On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:27 PM, Chuck Bennett wrote: > >> >> On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Charles Bennett wrote: >>> >>>> It's ok. >>>> >>>> The left just needs to keep hammering on her family and we will >>>> see >>>> if we can turn an 11 point bounce into a 15 pointer. >>> >>> She is a genuine dominationist religious nut. You have always >>> expressed fear and loathing for these people. Why the reversal? >> >> The deal is this. 93-95% of the population is religious. There is >> no >> way around electing 'someone' with those views. > > You are totally missing the point that dominationists believe that > 'God's law, not man's law' should control government policy. >> >> >> She has focused on reform, her politics has not reflected her >> personal >> views on abortion or religious nuttiness and she has left that to no >> more than words. > > This is simply untrue. Look it up. >> >> >> Biden is a (in theory) devout Catholic yet he accepts the pro- >> abortion >> position and does not govern from his religious views. >> >> Same thing in my view. If you want to call Palin a hypocrite, start >> by explaining why Biden isn't. > > Biden believes in the separation of church and state. He doesn't > advocate imposing his religious views on everyone. You have spoken out > against Sharia law in Moslem countries but seem comfortable with the > christian equivalent. >> >> >> Her family darn sure has bucked her views on what is proper behavior. >> >> That's just life and most people see it that way. I didn't do >> everything my parents preached (for or against) >> in fact I did a lot of things that they would have stroked out about >> had they known. >> >> That doesn't mean their message was wrong, it just means I was a bad >> kid. > > Chuck, have I misjudged you? Are you OK with laws banning abortion > even in the case of rape and incest and incest?
No I'm not. I actually agree with Clinton. Abortion should be safe, legal and RARE. I would rather every child be wanted. I fully understand that there are circumstances where abortion is the right thing and support that. I hate the idea of having the state pay for abortions as an expensive method of birth control. I don't follow the typical right wing stance on this issue. I'd rather make birth control available than pay for an abortion later. It's a difficult issue that think good people can look at and come to completely opposite conclusions. > Are you OK with > criminalizing gay sex? I don't give a rats ass about who people love. I believe in civil unions. I have way too many friends that are personally affected by these bullshit laws. To whatever degree the right gets in this issue, they are simply wrong. I can't really argue the word "marriage" since that is the domain of the church but it is red meat to the bible thumping crowd and I'm sure she/ the right scrounge a few votes that way. I can't find any record of Palin wanting to criminalize gay sex though she has opposed marriage as a legal status. gaycitynews isn't a rightwing antigay site (no shit..) and they are pretty critical of her stance. She DID support the amendment opposing 'gay marriage' but vetoed the rightwing attempt to deny domestic partner benifits since she felt the <http://gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20098390&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8 > > I know you spoke out against theocracy but > maybe it was just Moslem theocracy that bothered you. It really the intrinsic lack of church/state separation than bothers me. Moslem theocracy is bad, an old testament Christian theocracy would be just as bad since they are the same thing more or less. > I can't tell at > this point whether you really are OK with Palin's views or simply > don't understand them. take a moment to read this. <http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html> I don't agree with all of her positions but I separate what someone believes from how they govern. Like I said before, I disagree with her stance on needing a state amendment opposing civil rights for gays. > You clearly believe the 'reformer' hype > despite the overwhelming evidence that it is untrue. > She went after the state GOP chair, Randy Ruedrich, for doing work for the party on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating. She also filed a formal complaint against Attorney General Gregg Renkes for having investments in an energy company that stood to benefit from a state trade deal. Both Ruedrich and Renkes ultimately resigned their posts, and Ruedrich paid a $12,000 fine. That fits. She did ask for earmarks for her state to the tune of several hundred million dollars. I guess since Obama never claimed to be a reformer we can ignore the billions (yep Billions) of earmarks he requested and received as a senator. She is not perfect by any means but she does match a lot of the typical right wing base desired attributes and between Biden and her, it's no contest. (for me.. the left wing folks will say exactly the opposite. Of course.) =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
