For those that LIKE the Palin pick - Page 2

Brian · September 8th, 2008, 02:40 PM

For me it's quite simple: I'm not as worried about a hypothetical if McCain is elected (McCain dying, her taking over) as much as I worry about a definite if Obama is elected (Obama in office).

Palin and Obama are equally qualified edit: Palin actually is more qualified. He just scares the hell out of me. I'd rather have my neighbor be president than Obama and I've never said more than "Hi" to my neighbor.

Linderbee · September 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

Linder - let me ask you... In the context of your question here, what scares you the most about Palini as POTUS. Your poll is WAY absract as it won't happen anyway, but I'll play along if you do as well...

What scares you the most about Palin, should Mac kick the bucket??

What scares me the MOST? Freakin' hard to say.

Her complete & utter lack of experience scares the hell out of me...her pro-life stance & probability of appointing SC justices scares me...her anti-gay rights stance bothers the CRAP out of me...I do believe she is a raging biotch...not much to go on for that one, other than it takes one to know one

I would say mostly her lack of experience...she has NO foreign relations experience, she has no idea what to do with the economy...she would NEED to be a puppet in order for things to not completely fall apart, but I don't believe she'd allow herself to be a puppet (not that that's entirely bad)...

The list goes on. There is absolutely not one single think I LIKE about the woman. NOTHING.

82CardsGrad · September 8th, 2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

What scares me the MOST? Freakin' hard to say.

Her complete & utter lack of experience scares the hell out of me...her pro-life stance & probability of appointing SC justices scares me...her anti-gay rights stance bothers the CRAP out of me...I do believe she is a raging biotch...not much to go on for that one, other than it takes one to know one

I would say mostly her lack of experience...she has NO foreign relations experience, she has no idea what to do with the economy...she would NEED to be a puppet in order for things to not completely fall apart, but I don't believe she'd allow herself to be a puppet (not that that's entirely bad)...

The list goes on. There is absolutely not one single think I LIKE about the woman. NOTHING.

Well then... she can count on your support come November... right?

arthurracoon · September 8th, 2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald

My guy is someone else, but a President Palin doesn't scare me so much.

I concur

Linderbee · September 8th, 2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

Well then... she can count on your support come November... right?

:82:

See? I can do it without being obnoxious!

82CardsGrad · September 8th, 2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

:82:

See? I can do it without being obnoxious!

You're still a few thousand posts ahead of me... You have more practice... Give me time and I'll one day learn the wicked ways of ASFN posting protocol...

or not...

D-Dogg · September 8th, 2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyRider

For me it's quite simple: I'm not as worried about a hypothetical if McCain is elected (McCain dying, her taking over) as much as I worry about a definite if Obama is elected (Obama in office).

Palin and Obama are equally qualified edit: Palin actually is more qualified. He just scares the hell out of me. I'd rather have my neighbor be president than Obama and I've never said more than "Hi" to my neighbor.

Obama is more qualified, but not nearly by the margin that the left is trying to portray. He had years in the state government, and was a senator for a tiny bit. She had years in local government (ten) and was a governor for a little bit. She's a VP nom, he's a POTUS nom.

The wickedness on both sides about their respective experience is maddening. Both are pretty well versed in politics...Obama has more federal experience, which matters more. Palin has some executive experience, which also matters.

Fight, fight, we fight all night.

D-Dogg · September 8th, 2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

her anti-gay rights stance bothers the CRAP out of me...

What is Obama's gay rights stance? IIRC, he is against gay marriage himself, but pro-benefits for partners.

That's very similar to her stance, given her statements and laws she signed. For him, that's very odd for a Dem (and I don't agree with it). For her, that's very progressive for a Rep (and I don't agree with it). I'm pro gay marriage, and all for partner bennies. To me, they are a wash on that issue, and she again is the VP nom and him the POTUS nom.

D-Dogg · September 8th, 2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesb...arackObama.htm

I do love the way he stands on this...he doesn't want it, but doesn't want his faith to decide it. Yet another reason I really like Obama.

