Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TweetyBird on October 05, 2004, 10:10:01 PM
-
I would rather have a not particularly bright President with his heart in the right place and a smart vice president with his heart in the right place, than a smart President with is his heart in the right place and a vice president who was a snake in the grass with no heart.
Kerry - Edwards is no longer an option. Its not what Edwards said, but how he said it. He is unquestionably a snake, a Dixiecrat revealed.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I would rather have a not particularly bright President with his heart in the right place and a smart vice president with his heart in the right place, than a smart President with is his heart in the right place and a vice president who was a snake in the grass with no heart.
Kerry - Edwards is no longer an option. Its not what Edwards said, but how he said it. He is unquestionably a snake, a Dixiecrat revealed.
yep
I don't like lawyers a whole lot
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I would rather have a not particularly bright President with his heart in the right place and a smart vice president with his heart in the right place, than a smart President with is his heart in the right place and a vice president who was a snake in the grass with no heart.
Kerry - Edwards is no longer an option. Its not what Edwards said, but how he said it. He is unquestionably a snake, a Dixiecrat revealed.
:confused:
Cheney was the one who didn't thank Edwards for coming to the debate, maybe cause Edwards beat the **** out of him, and made him flip-flop?
:)
-
wtg tweety
hope others see the light you saw in the last 90 minutes
some of us saw it long ago
-
Edwards is a trial lawyer; IMO he is Kerry's biggest liability
J_A_B
-
Odd that Cheney didn't see any attack. In fact didn't he thank Edwards for his kind comments? I was watching the same debate wasn't I?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Odd that Cheney didn't see any attack. In fact didn't he thank Edwards for his kind comments? I was watching the same debate wasn't I?
he saw it.
did you hear him thank eddie boy in the end? nope just the moderator
-
Cheney, crafty veep that he is, was just letting the public draw their own conclusions and letting Edwards hang himself.
-
Yeah rpm, when Edwards started saying what he said, I viewed it as a cheap way using Cheney's daughter to make a point about gay unions.
Cheney took it as a warm compliment, but I don't think he could do otherwise. He was probably peaved but maybe was expecting something like that to come up.
Low, very low of Edwards in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I would rather have a not particularly bright President with his heart in the right place and a smart vice president with his heart in the right place, than a smart President with is his heart in the right place and a vice president who was a snake in the grass with no heart.
Kerry - Edwards is no longer an option. Its not what Edwards said, but how he said it. He is unquestionably a snake, a Dixiecrat revealed.
He is a politician and a lawyer, what did you expect?
-
So tweety shall we now mark you down in the Republitard category? Have you filled out all the neccessary paperwork? Dotted the "i"'s and crossed the "t"'s?
Very well then...
Welcome to the horde. That distinctly indistinct place where all the voices blend together and come crushing through in waves of.... well, pure mass as far as I can tell.
I should think that would be very comfortable.
-
I guess you could take it however you want, but it didn't seem to come off very underhanded to me. It looked to me like he was trying to throw the question out as a non-issue and align his ticket with the current administration as being against same sex marriage. If I missed something obvious, please explain it (anyone but Eagler, that is, LOLs don't do much explaining).
-
Originally posted by Nash
That distinctly indistinct place where all the voices blend together and come crushing through in waves of.... well, pure mass as far as I can tell.
I should think that would be very comfortable.
Are you saying he joined the majority? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
-
Originally posted by Nash
So tweety shall we now mark you down in the Republitard category? Have you filled out all the neccessary paperwork? Dotted the "i"'s and crossed the "t"'s?
Very well then...
Welcome to the horde. That distinctly indistinct place where all the voices blend together and come crushing through in waves of.... well, pure mass as far as I can tell.
I should think that would be very comfortable.
wow that was really deep. you should be some kind of motivational speaker.:lol
-
I think it was a mistake for Edwards to bring up Cheney's daughter. With Cheney's lack of comment other than to point out that Bush made administration policy he made it clear that he didn't agree with it. That can only be intrepreted as sympathy towards gays and undermines an attempt to portray the administration as anti-gay. Why not just point out Bush's support to amend the constitution against gay marraige and leave it at that. Poor judgement if you ask me.
-
Cheney is supporting a President who is undermining Cheney's very own daughter.
There's a lot to admire about that. I side with Cheney's support of his President in the face of his own personal reality.
However.... it's something.
If Bush, by trying to ammend the very constitution about this, does not make this an election issue... what, pray tell, is?
God forbid Edwards should talk about this. God forbid he should point out his opponent's contradictory stance on it during a debate.
If you would rather have a dumb president, over a vice president who is willing to talk about this.... then I think you're being a bit reactionary...
There's more to the story here tweety - isn't there?
-
Rarely will you find two people anywhere that agree on everything Nash. Well, except perhaps two Democrats running for office, sounded like Kerry and Edwards were reading the same script.
-
Well that's great then Iron. It's what he was supposed to do.
You're not voting for Edwards. You're not voting for Cheney.
As far as I'm concerned - Edwards didn't say "Kerry" enough.
-
Over 10,000 Constitutional amendments have been proposed in Congress since 1789; in a typical Congressional year in the last several decades, between 100 and 200 are proposed. Most of these proposals never get out of Congressional committee, much less get passed by the Congress.
Anyone else think it's a typical election year ploy to gain the support of a perceived voting block?
In short..... it ain't going nowhere and EVERYBODY with any political brain at all knows that.
It's a political play in an election game.
-
I think Bush solicits and listens to advice from Cheney. As Cheney pointed out, Bush didn't pick him as VP to win Wyoming.
-
Zactly Toad.... It's a play.
Who made it one, and why?
-
Why Bush and his advisors to gain support amongst those opposed to gay marriage, of course.
Now tell me Kerry doesn't do stuff like that.
What do they call it? Pandering to the electorate?
Don't tell me you really think it's a big deal?
-
Me think this is a big deal?
I was asking TWEETY why he thought this was a big deal.
