The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

The whole thing Cyclops? Laughing

Rove must be the single greatest manipulator in the history of humankind to get 40% of Kerry's supporters to go along with the cover! I wonder how he tricked Mary Beth Cahill into saying Cheney's daughter was "fair game". Laughing

0 Replies

You just don't get it.

It's not a partisan issue. Many democrats have a problem with gays and lesbians as well.

It sits wrong with older folks to even discuss the fact that someone is gay in public. Our society hasn't shifted enough for this to be well accepted.

Many Kerry supporters polled DID have a problem with what was said. That doesn't mean that what was said was wrong in any way. It just further points our the fact that we have a long way to go in our society before gays and lesbians are truly accepted, and that not only Republicans have a problem with discussing it openly.

Why did I bring up Republicans, specifically? They have a long and well-established history of gay bashing. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what Keyes said about Mary Cheney, without any sort of outrage shown by anyone. The Republicans are taking this statement (which, while uncomfortable for many people to discuss, isn't wrong) and using it as an attack against the character of Kerry.

Our whole society needs to grow the hell up. It's like an 8th grade locker room.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You just don't get it.

You're kidding, right? I've never seen anyone contradict himself so much between two statements in my life... Well... there is that one Senator from Massachusettes. Laughing

Look here:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This whole thing is a cover for the latent homophobia present within the religious right, I mean, the Republican party.

I laughed at the absurdity so you said:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You just don't get it.
It's not a partisan issue.

If it's not a partisan issue, than go ahead and disregard my response to your other self who said otherwise. :wink:

Seriously though... that was excellent progress, grasshopper. Now if you can just admit the citizens are entitled to their own feelings of right and wrong (not necessarily the same as yours) and that they'll likely consider their own feelings when deciding who should represent them, you will understand why Kerry did indeed do something wrong... at least in their eyes. Mary Beth Cahill's comment makes it quite clear how the Kerry campaign viewed Mary Cheney "Fair Game". Obviously, at least part of his ploy was to incite those people. Funny thing is, many of those same people who look down upon gays are the same folks that hold people in contempt for cheap and tawdry tricks, like labeling your opponents offspring for political gain. Idea

0 Replies

Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?

Quote:

Why did I bring up Republicans, specifically? They have a long and well-established history of gay bashing. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what Keyes said about Mary Cheney, without any sort of outrage shown by anyone. The Republicans are taking this statement (which, while uncomfortable for many people to discuss, isn't wrong) and using it as an attack against the character of Kerry.

I explained why I mentioned republicans specifically. I explained why I consider this to be a non-partisan issue re:people having problems with gays.... you skipped every part of my post except for the one that you believe specifically pointed out a contradiction, when a careful reading would have shown you that there is in fact no contradiction.

Let me put it clearly so that you don't get confused again:

1. People have a problem with talking about gayness in public. This isn't a republican/democrat issue; it's a progression of society issue, and we just aren't there yet. Thus, the 40% of Kerry supporters who don't like are immaterial to the argument over whether or not what was said was wrong.

2. Republicans, however, don't seem to mind bashing gays in public; they do it all the time, on the record. That is why I brought up Republicanism in the first place.

3. The Bush/Cheney campaign is using these comments (which weren't wrong at all) as a political attack on Kerry's character. It tells the lie of the situation; if they TRULY accepted their daughter's sexuality, they would have NO problem with anyone talking about it.

This works out great for them; they get to SEEM moderate, while appealing to their religious base by also seeming indignant that anyone would actually talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, at the same time.

The people who believe he did something wrong have issues with latent homophobia. Our whole society does. You say they have a right to their opinion; I agree, but the reasoning behind said opinions is clear.

I'd really like to hear you respond to the comments that Keyes made about Mary Cheney, specifically, and the lack of outcry from the Republican party on that one. I know, I know, I'm not trying to shift blame from what Kerry said, so don't give me that crap; I'd just like to know if your morals are consistent, at all, or if this is more partisanship.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?

