PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Low Blow about Cheney's daughter


Pages : [1] 2

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:35 PM
Dick Morris former CLINTON ADVISOR said he was appalled at what Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter. This is something she has to deal with. I am hearing this elsewhere as well.

Also Morris said he agrees more with Bush then Kerry.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 10:36 PM
I wonder what DC thinks about his buddy using his sexual preferences as a tool?

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:40 PM
I wonder what DC thinks about his buddy using his sexual preferences as a tool?


Do you think he is using her as a tool or do you think kerry is?

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 10:42 PM
Do you think he is using her as a tool or do you think kerry is?
I meant Kerry.

However, your "Gracie Allen"-like statement opened all kinds of answers.

Hel'n
10-13-2004, 10:42 PM
I listened to the debate and found the reference to Cheney's daughter inoffensive. He made a point, using Bush's own point man. It was valid.

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 10:43 PM
Kerry should be embarrassed and apologize. He didn't need to mention her by name. It was clearly a political move.

However, I do find it stupid when these political talking heads say "I was offended by Kerry mentioning that Cheney's daughter was gay". No you weren't.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 10:44 PM
I listened to the debate and found the reference to Cheney's daughter inoffensive. He made a point, using Bush's own point man. It was valid.
What was the point?

And how do you do that? Oh, yes, spin spin spin

stevieray
10-13-2004, 10:46 PM
What was the point?

he gets a free pass.

Joe Seahawk
10-13-2004, 10:47 PM
It certainly didn't offend me, but I'll bet the Cheney family (especially Mary) is pretty pissed, and rightfully so IMO.

The fact that he brought up Mary's sexual preference is totally classless, but I'm not suprised..

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:48 PM
I meant Kerry.

However, your "Gracie Allen"-like statement opened all kinds of answers.


It did?

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:49 PM
I listened to the debate and found the reference to Cheney's daughter inoffensive. He made a point, using Bush's own point man. It was valid.


Just bringing her up is the issue.

Hel'n
10-13-2004, 10:50 PM
Just bringing her up is the issue.

Well, then stay out of politics...

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:50 PM
It certainly didn't offend me, but I'll bet the Cheney family (especially Mary) is pretty pissed, and rightfully so IMO.

The fact that he brought up Mary's sexual preference is totally classless, but I'm not suprised..

Sad isn't? That is what this campign by the Dems is about.

jettio
10-13-2004, 10:51 PM
That kind of reminded me of that Dave Chappelle show skit where one character said that Rosie O'Donnell wears underwear that has dickholes in'em. ROFL :) ROFL

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:51 PM
Well, then stay out of politics...

You don't bring that up. If you want to show you are classy you don't do that.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 10:52 PM
Well, then stay out of politics...
Again, what was the point? Surely you can enlighten us? I missed the point of using the name Mary Cheney. What was it?

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:55 PM
Again, what was the point? Surely you can enlighten us? I missed the point of using the name Mary Cheney. What was it?


It's funny how they are like that? Don't you agree?

Hel'n
10-13-2004, 10:56 PM
Again, what was the point? Surely you can enlighten us? I missed the point of using the name Mary Cheney. What was it?

I believe the point was to give the discussion of gay marriage a human face... and point up the disagreement which the WH faces within itself between Cheney and Bush... as they do disagree on gay marriage, though Cheney tows the party line...

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 10:57 PM
I believe the point was to give the discussion of gay marriage a human face... and point up the disagreement which the WH faces within itself between Cheney and Bush... as they do disagree on gay marriage, though Cheney tows the party line...

But don't briing her up. I bet he doesn't even know her on a personel level. That is cold.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 10:59 PM
I believe the point was to give the discussion of gay marriage a human face... and point up the disagreement which the WH faces within itself between Cheney and Bush... as they do disagree on gay marriage, though Cheney tows the party line...
So, it was to show that the POTUS and VPOTUS disagreed on a point and the VPOTUS was doing the job he is paid to do.

I still don't see the point.

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:00 PM
It's to make it looks like Cheney doesn't care enough about his daughter's sexuality to take Bush on in regards to this issue. I agree though that it's very much a low-blow and should be off-topic.

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 11:01 PM
So, it was to show that the POTUS and VPOTUS disagreed on a point and the VPOTUS was doing the job he is paid to do.

I still don't see the point.


NOt cool to do something like that. yeah they don't agree but don't do anything like that.

Hel'n
10-13-2004, 11:02 PM
Chicago, Illinois) GOP Senate Candidate Allan Keyes Monday night refused to answer questions about a growing number of rumors that his daughter is a lesbian.

Keyes, a Marylander who was parachuted into the race for the seat from Illinois, has been on the constant attack against gay issues and specifically same-sex marriage.

At the Republican National Convention in New York Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." He made the remarks in a radio interview conducted by 365Gay.com's Michelangelo Signorile. (story)

Signorile then asked Keyes whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

He then went on another talk show to say, "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."

But for more than a week Web blogs have been filled with reports that Keyes' 19 year old daughter Maya is gay and out. One blog has what is reported to be entries by Maya Keyes. But, so far she has not publicly stated the entries are indeed hers, or that she is or is not a lesbian.

At a Town Hall meeting Monday night on Chicago's Southside reporters were almost as numerous as members of the black community members who came to hear him speak.

Keyes did not mention the growing attention his daughter is receiving but did attack his Democratic opponent Barack Obama's recent clarification that he was opposed to same sex marriages, but opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and would accept civil unions. (story)

Keyes took questions from the audience but rebuffed questions from the media.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/092804keyes.htm

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:03 PM
It's to make it looks like Cheney doesn't care enough about his daughter's sexuality to take Bush on in regards to this issue. I agree though that it's very much a low-blow and should be off-topic.
Damn, even the people from Hel'n's own party disagree with her on this one.

That is all I saw, a deliberate attempt at humiliation. Hopefully some agencies will display it exactly for what it truly was instead of the weak excuse Heln used.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:05 PM
Chicago, Illinois) GOP Senate Candidate Allan Keyes Monday night refused to answer questions about a growing number of rumors that his daughter is a lesbian.

Keyes, a Marylander who was parachuted into the race for the seat from Illinois, has been on the constant attack against gay issues and specifically same-sex marriage.

At the Republican National Convention in New York Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." He made the remarks in a radio interview conducted by 365Gay.com's Michelangelo Signorile. (story)

Signorile then asked Keyes whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

He then went on another talk show to say, "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."

But for more than a week Web blogs have been filled with reports that Keyes' 19 year old daughter Maya is gay and out. One blog has what is reported to be entries by Maya Keyes. But, so far she has not publicly stated the entries are indeed hers, or that she is or is not a lesbian.

At a Town Hall meeting Monday night on Chicago's Southside reporters were almost as numerous as members of the black community members who came to hear him speak.

Keyes did not mention the growing attention his daughter is receiving but did attack his Democratic opponent Barack Obama's recent clarification that he was opposed to same sex marriages, but opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and would accept civil unions. (story)

Keyes took questions from the audience but rebuffed questions from the media.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/092804keyes.htm
Thanks for proving our point. Only an agendist like Signorile would ask a question like that to attempt to disrupt relationships.

Hel'n
10-13-2004, 11:05 PM
Cheney's Gay Marriage Comments Draw Fire
By: TODD DVORAK (Tue, Aug/24/2004)


DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying "freedom means freedom for everyone," when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.

Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.

"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."

Addressing Bush's position on the amendment, Cheney said: "At this point, say, my own preference is as I've stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Those comments drew criticism from the conservative Family Research Council, with President Tony Perkins saying: "I find it hard to believe the vice president would stray from the administration's position on defense policy or tax policy. For many pro-family voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy and job creation as a campaign issue."

Perkins added that if Cheney sees a problem with activist judges, "then how can he not endorse the same solution the president and his pro-family allies have proposed? We urge Vice President Cheney to support President Bush and a constitutional amendment on marriage."

Steven Fisher, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, said Cheney's remarks show a stark difference with Bush's efforts "to put discrimination in the Constitution."

"President Bush is feeling the heat. The administration has been using gay Americans to drive a wedge into the electorate. There are millions of American families who have gay family members and friends, who are offended by the president's use of discrimination," Fisher said.

Last month, Lynne Cheney said states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships, a comment that came just days before the Senate failed to back the ban.

Cheney said the amendment did not have the votes to pass, but he also said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law in 1996, may be enough.

"Most states have addressed this and there is on the books the federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, and to date, it has not been successfully challenged in the courts and may be sufficient to resolve the issue," the vice president said.

The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom are working on the campaign. Mary Cheney is director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 midterm elections.

During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.

Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose the amendment. The Democratic candidates also oppose gay marriage, but defend a gay couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article's URL:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/32-08242004-354312.html

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:06 PM
Damn, even the people from Hel'n's own party disagree with her on this one.

I'm not a democrat. How many times must I say that?

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:07 PM
I'm not a democrat. How many times must I say that?
Yeah, I know and TJ is not a liberal and SD is not a conservative.

Taco John
10-13-2004, 11:07 PM
What was low and what was blow about it?

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:08 PM
Hel'n that is a lot of links and still no real answer to the question.....

You aren't spin spin spinning, are you?

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 11:08 PM
I'm not a democrat. How many times must I say that?


Just wanted to let you know I was not trying to cover up Hannity's name.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:09 PM
What was low and what was blow about it?
What was the reason to mention it?

6 Iron
10-13-2004, 11:09 PM
Both Edwards and Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney felt contrived, although Kerry sounded more genuine than Edwards. This was clearly a political decision. I do not believe it was to simply highlight a point of distinction between Cheney and Bush, but rather an attempt to perhaps "educate" some of the Bush supporters that are anti-gay enough to weaken their support.

Taco John
10-13-2004, 11:09 PM
I'm not a democrat. How many times must I say that?


You're not a part of the herd, and therefore you are a liberal piece of shat...

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 11:09 PM
What was low and what was blow about it?


Denver and the Chiefs blowing by them.

stevieray
10-13-2004, 11:10 PM
You're not a part of the herd, and therefore you are a liberal piece of shat...

irony.

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:11 PM
Yeah, I know and TJ is not a liberal and SD is not a conservative.

You're telling ME what I am?

I have no political affiliation, and I wasn't aware that voting for a particular canidate automatically made you a member of that party. If that is the case, then SD would happen to be a conservative, as he's voting Bush, eventhough he says he's a member of the Democratic party.

Hel'n
10-13-2004, 11:13 PM
You're telling ME what I am?


Don't take it personal. He tells EVERYBODY what they are...

It's just his way...

:shake:

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:13 PM
You're not a part of the herd, and therefore you are a liberal piece of shat...

Seems like that's how you get treated 'round here. :p

RINGLEADER
10-13-2004, 11:15 PM
I listened to the debate and found the reference to Cheney's daughter inoffensive. He made a point, using Bush's own point man. It was valid.


I thought it was unnecessary. I don't know if it's a valid point or not, but I do hear on all the channels that it seems to be the hot topic of conversation.

Joe Seahawk
10-13-2004, 11:15 PM
Both Edwards and Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney felt contrived, although Kerry sounded more genuine than Edwards. This was clearly a political decision. I do not believe it was to simply highlight a point of distinction between Cheney and Bush, but rather an attempt to perhaps "educate" some of the Bush supporters that are anti-gay enough to weaken their support.

Zactly.. Thank you 6 iron for very accurately describing IMO Kerry's sleazy motives.

the Talking Can
10-13-2004, 11:15 PM
Republicans love scorched earth tactics....too late now for crocodile tears, especially when Rove is on your side.

Kerry stated a fact that pointed out tangibly how Bush's desires to burn the constitution would hit home. Tough, but fair.

That fact republicans are crying about this tells me that Kerry won the debate....again.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:16 PM
You're telling ME what I am?

I have no political affiliation, and I wasn't aware that voting for a particular canidate automatically made you a member of that party. If that is the case, then SD would happen to be a conservative, as he's voting Bush, eventhough he says he's a member of the Democratic party.
Dur

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:17 PM
Dur

Would you mind someone calling you a liberal d3mocrat?