You seemed to come out in.... defense of.... er.... I'm not sure what you were trying to say, frankly.
Now yer saying "everyone does it" and "do you really think it's a big deal"?.... basically....
I'm confused - and yer not helping. :)
-
I think Bush had more to lose with that ploy than he could hope to gain. Those he was pandering to are already in his camp. Unless, he was simply showing that he isn't afraid to take a risk or go against the grain on a matter of principle.
-
>>Odd that Cheney didn't see any attack. In fact didn't he thank Edwards for his kind comments? I was watching the same debate wasn't I?
<<
Cheney thanked him "for the concern of his daughter" in the same passive agressive matter though gritted teeth and added "thats all I have to say on that matter." . Personaly , I have decked the little snake. I'd have knocked that little piece of work into next week. He used Cheney's child as a point. I'm a warthog, and you pay for such a stunt. Edwards is a Dixiecrat plain and simple.
-
Nash, I think you fail to distinguish between Bush's political ploy and Tweety's reaction to Edwards using the issue to point out to the public that Cheney has a gay daughter.
If I understand Tweety's post here in light of his post in the other thread
Anyone who would attack ( smiling and lamely trying to diguise it) a persons child for their sexual orientation, is a snake.
correctly, it's not the political ploy of Bush that bothers him.
It's Edwards' perceived use of the issue to attack Cheney and his daughter.
At least that's my take. I hate to speak for Tweety though.
-
>>So tweety shall we now mark you down in the Republitard category? Have you filled out all the neccessary paperwork? Dotted the "i"'s and crossed the "t"'s?
<<
No mark me in the honest category. I don't vote party lines, and I don't vote for idiots. I don't vote for bullies, opportunists or DIXIECRATS. Wanna know the difference between Edwards and Jesse Helms? Only the party - believe me, only the party. I saw what is Edwards is about and I don't like it.
-
Okay... this is just weird to me then...
Uhm... yeah... Knock yerselves out.
-
Nash, did you watch the debate? The translation will not come through in the transcript. Edwards passively attacked Cheney for the simple fact his daughter is gay, and Cheney gritted his teeth and "thanked" him for the (CHILDISH HATEFUL- my words) attack and reliquished his time. Edwards is scum, and in Louisiana, he'd probably be in intensive care.
-
No mark me in the honest category. I don't vote party lines, and I don't vote for idiots. I don't vote for bullies, opportunists or DIXIECRATS. Wanna know the difference between Edwards and Jesse Helms? Only the party - believe me, only the party. I saw what is Edwards is about and I don't like it. [/B]
Really? Whats is Edwards about? Hes a snake? What kind of snake, rattle snake, python, oh I know cobra?
:lol
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
"Edwards passively attacked Cheney for the simple fact his daughter is gay..."
You think so?
You think Edwards used this as an opportunity to attack Cheney's gay daughter?
Because Edwards thinks gays are freaky?
And by calling Cheney's daughter a freaky gay person, it would look bad on Cheney?
Is this what you think happened?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
The translation will not come through in the transcript. Edwards passively attacked Cheney for the simple fact his daughter is gay, and Cheney gritted his teeth and "thanked" him
Must have been a different debate than the one I watched...
-
Edwards obviously did it to embarrass Cheney using him to ridicule Bush.
-
It wasn't that obvious, but maybe I'm oblivious.
-
oh man, bullchit Iron/Tweety...
That whole line just shows how out to lunch you are about it.
Gay does not equal bad. Only to some people does gay equal bad.
It is the people who would take what Edwards said as an attack on Cheney, because he has a gay daughter, that think gay equals bad.
That's all yer really saying here.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Really? Whats is Edwards about? Hes a snake? What kind of snake, rattle snake, python, oh I know cobra?
:lol
And btw, thanks for watching out for us and warning us. I'll jot down on my list of snakes.
John Edwards - type snake.
:lol
-
By embarrass I don't mean he intended to ridicule Cheney for having a gay daughter but rather by bringing up a likely sensitive personal issue, one he knows there is a difference of opinion, to use against Bush.
-
BTW, I don't find the move to be all that distasteful, more of a mistake that I think backfired on him.
-
So Nash, you believe it was brought up to illustrate Cheney's compassionate view of homosexuality? Sell it somewhere else - I aint buying it. But you know, its just my gut reaction. I 'm not going to try to convince you or anyone how to vote. But if anyone ever votes for someone that gives them a sinking feeling in their gut, someone they feel displays distinct character flaws, they are indeed a fool.
I think what Edwards did, was a shot on Cheney using his daughter as ammo. You disagree. Thats why I'll vote one way and you'll vote another.
It aint that complicated. I've stated, and I think you agree no matter who's elected, Iraq is a very long term problem. I believe George Bush misled the people, but I think he did it for noble reasons. I think Edwards is a political opportunist. Gota go with George. Sorry for Kerry for not making a better vp choice.
1 man 1 vote, I have to vote my morality.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Thats why they created a maximum two term presidency and four year terms. Thats to ensure that when someone becomes president, they dont gain too much experience and power and abuse it. Two terms if they were exceptional in office else, next. Seems like some of you like to be ruled by the power elites. Not me. I believe in pwoer to the people, if the guy aint excellant, NEXT! There are plenty of excellant leaders here in the US waiting for their chance at being the president. There aint no shortages.
:cheezy removed:
Ahem... Roosevelt did okay without these restrictions.
I think that "they" put these laws in place because "they" considered the American public too stupid to recognize corruption.
-
Yeah Sandman, I wouldn't mind lifting the restrictions. Having a really popular President getting re-elected would be great.
The voters would decide and I can't see how it could be a negative.
Reagan probably could have very easily have won another term.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Reagan probably could have very easily have won another term.
...as would Clinton.
-
Cheney was the one who didn't thank Edwards for coming to the debate, maybe cause Edwards beat the **** out of him,
You obviously weren't watching the same debate as the rest of us...... what planet are you from?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...as would Clinton.
