion take part in scouting.
Which is exactly how I interpret Romney's statement, until some more definitive statement is made.
There are a lot of people who can participate in the presidential elections, but who are not allowed to be President. People under 35, people not born in America, people who have already been President more than 6 years.
Likewise, you could allow people to participate in scouting without allowing them to be scout leaders. In fact, there are a lot of people who can participate in scouts, but not be scout leaders -- like those who don't have a background check on file, or whose background check doesn't pass muster.
I also thought women could not be scoutmasters, but someone told me I was wrong about that. I don't know. But I do know women can join scouting and be volunteers and serve on the committee.
The funny thing is, for all of your insistance on forcing an opinion on Romney that he has not stated himself, nobody has ever thought it interesting enough to actually ASK Romney directly what he thinks about the issue. In my opinion, that indicates that the answer they expect wouldn't be interesting -- which means the people who have access to Romney assume he opposes Gay scoutmasters.
I don't know if you ever bothered to send him or his campaign an e-mail asking him for his view. Or to any of the talk show hosts asking them to ask him his view. That would be a much better approach than claiming he said things he never actually said.
“(Sali) votes correctly, but his demeanor, speaking abilities (lack of) and presentation is sorely lacking. He is the type of ‘conservative’ that turns off the folks in the middle of the political spectrum, where elections are won or lost.”
All evidence to the contrary, you mean.
Since Sali has never lost an election, including a career spanning two decades in the Idaho Legislature, a GOP primary for Congress, and the 2006 general election in a heavily Democrat year in a district that in the last 20 years has gone both Repub and Dem — with the Dems, liberal media, and establishment RINO Repubs openly shooting at him all the way.
Please stop mimicking critical Dem talking points re: Rep. Sali, a mainstream conservative who accurately represents the views of his constituents.
“Which is exactly how I interpret Romney’s statement, until some more definitive statement is made.”
No it isn’t. You falsely insist that it means all possible activities EXCEPT those that would obviously be embarrassing and damaging to his political standing.
With no substantive basis whatsoever, you insist that the words “all” and “participate” mean any and all possible things EXCEPT an adult male involved in homosexual behavior serving as a Scoutmaster.
That is, you laughably claim that his words meant every possible configuration of individuals and activities EXCEPT the one precise thing that has for over a decade been the focal point of the issue. (Which is one reason, frankly, I keep jabbing you on it. It’s nothing if not astonishingly amusing, the lengths to which you go to deny the plain and obvious meaning of English words.)
If Romney was opposed to homosexual Scoutmasters, anybody with common sense knows that he’d have simply said so long ago. The issue has dogged him since 1994, by Brownback last year, by Gov. Perry this year, and it will continue to dog him until he does in fact clearly express his view, which he has studiously run from doing.
Ask him the simple question: “Governor, do you support allowing adult males involved in the homosexual lifestyle to serve as Scoutmasters?”
In Charles’ fantasy world, Romney would quickly say he doesn’t if only someone would just ask him.
But in fact, when he has been asked, he follows the Romney pattern of obfuscation:
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts to make that decision.” (1994)
Fine, Governor, but what is YOUR view on the question?
“I think each local Scout council should decide the issue.”
(2007)
Great, Governor, but one more time, do YOU think homosexual adults should serve as Scoutmasters?
So far...crickets.
Seems simple enough, Charles. As a prominent and regular Romney defender here on FR and perhaps elsewhere, no one should be more capable of getting a straight answer from Romney on this question than you, Charles.
So, as you’ve suggested, Charles, please quickly e-mail Gov. Romney and ask him for a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether he believes homosexual adults should serve as Scoutmasters...whether the supports or opposes the current universal nationwide ban by the BSA on adult males openly involved in homosexual behavior serving in troop leadership positions.
Then please immediately post his response here on FR, and if you’re right, PROVE ME WRONG!
Good luck...
We’ll all be waiting...til 2012.
Yes, it seems so simple, and yet in all that time nobody has actually ASKED him what his personal view is on the subject.
Of course, since the Scouts asked him not to express his personal view on the subject, I wouldn’t expect him to express any view on the subject. They were already upset that he said he thought gays should be allowed to participate at all (odd because they already do, just not openly).
BTW, your insistance on some bizarre interpretation of my own statements doesn’t bode well for your argument.
Clearly, in the realm of all people participating, SOME people will be able to participate by being Scoutmasters. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any scoutmasters.
But your opinion, that saying all people should be allowed to participate, means that all people should be allowed to participate in every possible manner, is the position that is absurd. Clearly some people CANNOT be scoutmasters, but can participate. Clearly some people cannot be boy scouts, but can participate. Clearly some people cannot be leaders, but can participate.