Linderbee · September 8th, 2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesb...arackObama.htm

I do love the way he stands on this...he doesn't want it, but doesn't want his faith to decide it. Yet another reason I really like Obama.

Exactly. I don't know if I believe Palin would behave in the same way.

While I disagree with him on his view of it, if he won't allow his faith to affect the politics of it, then I'm cool.

I absolutely think it is a state's rights issue, insofar as whether or not marriage should be allowed. I think some sort of Federal/Supreme Court ruling needs to be made to allow at a MINIMUM, civil unions.

Linderbee · September 8th, 2008, 11:05 PM

and dammit, Donald...vote!

D-Dogg · September 8th, 2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

Exactly. I don't know if I believe Palin would behave in the same way.
.

She actually did, exactly as she should have in that case:

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm...d=568864&rfi=6

Quote:

"She's fairly socially conservative, she's fairly anti-choice," said Jeffrey A. Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU).

Palin became governor in 2006 after serving as a councilwoman and then mayor of a small Alaskan town. She made an unsuccessful run at becoming Alaska's lieutenant governor in 2002. Palin has confronted a single piece of gay rights legislation in that time.

In 2005, Alaska's highest court ruled, in a case brought in 1999 on behalf of nine couples, that the state could not deny benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees. The court ordered the state to implement that ruling in late 2006.

The ruling was seen by right wingers as conflicting with a 1998 amendment to the Alaska Constitution, passed by voters in a ballot referendum, that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The Republican-dominated State Legislature passed a bill that barred the state's administrative agency from implementing the ruling. Palin vetoed it.

"The Department of Law advised me that this bill... is unconstitutional given the recent court order... mandating same-sex benefits," Palin said in a statement. "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."

The statement added, "The governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is the governor's intention to work with the Legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue."

If you are against it, acting constitutionally and within your oath of office is the correct way to proceed. You can lobby for whatever you want, but as long as your ultimate decision is either with the people or with the constitution, then you are making the correct decision, governmentally, that someone who disagrees with something in principle but holds power should. This item is one that I really admire in Gov. Palin. She upheld benefits not because of what she believed but in spite of it, because it was correct in her oath of office and rule of law. That has to say something and it will of course be brushed aside by her detractors, as happens even in the article quoted.

It's all a bunch of "yeah but, she doesn't beleive it." Well neither does B-Rock, but I'd think he'd act in the same way...let people or law decide, not his own belief.

And yeah, gaycitynews has to be completely partisan in their views.

D-Dogg · September 8th, 2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

and dammit, Donald...vote!

I will. For Ron Paul.

mac owns arizona anyway, as you know. If it is super duper close, maybe I'll change my mind and go Obama, but it isn't likely. I'd much rather stick to my principles and hate on my party. I do adore sending all the "vote for me, please for the love of God!!!" mail I get from the RNC or Mac back with a ron paul flier with sharpie saying "no thanks, I'm voting for this guy."

Hell, i believe change comes from the smallest efforts, I guess.

Linderbee · September 8th, 2008, 11:27 PM

yeah, it's the only area in which she has garnered any respect from me...but that doesn't mean she wouldn't appoint Supreme Court justices that she thinks would see things her way...I still don't completely trust her on the issue.

D-Dogg · September 8th, 2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

yeah, it's the only area in which she has garnered any respect from me...but that doesn't mean she wouldn't appoint Supreme Court justices that she thinks would see things her way...I still don't completely trust her on the issue.

I actually put a lot of stock in it. I do. It is an uncommon decision. She could have easily gone the other way.

I'm not so worried in the Supremes she'd appoint though...because they have to pass the congress. Any she'd put up would be anti-abortion too, which you know how I feel. And I ultimately believe that in the end (whenever that is) the constitution will be observed and that unborn will one day receive legal protection, and that gay marriage rights will also be legally protected, because the Constitution leans that way regardless of the SCOTUS viewpoints therein.

I really do try to frame my viewpoints in a legal manner. Which puts me pro life, anti-death, and pro-rights for individuals so long as they don't supercede anyone elses, be they mothers or the religious right.