Well Kerry for some reason decided he could in front of millions of people.
I wonder if she cares at all.
Well let's see, the guy who's running to oust her Dad decides to use her as a tool. Hmmmm I'm gonna go out on a limb and say she probably wasn't thrilled about it.
So Cheney's daughter is the only one Kerry knows who is gay that he could have referenced?
How about the unwrittren rule about leaving their kids out of it?
"The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
I recall after 9/11 a group Lynne Cheney belonged to a group that began compiling a list of college professors who they felt had said things that were "anti-American." In Joe McCarthey's era, it started with a list.
That's a woman who eats dinner with the Vice President every night.
As far as I'm concerned, Lynne Cheney is not a good woman.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 14, 2004 at 03:57pm.]
"The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
This is a woman who's husband chooses politics over standing up for his own daughter's right to be treated equally.
Apparently not content with the disingenuos reference Kerry made, John Edwards wife decided to add fuel to the fire.
Nonetheless, Kerry Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill told FOX News on Wednesday night that Mary Cheney's orientation is "fair game."
"She seems to be very proud and open about her sexuality, her parents seem to be very proud of her," Cahill said. "It comes up, there are a lot of questions here about gay marriage, and she is someone who is a major figure in the campaign. I think it's fair game and I think she has been treated very respectfully."
On Thursday, however, Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, appeared to be playing off her own chart. Rather than applauding the Cheney family for supporting their daughter, she said that Mrs. Cheney's reaction may suggest that the second lady is ashamed of her daughter.
"She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs. ... I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. ... It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response," Mrs. Edwards told ABC News Radio.
the folks ransacking offices and registering dead folks.
TOLEDO, Ohio
Democrats in Toledo say thieves broke into a building housing party offices, making off with three computers overnight.
A staffer working for John Kerry's presidential campaign discovered the break-in this morning.
Police have been called in and are investigating.
Lucas County Democratic Party finance chairman Jerry Chabler says a main computer containing financial records and other sensitive records is missing.
Also gone are a laptop belonging to a lawyer working for the Kerry campaign and a computer used by campaign staffers for a county commissioner.
Roger Sanders is a volunteer lawyer with the Kerry campaign who is working on making sure voters in the county can vote on Election Day.
He says his missing laptop was in effect the party's election protection handbook for Lucas County and Toledo.
---------------
Democrats accuse voter registration group of fraud
By Kirsten Searer LAS VEGAS SUN
Questions are surfacing about a group -- funded in part by the Republican National Committee -- that is accused of trying to stop Democrats from registering to vote.
Voters Outreach of America, sometimes called America Votes, registered voters in both Reno and Las Vegas in recent weeks on behalf of the RNC.
Democratic groups have complained for weeks that canvassers working for Voters Outreach have turned away Democrats who want to register, sometimes telling people they are only paid to register Republicans.
And, on Tuesday night, Channel 8 Eyewitness News reported that a former employee of the company, Eric Russell, registered Las Vegas residents in both parties, but his boss hassled him when he tried to submit Democratic forms.
"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us," Russell told Channel 8. "I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assistant to get those from me."
Voters Outreach could not be reached for comment.
Russell gave a few of the destroyed forms to Channel 8, which verified that the voters were not registered.
What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form."
 Liberalism, having lost its ability to advance by persuasion, increasingly relies on litigation. In its flight from arenas of representation, liberalism has used the judiciary as its legislature. Hence the exultation of Ron Brown, then Democratic Party chairman, addressing an American Bar Association forum immediately after the 1992 election: ``My friends, I'm here to tell you that the lawyers won.''
Some people are happy when they commit murder, others are happy when they have sex with children.Â
perhaps you'd care to point out to us the big difference between being happy committing murder, being happy having sex with childre, and marrying someone of the same sex.
Â
hint: it has to do with infringing on someone else's rights.
perhaps you'd care to point out to us the big difference between being happy committing murder, being happy having sex with children, and marrying someone of the same sex.
Perhaps you should tell me. There is no right to same sex marriage. The distinction you want to make isn't any statute constitution that I know of and certainly not the US Constitution. There is no reason the legislatures cannot regulate or ban same sex marriage. Likewise they can allow it if they so choose. Same sex marriage has never been a right protected by any Constitution despite what four judges in Massachusetts wrote. The whole issue is an attempt to force the will of a minority on to the majority by bypassing the political process.
There is no reason the legislatures cannot regulate or ban same sex marriage. Likewise they can allow it if they so choose.
agreed. and it is something that should be left at the state level.
No it shouldn't be left to the state's. Congress should pass the amendment and let the states truly decide the matter for the entire country. What are liberals afraid of anyway?