As this is true in just about any organization in the world, the amazing and bizarre thing is that you think that in this ONE case of the Boy scouts, Participate has to mean participate in every possible way.
I know exactly what “all people should be able to participate” means. All people can participate in the Catholic Church. In the real world, that means that every person now living has an opportunity to participate as a member of the Catholic Church. But guess what — that doesn’t mean every person can be Pope. Or even a Priest. Only males can be Priests.
But by your reasoning, I just said women should be allowed to be Pope. And if you asked me if I thought women should be priests, and I said that this was an issue for the Catholic Church to decide, you would say I was obfuscating on the issue because I didn’t want to admit I wanted Women priests.
As I don’t care what Romney’s position is on the matter, I have no reason to ask him a question that nobody else seems to want to ask him. And as you don’t really seem to care about what the truth is, I’m sure you will never ask him either.
BTW, the “truth” is clear — Romney NEVER said that gays should be scoutmasters. If you argue that Romney WOULD allow gays to be scoutmasters, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. But so long as you insist on misinterpreting the words he SAID and putting words in his mouth, you will not be telling the truth.
Romney has NEVER said that he would allow gays to be scoutmasters. So far as I can tell he has never been asked, notwithstanding your attempts to suggest he has been asked that question and has refused to answer it. But even if you believe he would answer “yes”, that doesn’t make your claim truthful.
Because you did not say “Romney would say he would allow gays to be scoutmasters”. You said “Romney SAID he would allow gays to be scoutmasters”.
You falsely insist that it means all possible activities EXCEPT those that would obviously be embarrassing and damaging to his political standing.
This needed it's own post. First, at the time he was asked the question, it would hardly have damaged him to answer in any fashion he wanted. He was already on record as being "better" for gay rights than his opponent.
In fact, my OPINION is that the reason he answered as he did was that he DID NOT think gays should be scoutmasters, but did not want to sound like he was gay-bashing. Which is the OPPOSITE of your opinion that he WANTED gays to be scoutmasters but wanted to be SEEN as being against it. My opinion is the more likely, given his courting of the gay vote.
But further, I've NEVER argued that "all people should participate" PRECLUDED gays being scoutmasters. I've only argued that it does not "REQUIRE" gays to be scoutmasters -- which is YOUR argument.
Further, I certainly did NOT insist it meant "all possible activities". I have no idea what specific levels of participation he would have supported for different people. There already ARE different levels of participation for different people, but he was never asked to propose a detailed policy.
His statement is clear, but ambiguous. He certainly felt that gay people should have some level of participation -- he felt that ALL people should have some level of participation. If you wish to OPINE that he would allow gay scoutmasters, you are going beyond his statement -- and to insist his statement REQUIRES gay scoutmasters is clearly reading beyond the truth of the statement.
Charles, I gotta admit it that I love watching you twist yourself into a pretzel.
What your silly reasoning suggests, using your Catholic church analogy, is that if Romney said: “all people should be allowed to participate in the Catholic church..”
You’d insist that he’d be saying NO ONE could be pope.
For those who haven’t read the thousand times I’ve had to previously correct your falsification of the reocrd:
Romney in 1994 was asked if he objected to the Boy Scouts policy specifically prohibiting homosexual Scouts or Scoutmasters.
In the precise context of being asked about that prohibition, Romney said: “I believe all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of sexual orientation.”
Which for users of the English language, requires no translation from me.
For those who speak whatever language Charles uses, however, Charles will provide you a 500-word (or longer) translation insisting that Romney was not actually speaking about the BSA ban on which he was specifically questioned and thus his plain English words cannot possibly be interpreted to indicate any personal disagreement with the Scout policy (even though the BSA clearly does NOT believe that “all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of sexual orientation.”)
I note too Charles’ light-speed rush to retreat from the suggestion that he as a Romney supporter and defender might actually get a direct answer to the question only he (Charles) believes has not yet been asked (and clearly answered).
Come on, Chuck. Don’t give up so easily. If you’re right that Romney would clearly and directly answer the question if somebody somewhere would just give the poor guy a chance, then you’re only one quick ask and answer away from being able to definitively PROVE ME WRONG once and for all.
Please at least try. I’m starting to feel sorry for you.
What your silly reasoning suggests, using your Catholic church analogy, is that if Romney said: “all people should be allowed to participate in the Catholic church..”
You’d insist that he’d be saying NO ONE could be pope.
No, because that would be an illogical inference from the statement, just as your inference that all people can be pope is illogical.
"All people should be able to participate regardless of sexual orientation" in no way logically infers "all people should be allowed to be scoutmasters regardless of sexual orientation".