Yes. I generally read everyone's input on threads I'm active on accept the total whack-jobs.

Explaining your contradiction doesn't erase it, sorry. You're taking steps in reverse now, grasshopper. You are still insisting he did nothing wrong in one breath, while admitting half the country believes otherwise in the next. As Phoenix would say; check your premise. Idea

You supposition that the Republicans have a long history of gay bashing etc. has no bearing whatsoever on this debate. We are talking about a specific John Kerry comment, not Republican history in general. Try to keep your eye on the ball. The only place that history is relevant is when establishing John Kerry's intent... so in this case you are fortifying the case against him... get it?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'd really like to hear you respond to the comments that Keyes made about Mary Cheney, specifically, and the lack of outcry from the Republican party on that one. I know, I know, I'm not trying to shift blame from what Kerry said, so don't give me that crap; I'd just like to know if your morals are consistent, at all, or if this is more partisanship.

You are indeed trying to shift blame from Kerry, that's not crap, but I don't mind answering anyway... as long as you understand it's an aside.

My opinion of Keys is that he's either a bigot or a poser pandering to bigots.

The lack of Republican outcry is a little more complicated because it's something of an "in the family" issue. For instance: I can speak critically about my family. So can my friends... within reason. My enemies cannot... or at least will be given less rope. Now, I'm usually in the sticks & stones club unless you get too far out of hand, so I'm not perfect for that example... but I'm sure you know someone who is.

If you break it down, the differences are many.
For instance;
1. Team
Keys: Same team creates conflict of interest...
Kerry: opposing team; Crush him!

2. Slamming
Keys: slamming him draws attention to Republican bigotry with no upside.
Kerry: slamming him draws attention to his willingness to use opponent's offspring for political gain. Appears to be a tremendous upside.
3. Two is enough. I'm sure you could expand on the list yourself. :wink:

Now, let's remove some more attention diverting variables, shall we?

1. The Cheney's could be saints, or devils and it would have no bearing on whether Kerry was right or wrong.

2. If a direct link between the Republican's and the KKK could be established, it would have no bearing on whether Kerry was right or wrong.

3. If it could be proven that 1,000,000,000,000,000 wrongs were committed by Republicans, against gays, it would have no bearing on whether Kerry was right or wrong.

Now, about the ignorant masses from both sides you referred to. Since these candidates are lobbying the General Public to represent them, it doesn't matter if you think their definition of right and wrong is right or wrong. President's are elected to represent people... and those people's votes count as much as yours or mine. If a significant number of people think he was wrong, he was wrong, get it?

The only way you could get a feel for what they think is by public response in the polls. Those are pretty clear on this one, wouldn't you say?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Explaining your contradiction doesn't erase it, sorry. You're taking steps in reverse now, grasshopper. You are still insisting he did nothing wrong in one breath, while admitting half the country believes otherwise in the next. As Phoenix would say; check your premise.

O'Bill - people thinking something is wrong does not make it wrong. There is no contradiction there. That's not how it works.

This is a whole goofy discussion in many ways, but try not to pin anything on thinking there was a contradiction there. The logic police will come and find you.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Explaining your contradiction doesn't erase it, sorry. You're taking steps in reverse now, grasshopper. You are still insisting he did nothing wrong in one breath, while admitting half the country believes otherwise in the next. As Phoenix would say; check your premise.

O'Bill - people thinking something is wrong does not make it wrong. There is no contradiction there. That's not how it works.

Normally I'd agree with you but: For the purpose of a Presidential debate; people thinking something is wrong, most certainly does make it wrong. You missed the context.

ehBeth wrote:

This is a whole goofy discussion in many ways, but try not to pin anything on thinking there was a contradiction there. The logic police will come and find you.

Sorry dear, I wasn't clear. The contradiction was pointed out in an earlier post. Here:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This whole thing is a cover for the latent homophobia present within the religious right, I mean, the Republican party.

