mlukfc.com Forums - View Single Post

lorenzoduke · 27 Oct 2012, 20:40

To say Meat is homophobic isn't exactly going to be a huge leap in people's minds when Meat says he endorses Romney and Romney says gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry and shouldn't have the same rights as straight couples.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous in the least about presuming to ascribe Mitt Romney's views to Meat, given that Meat has voluntarily endorsed him. If someone endorsed Nick Griffin, would you assume he was racist? If someone endorsed the Lib Dems, would you assume he shared liberal values?

Fine, he qualified his comments on Facebook. He didn't qualify them when he gave his endorsement at the rally. Which do you think reached more people?

If you endorse a politician, people will assume you endorse that politician's views and proposed policies.

If you DON'T endorse many of the key policies, hot button issues and values that a candidate is running behind, how about you....don't endorse them? If you merely think they're the slightly better of two candidates, how about using your vote instead of your bluster?

I said earlier in the thread, to a lot of people - and the facts stand - a vote for Romney is a vote against gay rights. Ergo, to a lot of people Meat saying 'I endorse Romney' is no different than Meat going to a rally and saying 'I'm against gay marriage'.

He said 'I endorse Mitt Romney', that Mitt Romney was the candidate for a brighter future for America, that people should argue with their friends and families and persuade them that Romney is the way to go.

He did not say 'I kind of endorse Mitt Romney, but think he's wrong about this, this and this'.

Standing behind Romney and his divisive policies, causing his fans to turn on him, and being mocked for a poor performance all over the internet. Was it worth it? Has something being achieved, other than damage?

27 Oct 2012, 20:40	#174
lorenzoduke Mega Loafer Join Date: 24.07.2006 Posts: 1,269	To say Meat is homophobic isn't exactly going to be a huge leap in people's minds when Meat says he endorses Romney and Romney says gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry and shouldn't have the same rights as straight couples. I don't think there's anything ridiculous in the least about presuming to ascribe Mitt Romney's views to Meat, given that Meat has voluntarily endorsed him. If someone endorsed Nick Griffin, would you assume he was racist? If someone endorsed the Lib Dems, would you assume he shared liberal values? Fine, he qualified his comments on Facebook. He didn't qualify them when he gave his endorsement at the rally. Which do you think reached more people? If you endorse a politician, people will assume you endorse that politician's views and proposed policies. If you DON'T endorse many of the key policies, hot button issues and values that a candidate is running behind, how about you....don't endorse them? If you merely think they're the slightly better of two candidates, how about using your vote instead of your bluster? I said earlier in the thread, to a lot of people - and the facts stand - a vote for Romney is a vote against gay rights. Ergo, to a lot of people Meat saying 'I endorse Romney' is no different than Meat going to a rally and saying 'I'm against gay marriage'. He said 'I endorse Mitt Romney', that Mitt Romney was the candidate for a brighter future for America, that people should argue with their friends and families and persuade them that Romney is the way to go. He did not say 'I kind of endorse Mitt Romney, but think he's wrong about this, this and this'. Standing behind Romney and his divisive policies, causing his fans to turn on him, and being mocked for a poor performance all over the internet. Was it worth it? Has something being achieved, other than damage? Last edited by lorenzoduke; 27 Oct 2012 at 20:45.