Any more than "all people should be able to participate in the Catholic Church regardless of gender" infers logically that "all people should be allowed to be priests regardless of gender".
BTW: Romney in 1994 was asked if he objected to the Boy Scouts policy specifically prohibiting homosexual Scouts or Scoutmasters.
Is a false statement of the question. The actual question asked never mentioned Scout masters. Once again, you are putting words into the conversation that did not exist in the original.
Here is the actual question:
"Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"
Note well -- the question was about GAY MEMBERS, not GAY LEADERS. And Romney's answer was that he personally believed gays should be allowed to "participate", but that he respected the right of the scouts to make their own rules.
It is true that you are not the first to mischaracterize the question as pertaining to LEADERS. But the question was clear, and the answer taken in context of the question is clear.
You have stated falsely that Romney said he supported gay scout masters. And you also have stated falsely that the question asked him about gay scoutmasters.
I have shown the question above which proves that the question did NOT mention scout masters or leaders. And you have provided his answer which says nothing about scout masters or leaders.
You are left with your "inference" that participation MUST include being Scoutmaster, and that "all" means that ALL PARTICIPANTS must be allowed to be SCOUTMASTERS. That is an improper translation of the words being used. I have shown that with analogies, and your responses to those analogies have been illogical, suggesting as you did that the opposite of "ALL" is "NONE", when in fact the logical opposite of "ALL" is "NOT SOME".
The truly funny thing is that while I don't believe Romney supports gay scoutmasters, it wouldn't matter if he did -- so long as he supported the right of scouts to make their own rules. My argument is with your false characterization of his answer, and in fact your occasional penchant for attributing actual WORDS to Romney that he never said.
As I said before, his answer does not preclude the possibility of such support. But it is much more likely that his answer was meant to hide his opposition, since he was trying to appeal to the gay community -- rather than your suggestion he was trying to hide his SUPPORT for gay scoutmasters to not lose some "base" that was not his in 1994.
So on the question, on his answer, on the rational interpretation of the phrase, on the application of logical constructs, and on the likely political equation of 1994, your insistance that Romney committed to supporting gay scoutmasters in 1994 is both false in fact, and likely incorrect in inference.
thus his plain English words cannot possibly be interpreted to indicate any personal disagreement with the Scout policy (even though the BSA clearly does NOT believe that “all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of sexual orientation.”)
I've never said that his statement in 1994 was in keeping with BSA policy. In fact, I've clearly stated previously that his statement was in opposition to the BSA policy of the time, and acknowledged that he was criticized by one member of the board for making this statement while he sat on the board.
In fact, I mentioned that just a couple of posts ago.
So I don't appreciate your misrepresentation of my position, as I certainly have used enough words to make it clear.
“I certainly have used enough words...”
That much is certainly true.
It takes a lot of words to explain why plain English words don’t mean what everybody else knows they mean.
Yep. Thanks for that clarification.
I tried to do that wide stance thing, but didn’t do too good on the experiment. I will keep trying and get back to the kind people at Free Republic.
“...you could allow people to participate in scouting without allowing them to be scout leaders. In fact, there are a lot of people who can participate in scouts...I do know women can join scouting and be volunteers and serve on the committee.”
What a load of unmitigated horse manure. Do you really think this kind of crap somehow makes Romney’s statement mean anything less than what he said? The man wants the Boy Scouts to let homosexuals be involved in their organization. Period. Doesn’t matter whether he meant as janitors, waiters or scoutmasters. A conservative would have said something like “A private organization ought to have the right to decide for itself who affiliates with it.”
Romney didn’t.
Actually, he did. In the same answer where he gave his personal preference, he explicitly said that they had a right to make up their own mind.
If the Boy scouts decided to allow Gay scoutmasters, a large group of people here would scream that they were wrong, that we would NOT want them to allow it -- but we would also say they had a right as a private organization to allow it.
Maybe. If we were being consistent.
When you are asked what YOUR choice would be for something, you answer about what your choice would be. That is separate from the question of whether your choice should be forced or not. Romney clearly stated that his personal preference was NOT something he would request or require of the boy scouts.
“Actually, he did.”
Yep, you’re right. I went back and checked on that one. Serves me right for not more critically reviewing info that fed into a personal bias against Romney for other reasons.
The first quote is of my words, the second one is yours.
Republican Sali was just thrown out of office in Idaho for exactly the reasons stated above. An incumbent Reoublican loosing an office in Idaho happens about as frequently as a Boston Democrat loosing an office. Does it concern you that your vision and understanding of politics and people are not as good as most other folks?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.