OK, it's almost ten o'clock,
- Thread starter bajaespuma
- Start date
Help Support :
toggleswitch2
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,000
For you vomiting pleasure.
The entire tranny-script of the Gay marriage question:
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
Doggone it I hate phoney folksiness, dontcha all too for gosh darn sakes. What is she playing here a female Jimmy Stewart goes to Washington?
It ain't winking, it's HOODWINKING
It ain't winking, it's HOODWINKING
The Constitution isn't only about freedom of,
but also freedom from religion. It would appear that a lot of people have a real problem understanding the meaning of 'secular democracy.' Here in Australia it is the same. Everyone talks about freedom of religion etc. and blah blah, but what folks seem not to understand and acknowledge, is that government and its policies should not be guided/influenced by religious doctrine of whatever denomination. Nor should religious groups/organizations be given preferential treatments. Government policies should reflect the plurality of society, be fair, humane, based on informed and educated opinions, promote equality and, most of all, empower citizens. At least that's what I understood to be the meaning of secular democracy. Then again, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
What does faith have to do with marriage under common law anyway? Either all citizens are granted the same rights under civil law or they are not. I don't understand why this gay marriage issue constantly deteriorates into a stupid exercise of silly semantics. If people like Palin, Obama et al believe so strongly that marriage can only be worthwhile and appropriate between people of opposite gender, then it is up to them to provide conclusive evidence to support their stance. Otherwise they should stay out of the way of progressive common law reform.
but also freedom from religion. It would appear that a lot of people have a real problem understanding the meaning of 'secular democracy.' Here in Australia it is the same. Everyone talks about freedom of religion etc. and blah blah, but what folks seem not to understand and acknowledge, is that government and its policies should not be guided/influenced by religious doctrine of whatever denomination. Nor should religious groups/organizations be given preferential treatments. Government policies should reflect the plurality of society, be fair, humane, based on informed and educated opinions, promote equality and, most of all, empower citizens. At least that's what I understood to be the meaning of secular democracy. Then again, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
What does faith have to do with marriage under common law anyway? Either all citizens are granted the same rights under civil law or they are not. I don't understand why this gay marriage issue constantly deteriorates into a stupid exercise of silly semantics. If people like Palin, Obama et al believe so strongly that marriage can only be worthwhile and appropriate between people of opposite gender, then it is up to them to provide conclusive evidence to support their stance. Otherwise they should stay out of the way of progressive common law reform.
That's what it might mean down under, but that is not what it means here. It means that the govt will not pass laws that promote or deny a religion. It does not mean that religious principles can not influence or guide the govt.
Last night, they rightly agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that priviledges bestowed upon those who are married can also be bestowed on gay couples. Shoot, one election cycle ago (and all previous) they couldn't agree on that. That is a huge win in my book!
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Last night, they rightly agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that priviledges bestowed upon those who are married can also be bestowed on gay couples. Shoot, one election cycle ago (and all previous) they couldn't agree on that. That is a huge win in my book!
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It was obvious to me that...
that she was clearly skirting the question that Joe shot back at her. No surprise here. While I do believe McCain himself is much more moderate on gay issues, if this woman and her followers had their way they would they would never allow us to be who we are. These are a few of her followers, read their comments, hold onto your diet cokes...
that she was clearly skirting the question that Joe shot back at her. No surprise here. While I do believe McCain himself is much more moderate on gay issues, if this woman and her followers had their way they would they would never allow us to be who we are. These are a few of her followers, read their comments, hold onto your diet cokes...
Dinosaurs . . .
So some Palin-ites are convniced that dinosaurs recently roamed the earth. Let's hope the upcoming election proves them right by turning a lot of elephants into living dinosaurs.
So some Palin-ites are convniced that dinosaurs recently roamed the earth. Let's hope the upcoming election proves them right by turning a lot of elephants into living dinosaurs.
I'm totally flabbergasted by these comments! It seems like a lot of people still live in the dark ages.
And oh! The homosexual agenda is back again! I almost thought we lost it but somebody found it again!!
I'm glad I live in a country that has a better separation between state and church.
And oh! The homosexual agenda is back again! I almost thought we lost it but somebody found it again!!
I'm glad I live in a country that has a better separation between state and church.
magic clean
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2004
- Messages
- 511
Here
is another interesting tidbit from Wasilla, See the link and/or HRC.org
is another interesting tidbit from Wasilla, See the link and/or HRC.org
News out this morning, 750,000 jobs lost since January '08. Where is their sky-god now? I'd bet they'd recite again that this is judgement for our wicked ways.
I suppose the first humans ordered their dinosaur saddles from Sears? It gets funnier every time you read it but at the same time, that these complete morons might have the power to "influence and guide the government" is just absolutely frightening. Life must be pretty easy when you lack - or relinquish - all rational thought. Fortunately, this example might be toward the extreme, I know many who consider themselves chrisitians that would never be lulled into this nonsense.