If we're gonna change the rules, Ahnold will beat Clinton hands down, or hands somewhere. ;)
-
Well, Tweety....
Have it your way... It is of course, your way.
But if you think that Edwards "attacked Cheney for the simple fact his daughter is gay", then yer saying that Cheney should be embarrassed about his gay daughter.
Now you're going to go and vote for a President that you don't even like, because of a potential Vice President who doesn't see gays as quite the liability that you do.
Well - different strokes for different folks... and all...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If we're gonna change the rules, Ahnold will beat Clinton hands down, or hands somewhere. ;)
Wanna trade governors?
-
We like anold. We're keeping anold.
:D
Im out for tonight, cya all later.
-
Originally posted by Steve
You obviously weren't watching the same debate as the rest of us...... what planet are you from?
I only got to see the end..
:)
-
Didn't see the debate, but I wish they would not attack one another and present themselves in a more civil manner. Try and explain what you would do better than your opponent w/o trashing him. I guess I am old fashioned(and would probably lose a debate)
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
We like anold. We're keeping anold.
:D
Im out for tonight, cya all later.
He's easy to like... he repealed the vehicle registration tax and... er... and... oh... yeah... he bullied the indians into paying taxes.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Didn't see the debate, but I wish they would not attack one another and present themselves in a more civil manner. Try and explain what you would do better than your opponent w/o trashing him. I guess I am old fashioned(and would probably lose a debate)
This debate was very civil actually. Nobody really attacked anyone personally. Both remained very calm and made their points. It was a good debate.
-
I counted 3 references to Kerry's Vietnam service. There wasn't any mention of how he ended that war though. Seems that would be a selling point. Then again the troops are popular these days and calling them baby killers would probably be a big faux paux. Hmmm, if elected maybe that's his real plan to end the war?
-
Here's the text...
"Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. "
Now we decide - what point was Edwards trying to make...
A: Cheney and his wife love his daughter.
B: All parents love their children and want them to be happy
C: Cheney's daughter is gay.
Now lets put another developmental obstacle in place of "gay" (and believe it or not homosexuality is a genetic developmental obstacle).
----Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a [dow syndrome] daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. ------
Wow - he's impressed and *respects* the fact they love (and even EMBRACE!!!) their daughter who is not the same as 90% of the population. Well gosh, Edwards, we should submit you for cannonization for your understanding that parents love their children even if they are differnet. Such a profound notion.
He's a snake. He's a redneck Dixiecrat.
This is Cheney's response. Its obvious he was bowled over by Edwards slimey tactic, and it came through gritted teeth.
"CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it. "
If you think that was a cordial acceptance of a compliment - you are naive. You may note there was no contact between the two after the debate, probably because somebody would have went to the hospital.
-
Now yer equating gays with people who have (not "dow syndrome") downs syndrome.
Nice one...
-
Are you purposely being dense? That what you took from the above post - a mispelling and some screwball conclusion my efforts are to equate homosexuality with downs syndrome?
-
christ Nash, I thought you'd be in bed by now.
-
Pretty soon... :)
-
What do you call trying to make a point out of pasting the same quote twice, but changing one of them to read "retard" instead of "gay".... and equating the two?
-
Nash, explain level you are on. I need to know if I should use different perspectives, metaphors or allegory in responses to you. If you're going to go six-year-old, Ill keep my responses monosylable four word sentences.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Nash, explain level you are on.
"Explain level you are on"... Explain level you are on....
Just WTF have you been trying to say all night?
THAT'S what level I'm on.
-
>>What do you call trying to make a point out of pasting the same quote twice, but changing one of them to read "retard" instead of "gay".... and equating the two?
<<
*RETARD* is YOUR word. I don't use that word, and frankly dislike those who do.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
He's easy to like... he repealed the vehicle registration tax and... er... and... oh... yeah... he bullied the indians into paying taxes.
:aok
Yea but doesnt this new prop 68 (I think that's the right number) give them like 10 more casinos? I see all the against adds on TV saying it will worsen traffic :rofl
I think horendous is a level that's not gonna be surpased by a few casinos
The tribes get revenue and the state gets much needed revenue and a bunch of jobs are created. Sounds win win to me at least.
-
sorry Tweety - I should know full well by now how sensitive you are about slights commited against great swaths of humanity.
I take back "'tards"... replace it with yer "dow syndrome" and go forth....
-
Why Nash? Why is the word offensive? Because it LABELS the ENTIRE child. A child can have emotional defecits, physical deficits, or mental deficits. To label them a "tard" just shows how narrow minded and insensative a person is. You see - I don't care what party you hang your hat in - crap will float. Empathy will get you a lot further in this world than ignorance.
-
"Snake in the grass" is pretty mean too. I think the Democrats prefer Natrix natrix. ;)
-
Holy.... Dude....
You compare gays to people who have downs syndrome....
So I used the word tards....
Now you're callin' me out for the word 'tards', when... at the end of this entire thing, you've basically insulted every tard and ghey person ever.
Yer saying that tards are as bad as gays.... and that gays are as bad as tards.....
It's disgusting and you oughta stop.
-
Nash, I substituted a different obstacle a child might face to illustrate the ignorant narrow minded way of seeing a child as one thing. YOU helped illustrate the point. NO child is a "tard"
Children have all types of deficits, and there is an indiviual with gifts and strengths and even regular weaknesses under those obvious surface deficits. Only the narrow minded and ignorant paint them as "tards."
Lip service is easy, Nash. Compassion is consistant
-
Tweety, what I took from that was Sen. Edwards said it was good that Cheney wasn't a homophobe, unlike the President. That Cheney would embrace his daughter and try to provide her a happy life with her partner, unlike the President.
I didn't notice any "gritted teeth" when Cheney replied, in fact he looked about as docile as I've ever seen him. You are painting the picture very distorted from what it actually was.
-
Yeah... I don't have compassion because I use the word 'tard'.