Some people are happy when they commit murder, others are happy when they have sex with children.ÂÂ
The problem with that is it interferes with someone else's pursuit of happiness. Who's pursuit of happiness does two people of the same sex getting married interfere with? Who does it harm?
If the law treated everyone the same it would not be discrimination but the laws didn't.
According to you, laws preventing interracial marriage would "treat everyone the same". There is no difference between "she can marry any man who would have her" and "that black can marry any other black they want". Your logic claims that no one is being prevented from being married (so long as it isn't to a different race or a same sex, that is)
Some people are happy when they commit murder, others are happy when they have sex with children.Â
The problem with that is it interferes with someone else's pursuit of happiness. Who's pursuit of happiness does two people of the same sex getting married interfere with? Who does it harm?
The answer to that question is not controlling and, in fact, is totally irrelevant.
If the law treated everyone the same it would not be discrimination but the laws didn't.
According to you, laws preventing interracial marriage would "treat everyone the same". There is no difference between "she can marry any man who would have her" and "that black can marry any other black they want". Your logic claims that no one is being prevented from being married (so long as it isn't to a different race or a same sex, that is)
The difference is that the laws singled out blacks and treated them differently than other racial groups.
I also see no reason to promote the lifestyle that really serves no purpose in perpetuating society.
Do you "promote" everything that there is no law against?
The answer to that question is not controlling and, in fact, is totally irrelevant.
In other words... you have no answer to it because you know that, unlike the murder and child abuse you try to compare it to, it causes no one any harm.
Don't you know, flight 77 was a made up flight, it was a made up crew flying an imaginary plane with made up people that never landed. Of ocurse all the realatives had funerals for and are missing the made up dead people, they're all part of the evil buschco plot! We now return you to your herion induced paranoia after a words from our sponsors.
Emphasis on the word "necessary."
"I've never seen anything like this."
What rot! Lay off the mock indignation.,
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 14, 2004 at 11:54am.]
Rick 10/14/04 11:50am
"Everyone wants to speak for Cheney's daughter ".
Well Kerry for some reason decided he could in front of millions of people.
I wonder if she cares at all.
Well let's see, the guy who's running to oust her Dad decides to use her as a tool. Hmmmm I'm gonna go out on a limb and say she probably wasn't thrilled about it.
So Cheney's daughter is the only one Kerry knows who is gay that he could have referenced?
How about the unwrittren rule about leaving their kids out of it?
Â
Everyone wants to speak for Cheney's daughter . I wonder if she cares at all.
Including Andrew Sullivan.
Who just happens to be gay?
Surprise
Which means he probably has a better perspective on this than any of us.
'Bill - Fold' 3/14/05 5:07am
Â
And what Priority are you?Â
What rot! Lay off the mock indignation.,
Which means he probably has a better perspective on this than any of us.
Yea I'm sure he has a better perspective than the people who raised her.
It doesn't matter.
It was out of line.
Hey Patriot Listeners!
Tune into a.m. 1280 The Right Choice for three hours of Mary Cheney discussion, starting now.
All Mary Cheney, all the time.
Hammer it home Hugh!
Who's Desperate?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 14, 2004 at 03:41pm.]
Lynne Cheney:
"The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
I recall after 9/11 a group Lynne Cheney belonged to a group that began compiling a list of college professors who they felt had said things that were "anti-American." In Joe McCarthey's era, it started with a list.
That's a woman who eats dinner with the Vice President every night.
As far as I'm concerned, Lynne Cheney is not a good woman.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 14, 2004 at 03:57pm.]
Who's Desperate?
That would be the folks ransacking offices and registering dead folks.
As far as I'm concerned, Lynne Cheney is not a good woman.
As someone said to me earlier today......deflect, deflect, deflect......
This is a woman who's husband chooses politics over standing up for his own daughter's right to be treated equally.
"As someone said to me earlier today......deflect, deflect, deflect.....".
I gave you my side in previous posts and backed it up with comments from others.
That BS. I haven't deflected anything.
The only person who who's opinion matters is Mary Cheney. She's a grown woman with her own mind. If she thinks an apology is in order, I back her.
Everyone else is spinning like a dervish.
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Oct 14, 2004 at 04:18pm.]
I gave you my side in previous posts and backed it up with comments from
others.
No, you gave your opinion on why Lynne Cheney was not a good woman.
The only person who who's opinion matters is Mary Cheney. She's a grown woman with her own mind. If she thinks an apology is in order, I back her.
So you've never weighed in on an offensive or potentially offensive comment before?
Apparently not content with the disingenuos reference Kerry made, John Edwards wife decided to add fuel to the fire.
Nonetheless, Kerry Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill told FOX News on Wednesday night that Mary Cheney's orientation is "fair game."