RINGLEADER
10-13-2004, 11:18 PM
Kerry should be embarrassed and apologize. He didn't need to mention her by name. It was clearly a political move.

However, I do find it stupid when these political talking heads say "I was offended by Kerry mentioning that Cheney's daughter was gay". No you weren't.


I wasn't offended, but listening on the radio it came across as a parlour trick. I could just imagine his expression being the same one he delivered during his late-night rebuttal to the GOP convention when he paused in faux-reflection while saying "Well, I'll just let the American people decide if..........five deferments or two tours of duty make you more fit to be commander in chief" followed by his smug nodding.

That didn't really offend me either, but it (along with his minions threatening everyone who's against them of how bad it will be for "them" if the Kerry team wins) reminds me of just how politically petty this man is.

RINGLEADER
10-13-2004, 11:19 PM
That kind of reminded me of that Dave Chappelle show skit where one character said that Rosie O'Donnell wears underwear that has dickholes in'em. ROFL :) ROFL


I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with anything related to this topic but you get four ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL plus an additional :thumb: for managing to get the word "dickholes" into a thread about Kerry talking about lesbians.

RINGLEADER
10-13-2004, 11:21 PM
Chicago, Illinois) GOP Senate Candidate Allan Keyes Monday night refused to answer questions about a growing number of rumors that his daughter is a lesbian.

Keyes, a Marylander who was parachuted into the race for the seat from Illinois, has been on the constant attack against gay issues and specifically same-sex marriage.

At the Republican National Convention in New York Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." He made the remarks in a radio interview conducted by 365Gay.com's Michelangelo Signorile. (story)

Signorile then asked Keyes whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

He then went on another talk show to say, "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."

But for more than a week Web blogs have been filled with reports that Keyes' 19 year old daughter Maya is gay and out. One blog has what is reported to be entries by Maya Keyes. But, so far she has not publicly stated the entries are indeed hers, or that she is or is not a lesbian.

At a Town Hall meeting Monday night on Chicago's Southside reporters were almost as numerous as members of the black community members who came to hear him speak.

Keyes did not mention the growing attention his daughter is receiving but did attack his Democratic opponent Barack Obama's recent clarification that he was opposed to same sex marriages, but opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and would accept civil unions. (story)

Keyes took questions from the audience but rebuffed questions from the media.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/092804keyes.htm

Good job spreading the love Hel'n! :thumb:

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:21 PM
I personally didn't think much of Kerry mentioning it, as I've been following the whole race and have heard her name mentioned before, but I can see how it can strike someone if they had just heard it for the first time.

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 11:22 PM
It is a low blow and not called for. Kerry does not have a plan and does not have class.

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:24 PM
Would you mind someone calling you a liberal d3mocrat?
Guy, go back and read some of your posts from only a few weeks ago. You attacked anyone who stated anything (reasonable or not) regarding the POTUS.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but you certainly drew your own picture you presented.

RINGLEADER
10-13-2004, 11:28 PM
It is a low blow and not called for. Kerry does not have a plan and does not have class.


Kerry doesn't need to actually have a plan. He just needs to say he's for every side of every issue, ready to spend more than Bush, promise to also cut the deficit and, once elected, pull a Clinton and explain he just didn't realize how bad it was and now he can't give everyone the tax relief he promised.

The corporate tax decrease he's promising? Forget about it - but he will keep the double-taxation of foreign corps in place I'm sure.

I'm sure he'll raise capital gains taxes in an attempt to duplicate what was the main source of the much-touted budget "surplus" that never really actually existed (except for a couple of years when there was about $300 billion in additional cg taxes from all the trading imminenating from the dot-com bubble).

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:28 PM
Guy, go back and read some of your posts from only a few weeks ago. You attacked anyone who stated anything (reasonable or not) regarding the POTUS.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but you certainly drew your own picture you presented.

Instead of making me go and find posts, how about you go do that, seeing as you seem to remember posts made by me and afterall, you're the one making the claim.

If you're just trying to say that I've backed Kerry more on this board than Bush, you're right. I have. So what? I've already explained why, and contrary to what you think, not liking Bush doesn't make you a Democrat. It just means you don't like Bush.

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 11:29 PM
Kerry doesn't need to actually have a plan. He just needs to say he's for every side of every issue, ready to spend more than Bush, promise to also cut the deficit and, once elected, pull a Clinton and explain he just didn't realize how bad it was and now he can't give everyone the tax relief he promised.

The corporate tax decrease he's promising? Forget about it - but he will keep the double-taxation of foreign corps in place I'm sure.

I'm sure he'll raise capital gains taxes in an attempt to duplicate what was the main source of the much-touted budget "surplus" that never really actually existed (except for a couple of years when there was about $300 billion in additional cg taxes from all the trading imminenating from the dot-com bubble).


You hit the head of the nail right there..

KCWolfman
10-13-2004, 11:31 PM
Instead of making me go and find posts, how about you go do that, seeing as you seem to remember posts made by me and afterall, you're the one making the claim.

If you're just trying to say that I've backed Kerry more on this board than Bush, you're right. I have. So what? I've already explained why, and contrary to what you think, not liking Bush doesn't make you a Democrat. It just means you don't like Bush.
There is a huge difference between not liking a candidate and attacking a base who support that candidate.

Now before someone goes off an accuses me of such, I know I am guilty. And I don't mind fessing up to my party line for it.

If you are an independent, you display it very poorly.

KingPriest2
10-13-2004, 11:33 PM
There is a huge difference between not liking a candidate and attacking a base who support that candidate.

Now before someone goes off an accuses me of such, I know I am guilty. And I don't mind fessing up to my party line for it.

If you are an independent, you display it very poorly.


I think that speaks for many people which is sad.

HolmeZz
10-13-2004, 11:39 PM
There is a huge difference between not liking a candidate and attacking a base who support that candidate.

Now before someone goes off an accuses me of such, I know I am guilty. And I don't mind fessing up to my party line for it.

If you are an independent, you display it very poorly.

Since you've already admitted to being a hypocrite...

Show me where I went out of my way to attack the Republican base, because most of the time I'm just replying to insults I get hurled at me for being pro-Kerry this election.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 12:03 AM
What was the reason to mention it?



That's a good diversion to answer a question with a question... But try to answer it without diversion...

What was low, and what was blow?

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 12:07 AM
That's a good diversion to answer a question with a question... But try to answer it without diversion...

What was low, and what was blow?
I never state it was. Perhaps you should ask the person who posed the statement?

So you have no real reason why he presented it. The only thing I can think of is to personalize the situation and attempt to show a rift between the POTUS and VPOTUS while securing the homosexual vote by showing his compassionate side. Ah, well, you are right, at least he didn't use a dead body like Edwards.

listopencil
10-14-2004, 12:46 AM
Chicago, Illinois) GOP Senate Candidate Allan Keyes Monday night refused to answer questions about a growing number of rumors that his daughter is a lesbian.




OK, once again-If the girl is hot and she's a lesbian, I'm all for it. I would not mind seeing pics. Perhaps if his daughter was that young black girl (Alicia Keyes?) who played piano in a video a while back and sang really well in a bluesy kind of way. She's pretty hot. If the lesbians aren't at all attractive (probably this guy's daughter) then I just don't care. It's not important what the unattractive lesbians do. Leave them alone.


As for Kerry's coment-it was a debate trick. Or, more precisely, a lawyer trick. He was speaking about Cheney's daughter with a sort of familiarity that he doesn't enjoy. He was trying to make a comment with subtext that he didn't have the balls to make overtly. That's the problem I have with his statement. Not a big one, but it made me grimace at the time and think less of him.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 12:50 AM
I'll agree that it was trite.

But "low blow?"

Sounds like some fake outrage to me... That's been common among the herd lately...

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 12:53 AM
I'll agree that it was trite.

But "low blow?"

Sounds like some fake outrage to me... That's been common among the herd lately...
One person is a herd?

Phobia
10-14-2004, 12:54 AM
Responding to the original topic; I could give a shit. I don't get all uppity about such things. If I'm wanting to go the controversy route, it had better be for something worthwhile.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 12:57 AM
One person is a herd?


No. Herd generally denotes that there is more than one...

Frankie
10-14-2004, 01:00 AM
(Not having read the replies) I thought the comment by Kerry was borderline in appropriateness. But it was honest and meant to make a point. It was also designed to put the bible clutching faction of Bush/Cheney supporters on the spot, in that they would have to cast a hypocritical vote if they voted for them. That said, I suspect Kerry will issue some sort of acknowledgement or apology tomorrow. Maybe directed at Mary Cheney only.

BTW, Kingpriest, there is no lower bottom feeder than Dick Morris. His indignation don't mean crap to me.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 07:15 AM
(Not having read the replies) I thought the comment by Kerry was borderline in appropriateness. But it was honest and meant to make a point. It was also designed to put the bible clutching faction of Bush/Cheney supporters on the spot, in that they would have to cast a hypocritical vote if they voted for them. That said, I suspect Kerry will issue some sort of acknowledgement or apology tomorrow. Maybe directed at Mary Cheney only.

BTW, Kingpriest, there is no lower bottom feeder than Dick Morris. His indignation don't mean crap to me.

Mary Cheney appears as a public figure. She is active in her father's campaign. She is active in gay issues. This is an attempt to deflect FROM the gay issue itself. :rolleyes:

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 07:20 AM
So, it was to show that the POTUS and VPOTUS disagreed on a point and the VPOTUS was doing the job he is paid to do.

I still don't see the point.
My take was that both he and Edwards mentioned her in the debates in hopes of dispiriting a section of Bush's base. That they'd somehow hold the fact that Cheney's daughter is gay against the ticket.

"You think Bush is a holy man? Well his VP has a gay daughter!!! How 'bout that??"

MonicaLewinski
10-14-2004, 07:21 AM
Someone say "blow?"

jcl-kcfan2
10-14-2004, 07:31 AM
I believe the point was to give the discussion of gay marriage a human face... and point up the disagreement which the WH faces within itself between Cheney and Bush... as they do disagree on gay marriage, though Cheney tows the party line...


So, what has Cheney's daughter openly said about wanting to get married?

That is what the subject was, not who has a gay relative.

It was OFF-ISSUE and very low-class, and you say you are good with "low-class".

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 07:36 AM
It was also designed to put the bible clutching faction of Bush/Cheney supporters on the spot, in that they would have to cast a hypocritical vote if they voted for them.
But it is telling that Kerry would play to that. He doesn't mind bigotry against teh gheys, so long as it's useful to him.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:00 AM
My take was that both he and Edwards mentioned her in the debates in hopes of dispiriting a section of Bush's base. That they'd somehow hold the fact that Cheney's daughter is gay against the ticket.

"You think Bush is a holy man? Well his VP has a gay daughter!!! How 'bout that??"

Not to 'dispirit' but to once again illustrate the hyocricy of some who to make exception/take exception when they are personally involved in an issue. Being gay is 'wrong' except if it's your own child, having an abortion is wrong unless it's your daughter, stem cell research is wrong until it's your mother or father who have alzheimers...

Kerry nor Edwards 'outed' the woman as she is OPENLY gay. Cheney accepting his daughter and wanting her to have equal protections under the law puts him in direct conflict with what his party believes is moral.

penchief
10-14-2004, 08:02 AM
I agree that this was inappropriate and it made me feel very uncomfortable. Having said that, It's not a big issue at all. It was simply a case of framing his argument poorly. He should have said, "If you ask someone that is gay, including the vice-president's daughter, they will tell you that they feel they are being who they are." That would have been much less controversial and accomplished the same thing. It was clearly a case of bad manners. I squirmed in my chair when it happened.