I find Caribou Barbie's use of the word "tolerant" to be extremely offensive. While it may be a shift in position, I think what she meant was very different than how some may perceive it today. Remember, she did use the word "choose" in the context of her ramblings on this subject and that speaks volumes. I guess a small victory can be claimed but it's fragile at best. I'm sure they think we should be rejoicing that we're being allowed to breathe the same air and are not going to be rounded up into camps and gassed. Yay !
I suppose the first humans ordered their dinosaur saddles from Sears? It gets funnier every time you read it but at the same time, that these complete morons might have the power to "influence and guide the government" is just absolutely frightening. Life must be pretty easy when you lack - or relinquish - all rational thought. Fortunately, this example might be toward the extreme, I know many who consider themselves chrisitians that would never be lulled into this nonsense.
I find Caribou Barbie's use of the word "tolerant" to be extremely offensive. While it may be a shift in position, I think what she meant was very different than how some may perceive it today. Remember, she did use the word "choose" in the context of her ramblings on this subject and that speaks volumes. I guess a small victory can be claimed but it's fragile at best. I'm sure they think we should be rejoicing that we're being allowed to breathe the same air and are not going to be rounded up into camps and gassed. Yay !
Hot skirts
She did skirt the question, and made a very deliberate and thoughtful (and good, frankly) move to do so.
Here's the thing.
The Constitution is designed to be as non-explicit as possible. Everything that it outlines and provides for is supposed to be considered the absolute basic framework of government--the essentials for its formation, comprehension, and function. Nothing more.
Everything else that needs to be shaped or specified further than what the Constitution outlines is supposed to be handled by the states, and if not by the state government, then by counties and municipalities. Specificity grows as you go down the line. However, specifications at the state or local levels also cannot conflict with provisions established at higher levels.
Modifications to the Constitution have to be monumental, have to address a grave flaw in the very substructure of government or the provision of rights, and should not be used to restrict rights and freedoms. Indeed, the Constitution and federal government are in place to protect rights. That's the most basic definition of government.
The federal government has no business stating what genders or combinations thereof constitute a "marriage." That also means that it has no business saying that it's solely between a man and a woman. States should (and do) determine whether or not they want to define that, honor different configurations of it, or allow reciprocity between states' definitions thereof.
This debate was problematic on a couple of fronts. First off, Biden was correct--this is not a federal issue. However, he's incorrect that it's determined on faith and such. We're not talking about trying to get religions to marry same-sex couples--validation is only one front in the battle we're fighting. We're also talking about the legal ramifications that being married--or unmarried--conveys in the eyes of the law. There is an entire suite of de facto provisions for married couples--automatically accepted hospital visitation, different taxation scenarios, different assumptions about the creation of and handling of property after death, and so forth. These are matter-of-fact privileges that same-sex couples can only leverage with the help of a lawyer and a great deal of contract-drawing...and even so, the end result is not as "bulletproof." (For those who point out that there IS, at least, a way to secure these privileges legally--what with explicit wills and power of attorney--then I respond with, "All right, let's revoke those privileges from married folks, and make them do the legwork too.")
Just to say that you don't oppose (or that you tolerate) something does not mean that you empower it by default, and that applies to both parties in the debate. The important omission was that--while Palin (and presumably by extrapolation, McCain) would not interfere with same-sex couples per se, they also would not be doing anything to empower those privileges that married couples enjoy. Then again, neither would Biden/Obama, by Biden's description. So, honestly, I'm not sure either camp is supporting the "civil rights" of homosexuals or same-sex couples. In terms of the rights that the Constitution affords and does not explicitly deny, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equivalent.
So what you're getting here is not only a technically correct answer, but what we already have: The federal government has no business defining a marriage. It does, however, have to protect rights established by the Constitution, and it should not comment further on or focus those rights--that's the governing job of lower divisions of government.
She did skirt the question, and made a very deliberate and thoughtful (and good, frankly) move to do so.
Here's the thing.
The Constitution is designed to be as non-explicit as possible. Everything that it outlines and provides for is supposed to be considered the absolute basic framework of government--the essentials for its formation, comprehension, and function. Nothing more.
Everything else that needs to be shaped or specified further than what the Constitution outlines is supposed to be handled by the states, and if not by the state government, then by counties and municipalities. Specificity grows as you go down the line. However, specifications at the state or local levels also cannot conflict with provisions established at higher levels.
Modifications to the Constitution have to be monumental, have to address a grave flaw in the very substructure of government or the provision of rights, and should not be used to restrict rights and freedoms. Indeed, the Constitution and federal government are in place to protect rights. That's the most basic definition of government.
The federal government has no business stating what genders or combinations thereof constitute a "marriage." That also means that it has no business saying that it's solely between a man and a woman. States should (and do) determine whether or not they want to define that, honor different configurations of it, or allow reciprocity between states' definitions thereof.
