Sarah Palin Throws Support Behind GOProud Participation at CPAC.

[Agorism]

http://www.breitbart.tv/sarah-palin-throws-support-behind-goproud-participation-at-cpac


“Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues. I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have the better.”

[Matt Collins]

That was horribly worded.

[Vessol]

I honestly don't see why they need a separate group just because they are gay? Is there specific idealogical differences between straight and gay people?

[specsaregood]

I foresee heads exploding on the interwebs.

[__27__]

That was horribly worded.

Of course it was, it came from the mouth of Sarah Palin.

[Matt Collins]

Of course it was, it came from the mouth of Sarah Palin.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YglP4clX0A

[GunnyFreedom]

I honestly don't see why they need a separate group just because they are gay? Is there specific idealogical differences between straight and gay people?

You have framed my own thought sir.

[specsaregood]

I honestly don't see why they need a separate group just because they are gay? Is there specific idealogical differences between straight and gay people?

There are issues that affect them differently.

[Athena]

I'm not seeing Palin supporting gay conservatives in that quote. I'm not actually seeing her saying anything at all there.
It reads like "I've never been here/here, and I still am not there/here, rthdb rethdggu iuyg dsfbaqp piohobt.... something about groups and I dunno....thyjthnw ijbfb fgnblbja fnnkl... information is good!" to me.

???

I don't speak Palinese. Can someone give me a translation?

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm not seeing Palin supporting gay conservatives in that quote. I'm not actually seeing her saying anything at all there.
It reads like "I've never been here/here, and I still am not there/here, rthdb rethdggu iuyg dsfbaqp piohobt.... something about groups and I dunno....thyjthnw ijbfb fgnblbja fnnkl... information is good!" to me.

???

I don't speak Palinese. Can someone give me a translation?

Lol! That's a good one... :D

[Wren]

I don't speak Palinese. Can someone give me a translation?

I lol'd. Excellent word you've coined there

[Athena]

Thanks. :D

[low preference guy]

I don't speak Palinese. Can someone give me a translation?

She is saying that one can have a discussion with gays even if one disagrees with them.

[GunnyFreedom]

There are issues that affect them differently.

Allergies?

[muzzled dogg]

:o

[muzzled dogg]

^WTF why does the : o face look like that?

[Athena]

She is saying that one can have a discussion with gays even if one disagrees with them.

Aaahh...gotcha.

ETA:

Why didn't she just say something like "We can have discussions with gays even if we disagree with them about the nature of gayness"?

Or something like that?

[Bman]

I honestly don't see why they need a separate group just because they are gay? Is there specific idealogical differences between straight and gay people?

When I was 17 and in Amsterdam staying with a local family, I was at a church one day and saw that one of the nights at the church was gay night. I was a bit surprised to see a gay night at the church. It so happened the father of the family I was staying with was one of the Priests at the church, so I asked him how he felt about gay night. His response was I don't mind that gay people come to church, in fact I encourage it, I'd just prefer that they'd show up calling themselves Christians.

I think that's how many feel about it, but as long as calling yourself something can draw attention like it did to me at 17 I imagine these groups will continue to try and get a reaction. Like so many things it would go away on it's own if no one made an issue out of it. After the actions of the genius's who decided to boycott you can be assured it will get even more attention next year. Everyone boycotting should be called out for being the idiots that they are.

[Sola_Fide]

I honestly don't see why they need a separate group just because they are gay? Is there specific idealogical differences between straight and gay people?

Thank you. I agree.

[specsaregood]

Allergies?
Don't be unnecessarily obtuse gunny; you know exactly what I mean.

For example: partner benefits for insurance, social security, taxation, etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

Don't be unnecessarily obtuse gunny; you know exactly what I mean.

For example: partner benefits for insurance, social security, taxation, etc.

I'm sorry that you think that is what I am doing.

Shouldn't an employer choose partner benefits instead of the government?

and what difference should being gay make to social security and taxation?

[Feeding the Abscess]

It shouldn't make a difference; however, it currently does. As such, gay Americans have a legitimate gripe on those issues. Same with visitation rights and marriage. The partner benefits for insurance tie into the marriage issue. Government shouldn't be involved in that decision, which leads me to the following:

The choices are:

Give straight Americans special benefits and tax breaks and leave gay Americans out from those
Give all Americans equal benefits and tax levels
Give no Americans benefits or tax breaks

Anywho, GOProud is at CPAC to prove to people that they can be conservative, too. The reason this is necessary is that the stereotype of gay Americans is of a gay pride parade, Communist loving bloc. This stereotype is most commonly perpetuated in conservative circles. Hence...

[specsaregood]

Shouldn't an employer choose partner benefits instead of the government?

