GameboyRMH wrote:CrackMonkey wrote: She's against gay marriage, but not a gay bashing closet homosexual."Against gay marriage but not gay bashing" is like saying "Against interracial marriage but not openly racist"
Yet that is the stance that a huge number of Americans have chosen. :shurgs:
I'd prefer that the government didn't sanction marriages at all, but that makes way too much sense.
Mental wrote: OK, McCain had lost me, but I do like this woman. Can I just vote for her? So far I like her better than my two choices.
So why on earth do you think you only have TWO choices? Look around. Vote your conscience - it's never a wasted vote.
CrackMonkey wrote: I only wish McCain was the true conservative maverick his handlers would have us believe he was before 2000.
Fixed that for you. If that McCain were still around and hadn't sold his soul to Bush in South Carolina in 2000 I might be interested in the guy, despite my liberal leanings. That guy was iinteresting. The guy who has seemingly sold his soul to the powers that be since then, not so much. Okay, not at all.
bluej wrote:GameboyRMH wrote:yeaahh. not really. Many people are against gay marriage being recognized by the state, but not against something like a civil union that permits some of the benefits of marriage. I have no idea if that is her stance, but the it's no where near as cut and dry as you stated.CrackMonkey wrote: She's against gay marriage, but not a gay bashing closet homosexual."Against gay marriage but not gay bashing" is like saying "Against interracial marriage but not openly racist"
That is like outlawing Racing but legalizing Speed Events.
A marriage is simply a legal civil union. The title is recognized by both the state and the church. According to the laws of the United States of America there is a seperation between the state and church. The state will generally not refuse a legal civil union between consenting adults of opposite sex but will refuse one of similr sex because the member of the church voted it down then the people who support the union need to cooperate and outvote the church voters.
I think that all marriage should be banned and civil partnerships should be the legal determination and taxed accordinglly. Male, female, whatever... just quit wasting my tax dollars arguing over it.
http://www.ktva.com/ci_10026165
I am and have been a registered Democrat since I started voting in 1964. This year I have been leaning toward McCain. I think this has clinched my vote.
Politically, I think this was an excellent choice. A couple days ago ABC news had a poll that showed that 30% of the LQ supporters were going to vote for McCain. Any bets that this has just jumped to 50% ?
Jensenman wrote: ... and an old white guy passes over other old white guys and picks a middle aged white chick.
Middle aged? She's two years younger than I am.
Hey...wait a minute.
I would take that bet and I think hard about taking the bet taht 30% would not either.
I have nothing against the now governor former runner up in Alaska's state beauty contest but I can't imagine her as President, something you have to think pretty hard about with McCain's age and health.
Whoever said Bush had experience, he has had about the same experience as she has, governor. Except his was a more populace state and his wasn't cutting checks every year to it's citizens sharing the oil wealth.
I'm with John Brown, this seems like a end of the campaign move.
Population of Alaska 650,000 Population of Texas 23 million.
This would be like picking the mayor of Charlotte NC.
Hal wrote: I am and have been a registered Democrat since I started voting in 1964. This year I have been leaning toward McCain. I think this has clinched my vote. Politically, I think this was an excellent choice. A couple days ago ABC news had a poll that showed that 30% of the LQ supporters were going to vote for McCain. Any bets that this has just jumped to 50% ?
John Brown wrote:bluej wrote:That is like outlawing Racing but legalizing Speed Events. A marriage is simply a legal civil union. The title is recognized by both the state and the church. According to the laws of the United States of America there is a seperation between the state and church. The state will generally not refuse a legal civil union between consenting adults of opposite sex but will refuse one of similr sex because the member of the church voted it down then the people who support the union need to cooperate and outvote the church voters. I think that all marriage should be banned and civil partnerships should be the legal determination and taxed accordinglly. Male, female, whatever... just quit wasting my tax dollars arguing over it.GameboyRMH wrote:yeaahh. not really. Many people are against gay marriage being recognized by the state, but not against something like a civil union that permits some of the benefits of marriage. I have no idea if that is her stance, but the it's no where near as cut and dry as you stated.CrackMonkey wrote: She's against gay marriage, but not a gay bashing closet homosexual."Against gay marriage but not gay bashing" is like saying "Against interracial marriage but not openly racist"
Of note, the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall pass no law..." If you think a state like colonial-era Mass. would have approved a 1st Amendment worded like the 2nd's "shall not be infringed"...
The Founding Fathers were tricky, tricky fellows.