Yes, he wanted to turn Bush's appeal to evangelicals and social control freaks back on Bush & Cheney. It is the right-wing in this country that wants to use cultural issues that directly affect the personal lives of many Americans as a wedge to divide this country. It is the Bush White House that continues to bring up gay marriage every time they need a diversion. Abortion, The Ten Commandments, and other issues are on their way. It is only fair that those who pay lip service to issues that divide for political gain have those tactics turned back on them. In this case, it is one thing to appeal to a fundamental bias against gay Americans but it is another to do so while the vice president, himself, has a gay daughter. Those who harbor biases against gay Americans should be fully aware that there may be a non-believer in their ranks.

The more I think about last night's debate the more I think one of Kerry's strategies was to throw a monkey-wrench in Bush's appeal to his evangelical and socially conservative base. He did this by pointing out that even the most staunch conservatives tolerate gay behavior in THEIR OWN FAMILY. Why can't they tolerate it in somebody else's?

This, coupled with Kerry's ability to get Bush to waffle on the assault weapons ban and abortion may have succeeded in making Bush & Cheney look less convincing in the eyes of many single issue voters who could go the other way (no pun intended) if their uncertainty about their convictions causes them to incorporate the last four years into their decision-making process. At the same time, Bush probably looked disingenous in his attempts to answer those questions while trying to give an answer that would not alienate the mainstream or his base.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:10 AM
Hum, interesting take from one of the leading gay voices of the conservative movement: Andrew Sullivan, www.andrewsullivan.com, of whom I hardly EVER agree with on anything.

SOMETHING ABOUT MARY: I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good. It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It's an attack on all families with gay members - and on the family as an institution. That's a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush's record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 08:13 AM
Being gay is 'wrong' except if it's your own child
. . . pointing out that even the most staunch conservatives tolerate gay behavior in THEIR OWN FAMILY. Why can't they tolerate it in somebody else's?
Stop it NOW. Stop trying to conflate the gay marriage issue, with the issue of tolerance. The only one intoning intolerance for gays was Kerry.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:15 AM
Stop it NOW. Stop trying to conflate the gay marriage issue, with the issue of tolerance. The only one intoning intolerance for gays was Kerry.

Really? They are the ones who have OPENLY said they support civil unions and they are being supported in increasing numbers by Republican gays. How is that they are 'intoning intolerance' for gays?

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 08:20 AM
Really? They are the ones who have OPENLY said they support civil unions and they are being supported in increasing numbers by Republican gays. How is that they are 'intoning intolerance' for gays?
By mentioning Cheney's daughter in an effort to dispirit the intolerant.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:31 AM
By mentioning Cheney's daughter in an effort to dispirit the intolerant.

BS. He mentioned her because the Con policy is to deny their existance at best and deny their rights at worst as Andrew Sullivan opines regularly.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 08:41 AM
BS. He mentioned her because the Con policy is to deny their existance at best and deny their rights at worst as Andrew Sullivan opines regularly.
BS - Aside from the issue of defining marriage as between a man and woman, a position popular throughout the populace, regardless of political affiliation, the Bush admin has done no such thing. It'd be convenient for your stereotyping if they did. Too bad for you, though.

Donger
10-14-2004, 08:43 AM
It was a cheap shot and certainly below Kerry's talent, no matter how you try to justify it.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 08:52 AM
Kerry nor Edwards 'outed' the woman as she is OPENLY gay. Cheney accepting his daughter and wanting her to have equal protections under the law puts him in direct conflict with what his party believes is moral.

To the Bush voter demographic, something like 75% of whom answered "Bush" to the question, "Which candidate supports access to cheaper drugs from Canada" that's a big 'OUTING.' Wouldn't you agree?

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:52 AM
BS - Aside from the issue of defining marriage as between a man and woman, a position popular throughout the populace, regardless of political affiliation, the Bush admin has done no such thing. It'd be convenient for your stereotyping if they did. Too bad for you, though.

They are trying to amend the freakin constitution...

no, they have no overt policy of being anti-gay. ROFL ROFL

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 08:57 AM
They are trying to amend the freakin constitution...

no, they have no overt policy of being anti-gay. ROFL ROFL
Are you actually a simpleton, or do you just play one on this board?

Frankie
10-14-2004, 08:57 AM
It was a cheap shot and certainly below Kerry's talent, no matter how you try to justify it.

Thanks for acknowledging his talent. That said, we have heard all along that Kerry IS very capable of taking his gloves off in any fight. He tried not to earlier in the campaign but the opponent has consistantly shown that virtually NOTHING is off limit.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:00 AM
Are you actually a simpleton, or do you just play one on this board? Do you actually have your head in the sand or are you just pretending?

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/press_100504.html

News Release
October 05, 2004

Chairman Edward Gillespie
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003


Dear Chairman Gillespie:

I am writing on behalf of Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans; including the 1,000,000 gays and lesbians who voted for President George W. Bush in 2000. On a personal note, I write you as a fellow Republican, fellow Catholic and fellow graduate of Catholic University. I write specifically regarding recent anti-gay tactics being employed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and a number of GOP campaigns. While Log Cabin is busy supporting dozens of fair-minded Republican candidates for House and Senate, as well as numerous inclusive local and state candidates, and working hard to build a sustainable majority party, some in our party and at the RNC are working to knock down the Republican Big Tent. Appealing to people's anti-gay animus as a campaign strategy betrays the legacy of President Ronald Reagan who always sought to appeal to the best hopes of the American people not their worst fears.

The RNC itself has admitted to sending mailers to voters in Arkansas and West Virginia (a copy of which is attached hereto) that seek to equate the recognition of gay and lesbian families with banning the Bible. This dishonest and disgraceful mailing represents a new low in this election cycle.

On Sunday night in South Carolina, we saw another betrayal of the legacy of President Reagan. Republican Senate hopeful Jim DeMint, during a debate with his Democratic opponent Inez Tenenbaum, said that he believes gays and lesbians should be barred from teaching in the public school system (a copy of a news article detailing this is attached hereto). In 1977, Log Cabin was founded after Ronald Reagan courageously opposed the Briggs Initiative, which sought to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in the California public schools.

In Ohio, Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, claims that the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign has asked him to coordinate the effort to write discrimination into the Ohio Constitution (a copy of a letter from Mr. Blackwell is attached hereto). This claim is especially troubling, considering that Mr. Blackwell is the official charged with verifying whether or not the Amendment supporters have gathered the requisite signatures to place it on the November ballot. Like so many state amendments, the proposed Ohio amendment goes much further than simply defining marriage; it specifically seeks to deny civil unions or, indeed, any domestic partner benefits. Such an Amendment runs contrary to what the overwhelming majority of Americans believes. Such an Amendment runs contrary to President Bush's position on this issue, and is opposed by Ohio's Republican Attorney General, Jim Petro.

In North Dakota, Mike Liffrig, our party's U. S. Senate nominee, has run a dishonest and vicious anti-gay television commercial that seeks to play on anti-gay sentiment by mischaracterizing his opponent's position on the Federal Marriage Amendment (the ad can be viewed at his website www.mike4senate.com). Opposing the anti-family FMA is the position embraced by Senator John McCain, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor George Pataki, and Vice President Dick Cheney; all of whom spoke in primetime at the Republican National Convention.

In Florida, Mel Martinez used anti-gay tactics against a fellow Republican in his campaign for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination. Late in his primary race against former Congressman Bill McCollum, Martinez criticized his opponent for supporting hate crimes legislation meant to protect gay and lesbian Americans. Martinez sent out direct mail referring to McCollum's support for hate crimes legislation as appeasing "the radical homosexual lobby." Former Republican Senator Connie Mack (FL) referred to Martinez's accusations as "hate speech."

In August, we wrote to you requesting that the RNC establish an outreach group for gays and lesbians. The RNC website lists 38 separate outreach groups including: Haitian Americans, Conservative Punk, Lebanese Americans, Home Schoolers, and Snowmobilers. No outreach group is provided for the 1,000,000 gays and lesbians who supported our President in 2000.

Finally, gay and lesbian Republicans watched as the Platform Committee drafted a platform that seeks to marginalize gay and lesbian families. The platform language is far out of step with mainstream America. It not only calls for a divisive Constitutional amendment, which bans same-sex civil marriage and civil unions, but also seeks to bar any legal recognition whatsoever for gay and lesbian families. This platform also states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." This claim is a slap in the face to the thousands of gays and lesbians who serve with distinction in our military today. This platform is an insult to the millions of fair minded Republicans who make the GOP our nation's majority party.

Chairman Gillespie, you have an obligation as the leader of our party to stand up for the millions of fair-minded Republicans across this country that you are supposed to represent. You have a moral and ethical duty to speak out against the politics of fear and division. Mr. Chairman, there are many important issues that are being debated this election cycle, and using anti-gay scare tactics only serves to distract American voters from the real issues. If you believe, as we do, that the Republican Party truly is the party best equipped to win the war on terror, reform government and strengthen our economy then you should make it clear that there is no room in a legitimate public discourse for this type of fear-mongering.

The American people deserve better, and our Party deserves better.

Sincerely,


Patrick Guerriero
Executive Director
Log Cabin Republicans

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:02 AM
Are you actually a simpleton, or do you just play one on this board?

OK BL, please tell me how your post here is a viable reply to a very viable point.

Here's the point you replied to:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by memyselfI
They are trying to amend the freakin constitution...

no, they have no overt policy of being anti-gay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donger
10-14-2004, 09:03 AM
Thanks for acknowledging his talent. That said, we have heard all along that Kerry IS very capable of taking his gloves off in any fight. He tried not to earlier in the campaign but the opponent has consistantly shown that virtually NOTHING is off limit.

It was a mistake. Go back and look at Kerry's face immediately after he said it.

He knew it was a mistake right away, IMO.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 09:04 AM
OK BL, please tell me how your post here is a viable reply to a very viable point.

Here's the point you replied to:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by memyselfI
They are trying to amend the freakin constitution...

no, they have no overt policy of being anti-gay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough, seeking to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman is not anti-gay.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:06 AM
It was a mistake. Go back and look at Kerry's face immediately after he said it.

He knew it was a mistake right away, IMO.

He knew it would be spun and the point he was making would be lost. That is the mistake but his point is very valid. He answered the question by stating that people who are in situations where being gay would be convenient if it were a choice are troubled and forced to deal with consequences because it's not.

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:08 AM
Easy enough, seeking to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman is not anti-gay.


The Constitution is not about restricting rights... The last time we tried that it was called "Prohibition"... and before that it was that blacks counted as 3/5th's of a person...

Every time the Constitution has been "used" to restrict people, we ALL lose...

Donger
10-14-2004, 09:08 AM
He knew it would be spun and the point he was making would be lost. That is the mistake but his point is very valid. He answered the question by stating that people who are in situations where being gay would be convenient if it were a choice are troubled and forced to deal with consequences because it's not.

Speaking of spinning, that freakin' web of yours must be huge by now.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:08 AM
Easy enough, seeking to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman is not anti-gay.

Yes, it is. It's saying that that issue is so severe, the consequences so dire, that society is so negatively impacted that the only way to ensure it's correction is for the constitution to be amended to fix it.

penchief
10-14-2004, 09:09 AM
Stop it NOW. Stop trying to conflate the gay marriage issue, with the issue of tolerance. The only one intoning intolerance for gays was Kerry.

The intentional efforts of the White House to invoke gay marriage as an election year issue (and a tried and true diversionary tactic) has been a deliberate attempt to appeal to a findamental bias and an exhibited intolerance for gay Americans that much of the conservative base harbors. Karl Rove believes it is a winning strategy along with other cultural issues such as abortion and The Ten Commandments. Their attempts to energize their evangelical base is an appeal to that fundamental bias for political gain.

So, while gay marriage is specifically the issue. It is also the bait that the White House uses to invoke that bias they hope ultimately delivers them the single-issue voters they need to win. So in a way, it is about tolerance and how intolerance is used as a divisive issue.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 09:10 AM
The Constitution is not about restricting rights...
Defining marriage as between a man and woman doesn't restrict anyone's rights. We've had this discussion before and I'm not rehashing it because people pretend to forget.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:11 AM
Speaking of spinning, that freakin' web of yours must be huge by now.