You have compassion because you see both being a tard and/or teh ghey as a bad thing.
Is this part of the compassionate contardavism?
-
Ok Nash. If thats what you believe, and I don't think it is - nor do I think most people reading will believe.
Yea - Tweaty just wanted say gay's are "tards."
Right Nash - hope you get a lot of milage out of that.
cya
-
me too... laterz.
(You tard hater)
-
I want to go on record saying gays are fugged up.
-
the.
-
I'm always late on comebacks..
Cheney should have said..
"why thank you, and I'm glad you and Mrs. Edwards love your test tube babies as well"
Day late dollar short is me
Edit: oh now its flooding
"how long were they in the refrigerator?"
"Which magazine did you use?"
"You should be so proud to have started an artificial family after the death of your daughter, and its grand you embrace them!"
Seriously such remarks would be just as gross as the ones Edwards made. Its just an illustration of the ignorance behind such passive agressive attacks.
and more...
" Did you get a single or double bed pietre dish?"
"Well at least you're sure they won't be alergic to acrylic. Embrace that fact."
....
-
Tweety's quote makes perfect sense.
To me, and I think Tweety as well, what Edwards is saying is simply, "Hey, Cheney you and your wife are great because you're daughter is an embaressment to you but you love her anyway"
Nash, you can spin this all you want. Tweety nailed it.
Read the quite AGAIN:
"And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing"
Like she's should be some sort of dirty secret to the Cheney family. Like they should lock her in the closet.
Scumbag move on the part of Edwards.
Some folks on this board really earn my respect because they are intellectually honest. Some just toe the party line and look like mindless partisans.
-
Right, why would you make a point in a national debate by saying I respect the fact that parents love thier daughter (news flash... most parents love thier kids) most parents embrace their children "It's a wonderful thing"
If you cant see this you are a drone to the system
It was used as a political point plain and simple and was not worthy of a responce.
By the way Bush is not pushing for the amendment only supporting it.
-
oh this is good... why don't you just call tweety an idiot nash?
I know you want to... he betrayed you! in front of everyone! with michell moores movie out and the "boss" doing the concert and the slick debates and all.... what is wrong with him?
you will never get it nash so long as you continue to only go to your support groups. It is the liberal failing. It doesn't matter how smart or witty or artisic you are.... if you can't think you won't ever understand...
but even you must understand this.... Tweety will vote this election.... you and your friends won't.
cheer up tho... you can sit around and make fun of all us no talent rubes after the election.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Right, why would you make a point in a national debate by saying I respect the fact that parents love thier daughter (news flash... most parents love thier kids) most parents embrace their children "It's a wonderful thing"
If you cant see this you are a drone to the system
It was used as a political point plain and simple and was not worthy of a responce.
By the way Bush is not pushing for the amendment only supporting it.
Winner!
I am surprised/disgusted daily by what the left turns a blind eye to in their candidates out of pure hatred for this admin and their lust to replace them with ANYTHING/ANYONE
-
Originally posted by Nash
Cheney is supporting a President who is undermining Cheney's very own daughter.
If Bush, by trying to ammend the very constitution
Do you mean amend? Interesting. One man has the power to amend the Constitution of the United States all by himself! Pull your head out of the sand. In every state where the issue of homosexual marriage has been brought before the electorate the proposal has been soundly spanked. It is only through the illegal activism for unelected judges in extremely liberal states that this agenda has been forwarded. The people will decide if they want to preserve the cornerstone of society, the family, not any president. If we are to protect ourselves from imbecilic liberals and their whimsical pursuits, be it homosexual marriage or plural marriages or whatever you people will think of next it would be wise on the part of the majority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as God ordained it to be.
On a side note I have a wife, she has a husband. If the imbeciles win on this issue will the dictionaries all need to be changed? what will adam and steve call each other? what about dana and eve? will we need to come up new words to describe a same sex spouse? I'm sure it will go way beyond the dictionary as well.
-
As an aside, I love the argument that "He's not so smart, but he's surrounded by smart people, so he'll do okay". I heard it four years ago, and I'm hearing it now.
And, how, may I ask, is he going to figure out who the smart people are, with a genuine interest in the welfare of the country, who are fellow idiots, and who are evil self-serving bastards intent on looting the public sector?
-
Welp, after reading this entire thread to this point, I must say that that it has been an enjoyable read. Mainly because the tone has been mostly civil and respectful. Both side presenting reasoned thought, it appears to me. Oh, sure, there are some very marked disagreements, but it's like listening in on a conversation at a party: all the participants standing around with their favorite adult bevs in hand, pontificating on the world's ills, with a liberal (no pun intended) sprinkling of jabs left and right (pun intended). But nothing , so far, too inflamatory. This is the comfortable BBS tone from the past that we all had come to expect. I welcome it back:D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Nash, did you watch the debate? The translation will not come through in the transcript. Edwards passively attacked Cheney for the simple fact his daughter is gay, and Cheney gritted his teeth and "thanked" him for the (CHILDISH HATEFUL- my words) attack and reliquished his time. Edwards is scum, and in Louisiana, he'd probably be in intensive care.
Here are the actual words from:
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1714027p-9519936c.html
I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: Freedom means freedom for everybody. You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.
Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?
CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.
That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.
Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.
In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.
Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.
I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.
But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.
No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.
This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.
IFILL: New question, but same subject.
As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.
Are you trying to have it both ways?
EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.
We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.
For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.
I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.
But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.
I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.
There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.
We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.
Didn't look like much of an attack to me--and while I didn't see the debate (no TV) I did listen to it and I still don't see your point.
Edwards brought up the family point (after Cheney had a LOT to say about it)--in one portion, Cheney says that "Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference, " but then says he will support a constitutional read "federal" mandate that would take said power from the state.
Edwards pointed out the (continued) hypocrisy of this position using Cheney's own family as an illustration. As Cheney did!