Thats exactly the position that goproud promotes!


and what difference should being gay make to social security and taxation?
Gay partners are not allowed to share in social security benefits and inheritance rights that hetero couples are allowed to do, nor are they able to share in the same tax deductions. On these issues, gopround wants the govt out of the way as well.

I figured you were aware of these things.

[jmdrake]

The choices are:

Give straight Americans special benefits and tax breaks and leave gay Americans out from those
Give all Americans equal benefits and tax levels
Give no Americans benefits or tax breaks


You left out option four. "Give no Americans any taxes period. Let people voluntarily fund the aspects of government they agree with."

[jmdrake]

I'm sorry that you think that is what I am doing.

Shouldn't an employer choose partner benefits instead of the government?

and what difference should being gay make to social security and taxation?

Employers should only give people money and people should buy their own benefits. We need to move away from employment based healthcare altogether. My employer doesn't provide me car insurance benefits or home insurance benefits. Why should health insurance be any different? It is different because of the way the tax system is set up and because of FDRs evil wage freezes. (Employers could give health insurance benefits when they couldn't give raises). In a truly free market gays would be able to group themselves into pools for the purpose of buying health insurance just like anybody else. Just like you see gay bars and gay bookstores springing up in every major city without any government interference, health insurance companies that catered to the needs of domestic partners would spring up as well. Besides, why should their be government carved out benefits for gay partners but none for polygamists or heterosexuals who simply chose to live together without getting married? If a free market (and a free society where no "marriage" choice was punished including polygamy) none of this would matter. Buying insurance is a financial decision. If I want to put some homeless person that I don't even know on my health insurance I should be able to do that provided I'm willing to pay to do that and some insurance company is willing to offer that product.

Oh, and social security and taxes shouldn't even exist.

And before someone brings up the "What about gays visiting their dying loved ones in the hospital" argument, I've never known of any hospital to deny close friend visitation to the dying, but even so that can be easily handled by having a durable power of attorney. After all, whoever has the durable power of attorney must be able to see the dying patient since he or she is in the position of making medical decisions when the patient becomes incapacitated. A durable power of attorney is completely independent of who you're in a romantic relationship with. And if you're going to go through the trouble of getting a marriage "license" or a domestic partner "license" or any other official government recognition of your decision, you could just as easily go to a lawyer and get a standard form contract covering durable power of attorney, inheritance, joint property, alimony if you split up and any of the other defaults that come with marriage. In fact that's a smart thing to do even if you get married.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You left out option four. "Give no Americans any taxes period. Let people voluntarily fund the aspects of government they agree with."

I kind of figured everyone here would equate either my second or third option with your suggestion.

[specsaregood]

Employers should only give people money and people should buy their own benefits. We need to move away from employment based healthcare altogether.

This appears to be goprouds position as well:


2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the governmen

[jmdrake]

This appears to be goprouds position as well:

Thanks for pointing that out. I just went to GOProud's website. It's interesting that in their mission statement I don't see the words "gay marriage" anywhere. Instead I see a list of principles that I pretty much agree with.*


1 – TAX REFORM - We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.

4 - RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY - We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship. Such reforms would create jobs for all Americans – including gay Americans.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

* I qualify my support for their principle # 6 because while I'm against extremist regimes, I think any "stand" that is taken "against" such a regime must be done in a non interventionist way. I don't agree with invading Iran to save the gays anymore than I would have agreed with invading Iraq to save the Kurds. And on # 1 I think "partner tax equity" should only mean "removing any benefit or penalty from the tax code with regards to marriage". A flat tax could definitely do that. But put "partners" in the same category as marriage is simply shifting the discrimination. Those who chose not to have government approval, gay or straight, still don't get the same treatment and neither do polygamists.

[specsaregood]

Thanks for pointing that out. I just went to GOProud's website. It's interesting that in their mission statement I don't see the words "gay marriage" anywhere. Instead I see a list of principles that I pretty much agree with.*


Exactly. They are very much inline with many of the positions people here share. I think having such a group out there offering gays that want "equality" a different choice other than govt mandated "equality" is a good thing and I'm glad they will be at CPAC.

[ctiger2]

Palin is a moron. Please just go away $arah...

[libertarian4321]

I honestly don't see why they need a separate group just because they are gay? Is there specific idealogical differences between straight and gay people?

You're kidding right?

Are you aware that the average Republican is only slightly less hostile to gays than Hitler was to the Russians at Stalingrad?

Why any gay person would want to be in a party that is so openly hostile toward them makes no sense to me, but if they are going to be in the GOP, it would certainly make sense to have an organization that represents them within the party.

Of course, it would make more sense for them to be Libertarians- a party which agrees with them on fiscal conservatism, but would not treat them like pariahs.