I laughed at the absurdity so he said:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You just don't get it.
It's not a partisan issue.

That, is the contradiction that explanations can't erase. :wink:

0 Replies

I can't believe this thread has survived this long regarding the sexuality of Cheney's daughter.

The spinning from Bill is truly dizzying if you ask me.

Bottom line: I had no problem when Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. Why? Because it puts the Republicans on the spot in trying to hang on to the conservative religious vote. We've already seen the continued distancing of the GOP from an evergrowing and resourceful gay consituency.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

The spinning from Bill is truly dizzying if you ask me.

No one did. Though I did have you in mind when I mentioned an exception a little while ago...

0 Replies

Now that willow-tl is safely banned, I feel the courage to post in the politics zoo.
I'll give you Kerry was ungracious, Bill, and that's all. Certainly not cause for a major melt down.

Think of it this way: if Adlai Stevenson had mentioned that David Eisenhower was dating a black woman it would have been ungracious not immoral. The immorality comes with discrimination against gays and blacks. That's what Republicans are wrestling with. Shine that torch in the tunnel of morality and that light you see is the freedom train barreling down on you.( The religious right)

0 Replies

O'Bill, I really don't think you get it.
<shrug>

0 Replies

I think he does.

Not unlike Bear, I have a feeling he just likes arguing. Very Happy

0 Replies

Yer comparin' the O'Bill to ourBear?

<thud>

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

Now that willow-tl is safely banned, I feel the courage to post in the politics zoo.
I'll give you Kerry was ungracious, Bill, and that's all. Certainly not cause for a major melt down.

Think of it this way: if Adlai Stevenson had mentioned that David Eisenhower was dating a black woman it would have been ungracious not immoral. The immorality comes with discrimination against gays and blacks. That's what Republicans are wrestling with. Shine that torch in the tunnel of morality and that light you see is the freedom train barreling down on you.( The religious right)

That's a mighty fine example, Panz "if Adlai Stevenson had mentioned that David Eisenhower was dating a black woman it would have been ungracious"... Another word might be distasteful, yes? Okay then.

Now, had Adlai Stevenson done so, he would have upset the same type of people for the same reason. His goal would have been to incite the bigots, but the result would likely be to incite the tasteful who think it's wrong to point fingers at, make example out of, or otherwise label, your opponent's offspring for political gain. Idea

No?

I don't get it that you folks think I don't get it and I'm equally perplexed that ya'll don't seem to get it. :wink:

0 Replies

Breaking my sworn (well, not sworn exactly) silence to say:

Tasteful = manners = common decency.

Kudos to Bill for being a gentleman. Not to scare him, but if he were single and Republican.... Smile

0 Replies

Panzade said

Quote:

Now that willow-tl is safely banned, I feel the courage to post in the politics zoo.

Hey, what's that supposed to mean ...ROFLMAO

0 Replies

Uh, oh.

0 Replies

hello fellow cheesehead...hehehehehee....if i can't get him here i will see him at the bridge tables...he's got some mighty big explaining to do ...has gus surfaced yet?

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Breaking my sworn (well, not sworn exactly) silence to say:

Tasteful = manners = common decency.

Kudos to Bill for being a gentleman. Not to scare him, but if he were single and Republican....

Thank ya, darlin.
Btw, he is single :wink:, leans right and is already scared. Shocked

No Gus yet Willow.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I don't get it that you folks think I don't get it and I'm equally perplexed that ya'll don't seem to get it. :wink:

They believe their views are supported by the morality of political correctitude and the attandant justification of any means at hand to advance the interests of a "protected" class of people.

You, on the other hand were merely voicing offense at the tasteless and inconsiderate exploitation of the persons and privacy of the family of the opposing political candidate for personal gain.

There is, of course no comparison. Conventional restraints do not apply to Democrats in pursuit of the interests of their single issue constituencies of zealots.

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know