Until I saw your post --at the time, I thought it was a telling point against Cheney--demonstrating the hypocrisy of using the Constitution as a vehicle to reduce the rights of a minority when it would negatively affect his own family.
h
-
Originally posted by Dinger
And, how, may I ask, is he going to figure out who the smart people are, with a genuine interest in the welfare of the country, who are fellow idiots, and who are evil self-serving bastards intent on looting the public sector?
Whoa, Dinger... you don't really mean that do you? You CERTAINLY didn't say that about Dick Cheney. I mean, the guy's been in public service his ENTIRE LIFE. He was the Chief of Staff when he was 33. He was a congressman for like 10 years. He served as the Secretary of Defense. He's now the sitting Vice President of the United States. This isn't the resume of an 'evil self-serving bastard'.
-
Hehe ripsnorted Dick Cheney and Resume into google, and came up with this:
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8329&fcategory_desc=Dick%20Cheney%20and%20Halliburton
or maybe a resume from a site that's critical of all politicians:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=2
his entire life, except for that period where he privatized a good part of the military, then became a CEO and got filthy rich off that privatization.
And yeah, KBR's been right there beside our troops when we needed them, not fearing enemy attacks or capture, and charging a fair price.
But I didn't call anyone in particular an "evil bastard"
-
The military has done a lot to cut costs and expand its mission capacity through privatization. Simply put, private companies that are in business to perform a function that doesn't include killing the enemy and taking his land are much more likely to perform their task faster and cheaper than military personnel. Do you fault Dick Cheney for working toward that goal?
Now, I'm in the Air Force and I do a lot of program management. In the last 2 years I've learned a LOT about how the government expects private companies to do business with it. When I get out of the Air Force, that knowledge will be greatly sought after. Would it be greedy of me to take advantage of that knowledge?
-
Originally posted by Preon1
Would it be greedy of me to take advantage of that knowledge?
Not at all. Many folks come out of DoD program mgmnt into industry--but get it right--it's not your program mgmnt skills that are sought after--matter of fact, few will care how well you can do in that department. What will mattter (and what will determine how long you last/your pay) is how much business you will bring to the contractor through your old DoD contacts and understanding of the procurement systems specific to your DoD experiences.
The sooner you realize what industry values, the better you will do when you get out.
This is the reason a Cheney or hell, Carlyle Group does so well. Do you think Carlyle can offer a 25-30% ROI to their investors because they are just sharp businessmen? They are also SERIOUSLY connected. They attract those with political contacts to get things done in the Gov't. May not be ultimately ethical but that is the game nevertheless.
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
Not at all. Many folks come out of DoD program mgmnt into industry--but get it right--it's not your program mgmnt skills that are sought after--matter of fact, few will care how well you can do in that department. What will mattter (and what will determine how long you last/your pay) is how much business you will bring to the contractor through your old DoD contacts and understanding of the procurement systems specific to your DoD experiences.
The sooner you realize what industry values, the better you will do when you get out.
This is the reason a Cheney or hell, Carlyle Group does so well. Do you think Carlyle can offer a 25-30% ROI to their investors because they are just sharp businessmen? They are also SERIOUSLY connected. They attract those with political contacts to get things done in the Gov't. May not be ultimately ethical but that is the game nevertheless.
h
That's what I meant. Almost anybody can do the job of program management. When I leave the DoD, I'll know who to talk to and know how to garner favor from the system (at least in the area of missile defense) because I've been in it. Is that an unfair advantage? Maybe. Am I evil for taking that advantage? I'd hope not.
-
The moderator asked the question. Cheney went the "states rights" route with it, basically side stepping the issue. Edwards said what Cheney would have loved to have said, and Cheney simply thanked him and let it go. It was a classy play by both men.
-
I didnt see the attack on Cheney's daughter, All i saw was the attack on bush's Idea about banning gay marrages. that and the idea that Cheney would support a law that would hurt his daughter. in the long run, and treat them like second class americans.
-
Sure Preon, but did you write the rules? The guy was Secretary of Defense in the administration that brought about the excesses of the current system, then he goes into the private sector and gets rich off of it. The only reason it's not illegal is because he made it not be illegal.
As for the merits of the current system of contractors, that's quite a debatable point. Yes, they can save money, since they don't cost anything when we're not at war. But their effectiveness in war is questionable; and we've been at war for 3 years now, and I don't see any end in sight, regardless of who wins in November.
In our current system, there's nothing wrong with selling the experience the military gives you; in fact, that's still the major point of recruitment. But we spend a _lot_ of money on the military, and the ties between the Military and Industry can and do become quite incestuous. That's why your "Defense Contracting 101" guidebooks have extensive and explicit procedures laid out.
But the critical difference between you and Dick Cheney is that if you happen to make a ton of money specifically because of some change that he oversaw, you'll be able say, "I don't make the rules; I just play by them."
-
Who was the person in that exchange to state clearly that Cheney has a gay daughter?
Moderator?
Cheney?
Edwards?
Edwards
Do you think he did that to give Cheney kudos or to make sure it was clearly stated that Cheney's daughter (not some unnamed "family member") is gay? Where else in the debate did Edwards give Cheney kudos? Is it a little wierd that the only place he did give kudos is at a point he reveals something that neither the moderator, no Cheney has stated (for whatever reason)?
If you want to believe that was some heartfelt compliment or show of support for Cheney, well go right ahead. We'll agree to disagree.
I think he's a Dixiecrat, and I can't vote for him.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I think he's a Dixiecrat
There's nothing to indicate that he is a racist.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
than a smart President with is his heart in the right place and a vice president who was a snake in the grass with no heart.
How about a heart that is ready to explode?
-
Guys, give it up. Tweety has formulated some imaginary attack in his mind and isn't about to change it. Tweety must be right... Cheney is too weakminded to recognise and defend an attack on his daughter.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well that's great then Iron. It's what he was supposed to do.
You're not voting for Edwards. You're not voting for Cheney.
As far as I'm concerned - Edwards didn't say "Kerry" enough.