MGAMGB wrote: "She would be the first woman to serve on a Republican presidential ticket. The anti-abortion Palin would also be the first Alaskan ever to appear on a national ticket." That tidbit fits this story how exactly?
That quote doesn't jive with the MSNBC article linked previously:
MSNBC said:Palin opposes abortion rights.
Where you get the quote? Where does she stand?
I'm thinking the Hillary supporters may think that this is a blatant play for them. They're smart enough to backlash. Cause I'll bet Hillary will against this...
Edit: must say.. Very good game theory going on here. Very good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
On CNN (America) they used an interesting line, which was either a very bad choice of words or a very good choice of words.
"She's a heartbeat away from being the President"
LMAO!
So, it's official. We WILL have an administration that includes either a woman or a minority.
It's an interesting choice. Looks like she's the anti-Bush, in a conservative kind of way.
Stands against big oil, against abortion, against gay marriage, yet signed same-sex benefits laws into law, for capitol punishment, .
It's a hard sell for her to grab too many of the Clinton supporters.
But she is a heck of a lot more pleasing on the eyes than her running mate.
GregTivo wrote: This election is going to be the best circus ever!!!
THAT is something we can ALL agree on... 
John Brown wrote: I think that all marriage should be banned and civil partnerships should be the legal determination and taxed accordinglly. Male, female, whatever... just quit wasting my tax dollars arguing over it.
John Brown for President
Both Presidential candidates chose VP's for tactical reasons to address what people see as their political/character weaknesses and to add a buffer layer to protect the weaknesses that they know their opponents will attack.
SVreX wrote:MGAMGB wrote: "She would be the first woman to serve on a Republican presidential ticket. The anti-abortion Palin would also be the first Alaskan ever to appear on a national ticket." That tidbit fits this story how exactly?That quote doesn't jive with the MSNBC article linked previously:MSNBC said:Palin opposes abortion rights.Where you get the quote? Where does she stand?
The story was edited I think... later in the article is does say
MSNBC said:Palin has a strong anti-abortion record, and her selection was praised warmly by social conservatives whose support McCain needs to prevail in the campaign for the White House.
I AM DOING A DANCE OF JOY RIGHT NOW!!!!
What an awesome pick. Holy E36 M3 where's this chick been all my life?
belteshazzar wrote: What an awesome pick. Holy E36 M3 where's this chick been all my life?
In alaska.. giving away everything to big oil.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/29/83614/5859
I agree. It was a brilliant move to pick a relatively unknown and young woman without much of a political background. She does not provide much of any ammo that can be used against the campaign, but brings a sense of personality that helps alleviate some of the Ropublibot image that McCain's campaign has.
If he had picked a political known from inside the beltway, everyone would have seen it as more "business as usual".
I believe she also has a son shipping out to Iraq, that will do a lot to disarm the "you don't care about our troops" sentiment.
Edit: on the other hand, she is pretty buddy-buddy with oil companies. Definitely throwing a bone to those interests. Watch those connections get played down by the GOP and up by the Dems.
ignorant wrote:belteshazzar wrote: What an awesome pick. Holy E36 M3 where's this chick been all my life?In alaska.. giving away everything to big oil. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/29/83614/5859
yeah. I had already heard a lot of that(what's on gristmill).
Still happy. Sorry.
Yep, she plays buddy buddy to all those oil companies that mail checks to her constituents back home. Makes a damn sight more sense than saying 'I'm cutting off your money.'
In that way, she's like the Dems who want to fling entitlement money everywhere. The difference: she ain't picking my pocket to do it.
aircooled wrote: Why do I keep thinking about Van Halens Hot for Teacher?
Oh berkeley. I might have to vote for McCain now.
Personally, I think it was a smart move. She's already praising Hillary for "fracturing the glass ceiling." With all of the jaded Clinton voters, transparent move or not, I'm guessing it'll get him some "swing" votes.
Except that a lot of Senator Clinton's supporters backed her in part due to her pro-choice stance.
poopshovel wrote:aircooled wrote: Why do I keep thinking about Van Halens Hot for Teacher?Oh berkeley. I might have to vote for McCain now. Personally, I think it was a smart move. She's already praising Hillary for "fracturing the glass ceiling." With all of the jaded Clinton voters, transparent move or not, I'm guessing it'll get him some "swing" votes.
Here's how I see it
CON: Anti same-sex marriage, wants creation taught as science, seems somewhat environmentally callous.
PRO: Kinda MILFy.
Hmm. Seems like a toss-up.
jg
You'll need to log in to post.
