Posted on 04/21/2015 7:43:46 AM PDT by wagglebee
Don’t answer this question and ask why is the government promoting such a risky behavior?
Pray America is waking
And Walker “did.” But there are other postures he has recently left behind as well, e.g. great leniency on illegal immigration. So we don’t know everything we’d like to know about Walker.
All of them would say Uncle Sam should have no role in this matter at all.
Yes, just in case any Paultards were wondering why their golden boy was left out of the list.
That sounds like it would be a good idea. In fact it could be upped from risky to dangerous.
It will not matter in the least if they refuse to play.
There are dozens of other ways to communicate their beliefs that are not on the MSM's terms.
There is a lot to be said for “here’s the facts jack now what’s it to ya?”
So you demand republican candidates play the media’s game according to the media’s rules?
The headline is misleading.
Walker did not attend a “gay wedding.”
That discussion would end the question in a hurry. That is exactly what they don’t want to discuss.
Play the media’s game? I would avoid being in that position. No candidate has to submit to grilling from some media twit. But if I’m in that position and they ask the question, the best thing to do is to give an honest, direct answer and let the chips fall where they may. That’s what this voter respects.
I was not suggesting they would.
Rather, homosexual act is itself akin to masturbation. So celebrating a public ceremony of a gay “wedding” is similar to celebrating a public ceremony whose central implication is that the celebrant would masturbate.
The answer should be simple, repugnant No.
I didn’t see his name in the article, so I wondered...
I also respect direct answers. “I’m not playing gotcha with you” or “Why don’t you quit being an idiot and ask something relevant” (both are reasonable understanding of Cruz’s words) *is* a direct answer.
Just because a media twit, as you so aptly phrased it, is in a position to demonstrate their twit-ness (because a campaign that avoids all contact with media is not a campaign) does not mean that the candidate has to respond to the question according to the twit’s desires.
In this case, the media wants to tarnish the R candidates in conservatives’ eyes for any positive response. Secondarily, the media wants to outrage the homo agenda community for any negative response.
So, “stop being a twit” (diplomatically) is a valid and direct answer to the media’s attempt to tarnish the candidate.
That is, at least, my opinion. LOL
I don’t agree, but I understand your frustration.
So what if you attend a gay wedding?
I don’t think they should be allowed by the State.
At the same time, if they are legal then what if it’s your son’s or daughter’s? You have a right to go or not go.
What if it’s your best friend’s son’s or daughter?
I don’t believe in gay marriage.
I don’t believe in Budhism either. But that wouldn’t stop me from attending their wedding ceremony.
I certainly am not put off by Santorum’s answer but leftist interviewers are well versed in crafting questions where any answer can be spun into something negative. Thus the most correct path is to attack the very premise of the question, and do it in a way which allows you to bring the conversation back to the failings of statism.
Exactly.
They are trying to do a Todd Akin or a George Allen moment...get a sound bite like “legtreasure rape” or “macaca” and beat it into the ground.
Wise up, Republicans.
Post 37 should have said “legitimate rape”.
Hitlery: I’m going to have one!
The correct terminology should be “homosexual fake marriage”.
It’s not gay. It isn’t real. And it certainly has nothing to do with the union of one man and one woman.
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.