Hell thats all he COULD say when the moderator asked him how he was qualified to be Vice President!
"Well Kerry almost did this uh uh Kerry voted for that...sorta uh uh ok ok I don't have a long record like Cheney but but it doesn't matter I I Kerry has a plan to fix that...yeah a plan...uh uh Haliburton Haliburton"
BTW we ARE voting for the Vice President. I include the VP in my decision because he is just as important.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Who was the person in that exchange to state clearly that Cheney has a gay daughter?
Moderator?
Cheney?
Edwards?
Edwards
Do you think he did that to give Cheney kudos or to make sure it was clearly stated that Cheney's daughter (not some unnamed "family member") is gay? Where else in the debate did Edwards give Cheney kudos? Is it a little wierd that the only place he did give kudos is at a point he reveals something that neither the moderator, no Cheney has stated (for whatever reason)?
If you want to believe that was some heartfelt compliment or show of support for Cheney, well go right ahead. We'll agree to disagree.
I think he's a Dixiecrat, and I can't vote for him.
It is all becoming clear now. You see the acknowledgement of a gay daughter as an insult. I choose to see it as an acknowledgement. Hence my confusion with your assesment.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
How about a heart that is ready to explode?
When Mt St Helens popped after the first presidential debate, i figured it was a clear sign of the location of Cheney's secret underground bunker.
Nash i think you missed the obvious as to why "tho protest too much" and it turned into an awkward moment on a testosterone seeping board.
Cheney is ready to compromise the basic rights of his daughter due to the influence of the almighty greenback and a religious ideology. You think he gives a rats anus about the lives of young men and women in the military, which he so eagerly throws into harms way?
-
so torque... you will be joining nash and the rest of canada in not voting for Bush Cheney this election?
lazs
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Who was the person in that exchange to state clearly that Cheney has a gay daughter?
Moderator?
Yes, the moderator said it first referencing Cheney's prior comments on his daughter:
"I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: Freedom means freedom for everybody. You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.
You'd have to be living in a cotton-lined shoebox not to know Cheney's "family experience" isn't referencing his daughter. He brought it to the fore publicly and therefore it is not something "private" as you've intimated.
Whatever. I'm beginning to think RPM's right--you've formulated some imaginary attack based on your dislike of the fellow.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so torque... you will be joining nash and the rest of canada in not voting for Bush Cheney this election?
lazs
We already did, hence no troops in Iraq. ;)
-
eddie boy pointed out cheneys daughter for the brain dead who were watching and did not know of it..
typical trial lawyer move, he meant nothing nice and was trying to pin Cheney with the comment. Cheney should have came back with a weight watchers comment for eddie boys two ton tessie spouse - something along the lines of "I know you love your wife Eddie, how do you feel about America's major health issues concerning our obesity issues ..."
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Cheney should have came back with a weight watchers comment for eddie boys two ton tessie spouse - something along the lines of "I know you love your wife Eddie, how do you feel about America's major health issues concerning our obesity issues ..."
Is Edwards in favor of a Constitutional Amendment against fat people?
-
Seems to me some folks have such a problem with Gays that they think the mere mention of it is an insult. Sad.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Tweety, what I took from that was Sen. Edwards said it was good that Cheney wasn't a homophobe, unlike the President. That Cheney would embrace his daughter and try to provide her a happy life with her partner, unlike the President.
I didn't notice any "gritted teeth" when Cheney replied, in fact he looked about as docile as I've ever seen him. You are painting the picture very distorted from what it actually was.
Guys, give it up. Tweety has formulated some imaginary attack in his mind and isn't about to change it. Tweety must be right... Cheney is too weakminded to recognise and defend an attack on his daughter.
I don't think in Tweety's mind it was imaginary RPM. IMO Tweety saw what he saw and you saw what you saw. Best to just agree to disagree.
On a side note I took Edwards comments as did a few I have talked with WHEN ASKED the same way as Tweety did. I thought it a back handed slap as well.
I have no problem with Gays. I have Gay neighbors as a matter a fact. My wife and I find them extremely nice and are proud to have them as neighbors. After speaking to one of them this morning they said that it was "Rude" , to use his words , that edwards even brought it up.
His notion was this......I'll paraphrase...."Senator Edwards would have been better off to simply say the he and Mr. Kerry believe in marriage as being the traditional union of Man and women." He threw in an expletive or 2 as he is not a huge supporter of Kerry / Edwards.
I think Tweety saw something that made him realise something that HE believes in.
No need to try to make him out to be anything or try to skew what he thinks as being bad.
Just my 2 cents. (Which amounts to nothing)
-
So basically what you're saying is that Tweety is gay.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So basically what you're saying is that Tweety is gay.
Nash.....stop:lol
-
Originally posted by Nash
So basically what you're saying is that Tweety is gay.
Common Nash maneuver.
That all you got left?
-
Is that all ya got?! Is that ALL YOU GOT!?!
-
>>So basically what you're saying is that Tweety is gay.<<
What a moron.
And thats all that moronic jab deserves.
-
I may be a moron, but you are a Dixiecrat ( <---- did I spell that right?)
-
Originally posted by Nash
I may be a moron, but you are a Dixiecrat ( <---- did I spell that right?)
you're not a moron, your just a fanatic. (a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm)
-
Horn I disagree with you plain and simple.
Had the moderator used discression and refered to a past sergery or medical procedure involving one of Cheney family, I'd have come out the box just as hard if Edwards said something like "I respect the fact that you are supporting your wife after her overies were removed," or " I repsect the fact that you supported you wife after her colostomy."
Its rude as hell. If you don't see, I'm sorry for you.
It is the utmost arrogance to compliment someone for doing something that is intrinsic to human beings, like supporting and loving a family member no matter what. I'm sorry you don't see that either.
Its about using extremely personal situations of someone else as a side show. Its disgusting and if you honestly don't see it, it may be a a feux pas dependent on culture
-
Being a "snake in the grass" didn't work out for you...