Mary Cheney is openly gay and has campaigned for gay causes. She was a chairman of an organization who lobbied for gay issues until she took a job for BC04 and then quit and went back to her silence of the 2000 campaign. To act like her sexuality is a well kept secret is a joke. She is part of the gay community who work to lessen the stigma and the discrimination of her sexuality.

This is just a way to divert attention from the fact that DUHbya couldn't or wouldn't answer the question when Kerry DID. :hmmm:

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:11 AM
Defining marriage as between a man and woman doesn't restrict anyone's rights. We've had this discussion before and I'm not rehashing it because people pretend to forget.

Show me an example in the Constitution where we've defined a cultural institution into law?

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:11 AM
The Constitution is not about restricting rights... The last time we tried that it was called "Prohibition"... and before that it was that blacks counted as 3/5th's of a person...

Every time the Constitution has been "used" to restrict people, we ALL lose...

How dare you make valid points, Hel'n? ;)

Chief Henry
10-14-2004, 09:12 AM
It certainly didn't offend me, but I'll bet the Cheney family (especially Mary) is pretty pissed, and rightfully so IMO.

The fact that he brought up Mary's sexual preference is totally classless, but I'm not suprised..


It didn't offend me either, but, what if President Bush brought up
a lesbian daughter of JK? The CNN's of the world would be demanding an apology...

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 09:12 AM
The intentional efforts of the White House to invoke gay marriage as an election year issue
Massachussetts and SF made it an election year issue, not the Bush admin. We'll never know if they'd have brought it up anyway. I'm not gonna presume that they would've.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 09:12 AM
BS. He mentioned her because the Con policy is to deny their existance at best and deny their rights at worst as Andrew Sullivan opines regularly.
So you are stating he noted Mary Cheney to show the Republicans hide from homosexuals and he was too scared to say so openly?

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:12 AM
Defining marriage as between a man and woman doesn't restrict anyone's rights. We've had this discussion before and I'm not rehashing it because people pretend to forget.

No defining it in Webster's doesn't. Amending the constitution to 'define' it does.

Donger
10-14-2004, 09:13 AM
Show me an example in the Constitution where we've defined a cultural institution into law?

19th Amendment, and it should be repealed.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:13 AM
Massachussetts and SF made it an election year issue, not the Bush admin. We'll never know if they'd have brought it up anyway. I'm not gonna presume that they would've.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:13 AM
The intentional efforts of the White House to invoke gay marriage as an election year issue (and a tried and true diversionary tactic) has been a deliberate attempt to appeal to a findamental bias and an exhibited intolerance for gay Americans that much of the conservative base harbors. Karl Rove believes it is a winning strategy along with other cultural issues such as abortion and The Ten Commandments. Their attempts to energize their evangelical base is an appeal to that fundamental bias for political gain.

So, while gay marriage is specifically the issue. It is also the bait that the White House uses to invoke that bias they hope ultimately delivers them the single-issue voters they need to win. So in a way, it is about tolerance and how intolerance is used as a divisive issue.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

how convienant.

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:14 AM
The intentional efforts of the White House to invoke gay marriage as an election year issue (and a tried and true diversionary tactic) has been a deliberate attempt to appeal to a findamental bias and an exhibited intolerance for gay Americans that much of the conservative base harbors. Karl Rove believes it is a winning strategy along with other cultural issues such as abortion and The Ten Commandments. Their attempts to energize their evangelical base is an appeal to that fundamental bias for political gain.

So, while gay marriage is specifically the issue. It is also the bait that the White House uses to invoke that bias they hope ultimately delivers them the single-issue voters they need to win. So in a way, it is about tolerance and how intolerance is used as a divisive issue.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


"Tolerance" is like saying, "I put up with the fact that you exist."

"Acceptance" is like saying, "I embrace your existence as a valuable person in your own right."

That's the difference between Bush (Tolerance) and Kerry (Acceptance)...

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 09:14 AM
Show me an example in the Constitution where we've defined a cultural institution into law?
What does that have to do with my point?

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:14 AM
What does that have to do with my point?

Then you are totally missing the point...

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:14 AM
How dare you make valid points, Hel'n? ;)

Psst,... Hel'n. Let's see how long it takes for the first CP Bushy who's gonna spin this as my statement that your other points have not been valid. ;)

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:15 AM
So you are stating he noted Mary Cheney to show the Republicans hide from homosexuals and he was too scared to say so openly?

No, he stated it because he was illustrating that people who have every reason to 'choose' other wise if it were a choice DON'T because it's NOT. He later used the examples of people who are married to illustrate the same. It's not a matter of choice but of 'who they are.'

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 09:16 AM
The Constitution is not about restricting rights... The last time we tried that it was called "Prohibition"... and before that it was that blacks counted as 3/5th's of a person...

Every time the Constitution has been "used" to restrict people, we ALL lose...
You mean like the restriction of those under 18 to vote?
Or the denial of soldiers being housed during peace?
Or the denial of foreigners to hold high office?
Or the right for congress to enact taxation without direct consent of the people?
Or the denial of more than two terms as POTUS?

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:17 AM
19th Amendment, and it should be repealed.


Very funny. The amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Something that was being denied to a large group of citizens, eh?

OK, how would you have handled it? Maintained a disenfranchised group?

To me, that's not cultural... That's discrimination...

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:18 AM
You mean like the restriction of those under 18 to vote?
Or the denial of soldiers being housed during peace?
Or the denial of foreigners to hold high office?
Or the right for congress to enact taxation without direct consent of the people?
Or the denial of more than two terms as POTUS?

Those are NOT cultural institutions...

Those are laws insuring our rights as citizens to be free in our land...

For the record, the two terms thing for president is bull$hit...

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 09:18 AM
No, he stated it because he was illustrating that people who have every reason to 'choose' other wise if it were a choice DON'T because it's NOT. He later used the examples of people who are married to illustrate the same. It's not a matter of choice but of 'who they are.'
Who said a homosexual can't marry?

What you mean to say is that he is attempting to change the meanings of long held terms to benefit a small minority instead of creating new terms to assist those minorities.

And regardless, he attached the name of the VPOTUS daughter as a slam. It was in poor taste, but something I don't expect you to understand.

Donger
10-14-2004, 09:18 AM
Very funny. The amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Something that was being denied to a large group of citizens, eh?

OK, how would you have handled it? Maintained a disenfranchised group?

To me, that's not cultural... That's discrimination...

It
was
a
joke.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 09:19 AM
Those are NOT cultural institutions...

Those are laws insuring our rights as citizens to be free in our land...

For the record, the two terms thing for president is bull$hit...
Now you change your terms. That was not what you originally stated.

Donger
10-14-2004, 09:20 AM
Mary Cheney is openly gay and has campaigned for gay causes. She was a chairman of an organization who lobbied for gay issues until she took a job for BC04 and then quit and went back to her silence of the 2000 campaign. To act like her sexuality is a well kept secret is a joke. She is part of the gay community who work to lessen the stigma and the discrimination of her sexuality.

This is just a way to divert attention from the fact that DUHbya couldn't or wouldn't answer the question when Kerry DID. :hmmm:

Will you acknowledge that Kerry could have chosen any number of homosexuals to make his point, and that he chose to make Cheney's daughter as the example deliberately?

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 09:20 AM
"Tolerance" is like saying, "I put up with the fact that you exist."

"Acceptance" is like saying, "I embrace your existence as a valuable person in your own right."

That's the difference between Bush (Tolerance) and Kerry (Acceptance)...
Bull-fugging-shit. You have nothing to evidence this, but your own prejudices.

Heln'n harbors a deep and abiding hate of her fellow posters on chiefsplanet.

There, I've said it. It MUST be true.

jettio
10-14-2004, 09:21 AM
The GOP pressed to have state level constitutional amendments on the ballot in as many states as possible because they thought it would increase turnout among folks that might vote for their candidates as well.

I think Kerry was a little crass when he said that Mary Cheney snacked on carpet in the Lincoln Bedroom, but is that really as bad as the GOP multistate dildo slap in the face of Queer America.

GOP is gay-baiting and bashing.

I actually thought that John Edwards was more "ulterior motive slick" in bringing up the unshaved armpits in the VP debate than Kerry was.

Schieffer asked whether B*sh believed that people elected to be gay or not.

BTW, this thread is worthless without pics and really ought to be moved to the would you hit it thread?

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:25 AM
Will you acknowledge that Kerry could have chosen any number of homosexuals to make his point, and that he chose to make Cheney's daughter as the example deliberately?

Like who?

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:27 AM
Who said a homosexual can't marry?

What you mean to say is that he is attempting to change the meanings of long held terms to benefit a small minority instead of creating new terms to assist those minorities.

And regardless, he attached the name of the VPOTUS daughter as a slam. It was in poor taste, but something I don't expect you to understand.

It was not a slam. If it is a slam to say she's being who she is then that is a less than veiled attempt of saying she has something to hide or be ashamed of. :hmmm:

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:27 AM
Like who?

Melissa Ethridge, Ellen Degeneres....among others....

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:29 AM
It didn't offend me either, but, what if President Bush brought up
a lesbian daughter of JK? The CNN's of the world would be demanding an apology...

My good friend and ex-office mate Jeff, is very cool and open-minded. We joke a lot. Amongst our common needling is him calling me a "terrorist." I have absolutely no problem with that. But when my ex-boss or some stranger on this BB refered to me with similar words I was correctly defiant and angry because of their agenda. It's probably very offensive to gays when "conservatives" who have repeatedly demonstrated anti-gay agenda say it, but much less so when "liberals" who have historically supported equal rights do. So you are probably right that the other way around would have created a bigger buzz.

Donger
10-14-2004, 09:29 AM
Like who?

Wow.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:29 AM
Melissa Ethridge, Ellen Degeneres....among others....

and have they been politically active in the gay movement most of the time except when their advocacy could negatively impact their father's election/re-election chances?

The minute Mary Cheney became an advocate for the cause she becomes someone of whom is open for discussion...by HER CHOICE. She has stood up and said she's gay, she's proud, and she wants to work for the cause.

To then pretend she's off limits is ridiculous.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:31 AM
and have they been politically active in the gay movement most of the time except when their advocacy could negatively impact their father's election/re-election chances?

Movin' the target, eh? I see why you and jettio are the laughing stocks around here....

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:33 AM
Movin' the target, eh? I see why you and jettio are the laughing stocks around here....

The minute Mary Cheney became an advocate for the cause she becomes someone of whom is open for discussion...by HER CHOICE. She has stood up and said she's gay, she's proud, and she wants to work for the cause.

To then pretend she's off limits is ridiculous.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:33 AM
Melissa Ethridge, Ellen Degeneres....among others....

Do you know for a fact if they are Rebublican lesbians?

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:34 AM
Do you know for a fact if they are Rebublican lesbians?

Eh, I forgot Frankie....the third of the three stooges.....

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:36 AM
Movin' the target, eh? I see why you and jettio are the laughing stocks around here....

Damn.

it only matters that she is a republican, pavlov's litter will spend all day giving sKerry a free pass.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:38 AM
Eh, I forgot Frankie....the third of the three stooges.....
Translation: I AM STUMPED WITH THE QUESTION.
If this reply wasn't so pathetic it would actually be funny.

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:39 AM
Translation: I AM STUMPED WITH THE QUESTION.
If this reply wasn't so pathetic it would actually be funny.

translation: I just got owned by a teenager.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:39 AM
Do you know for a fact if they are Rebublican lesbians?

Who cares? The point Kerry was trying to make, could have been made with any accomplished homo.....

KCN
10-14-2004, 09:42 AM
My opnion:

I think some people are overreacting. If Kerry had outed her then there should be an outcry. But instead she has been very open about her sexual orientation. Anyone who didn't know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian must be living under a rock.

Now, Kerry absolutely could have made his point across without bringing her up. Tactless political ploy? You betcha. You could see it on Kerry's face that he knew he was going for a low blow as he hesitated to say it. I saw right through it and I do not condone it at all.

