Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Valisk]

Damn that fourteenth amendment!

/agreed w/o the sarcasm

I wish a lot of issues were state issues so people could pick and choose where they want to live. Hate gay people, love guns, and love the death penalty? Move to Texas! Not bothered by gays, want gun restrictions, and love the death penalty? Move to Cali! Would be kind of cool but I can see were unbalance could set in.

[aurik]

Yea we could set up a country where different minorities were persecuted in each region, then if you wanted to be a persecuted minority you could move to that region, and if you wanted to be doin' the persecutin' you could move there as well!

It would be totally awesome!

[Valisk]

Yea we could set up a country where different minorities were persecuted in each region, then if you wanted to be a persecuted minority you could move to that region, and if you wanted to be doin' the persecutin' you could move there as well!

It would be totally awesome!

Are you implying that the persecution of minorities would be written into law? There would still be basic rights aurik. I said SOME issues, not all. I'm certainly not for states selecting whether they want slavery, death penalty by firing squad, etc. I'm just saying a few issues (guns, abortion, gay rights, death penalty) would be better off as state issues.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

republicans are huge hypocrites for asking states to do it too. it's still government getting in someone's personal life; people need to stop acting like state authority is fundamentally different from federal authority.

Have you read the constitution?

And I always wondered why liberals bitch about Repub's pushing their views on people when what the hell are Dem's doing with all their social programs?

[aurik]

Are you implying that the persecution of minorities would be written into law?

Have you read the various anti-gay-marriage proposals? That's exactly what they would do.

Prop 8 would essentially write into law: "If you're in a homosexual relationship, you do not enjoy the same legal partnership rights that recognized heterosexual partnerships enjoy"

What part of this is not arbitrarily persecuting homosexual couples based on their sexual orientation?

[pohibaba]

And I always wondered why liberals bitch about Repub's pushing their views on people when what the hell are Dem's doing with all their social programs?

I completely agree; we should do away with both parties.

[Beckwin]

the constitution calls for protecting the welfare of the people.

[Beckwin]

ELIZABETH DOLE LOSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! go Hagan!


fuck yo balance kuya

[Day]

I spent a couple weeks in NC, Dole basically suicided her campaign with some over the top nasty ads.

[Kuya]

Was that the one who went on about the Hagan being godless?

[Beckwin]

yes

and one of the reasons I really really wanted a dem supermajority

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

the constitution calls for protecting the welfare of the people.

Wrong, promoting it. And that has nothing to do with state powers.

[Valisk]

Have you read the various anti-gay-marriage proposals? That's exactly what they would do.

Prop 8 would essentially write into law: "If you're in a homosexual relationship, you do not enjoy the same legal partnership rights that recognized heterosexual partnerships enjoy"

What part of this is not arbitrarily persecuting homosexual couples based on their sexual orientation?

There is a grey area on gay rights. To me at least. Everyone is entitled to the same rights as long as they comply with the law which is how it's always been. A gay person chooses to forfeit this right when choosing a partner. He has the same opportunity to seek the parntership rights that I do, he just chooses not to.

What happens when people want to marry pets, and 7 year old boys? Why can't I marry those? I LOVE them and they LOVE me! Why is the government trying to restrict who and what I can marry? I am actually for gay rights, but I just view it as them drawing the line somewhere before this gets out of hand.

[Plow]

There is a grey area on gay rights. To me at least. Everyone is entitled to the same rights as long as they comply with the law which is how it's always been. A gay person chooses to forfeit this right when choosing a partner. He has the same opportunity to seek the parntership rights that I do, he just chooses not to.

What happens when people want to marry pets, and 7 year old boys? Why can't I marry those? I LOVE them and they LOVE me! Why is the government trying to restrict who and what I can marry? I am actually for gay rights, but I just view it as them drawing the line somewhere before this gets out of hand.

Bestiality and consent laws.

Next?

[Colm]

There is a grey area on gay rights. To me at least. Everyone is entitled to the same rights as long as they comply with the law which is how it's always been. A gay person chooses to forfeit this right when choosing a partner. He has the same opportunity to seek the parntership rights that I do, he just chooses not to.

What happens when people want to marry pets, and 7 year old boys? Why can't I marry those? I LOVE them and they LOVE me! Why is the government trying to restrict who and what I can marry? I am actually for gay rights, but I just view it as them drawing the line somewhere before this gets out of hand.

Because neither animals or 7 year-olds are emotionally and mentally developed enough to consent to it.

Slippery slope arguments are retarded.

[Maxxthepenguin]

There is a grey area on gay rights. To me at least. Everyone is entitled to the same rights as long as they comply with the law which is how it's always been. A gay person chooses to forfeit this right when choosing a partner. He has the same opportunity to seek the parntership rights that I do, he just chooses not to.

What happens when people want to marry pets, and 7 year old boys? Why can't I marry those? I LOVE them and they LOVE me! Why is the government trying to restrict who and what I can marry? I am actually for gay rights, but I just view it as them drawing the line somewhere before this gets out of hand.

If we elect Barack Obama, it's only a matter of time before we elect somebody like Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan!

[Valisk]

Bestiality and consent laws.

Next?

Fair enough. I lose.

[Kuya]

Denying people rights, persecuting them for their beliefs or simply for being whatever they are, is not the same thing as instituting social decrees which you may not agree with. Especially when one is based on fear and the other on reason.

If we elect Barack Obama, it's only a matter of time before we elect somebody like Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan!

If we elect homosexuals as president, then what's next? Dogs as president? 7 year olds as presidents? We have to draw the line somewhere!

[aurik]

There is a grey area on gay rights. To me at least. Everyone is entitled to the same rights as long as they comply with the law which is how it's always been. A gay person chooses to forfeit this right when choosing a partner. He has the same opportunity to seek the parntership rights that I do, he just chooses not to.

There is a grey area on religious rights. To me at least. Everyone is entitled to the same rights as long as they comply with the law which is how it's always been. A non-catholic chooses to forfeit this right when choosing a deity.

After all, 16th century Spain is fucking awesome.

What happens when people want to marry pets, and 7 year old boys? Why can't I marry those?

The ability to make the informed decision of consent.

Why is the government trying to restrict who and what I can marry? I am actually for gay rights, but I just view it as them drawing the line somewhere before this gets out of hand.

Gets out of hand? Giving them equal protection under the law is getting out of hand?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Denying people rights, persecuting them for their beliefs or simply for being whatever they are, is not the same thing as instituting social decrees which you may not agree with. Especially when one is based on fear and the other on reason.

Just because you think it's based on reason doesn't mean you're not enforcing that belief on people.

And it looks like Obama won.