Don't whine about it... and don't press it....
You just look even more ghey when ya do.
-
I don't see the big deal... I'm a lesbian.
-
BTW, I saw it as a dig by Edwards as well. The old low class/no class backhand presented as a compliment.
But then I expect that stuff from politicians of any stripe.
-
Nash, I really respect the fact that you are putting words in order to form sentences. I salute you in your struggles to become literate.
-
Personally, I shuddered when Edwards started to go off on his ghey rant. It's maybe cool to talk about it... but , like, what was it? 10 minutes? I was cringing.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Nash, I really respect the fact that you are putting words in order to form sentences. I salute you in your struggles to become literate.
I was always like a C, maybe a C+ student.
Your compliment about me being able to form complete sentences (albeit with a struggle) is a trip down memory lane.
-
The choice is between piss-poor and crappy.
Where are the LEADERS? Where are the guys that can articulate a vision, define a goal, inspire the citizens and LEAD this country to a better society?
OK........ I admit it. Right now I'd settle for just ONE of those attributes in a candidate.
I can always hope.
-
Ya know what Toad?
I chuckle when I hear people say what you just said...
It aint personal against you or anything... It's more like just something that's always bewildered me...
"Where oh where are the real leaders?!!", you say......
Listen, all you chumps....
You have removed any doubt about the fact that complete bullchit will dictate your national discourse.
You have removed all doubt that totally hostile and completely assinine advertisements will direct your thinking.
Who is to blame for this?
The lack of "real leaders"?
A real leader would have to be INSANE to jump into the frey, knowing how effectively bullchit attacks on him actually ARE.
Don't blame real leaders. Blame yourselves. Damn....
-
Originally posted by Toad
Where are the LEADERS? Where are the guys that can articulate a vision, define a goal, inspire the citizens and LEAD this country to a better society?
Sadly, they burried Reagan.
-
>>Your compliment about me being able to form complete sentences (albeit with a struggle) is a trip down memory lane.<<
No problem, Nash. I am just so proud of you for being able to form thoughts and concentrate on one subject for a few minutes, and perhaps even grasp the abstact. You should be very proud of your accomplishments. Way to go, man
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ya know what Toad?
I chuckle when I hear people say what you just said...
It aint personal against you or anything... It's more like just something that's always bewildered me...
"Where oh where are the real leaders?!!", you say......
Listen, all you chumps....
You have removed any doubt about the fact that complete bullchit will dictate your national discourse.
You have removed all doubt that totally hostile and completely assinine advertisements will direct your thinking.
Who is to blame for this?
The lack of "real leaders"?
A real leader would have to be INSANE to jump into the frey, knowing how effectively bullchit attacks on him actually ARE.
Don't blame real leaders. Blame yourselves. Damn....
What about your leaders Nash? I blame you personally
-
Hey - it's the same everywhere....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey - it's the same everywhere....
wtf are you so spastic about American politics? It don't look good....just saying.
-
Nuke - point out one time... just once... when I showed even the suspicion of caring about what everyone might think about my political views?
You don't like it? It doesn't "look good" to you?
How terrible for you...
What does it really have to do with me?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke - point out one time... just once... when I showed even the suspicion of caring about what everyone might think about my political views?
You don't like it? It doesn't "look good" to you?
How terrible for you...
What does it really have to do with me?
point out one time when I said I thought you cared about what anyone might think about you.
I'm just saying that you seem fantastically spastic about American politics and it makes you seem like a nutbar.
-
If I come across as a nutbar, then I come across as a nutbar.
If I wanted to write fiction here, I would seek an agent and a publisher.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm just saying that you seem fantastically spastic about American politics and it makes you seem like a nutbar.
You're missing the entertainment value. For what it's worth, it's a good show... a tragic comedy kinda of thing...
-
Okay, but at least you realise that your fanatic facination ( did you notice my catch phrases yet?) with American politics places you in the category of the "bizzare"
-
It wasn't a catch phrase. "fanatic facination" is alliteration.
Kinda like "slithering slimey snakes suntan in the grass".
But the category of bizarre is.... hell, that's SO fine with me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It wasn't a catch phrase. "fanatic facination" is alliteration.
Kinda like "slithering slimey snakes suntan in the grass".
But the category of bizarre is.... hell, that's SO fine with me.
A catch phrase is anything that "catches"
But back to the subject.... you seem to be obstanantly opposed to having an open mind regarding American politics
-
Is that right?
(btw: "obstanantly opposed" is another alliteration. Are you going for the record?)
-
is what right? Man you gotta keep up.
-
Damn straight... you can't have a truly objective view of U.S. politics unless you are a citizen of this country.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Damn straight... you can't have a truly objective view of U.S. politics unless you are a citizen of this country.
Who said that? That sounds closed-minded Sandman...Im surprised coming from you.
-
Ahem...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem...
Ahem...
-
I'm glad we've seemed able to resolve this.
Now....
What does this have to do with Tweety being gay?
-
lol.
Damn I could never hate Nash :)
-
If I come across as a nutbar, then I come across as a nutbar.
More like obsessed whackjob. But you're our obsessed whackjob.
:D
-
The Leaders are there. They don't ever seem to get the nominations though, do they?
You blame the average citizen/voter? Because we're susceptible to negative media advertising? Because we get sucked in by BS like Dandy Dan's faked Guard memos?
Nah......... I'm going with the Trilateral Commission and the UN's shadow hand slowly taking over our elections and political partys to form the One World government. Or it could be the Jewish Cabal and the Elders of Zion. An outside chance the Witches of Eastwick have their gnarled hands in it too.
Seriously, though, I think modern media does have something to do with it. Folks have foregone reading and going out to actually listening to the candidates in favor of the 15 second sound bite one a day on the evening news.
But there are Leaders out there.
-
I have to give a Mea Culpa out to Tweety and his ilk. Apparently your view of Edward's little speech was shared by many, including my wife.