But if anyone wants to talk using sexual orientation as a political tool, let's talk amending the United States constitution to get the evangelical vote. THAT is what you all should be fuming over, if you really are concerned about Mary Cheney and the other gays/lesbians.

the Talking Can
10-14-2004, 09:45 AM
But if anyone wants to talk using sexual orientation as a political tool, let's talk amending the United States constitution to get the evangelical vote. THAT is what you all should be fuming over, if you really are concerned about Mary Cheney and the other gays/lesbians.


yup

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:46 AM
My opnion:

I think some people are overreacting. If Kerry had outed her then there should be an outcry. But instead she has been very open about her sexual orientation. Anyone who didn't know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian must be living under a rock.

Now, Kerry absolutely could have made his point across without bringing her up. Tactless political ploy? You betcha. You could see it on Kerry's face that he knew he was going for a low blow as he hesitated to say it. I saw right through it and I do not condone it at all.

But if anyone wants to talk using sexual orientation as a political tool, let's talk amending the United States constitution to get the evangelical vote. THAT is what you all should be fuming over, if you really are concerned about Mary Cheney and the other gays/lesbians.

Very respectable middle of the road answer... :thumb: And I don't recall you being a flaming liberal. Good job.

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 09:46 AM
Mary Cheney appears as a public figure. She is active in her father's campaign. She is active in gay issues. This is an attempt to deflect FROM the gay issue itself. :rolleyes:

I guess its fine then, if the right were to find out that one of the Kerry girls was into gangbangs, Bush should spend some campaign stops talking about Promiscuity and Kerry's daughter, the human pin cushion?


I wasn't offended, but I thought it was unneccessary. It was pointless.

Oh....and I DO know Mary cheney.

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:47 AM
My opnion:

I think some people are overreacting. If Kerry had outed her then there should be an outcry. But instead she has been very open about her sexual orientation. Anyone who didn't know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian must be living under a rock.

Now, Kerry absolutely could have made his point across without bringing her up. Tactless political ploy? You betcha. You could see it on Kerry's face that he knew he was going for a low blow as he hesitated to say it. I saw right through it and I do not condone it at all.

But if anyone wants to talk using sexual orientation as a political tool, let's talk amending the United States constitution to get the evangelical vote. THAT is what you all should be fuming over, if you really are concerned about Mary Cheney and the other gays/lesbians.

They aren't concerned, she is just the latest "tool' to be used to fuel the flame.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:47 AM
translation: I just got owned by a teenager.
Only you, having repeatedly replied to my posts with juvenile and hateful tantrums, would think so and be shallow enough to jump in the argument with nothing of substance to add.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:48 AM
I guess its fine then, if the right were to find out that one of the Kerry girls was into gangbangs, Bush should spend some campaign stops talking about Promiscuity and Kerry's daughter, the human pin cushion?


I wasn't offended, but I thought it was unneccessary. It was pointless.

Oh....and I DO know Mary cheney.


Sure, if one of them chairs an organization fighting for gang bangers rights, becomes an advocate for gang bangers rights, and appears on the stage at her fathers convention with her gang bang partners then by all means she's open for discussion...

amongst other things. :hmmm:

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 09:50 AM
Your last post made me think you're considering offering her a moustache ride......

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:52 AM
... if the right were to find out that one of the Kerry girls was into gangbangs, Bush should spend some campaign stops talking about Promiscuity and Kerry's daughter, the human pin cushion?
...

Nice!

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:52 AM
Your last post made me think you're considering offering her a moustache ride......

Perhaps you shouldn't think so much...you are obviously hurting yourself. :doh!:

Frankie
10-14-2004, 09:52 AM
Who cares? The point Kerry was trying to make, could have been made with any accomplished homo.....
I beg to differ. Pointing out the hypocricy of Republicans would not have been accomplished by talking about non-Republican lesbians.

KingPriest2
10-14-2004, 09:53 AM
They aren't concerned, she is just the latest "tool' to be used to fuel the flame.

You don't use a person like that as a tool.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 09:54 AM
You don't use a person like that as a tool.

uh, perhaps someone should send Alan Keyes the memo. :hmmm:

HolyHandgernade
10-14-2004, 09:54 AM
I thought it was unnecessary, but I wouldn't call it a "low blow". She's actively working on the Cheney campaign, she has already publically stated she is gay, and all he said is she has the right to be who she is, just like any other American. Since the question was along the lines of do you think homosexuality is a trait or a choice, it didn't seem like a low blow.

I thought it was just an odd question by the moderator. Why not just address the Constituional ammendment proposal by Bush on the homosexual issue instead of asking them to comment on nature vs nurture?

-HH

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:54 AM
I beg to differ. Pointing out the hypocricy of Republicans would not have been accomplished by talking about non-Republican lesbians.

So what of the hypocrisy on the left, by Dems who oppose gay marriage and support a constitutional amendment....maybe we should ensure the spotlight is shone more brightly on them too--even if they choose not to pursue it....

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:56 AM
Only you, having repeatedly replied to my posts with juvenile and hateful tantrums, would think so and be shallow enough to jump in the argument with nothing of substance to add.

You must be Larry.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:00 AM
I thought it was unnecessary, but I wouldn't call it a "low blow". She's actively working on the Cheney campaign, she has already publically stated she is gay, and all he said is she has the right to be who she is, just like any other American. Since the question was along the lines of do you think homosexuality is a trait or a choice, it didn't seem like a low blow.

I thought it was just an odd question by the moderator. Why not just address the Constituional ammendment proposal by Bush on the homosexual issue instead of asking them to comment on nature vs nurture?

-HH

To get it out of the political and moral realm and bring it to the personal realm...where it is harder to spin an answer or repeat talking points. The question leads to how much consideration has been given to the issue outside of the political and moral realms. It means that someone has considered it on a biological, sociological, and/or psychological realm or in DUHbya's instance has not.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 10:03 AM
... It means that someone has considered it on a biological, sociological, or psychological realm, and/or in DUHbya's instance has not.

Just because he disagrees with you and reaches a different conclusion in the nature/nurture debate, doesn't mean he hasn't considered it. It is the height of arrrogance and condescension to believe, "if people were as educated as 'me," they'd agree with me."

And they call kids stupid?

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 10:04 AM
uh, perhaps someone should send Alan Keyes the memo. :hmmm:
If President Bush is Alan Keyes, then John Kerry is Noam Chomsky.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:05 AM
Just because he disagrees with you and reaches a different conclusion in the nature/nurture debate, doesn't mean he hasn't considered it. It is the height of arrrogance and condescension to believe, "if people were as educated as 'me," they'd agree with me."

And they call kids stupid?

"I don't know"-DUHbya's response to the question.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 10:07 AM
If President Bush is Alan Keyes, then John Kerry is Noam Chomsky.

Despite her ideological zealotry, I suspect Chomsky is to intellectual and profound for her. Wrong, like her....just above her though.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:07 AM
If President Bush is Alan Keyes, then John Kerry is Noam Chomsky.


That is not my point and I'm not making that comparison, you are. I'm saying someone on the CONs side should send Alan Keyes the memo that Mary Cheney is off limits as a political 'tool' and that her sexuality is a non-issue. Because Keyes is using her to rally his homophobic supporters. :rolleyes: :banghead:

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 10:07 AM
"I don't know"-DUHbya's response to the question.
Honest response. What's wrong with that?
Any person responding to that question honestly would say the exact same thing.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 10:08 AM
"I don't know"-DUHbya's response to the question.


And you know what, no one DOES know. Yet, anyway....it's a lively, controversial, and on-going debate.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:09 AM
Honest response. What's wrong with that?
Any person responding to that question honestly would say the exact same thing.

A safe and non-commital response. Indicating he was stuck between a rock and a hard place because he can't piss off his conservative fanatic base who think homosexuality is sin.

Fred Phelps probably was NOT impressed. ROFL

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 10:10 AM
That is not my point and I'm not making that comparison, you are. I'm saying someone on the CONs side should send Alan Keyes the memo that Mary Cheney is off limits as a political 'tool' and that her sexuality is a non-issue. Because Keyes is using her to rally his homophobic supporters. :rolleyes: :banghead:
No, we are making the point that this was a poor tact to use in a presidential debate, and you defend it by referencing the tactics of a 3rd tier asshat who has no chance of winning his Congressional bid.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 10:11 AM
A safe and non-commital response. Indicating he was stuck between a rock and a hard place because he can't piss off his conservative fanatic base who think homosexuality is sin.

Fred Phelps probably was NOT impressed. ROFL
I'm sure you can conjure a ton of hypotheses and beliefs, but when it comes down to it, can you HONESTLY answer with anything other than I don't KNOW?

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:12 AM
No, we are making the point that this was a poor tact to use in a presidential debate, and you defend it by referencing the tactics of a 3rd tier asshat who has no chance of winning his Congressional bid.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that John Kerry was commending Mary Cheney for her being who she is in world that wishes she wouldn't while Alan Keyes is condemning her for the same and saying to the world that she is 'selfish hedonist.'

So if the Cons are going to get all pizzed off about Mary Cheney being used as a 'tool' then where is the outrage that Alan Keyes is doing it and doing it in an unflattering fashion?

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 10:13 AM
I'm sure you can conjure a ton of hypotheses and beliefs, but when it comes down to it, can you HONESTLY answer with anything other than I don't KNOW?

No she can't. All she has to offer is her opinion. Same as any of us.

KCN
10-14-2004, 10:13 AM
And you know what, no one DOES know. Yet, anyway....it's a lively, controversial, and on-going debate.

Which is why now is not the time to be writing laws about it, whether you are Missouri voters, a Massachussetts judge or president of the United States.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 10:15 AM
Which is why now is not the time to be writing laws about it, whether you are Missouri voters, a Massachussetts judge or president of the United States.

With that I would agree; the problem is, judges and some renegade legislators ARE trying to do just that; so the radicals have awaken the reactionaries.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 10:15 AM
Which is why now is not the time to be writing laws about it, whether you are Missouri voters, a Massachussetts judge or president of the United States.
And that's why I continue to point out that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is about MARRIAGE, not 'it.'

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:15 AM
I'm sure you can conjure a ton of hypotheses and beliefs, but when it comes down to it, can you HONESTLY answer with anything other than I don't KNOW?


I believe people are born with a certain sexual proclivity but make the choice later on whether to act upon it. Have I done the scientific studies to back up my belief? Nope. So I would not say 'I don't know.' I do know what I believe.

The question was not 'what is your belief about homosexuality and do you have scientific proof to back up your claim.' The question was more what do you believe...

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:16 AM
No she can't. All she has to offer is her opinion. Same as any of us.

uh, that was the question.



'Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?'

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/04debate3.html

6 Iron
10-14-2004, 10:27 AM
there have been several identical twin studies looking at this issue. Selection bias is always a problem, but the gist of the matter is that this is a multifactorial process, both genetic and environmental.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/twin.html

siberian khatru
10-14-2004, 10:28 AM
Wow, this is getting ugly fast. Maybe Lynne Cheney can criticize Elizabeth on how she reacted to her son's tragic death:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ACCUSES LYNNE CHENEY OF "SHAME" OF HER DAUGHTER, QUESTIONS HER CRITICISM OF KERRY'S MARY CHENEY REFERENCE

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ON ABC RADIO: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Wow, this is getting ugly fast. Maybe Lynne Cheney can criticize Elizabeth on how she reacted to her son's tragic death:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ACCUSES LYNNE CHENEY OF "SHAME" OF HER DAUGHTER, QUESTIONS HER CRITICISM OF KERRY'S MARY CHENEY REFERENCE

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ON ABC RADIO: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."
So Kerry sin't the only one with an idiot of a wife.

