Originally Posted by Direckshun
You've moving the goalposts on me.
Our discussion is my alleged partisan rigidity and inflexibility in my political beliefs. You asked if I've changed my mind on major political issues in ways that weren't prompted by Obama's actions:
I gave you several.
Now you're saying "I meant have you changed your mind on major value-based issues in ways that weren't prompted by Obama's actions when you had a strong going-in position, were already very knowledgeable about said issues?"
Hell, I'd like to know if anybody on this forum can say yes to this.
Typically, when you are very knowledgeable on an issue and have amassed considerable data that you believe leads you to a conclusion, you're going to stand by that stance for a very long time until a significant amount of evidence pours in to the contrary (and sometimes, not even then...). That's not a downfall of mine, that's human nature, and it's not a downfall at all.
So whatever my answer to your updated version of your question (and I'd argue a couple of my answers still apply to it), even answering "no" to it doesn't prove that I'm partisan or don't challenge my own thinking. You've moved the goalposts too far for it to be relevant to what you were hoping to prove.
There's a difference in character between changing your mind about Hillary's political prospects and changing your mind about whether heroin should be legalized or whether nuclear energy ought to be expanded/banned. If my original question seemed to include the former, it might have been my fault for wording it poorly, but it was never something I meant to ask you about.
I agree with you that it's human nature to be reluctant to change these strongly held opinions. I don't consider it a downfall (although Flopnuts might). That's the point.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will