I still disagree, but can see your point.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Horn I disagree with you plain and simple.
Had the moderator used discression and refered to a past sergery or medical procedure involving one of Cheney family, I'd have come out the box just as hard if Edwards said something like "I respect the fact that you are supporting your wife after her overies were removed," or " I repsect the fact that you supported you wife after her colostomy."
Its rude as hell. If you don't see, I'm sorry for you.
It is the utmost arrogance to compliment someone for doing something that is intrinsic to human beings, like supporting and loving a family member no matter what. I'm sorry you don't see that either.
Its about using extremely personal situations of someone else as a side show. Its disgusting and if you honestly don't see it, it may be a a feux pas dependent on culture
That's OK--It was just another time that Cheney was being hypocritical in his position and Edwards called him out on it. And did it in such a way no one would not know about whom or to what he was referring.
Dirty pool? Rude? Maybe.
Maybe Cheney should have thought of that before taking a stance that would potentially hurt a family member because of his frikkin *job* That to me is the issue.
He doesn't think enough of his daughter to take a stand that would bring him into possible contention with his boss. As a father of daughters NO job would worth potentially harming my kids. He obviously thinks differently, though.
I'm frankly amazed he continues to call himself a man.
We'll agree to disagree then.
h
-
>>He doesn't think enough of his daughter to take a stand that would bring him into possible contention with his boss. As a father of daughters NO job would worth potentially harming my kids. He obviously thinks differently, though.
<<
That is one hell of a leap in logic. You got all that eh? Hmmm - do you do tarrot cards also? Cheney is the VP. He doesn't make the laws - hell the President doesn't make the laws. Cheney stated its a states rights issue. He stated the current administration opposes his view and HE SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT. Thats his job. Do you think for one second he wouldn't make life easier for his daughter if he could? I doubt you do, but thats what you are saying - and I find it a little disgusting - almost as disgusting as you playing like you don't understand passive-agressive remarks or vieled insults.
To be quite succinct, do you think for one second, Edwards remarks were designed the laud Cheney, or perhaps they were designed to produce irony at Cheney's dughter's expense? It is NOT rocket science.
-
You guys seemed to have made a big leap here. Of course Cheney loves his daughter. That doesn't automatically mean he approves of her lifestyle or would condone a same sex marriage. I don't know how he feels on the subject, has he spoken on it?
-
What Edwards was saying was:
"Look, all you religious freaks. When your so-called saviours are faced with the same realities as every-day Americans... well HELL.... They act like LIBRAHLS!"
-
You may be right about that was what Edwards was trying to say Nash, I won't second guess his intent. If so, he was dead wrong. There are many folks that stand on principle regardless of hardship. Maybe you don't believe that?
-
I hate "principle", as a rule.
-
>>"Look, all you religious freaks. When your so-called saviours are faced with the same realities as every-day Americans... well HELL.... They act like LIBRAHLS!"
<<
No doubt he was trying to say that. But it was vieled as some sort of compliment or concern for Cheney, when in fact it was a jab. Thats what I said about 50 hours ago, and there was a general disagreement comming from party sheep. But, I guess if party sheep pretended not to see it, they really did, but being sheep they just kinda ignored it.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>He doesn't think enough of his daughter to take a stand that would bring him into possible contention with his boss. As a father of daughters NO job would worth potentially harming my kids. He obviously thinks differently, though.
<<
That is one hell of a leap in logic. You got all that eh? Hmmm - do you do tarrot cards also? Cheney is the VP. He doesn't make the laws - hell the President doesn't make the laws. Cheney stated its a states rights issue. He stated the current administration opposes his view and HE SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT. Thats his job. Do you think for one second he wouldn't make life easier for his daughter if he could? I doubt you do, but thats what you are saying - and I find it a little disgusting - almost as disgusting as you playing like you don't understand passive-agressive remarks or vieled insults.
To be quite succinct, do you think for one second, Edwards remarks were designed the laud Cheney, or perhaps they were designed to produce irony at Cheney's dughter's expense? It is NOT rocket science.
Laud Cheney? Produce "irony?" Not at all. Edwards was jabbing at Cheney for his hypocrisy. Cheney supports a constitutional amendment that would potentially harm his daughter. Of course it was an insult--and it hurt Cheney because it was true.
Cheney deserves it as a spineless father willing to put his job before his family. You *should* find it disgusting that you are defending such a person.
I lost all respect for the guy when he began this nonsense--way before the debate. I think he should be called out on it regularly.
You're right, it's not rocket science.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I hate "principle", as a rule.
As a matter of principle? :p
You were being flippant, right?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
As a matter of principle? :p
You were being flippant, right?
Yeah.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If Bush, by trying to ammend the very constitution about this, does not make this an election issue... what, pray tell, is?
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The president does not have the power, other than informal persuasion, to amend the constitution. As I read it, he is completely out of the loop in the process. 2/3 of both houses, then 3/4 of state legislatures, the signature of the president is not required as the 2/3 majority in the congress makes it moot.
Bush has no more formal power to amend than I do.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Laud Cheney? Produce "irony?" Not at all. Edwards was jabbing at Cheney for his hypocrisy. Cheney supports a constitutional amendment that would potentially harm his daughter. Of course it was an insult--and it hurt Cheney because it was true.
Cheney deserves it as a spineless father willing to put his job before his family. You *should* find it disgusting that you are defending such a person.
I lost all respect for the guy when he began this nonsense--way before the debate. I think he should be called out on it regularly.
You're right, it's not rocket science.
You think he is a spinless father for doing his job?
He said he supports his daughter(good father) ..he said he was for STATE control(good father)....BUT he said he will support his President.(good Vice President)
I find NOTHING disgusting about it. Other than the Demos are using his daughter against him. Bringing her afliction public just to win the election.
THAT is the disgusting part. The Democrats will hurt anyone if it gives them a chance to win.
You *should* find THAT disgusting. You *should* find it disgusting that you support these people.