6 Iron
10-14-2004, 10:33 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ACCUSES LYNNE CHENEY OF "SHAME" OF HER DAUGHTER, QUESTIONS HER CRITICISM OF KERRY'S MARY CHENEY REFERENCE

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ON ABC RADIO: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

I cannot think of her anymore without being reminded of a planeteer that likened her to "Shrek's wife". Wish I could attribute it properly.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:37 AM
Wow, this is getting ugly fast. Maybe Lynne Cheney can criticize Elizabeth on how she reacted to her son's tragic death:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ACCUSES LYNNE CHENEY OF "SHAME" OF HER DAUGHTER, QUESTIONS HER CRITICISM OF KERRY'S MARY CHENEY REFERENCE

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ON ABC RADIO: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

She reacted by quitting her job (as did her husband) and spending 6 months in hibernation because they were both too depressed to move.

I'd like to see Lynn Cheney criticize her for this. :cuss:

Donger
10-14-2004, 10:39 AM
Tactically stupid for the Kerry campaign to keep this in the spotlight. They should let it drop on their end.

penchief
10-14-2004, 10:40 AM
Wow, this is getting ugly fast. Maybe Lynne Cheney can criticize Elizabeth on how she reacted to her son's tragic death:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ACCUSES LYNNE CHENEY OF "SHAME" OF HER DAUGHTER, QUESTIONS HER CRITICISM OF KERRY'S MARY CHENEY REFERENCE

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ON ABC RADIO: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

I wonder if Mrs. Cheney's feelings are similar to those millions of gays and their families' feelings when their lives are dragged through the political mud. Isn't the president's attempts shore up his base by appealing to the bias that exists in much of conservative America for the sake of political gain likely to illicit similar feelings on a larger scale.

Maybe it's important for holier-than-thou conservatives to taste their own medicine once in a while. It could lead to a better understanding.

However, Mrs. Cheney's indignance, itself, seemed politically motivated to me. Why not just say that she thought Kerry's comments were inappropriate (I did) and hurtful and just leave it at that. No, she had to repeat three times that he is not a "good man." IMO, her response was just another opportunity to impune Kerry's character because he quite clearly is not "a good man."

But I guess it is OK to politicize the gay issue as a whole as long as we don't consider gays as individuals with families.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:43 AM
I wonder if Mrs. Cheney's feelings are similar to those millions of gays and their families' feelings when their lives are dragged through the political mud. Isn't the president's attempts shore up his base by appealing to the bias that exists in much of conservative America for the sake of political gain likely to illicit similar feelings on a larger scale.

Maybe it's important for holier-than-thou conservatives to taste their own medicine once in a while. It could lead to a better understanding.
However, Mrs. Cheney's indignance, itself, seemed politically motivated to me. Why not just say that she thought Kerry's comments were inappropriate (I did) and hurtful and just leave it at that. No, she had to repeat three times that he is not a "good man." IMO, her response was just another opportunity to impune Kerry's character because he quite clearly is not "a good man."

But I guess it is OK to politicize the gay issue as a whole as long as we don't consider gays as individuals with families.


Rush is blasting Kerry for 'outing' Mary Cheney to Republicans who do no know Cheney has a gay daughter. :rolleyes: Doesn't he realize that it's not possible to out someone if they are already outed??? The woman is a public advocate. The fact that they are trying to pretend she was closeted is a JOKE.

6 Iron
10-14-2004, 10:47 AM
She reacted by quitting her job (as did her husband) and spending 6 months in hibernation because they were both too depressed to move.

I'd like to see Lynn Cheney criticize her for this. :cuss:

I will do it for her. All families that lose a child are devastated. The vast majority however cannot quit their jobs, and hibernate for 6 months of therapy and soul searching because they have to eat, make house payments and take care of their remaining children. If they needed the time for recovery, I am glad they had it. But that does not make their suffering greater, or more profound.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 10:50 AM
I will do it for her. All families that lose a child are devastated. The vast majority however cannot quit their jobs, and hibernate for 6 months of therapy and soul searching because they have to eat, make house payments and take care of their remaining children. If they needed the time for recovery, I am glad they had it. But that does not make their suffering greater, or more profound.

Agreed but do you know the numbers of families who break up after a death of a child? Or suicide of one of the parents? Or chemical abuse problems?

Obviously the Edwards had the luxury of taking the time to heal and their marriage survived and strengthened because of it. They have professed this publically. But it would be unfair to hold their ability to do this against them rather it would be nice if all parents who suffer such a horrible fate could do the same, if so desired, to save themselves and their families.

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 10:59 AM
If Mrs Edwards is going to start throwing Mud, maybe Mrs Cheney should indicate that if elected, the Kerry/Edwards admin would help pay for health care, 2 new Army Divisions, and SS by having Mrs Edwards be the New Jarrod for Subway.


Out of ALL the Lesbians in the world........why did Kerry feel the need to pick THIS one?

Who are the Edwards' to tell Mrs Cheney that she can't be offended, by something said on national TV about her daughter?



Interestinly enough....last night when Asked about the strong women in their lives........Kerry couldn't bring himself to think of much of anything about his wife other than stumble around the "she looks like a melted halloween witch display, has the social skills and likability of a Pocupine, but at least she came with a Bazillion Samollians and a lifetime supply of complimentary Ketsup.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 11:00 AM
The family is obviously more comfortable with the topic than they pretend to be to their 'conservative base.' :hmmm:


http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art19337.asp

Sisters - A Book By Lynne Cheney

If you look around hard enough on the Web you find some humorous stuff. Everyone knows that our Vice President, Dick Cheney, has a lesbian daughter, Mary, about whom he rarely speaks openly even though the poor girl has to work for his re-election committee. But did you know that Dick’s wife Lynne, wrote a sizzling western novel called “Sisters” which is filled with hot, steamy stuff like lesbian love, prostitution and rape, and supports a sweeping pro-feminist agenda?

The protagonist, Sophie Dymond, is obviously bisexual as she makes love to her deceased sister’s former boyfriend (outside of marriage I might add), and doesn’t shy away from sex with women either.

Some excerpts:

The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage -- no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were. She felt curiously moved, curiously envious of them. She had never to this moment thought Eden a particularly attractive paradise, based as it was on naiveté, but she saw that the women in the cart had a passionate, loving intimacy forever closed to her. How strong it made them. What comfort it gave.

The young woman was heavily powdered, but quite attractive, a curvesome creature, rounded at bosom and cheek. When she smiled, even her teeth seemed puffed and rounded, like tiny ivory pillows.

Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement. In the evenings I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then we shall go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl.

“Sisters” was penned in 1981. It’s hard to find a copy today, but Amazon says they will give it a shot for you if you want a copy. It’s been said the Repubos are buying them up to keep the 2nd lady from having to admit to this embarrassment. The Canadian publisher was going to issue a second printing this year, but when the Mrs. got wind of it she called it to a screeching halt.

Like most of the indiscretions of the Bush administration that they don’t want you to know about, “Sisters” will be kept from public scrutiny wherever possible. Odd. Don’t they think we know that Repubos enjoy sex too? Even lesbian sex? Like most women, thoughts about gay sex have obviously crossed this author's mind.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 11:02 AM
uh, that was the question.



'Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?'

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/04debate3.html

See, this is my problem with radical liberals (and reactionary conservatives for that matter).....their ideology is more like a religion. We have religious beliefs. We shouldn't have political beliefs, as in religious beliefs...that would be definition #1 from Merriam Webster:

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Most rational, deliberative people, and critical thinkers, base their political beliefs on an "examination of evidence," definition #3.

Look memyselfi, if you wanna rest your "beliefs" on faith, trust, and confidence in liberal ideology, fine. Most of us would prefer to examine the research and the facts and the evidence, before so blatantly VIOLATING our religious faith.....

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 11:06 AM
Listening to the clip again, you can hear the 'ohh sh!t!!!!' in Kerry's delivery as he paused right before letting fly with the "L" word.

Mosbonian
10-14-2004, 11:10 AM
I'll agree that it was trite.

But "low blow?"

Sounds like some fake outrage to me... That's been common among the herd lately...

As long as you realize that the "herd" mentality walks both sides of the fence......

My opinion is that it wasn't necessary and seemed to backfire in it's intention amongst the undecided voters....

mmaddog
*******

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 11:11 AM
See, this is my problem with radical liberals (and reactionary conservatives for that matter).....their ideology is more like a religion. We have religious beliefs. We shouldn't have political beliefs, as in religious beliefs...that would be definition #1 from Merriam Webster:

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Most rational, deliberative people, and critical thinkers, base their political beliefs on an "examination of evidence," definition #3.

Look memyselfi, if you wanna rest your "beliefs" on faith, trust, and confidence in liberal ideology, fine. Most of us would prefer to examine the research and the facts and the evidence, before so blatantly VIOLATING our religious faith.....

Deenise apparently doesn't understand the distinction.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 11:11 AM
No, I'm not. I'm saying that John Kerry was commending Mary Cheney for her being who she is in world that wishes she wouldn't while Alan Keyes is condemning her for the same and saying to the world that she is 'selfish hedonist.'

So if the Cons are going to get all pizzed off about Mary Cheney being used as a 'tool' then where is the outrage that Alan Keyes is doing it and doing it in an unflattering fashion?
Keyes was asked directly about Cheney, Kerry wasn't. Kerry breached the subject himself and Keyes offered an opinion when asked.

Also Keyes is not running for office in any area that will affect me.


Nice try.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 11:12 AM
See, this is my problem with radical liberals (and reactionary conservatives for that matter).....their ideology is more like a religion. We have religious beliefs. We shouldn't have political beliefs, as in religious beliefs...that would be definition #1 from Merriam Webster:

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Most rational, deliberative people, and critical thinkers, base their political beliefs on an "examination of evidence," definition #3.

Look memyselfi, if you wanna rest your "beliefs" on faith, trust, and confidence in liberal ideology, fine. Most of us would prefer to examine the research and the facts and the evidence, before so blatantly VIOLATING our religious faith.....

Are you understanding that the question was about BELIEFS and not scientific fact?

The question was asked to delve in to the thinking behind why each candidate has formulated their opinion on homosexuality and not what biology or religious courses or study they've undertaken that back up their belief. :rolleyes: :banghead:

Mosbonian
10-14-2004, 11:13 AM
I wonder if Mrs. Cheney's feelings are similar to those millions of gays and their families' feelings when their lives are dragged through the political mud. Isn't the president's attempts shore up his base by appealing to the bias that exists in much of conservative America for the sake of political gain likely to illicit similar feelings on a larger scale.

Maybe it's important for holier-than-thou conservatives to taste their own medicine once in a while. It could lead to a better understanding.

However, Mrs. Cheney's indignance, itself, seemed politically motivated to me. Why not just say that she thought Kerry's comments were inappropriate (I did) and hurtful and just leave it at that. No, she had to repeat three times that he is not a "good man." IMO, her response was just another opportunity to impune Kerry's character because he quite clearly is not "a good man."

But I guess it is OK to politicize the gay issue as a whole as long as we don't consider gays as individuals with families.

Wow...a post laden with bitterness and anger....

mmaddog
*******

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 11:14 AM
She reacted by quitting her job (as did her husband) and spending 6 months in hibernation because they were both too depressed to move.

I'd like to see Lynn Cheney criticize her for this. :cuss:
So only people with dead kids can criticize others for their own children and how they raise them?

Edwards wife is a moron to open her mouth on the subject. Evidently the Johns are going to have to house their wives off continent unless they continually like stepping in the messes they create.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 11:14 AM
Keyes was asked directly about Cheney, Kerry wasn't. Kerry breached the subject himself and Keyes offered an opinion when asked.

Also Keyes is not running for office in any area that will affect me.


Nice try.


Ah, but Dick(head) Cheney was confronted TO HIS FACE with this issue and did not balk, take exception, or raise an objection...MOF he THANKED Edwards for his 'kind words' regarding his family. Thus HE opened the door to further 'kind words' regarding his daughter. Kerry gave them some and now they are objecting but only after DUHbya did not answer the question with any sense of conviction and Kerry did. ROFL

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 11:15 AM
Obviously the Edwards had the luxury of taking the time to heal and their marriage survived and strengthened because of it. They have professed this publically. But it would be unfair to hold their ability to do this against them rather it would be nice if all parents who suffer such a horrible fate could do the same, if so desired, to save themselves and their families.

