1
   

Third Debate: Your Comments

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 10:57 pm
Takes guts to say it tho
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 11:51 pm
Lash wrote:
Of course I do. Doesn't everybody?


The question was...

Quote:
oh, Lash, do you actually know any gay people?


as in family member, close friend, etc. It is obvious from your remarks that the answer is no.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 02:25 am
squinney wrote:
Kerry was the clear winner.

There were more times than just the gun issue that Bush passed the buck, but will pull it from the transcript in the morning.

Bush didn't answer SO many questions. Went off on Education when the question was about jobs. Went off on Education when the question was about equal rights.

Kerry was clear on taxes. He was clear on jobs. He was clear on minimum wage. He was clear on health care. I understand what he was saying about health care. It isn't a government program, paid by the government, but rather a health care plan choice that all americans can have an opportunity to buy. Bush continued to say it was a government giveaway.


My thoughts exactly. Bush spent way too much time ranting about education, while avoiding the questions at hand.
When he was questioned about the flu shots, I thought it was funny when he said they were working on getting some from Canada, when he won't allow Americans to buy their med from Canada because they are worried about their safety.
I also couldn't believe his response on the assault weapons question.

I don't think Bush did as badly in this debate than he did in the first one, but he came close, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 03:39 am
Dookiestix wrote:

These boneheads in the White House wanted to make a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage, and all the benefits it provides. So why NOT throw it back in their face and test their hypocrisy on the subject matter?


What "benefits"? To whom? At what cost?

Bush explained that he wanted the amendment to restrain judges from further action creating "rights" that are not found in the constitution, for protected classes of people -- and doing so in defiance of the wishes of the people as democratically expressed through their legislatures. No hypocrisy there.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 05:57 am
I thought it was a little dry with too many numbers thrown around.

I don't think it was Kerry's best night. He seemed to me to be a bit worn out on debates with Bush. I know I sure would be if I was him.

The cheney remark I knew would cause talk because it was a risky thing to do. Maybe that was the point of it, to get people talking and remembering that those that are denied rights are someone's else's daughter or son too.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:02 am
Lash wrote:
But, freeduck, how do you think ANY gay person would like to be trounced across the stage in a nationally televised TV debate?

He used her sexuality like a club against her father for personal gain.


I think he used her sexuality to illustrate a point regarding how personal this issue is and how we tend to feel differently about it when it affects someone we know.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:30 am
Perhaps I missed something however when asked about the minimum wage Bush went into his education speech and never answered the question. I guess he thinks that the present minimum is sufficient for the peasants.
Bush still has the look of deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. I noticed that he from time to time pounded on the lectern to make a point. He even did it even when there was no point to be made. I guess they told him the has to be forcefull. Rolling Eyes
In addition Bush as he has continued to do asks Kerry how he would pay for his plans. I wonder why the question of how Bush would pay for his tax cuts and war did not come up.. I supposed the answer to that is bigger and better deficits. When I ask does a credit card run out of credit?
All in all Bush had his usual incredibly poor showing. However, no doubt the lemmings will find something to praise.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:31 am
RfromP wrote:
[my question is why do we even need to import a flu vaccine from England? Surely we are capable of producing plenty of the vaccine ourselves. I'm missing something on this one.


bush will and did try to blame that on lawsuits and people being afraid to produce the vaccine and then slip in the hint of connection to John Edwards.....then cry foul when Mary Cheney is mentioned.....dickhead... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:35 am
mesquite wrote:
Lash wrote:
Of course I do. Doesn't everybody?


The question was...

Quote:
oh, Lash, do you actually know any gay people?


as in family member, close friend, etc. It is obvious from your remarks that the answer is no.

Then you need to change your litmus test, because it's not working for you. I've had a few close friends who were gay. I just think it's stupid to say so. I fixed a couple of guys up on a date--one I worked with, who was being abused by his SugarDaddy (this guy was physically beautiful--and had incredibly low self esteem) and a balding, but hilarious local actor, who I met at the local actors' studio--which was in the same building as my husband's restaurant. They were both in defeating relationships--and they were happy with one another when I last saw them. (Quite a while ago--I moved away.)

They are two of about four gay people I've socialized with. Have about...4 friendly acquaintances with other people who meet this description. (Stupid to count gay people.)

I think it was ridiculous to try to derail the content of what I was saying by asking if I knew any gay people, and quite telling of you that you made such a snap judgement--and an incorrect one--because you didn't like my manner of answering.

Again, I think everyone knows someone who is gay--whether or not they are aware of it.

The Boy Toy I worked with, and the nice actor guy were very close to the vest on their sexuality. One tried to hide it--but to no avail. One female I worked with was more "out", but I can't imagine even her approving of a national outing for political points. Think about how you would feel in that context.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:39 am
Cheney's wife Lynn voiced her indignation regarding Kerry's mentioning her daughter's sexuality during the debate. I wonder why she had nothing to say when it was discussed during the Cheney/Edwards debate. Could it be she missed it?
Typical republican BS.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:47 am
Quote:
KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.



I don't see anything wrong with that answer. We should all know by now that Cheney has a lesbian daughter, so he wasn't "outing" her. I didn't percieve it to be a negative against Cheney and find it interesting that some did. I say I find it interesting, because I think that speaks more to the person judging it that way and their beliefs about homosexuality, than it does about Kerry. One would find this statement offensive if they don't think it should be talked about, or perhaps if they find homosexuality in general offensive.