This debate was problematic on a couple of fronts. First off, Biden was correct--this is not a federal issue. However, he's incorrect that it's determined on faith and such. We're not talking about trying to get religions to marry same-sex couples--validation is only one front in the battle we're fighting. We're also talking about the legal ramifications that being married--or unmarried--conveys in the eyes of the law. There is an entire suite of de facto provisions for married couples--automatically accepted hospital visitation, different taxation scenarios, different assumptions about the creation of and handling of property after death, and so forth. These are matter-of-fact privileges that same-sex couples can only leverage with the help of a lawyer and a great deal of contract-drawing...and even so, the end result is not as "bulletproof." (For those who point out that there IS, at least, a way to secure these privileges legally--what with explicit wills and power of attorney--then I respond with, "All right, let's revoke those privileges from married folks, and make them do the legwork too.")
Just to say that you don't oppose (or that you tolerate) something does not mean that you empower it by default, and that applies to both parties in the debate. The important omission was that--while Palin (and presumably by extrapolation, McCain) would not interfere with same-sex couples per se, they also would not be doing anything to empower those privileges that married couples enjoy. Then again, neither would Biden/Obama, by Biden's description. So, honestly, I'm not sure either camp is supporting the "civil rights" of homosexuals or same-sex couples. In terms of the rights that the Constitution affords and does not explicitly deny, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equivalent.
So what you're getting here is not only a technically correct answer, but what we already have: The federal government has no business defining a marriage. It does, however, have to protect rights established by the Constitution, and it should not comment further on or focus those rights--that's the governing job of lower divisions of government.
Good point
Very good points, Greg...
I find Caribou Barbie's use of the word "tolerant" to be extremely offensive
As did I. I was taken aback, because it felt as though she equated "I am tolerant of" with "I will choose for now to ignore," as if there was something about homosexuals that turned her stomach, but since she's gracious, she'll choose to overlook it out of politeness.
Very good points, Greg...
I find Caribou Barbie's use of the word "tolerant" to be extremely offensive
As did I. I was taken aback, because it felt as though she equated "I am tolerant of" with "I will choose for now to ignore," as if there was something about homosexuals that turned her stomach, but since she's gracious, she'll choose to overlook it out of politeness.
Here is Palins interview with Faux News. Sarah says Katie Couric annoyed her. (lol, poor Katie...)
I really, really do love Sarah Palin! I am glad that Karl Rove picked her to run with Mcsame.
Mcsame/Palin 08 YAY!
I really, really do love Sarah Palin! I am glad that Karl Rove picked her to run with Mcsame.
Mcsame/Palin 08 YAY!
A reformer with results
Either love him or hate him, Olbermann hit it straight on the head last night. The governor sounds more like the last governor everyday.
Eek! Run for the hills!
Either love him or hate him, Olbermann hit it straight on the head last night. The governor sounds more like the last governor everyday.
Eek! Run for the hills!
Wasn't that a great commentary, Ben? It really points out that there is no change from these people. The sad part is, some mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging fools fall for it every time!
Checkout the Saturday Night Live Skit on the VP debate last night - what a riot!
www.huffingtonpost.com
Checkout the Saturday Night Live Skit on the VP debate last night - what a riot!
SNL: Tina Fey's Plucky Palin, Ann Hathaway, The Bailout, And Mark Wahlberg With A Goat
SNL: Tina Fey's Plucky Palin, Ann Hathaway, The Bailout, And Mark Wahlberg With A Goat
In a week of very bad news, see the latest polls for some bright spots.
The second one is especially interesting: 57% of voters, an increase of nearly ten points in the last few weeks, now say Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be president.
She may be "energizing the Republican base", but she's turning off far more voters than she's turning on.
The second one is especially interesting: 57% of voters, an increase of nearly ten points in the last few weeks, now say Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be president.
She may be "energizing the Republican base", but she's turning off far more voters than she's turning on.
Wow, this is amazing...
Look at today's electoral map averaging all of the current polls taken over the past few days in each state, we just picked up Missouri, Virgina and Florida both went from "barely democrat" to "weak democrat"!!! While I expect the race to tighten in the next few weeks, I'd rather be sitting in Barack's shoes right now. Its 349 vs 174 (270 to win). On this date back in 2004 the score was Kerry 253 vs Bush 264.
www.electoral-vote.com
Look at today's electoral map averaging all of the current polls taken over the past few days in each state, we just picked up Missouri, Virgina and Florida both went from "barely democrat" to "weak democrat"!!! While I expect the race to tighten in the next few weeks, I'd rather be sitting in Barack's shoes right now. Its 349 vs 174 (270 to win). On this date back in 2004 the score was Kerry 253 vs Bush 264.
Electoral-vote.com
Track the 2026 Senate election with a red/blue map of the US updated daily using the latest state polls.