Yup, they had the funds alright. Simply sue a doc and tell a jury how a fetus feels when it dies and then support abortion. That's the key to a healthy recovery.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 11:16 AM
Ah, but Dick(head) Cheney was confronted TO HIS FACE with this issue and did not balk, take exception, or raise an objection...MOF he THANKED Edwards for his 'kind words' regarding his family. Thus HE opened the door to further 'kind words' regarding his daughter. Kerry gave them some and now they are objecting but only after DUHbya did not answer the question with any sense of conviction and Kerry did. ROFL
What a crock of sh*t.

Hey, since Edwards said something about Mary to the VPOTUS, then Kerry has the right to do the same to the POTUS.

Do you really live in these rationalizations you create?

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 11:18 AM
What a crock of sh*t.

Hey, since Edwards said something about Mary to the VPOTUS, then Kerry has the right to do the same to the POTUS.

Do you really live in these rationalizations you create?

If Cheney wanted his daughter off the table he had every opportunity to humiliate Edwards to his face and remove the issue in the process...

he did not thus it's rather comical to see all of this contrived righteous indignation.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 11:19 AM
If Cheney wanted his daughter off the table he had every opportunity to humiliate Edwards to his face and remove the issue in the process...

he did not thus it's rather comical to see all of this contrived righteous indignation.
Same rationalization from the same failed logical processes. Give it up.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 11:22 AM
Same rationalization from the same failed logical processes. Give it up.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

jcl-kcfan2
10-14-2004, 11:25 AM
My good friend and ex-office mate Jeff, is very cool and open-minded. We joke a lot. Amongst our common needling is him calling me a "terrorist." I have absolutely no problem with that. But when my ex-boss or some stranger on this BB refered to me with similar words I was correctly defiant and angry because of their agenda. It's probably very offensive to gays when "conservatives" who have repeatedly demonstrated anti-gay agenda say it, but much less so when "liberals" who have historically supported equal rights do. So you are probably right that the other way around would have created a bigger buzz.
BULLSH*T

penchief
10-14-2004, 11:48 AM
Wow...a post laden with bitterness and anger....

mmaddog
*******

Not at all. After reading it again myself I can see how you might interpret it that way, though.

I really would hope that the way conservatives are offended by this particular situation can be applied to the bigger picture when it comes to the exploitation of culturally divisive issues to gain political advantage. How is using an gay individual to prove a political point different than exploiting the entire gay community in order to appeal to the prejudices of many?

Gay marriage and other cultural rifts are used by this administration to divide and conquer the electorate. They shamelessly and deceptively court the single issue voters that make up the NRA, the Pro-Life movement, the NO TAXES at all cost bunch, and evangelicals because single-issue voters are any easy base to maintain. You really don't have to provide substance or new ideas. Other than tell a single-issue voter something that he wants to hear, whether you really believe it or not.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:27 PM
Are you understanding that the question was about BELIEFS and not scientific fact?

The question was asked to delve in to the thinking behind why each candidate has formulated their opinion on homosexuality and not what biology or religious courses or study they've undertaken that back up their belief. :rolleyes: :banghead:

Apparently, Deenise can't distinguish between beliefs that are an article of faith, and POLITICAL beliefs as most of us understand them to be....based on critical thinking and rational analysis of the issues, based on FACT and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.....

That's okay; most liberals, and many conservatives, can't....

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 12:32 PM
Apparently, Deenise can't distinguish between beliefs that are an article of faith, and POLITICAL beliefs as most of us understand them to be....based on critical thinking and rational analysis of the issues, based on FACT and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.....

That's okay; most liberals, and many conservatives, can't....

Apparently you cannot understand the question. The question was posed for the candidate to express their BELIEFS, meaning their opinion, on the matter in an attempt to understand how they came to their position against gay marriage. The question was posed to ellicit a response that was neither political or religious/moral but something outside those worn out views but it was posed in a fashion that left open the use of the worn out views as a measure of how your belief was constructed.

For the President to say 'I don't know' means that he either did not want or could not go into the issues that are outside the political and moral talking points that make his conservative base salivate. :rolleyes:

He could not say it is a choice because that would lead credence to those who say it's a sin. He could not say it's biological because that would lead credence to those who say they are born that way (with God's approval) and thus are entitled to equal protections.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:39 PM
Apparently you cannot understand the question. The question was posed for the candidate to express their BELIEFS, meaning their opinion, on the matter in an attempt to understand how they came to their position against gay marriage. The question was posed to ellicit a response that was neither political or religious/moral but something outside those worn out views but it was posed in a fashion that left open the use of the worn out views as a measure of how your belief was constructed.

For the President to say 'I don't know' means that he either did not want or could not go into the issues that are outside the political and moral talking points that make his conservative base salivate. :rolleyes:

He could not say it is a choice because that would lead credence to those who say it's a sin. He could not say it's biological because that would lead credence to those who say they are born that way (with God's approval) and thus are entitled to equal protections.

Is English your second friggin' language? You obviously don't understand the dictionary DEFINITION of "beliefs." What the heck do you speak....Arabic or Persian?

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:41 PM
Apparently you cannot understand the question. The question was posed for the candidate to express their BELIEFS, meaning their opinion, on the matter in an attempt to understand how they came to their position against gay marriage. ...

For responsible citizens, "beliefs" are based on facts....on research, and on empirical data.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:43 PM
For responsible citizens, "beliefs" are based on facts....on research, and on empirical data.

If facts are unavailable, then if one is honest....one says "I don't know."

He COULD have said "I feel...;" however, not too many reasonable people give a sh*t about his "feelings."

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 12:45 PM
Is English your second friggin' language? You obviously don't understand the dictionary DEFINITION of "beliefs." What the heck do you speak....Arabic or Persian?

I understand what you are saying about the definition of beliefs. But the question as asked had more to do with opinion than it had to do with beliefs. Scheiffer should have said opinion for this very reason.


check the synonym for beliefs:
o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:50 PM
I understand what you are saying about the definition of beliefs. But the question as asked had more to do with opinion than it had to do with beliefs. Scheiffer should have said opinion for this very reason.

But he didn't did he? He said beliefs...you ASSUME he meant opinion. You know what they say about assumptions....

At least you knew to bail on your logic before you dug yourself in too deep....I think most reasonable Americans understand that political beliefs should be rooted in evidence and facts. Only silly people would disagree....

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 12:52 PM
But he didn't did he? He said beliefs...you ASSUME he meant opinion. You know what they say about assumptions....

At least you knew to bail on your logic before you dug yourself in too deep....

Oh good grief. Check the synonym for belief. I'm not bailing on anything. I'm just trying to point out that you are getting hung up on semantics here and despite of your attempts to deflect from DUHbya misshandling the question the truth is he did. Unfortunately, Kerry's comment on Cheney's daughter is distracting from that fact...which I'm sure is not a coincidence. ROFL

Donger
10-14-2004, 12:54 PM
This is almost sad to watch.

Almost.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:54 PM
Oh good grief. Check the synonym for belief. I'm not bailing on anything. I'm just trying to point out that you are getting hung up on semantics here and despite of your attempts to deflect from DUHbya misshandling the question the truth is he did. Unfortunately Kerry's comment on Cheney's daughter is distracting from that fact...which I'm sure is not a coincidence.

No, YOU are assuming GW should have interepreted the question as you believe; I'm saying he interepreted it in a way MOST Americans would have and responded accordingly...with a perfectly reasonable, "I don't KNOW....."

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 12:59 PM
Oh good grief. Check the synonym for belief. I'm not bailing on anything. I'm just trying to point out that you are getting hung up on semantics here and despite of your attempts to deflect from DUHbya misshandling the question the truth is he did. Unfortunately, Kerry's comment on Cheney's daughter is distracting from that fact...which I'm sure is not a coincidence. ROFL

This could be a gender thing, for women "beliefs" are more like opinion and "feelings;" for men, "beliefs" are more rooted in rational thought, analysis, and evidence....

GW is a man, Deenise. And a real man, as opposed to the pansie he was facing.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 01:00 PM
BULLSH*T
Typical "Bush sheep's" participation in a debate that's waaay above his head. Don't strain your brain.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 01:20 PM
No, YOU are assuming GW should have interpreted the question as you believe; I'm saying he interpreted it in a way MOST Americans would have and responded accordingly...with a perfectly reasonable, "I don't KNOW....."

Hum, using your own criteria for beliefs then I disagree with your assumption that MOST Americans would have an opinion of 'I don't know' as many would have a certain view based on their cultural and/or religious teachings, their political orientations, their personal experiences, their social indoctrinations, etc.

They would not have social science and/or scientific data discerning whether their view withstood your 'empirical evidence' criteria but they would have that from which they determine much of their understanding of social issues...and that would be their individual perception and experience.

A person who has had as much exposure to the issue (and those surrounding it) like the President does certainly should have at least an idea of whether it's choice or not (or like myself a combination of both). Perhaps this is a further illustration of just how out of touch Mr. Bush really is....

I suspect not. I suspect he has a view but could not voice it in a fashion that would appeal to his base and yet not violate his 'compassionate conservative' facade.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 01:40 PM
This could be a gender thing, for women "beliefs" are more like opinion and "feelings;" for men, "beliefs" are more rooted in rational thought, analysis, and evidence....

GW is a man, Deenise. And a real man, as opposed to the pansie he was facing.

Bottomline is, for women, "beliefs" are often "feelings;" for men, "beliefs" are much more empirical.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 01:48 PM
:shake: :shake:
With all the problems ailing us and all the important issues, the word "Nuisance" got 19 pages of discussion in 2 days on this forum, and this other non-issue is quickly on its way to break that record. A sad commentary on the state of our republic.
:sulk: :sulk: :sulk:

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 01:53 PM
Bottomline is, for women, "beliefs" are often "feelings;" for men, "beliefs" are much more empirical.

Perhaps. Maybe that is why women have a longer lifespan...the intuition thing vs. needing facts. But that is another argument.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 01:56 PM
:shake: :shake:
With all the problems ailing us and all the important issues, the word "Nuisance" got 19 pages of discussion in 2 days on this forum, and this other non-issue is quickly on its way to break that record. A sad commentary on the state of our republic.
:sulk: :sulk: :sulk:
Because when Kerry shows his ass, you guys are incessant in 'explaining' how we just don't understand his 'nuance' and 'sophistication. And you keep squiggling until the internet runs out of space.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 01:57 PM
...Maybe that is why women have a longer lifespan...

How so? :hmmm:

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 01:59 PM
Frankie's right...maybe we should talk more about Halliburton--his latest contribution. Of course, when we do that we forget about 'context', 'nuance' and 'deeper understanding'...

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 01:59 PM
Because when Kerry shows his ass, you guys are incessant in 'explaining' how we just don't understand his 'nuance' and 'sophistication. And you keep squiggling until the internet runs out of space.

The only :moon: that is showing is the bare one of B/C being :spank: by gays who are taking issue to DUHbya's administration policies and not necessarily rallying around the call to be offended by Kerry's remark.

Brock
10-14-2004, 02:02 PM
Typical "Bush sheep's" participation in a debate that's waaay above his head. Don't strain your brain.

Hard to figure why you don't have a job. ROFL

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:06 PM
Hard to figure why you don't have a job. ROFL
See Post #204

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:08 PM
Yeah, jcl didnt do that fancy thing that Frankie does when he says bullshit--with the bolded letters to say 'bush'.

It's genious (chiefsplanet spelling) and I guess proof of higher order thinking.

LOL.

Brock
10-14-2004, 02:08 PM
See Post #204

See Post #213

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 02:08 PM
Because when Kerry shows his ass, you guys are incessant in 'explaining' how we just don't understand his 'nuance' and 'sophistication. And you keep squiggling until the internet runs out of space.
The internet is running out of space!!!!