Gee, Kerry just said she is one of Gods children. That's offensive? He just said she is who she is by design, not choice. Is that offensive? He basically followed that by saying that many people have struggled with this reality and for her to be "out," and not struggling with it or lying to herself and her family about it is a good thing. Is that offensive?

I thought it was a compliment to her, as well as her family.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:49 am
I agree Squinney. I don't get what some people think was wrong with that either! Scratches head...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:53 am
Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's chief strategist)characterized it as an attack. She said Mary Cheney is a public figure and, as such, is fair game.

The benficiary of a compliment is not described as "fair game".

Children of politicians shouldn't be used against their parents, no matter what the issue.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:54 am
I'd love to see the quote where she calls it an attack. I think she meant the subject of Mary Cheney is fair game.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:57 am
Quote:

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.


I'd like to meet a mother who's supportive of her husband when he takes a boyfriend....Mother Teresa maybe...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 07:58 am
AU said--
Cheney's wife Lynn voiced her indignation regarding Kerry's mentioning her daughter's sexuality during the debate. I wonder why she had nothing to say when it was discussed during the Cheney/Edwards debate. Could it be she missed it?
Typical republican BS.

If I remember correctly, either a question about it was directed to Cheney and he responded, or Cheney initially brought it up-- Nevertheless, Lynn Cheney wasn'ton a time restriction in defending her daughter. That's not BS of any sort. It is always a mother's, or father's perogative. Actually, their duty.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 08:01 am
Lash wrote:
Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's chief strategist)characterized it as an attack. She said Mary Cheney is a public figure and, as such, is fair game.

The benficiary of a compliment is not described as "fair game".

Children of politicians shouldn't be used against their parents, no matter what the issue.


your party has smear attacks down to a science....so they need to quit whining if they think they've been on the receiving end of one.....no one likes a whiner....live by the sword.......and I recall many petty remarks about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton not being attractive...the smear on McCain in 2000....the unwarranted smear of Max Cleland...the thinly veiled innuendo about Kerry and Edwards being "queer" for each other after Edwards was announced as VP candidate? The further slurs on their manhood over the "sensitive war" remark? That was done by Cheney himself. Cut the pissing and moaning folks and don't dish it out if you can't take it. Karma baby.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 08:10 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Lash wrote:
Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's chief strategist)characterized it as an attack. She said Mary Cheney is a public figure and, as such, is fair game.

The benficiary of a compliment is not described as "fair game".

Children of politicians shouldn't be used against their parents, no matter what the issue.


your party has smear attacks down to a science....so they need to quit whining if they think they've been on the receiving end of one.....no one likes a whiner....live by the sword.......and I recall many petty remarks about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton not being attractive...the smear on McCain in 2000....the unwarranted smear of Max Cleland...the thinly veiled innuendo about Kerry and Edwards being "queer" for each other after Edwards was announced as VP candidate? The further slurs on their manhood over the "sensitive war" remark? That was done by Cheney himself. Cut the pissing and moaning folks and don't dish it out if you can't take it. Karma baby.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 08:15 am
The following is a pretty even handed critism of both bush and kerry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31325-2004Oct13.html

Since I am obviously pro kerry I copied a portion from it I found interesting. For those on the other side, there is plenty about kerry misleading statements in the link.

Quote:
Kerry made two charges -- that Bush had once said he was "not that concerned" about finding Osama bin Laden and that he had never met with the Congressional Black Caucus. He slightly misfired on one.

Bush said the bin Laden comment was "one of those exaggerations," but in a news conference on March 13, 2002, Bush said when asked about the search for the al Qaeda leader: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, we haven't heard much from him. . . . And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Bush did meet with the Congressional Black Caucus during his first two weeks in office -- on Jan. 31, 2001 -- but Kerry's overall charge was correct: Bush has repeatedly turned down requests to meet with the group since then. Caucus members have complained that not only has Bush refused to meet with them on specific issues, including his plans to attack Iraq, but also the White House often has not even responded to their letters. Bush dropped by a meeting that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had with the caucus earlier this year.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 08:16 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Lash wrote:
Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's chief strategist)characterized it as an attack. She said Mary Cheney is a public figure and, as such, is fair game.

The benficiary of a compliment is not described as "fair game".

Children of politicians shouldn't be used against their parents, no matter what the issue.


your party has smear attacks down to a science....so they need to quit whining if they think they've been on the receiving end of one.....no one likes a whiner....live by the sword.......

The RNC nor Bushco has attacked Algore's alkie son, Dean's theft by taking son, or anyone else's children. There is a difference in whining and calling someone out for a low attack against a candidate's child.

and I recall many petty remarks about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton not being attractive...
Not by the RNC or a candidate. If you want to blame Bush for everything said in the public forum, I guess the DNC will be brought up on charges for the Unions attacking Republican campaign HQ..

the smear on McCain in 2000
Forget exactly what was said. You may get this one.

....the unwarranted smear of Max Cleland
His record was examined. He was only smeared by Coulter, that I know of. Not the RNC or Bush. Bush commended Cleland's service.
...the thinly veiled innuendo about Kerry and Edwards being "queer" for each other after Edwards was announced as VP candidate?
Hell, they always looked like they were about to tongue each other. Go after Leno and Conan on this one. And the JibJob brothers, who put them in bed together in their cartoon!!

The further slurs on their manhood over the "sensitive war" remark? That was done by Cheney himself. Cut the pissing and moaning folks and don't dish it out if you can't take it.

That was directed at Kerry--in response to his own statement. Not one of his kids. Gutter politics.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 02:11:32