Dammit, I knew I should have purchased that waveform deed when I had the chance. I bet property is going for a fortune now.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:10 PM
Frankie's right...maybe we should talk more about Halliburton--his latest contribution. Of course, when we do that we forget about 'context', 'nuance' and 'deeper understanding'...

Is Halliburton selling $1000 generators to the military that your taxes and mine fund, for $7500?....... That's an "ISSUE."

Should Kerry have said "problem" instead of "nuisance?"...... That's a "NON-ISSUE."

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 02:10 PM
The only :moon: that is showing is the bare one of B/C being :spank: by gays who are taking issue to DUHbya's administration policies and not necessarily rallying around the call to be offended by Kerry's remark.
You don't even understand where the offense lies. It lies in the conservative base that is insulted that Kerry thinks he can scare them off their support of Bush by letting the L-word fly.

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:11 PM
Is Halliburton selling $1000 generators to the military that your taxes and mine fund for $7500?....... That's an "ISSUE."


Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are not 'issues'...they're wild rantings of the lefties.

But, nice try.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:12 PM
The internet is running out of space!!!!.
Don't worry. We have more "INTERNETS!" ;)

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:12 PM
You don't even understand where the offense lies. It lies in the conservative base that is insulted that Kerry thinks he can scare them off their support of Bush by letting the L-word fly.

Den!se missing a point...how...uncommon.

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 02:12 PM
Frankie............I'd be curious to see some samples of $1000 generators, sold to the govt for $7500.

.....provided in a war zone.

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:13 PM
Don't worry. We have more "INTERNETS!" ;)

Says the man whining about 'non issues'....LOL

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:14 PM
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are not 'issues'...they're wild rantings of the lefties.

But, nice try.
One word: GOOGLE.

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:15 PM
One word: GOOGLE.

Will it get me to an alien abductee site claiming this or will I have to resort to democratic underground.

Yeah, everything on the internet is true.

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 02:21 PM
One word: GOOGLE.

What does your lazy eye have to do with anything?

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Says the man whining about 'non issues'....LOL

I have used that word in 3 posts. I bet between Dennise, TC and the other so called PC 'Libs' it has been mentioned no more than 20 times. A couple of doesn't references is not exactly making a mountain out of a mullhill. Starting a couple of threads on the word "Nuisance" (and this subject) and adamantly deriving a stubborn 19 page argument out of it is.

Or, maybe the theory is true that the nervous Bush camp and their cronies love to change the subject from important stuff? :hmmm:

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:24 PM
I have used that word in 3 posts. I bet between Dennise, TC and the other so called PC 'Libs' it has been mentioned no more than 20 times. A couple of doesn't references is not exactly making a mountain out of a mullhill. Starting a couple of threads on the word "Nuisance" (and this subject) and adamantly deriving a stubborn 19 page argument out of it is.

*sigh*...I didnt mean to get you defensive. I thought it was funny.

WTF is a 'mullhill'

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:27 PM
*sigh*...I didnt mean to get you defensive. I thought it was funny.

WTF is a 'mullhill'
I probably meant molehill. ;) But who cares, Im running a 100 degree temp and about to crash back to bed anyways.

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:28 PM
I probably meant molehill. ;) But who cares, Im running a 100 degree temp and about to crash back to bed anyways.

That would explain why you're not on your 'A' game today...get some rest!

Frankie
10-14-2004, 02:29 PM
That would explain why you're not on your 'A' game today...get some rest!
Would you believe.... FLU?!! :banghead:
(Now THAT's an issue ;) )

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 02:32 PM
I probably meant molehill. ;) But who cares, Im running a 100 degree temp and about to crash back to bed anyways.

Looking for that video must be wearing you down.

You'd better take a break from your Quest, Bilbo and have some soup and go to bed.


This is Obviously ALL Bush's fault...Not knowing ahead of time that the vaccine provider wouldn't be meeting standards of the FDA....and that you'd get the flu, months ahead of the peek season. You'd better spend all day scouring the internet for conspiracy theories to prove your point.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 03:18 PM
You don't even understand where the offense lies. It lies in the conservative base that is insulted that Kerry thinks he can scare them off their support of Bush by letting the L-word fly.

If they are not scared and are indeed worried about this woman's privacy then why are they :deevee: so loudly? It seems to me they would just let the remark hang and allow folks to decide for themselves the appropriateness of the remark. Instead they've made it into a full blown controversy and risk their own hypocricy on the issue being exposed.

FWIW, Mary Cheney and her partner were on the stage after the VP debate. If Cheney was so worried about her privacy and her being identified as a lesbian then why have her featured so prominently with her lover ON STAGE in front of millions of people?

redbrian
10-14-2004, 03:42 PM
Couple of points

1) Both Kerry and Edwards’s believe that homosexuals should not be allowed a governmental sanctioned marriage.
Edwards has stated that the government should offer a sanctioned legal contract for couples in a “long term relationship”.
I just wonder how long they have to wait.

2) If homosexuality was strictly genetic would it not have been self eliminating?

KCN
10-14-2004, 04:28 PM
#2 is addressed here (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519), take it as you will.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 04:39 PM
If they are not scared and are indeed worried about this woman's privacy then why are they :deevee: so loudly? It seems to me they would just let the remark hang and allow folks to decide for themselves the appropriateness of the remark. Instead they've made it into a full blown controversy and risk their own hypocricy on the issue being exposed.

FWIW, Mary Cheney and her partner were on the stage after the VP debate. If Cheney was so worried about her privacy and her being identified as a lesbian then why have her featured so prominently with her lover ON STAGE in front of millions of people?
They're not worried about the privacy. They're insulted that Kerry would presume that they hate homosexuals so much that the mere suggestion that the ticket has a tough of teh ghey would make them sit at home on election day.
Your position is analogous to stating that if McCain were ever seen in public with his adopted son, it was OK for those asshats who intoned that he birthed a black baby.

redbrian
10-14-2004, 04:46 PM
#2 is addressed here (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519), take it as you will.


Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”
_________________________________________________________

Interesting article, however as one observer states this would only account for 21% of the male homosexuality. It does not indicate how females are “created gay”.

Also from a statistical standing the roughly 200 males chosen is not an adequate number for statistical accuracy.

It’s as good a start as any but needs to be looked into much further. Although I’m sure that there are a lot of people who do not want to see this type of research to done.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 04:50 PM
They're not worried about the privacy. They're insulted that Kerry would presume that they hate homosexuals so much that the mere suggestion that the ticket has a tough of teh ghey would make them sit at home on election day.
Your position is analogous to stating that if McCain were ever seen in public with his adopted son, it was OK for those asshats who intoned that he birthed a black baby.

He didn't presume that...that is being projected on his remark. If anything he said she is being who she is and she is and doing so in a world that wished she wouldn't. If it were choice she'd likely choose to be someone who was less controversial and less an issue for her father and their family stature. Just as he said those who were married but gay would have not chosen their path.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 04:52 PM
They're not worried about the privacy. They're insulted that Kerry would presume that they hate homosexuals so much that the mere suggestion that the ticket has a tough of teh ghey would make them sit at home on election day.
Your position is analogous to stating that if McCain were ever seen in public with his adopted son, it was OK for those asshats who intoned that he birthed a black baby.

If McCain had publically talked about a black baby he birthed (THAT would be news seeing that men don't normally give birth) and then if he was confronted with the issue in a previous debate and thanked the opponent for his position and kind words then he would later have no grounds to complain...neither does Cheney.

Cheney could have put a screeching halt on Mary talk and slammed the door shut if he'd taken up his 90 seconds to address the issue vs. taking the pass.

Baby Lee
10-14-2004, 04:56 PM
He didn't presume that...that is being projected on his remark.
One pointed reference, even one so ominous in overtone as Kerry's, maybe. But to have it follow Edwards' remarks in the VP debate, it is crystal clear that pointing out that Cheney has to deal with teh ghey in his family is a campaign goal. And it's equally clear it's an attempt to unsettle Bush/Cheney supporters.

jettio
10-14-2004, 07:14 PM
If B*sh was not the 800 pound retard in the room that gets automatically forgiven for all of the underhanded crap his people do for him under his orders, there would not have to be all of this overhype and crybaby crap over every Kerry remark from which some brouhaha could be hatched.

Time to get rid of the sorry sum-b*tch that always begs for the double standard and always finds scapegoats for his boneheaded decisions. Had the nerve to blame his generals for his collossall clusterf*ck in Iraq. what a loozzerr.

BTW, all of this is moot now, Mary Cheney just had a press conference and she has decided to give dick a trial run for the time being.

DanT
10-14-2004, 07:26 PM
They're not worried about the privacy. They're insulted that Kerry would presume that they hate homosexuals so much that the mere suggestion that the ticket has a tough of teh ghey would make them sit at home on election day.
Your position is analogous to stating that if McCain were ever seen in public with his adopted son, it was OK for those asshats who intoned that he birthed a black baby.


Did someone intone something untruthful about Mary Cheney?

DanT
10-14-2004, 07:26 PM
Ha, I got post number 3 to the 5th power on this thread!

DanT
10-14-2004, 07:29 PM
By the way, in case anyone's confused, as far as I know, Senator John McCain did not give birth to a black adopted son. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, if he had.

Inspector
10-14-2004, 08:58 PM
I haven't read all of this, but I'll go out on a limb and say I bet Cheney's daughter likes bush.

Mosbonian
10-14-2004, 11:20 PM
If B*sh was not the 800 pound retard in the room that gets automatically forgiven for all of the underhanded crap his people do for him under his orders, there would not have to be all of this overhype and crybaby crap over every Kerry remark from which some brouhaha could be hatched.

Time to get rid of the sorry sum-b*tch that always begs for the double standard and always finds scapegoats for his boneheaded decisions. Had the nerve to blame his generals for his collossall clusterf*ck in Iraq. what a loozzerr.

BTW, all of this is moot now, Mary Cheney just had a press conference and she has decided to give dick a trial run for the time being.


Just when I thought you couldn't get even less credible.....

You need to seek therapy....

mmaddog
*******

jettio
10-15-2004, 07:34 AM
Just when I thought you couldn't get even less credible.....

You need to seek therapy....

mmaddog
*******

It is quite apparent that the B*sh-Cheney machine has been involved in all kind of gutter-level crap including what they did to McCain.

Kerry has conducted a classy and dignified campaign, including not beating the crap out of the sorry-azz excuse of an Administration Stooges at his Connvention.

B*sh spent $200 million on negative lies against Kerry, spent their whole Convention demeaning Kerry, Themselves, and the entire political process and just because B*sh is so clearly oblivious to reality he gets no blame for it.

I really do not give a sh*t if you believe my posts. You probably think Zell Miller is believable.

The truth speaks for itself and it is true that Kerry has been a lot more classy and dignified in this campaign. Kerry disavowed each liberal 527 ad that he thoufght was unfair. B*sh lacked the sack to do even that.

B*sh is in fact responsible for the low class crap his people do to try to keep his inept Stooges party going.

Frankie
10-15-2004, 08:02 AM
It is quite apparent that the B*sh-Cheney machine has been involved in all kind of gutter-level crap including what they did to McCain.

Kerry has conducted a classy and dignified campaign, including not beating the crap out of the sorry-azz excuse of an Administration Stooges at his Connvention.

B*sh spent $200 million on negative lies against Kerry, spent their whole Convention demeaning Kerry, Themselves, and the entire political process and just because B*sh is so clearly oblivious to reality he gets no blame for it.

I really do not give a sh*t if you believe my posts. You probably think Zell Miller is believable.

The truth speaks for itself and it is true that Kerry has been a lot more classy and dignified in this campaign. Kerry disavowed each liberal 527 ad that he thoufght was unfair. B*sh lacked the sack to do even that.

B*sh is in fact responsible for the low class crap his people do to try to keep his inept Stooges party going.

AMEN. :clap:
Rep

Iowanian
10-15-2004, 08:17 AM
Libs are going to Melt like a chocolate bar in a 120 degree car when Bush Wins.