"She seems to be very proud and open about her sexuality, her parents seem to be very proud of her," Cahill said. "It comes up, there are a lot of questions here about gay marriage, and she is someone who is a major figure in the campaign. I think it's fair game and I think she has been treated very respectfully."
On Thursday, however, Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, appeared to be playing off her own chart. Rather than applauding the Cheney family for supporting their daughter, she said that Mrs. Cheney's reaction may suggest that the second lady is ashamed of her daughter.
"She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs. ... I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. ... It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response," Mrs. Edwards told ABC News Radio.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135392,00.htmlÂ
Yea, they're so ashamed of her that they've hid her by having her appear with her parents at Campagin events. Way to go Liz.
well, when you are part of a group trying to make it illegal to be able to appear at her wedding, you make do with what you can.
They already were illegal. Kerry isn't for it either but good try.
Anything for the party, eh Mr. Minnesota Liberal Democrat?
Who's that? Rick the tool.
pieter b 10/14/04 10:00pm
Got a link?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/oct/14/517665814.html
http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2424444&nav=LQlCRwoy
What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form."
crabs wrote: This is a woman who's husband chooses politics over standing up for his own daughter's right to be treated equally.
well, when you are part of a group trying to make it illegal to be able to appear at her wedding, you make do with what you can.
 Liberalism, having lost its ability to advance by persuasion, increasingly relies on litigation. In its flight from arenas of representation, liberalism has used the judiciary as its legislature. Hence the exultation of Ron Brown, then Democratic Party chairman, addressing an American Bar Association forum immediately after the 1992 election: ``My friends, I'm here to tell you that the lawyers won.''
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20041015.shtml
Heh Rich! 6864
pieter b 10/14/04 10:00pm
Then they ought ot be prosecuted. I don't care who is doing it or what their affiliation. Perhaps that's the difference.
Then they ought ot be prosecuted. I don't care who is doing it or what their affiliation. Perhaps that's the difference.
Yes they should. And if the democrats made it up they should be prosecuted.
no pursuit of happiness for her, eh?
50 years ago you'd be the one saying "of course niggers can get married... they can marry any nigger they want!"
[Edited by molegrass on Oct 15, 2004 at 09:44am.]
no pursuit of happiness for her, eh?
50 years ago you'd be the one saying "of course niggers can get married... they can marry any nigger they want!"
Some people are happy when they commit murder, others are happy when they have sex with children.Â
perhaps you'd care to point out to us the big difference between being happy committing murder, being happy having sex with childre, and marrying someone of the same sex.
Â
hint: it has to do with infringing on someone else's rights.
perhaps you'd care to point out to us the big difference between being happy committing murder, being happy having sex with children, and marrying someone of the same sex.
Perhaps you should tell me. There is no right to same sex marriage. The distinction you want to make isn't any statute constitution that I know of and certainly not the US Constitution. There is no reason the legislatures cannot regulate or ban same sex marriage. Likewise they can allow it if they so choose. Same sex marriage has never been a right protected by any Constitution despite what four judges in Massachusetts wrote. The whole issue is an attempt to force the will of a minority on to the majority by bypassing the political process.
There is no right to same sex marriage
nor is there any constitutional right to different-sex marriage.
There is no reason the legislatures cannot regulate or ban same sex marriage. Likewise they can allow it if they so choose.
agreed. and it is something that should be left at the state level.
There is no reason the legislatures cannot regulate or ban same sex marriage. Likewise they can allow it if they so choose.
agreed. and it is something that should be left at the state level.
No it shouldn't be left to the state's. Congress should pass the amendment and let the states truly decide the matter for the entire country. What are liberals afraid of anyway?
The problem with that is it interferes with someone else's pursuit of happiness. Who's pursuit of happiness does two people of the same sex getting married interfere with? Who does it harm?
According to you, laws preventing interracial marriage would "treat everyone the same". There is no difference between "she can marry any man who would have her" and "that black can marry any other black they want". Your logic claims that no one is being prevented from being married (so long as it isn't to a different race or a same sex, that is)
what are YOUafraid of?
How is the gay couple down the street getting married going to harm you?
The problem with that is it interferes with someone else's pursuit of happiness. Who's pursuit of happiness does two people of the same sex getting married interfere with? Who does it harm?
The answer to that question is not controlling and, in fact, is totally irrelevant.
According to you, laws preventing interracial marriage would "treat everyone the same". There is no difference between "she can marry any man who would have her" and "that black can marry any other black they want". Your logic claims that no one is being prevented from being married (so long as it isn't to a different race or a same sex, that is)
The difference is that the laws singled out blacks and treated them differently than other racial groups.
Do you "promote" everything that there is no law against?
In other words... you have no answer to it because you know that, unlike the murder and child abuse you try to compare it to, it causes no one any harm.
just what did hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
Interesting
[Edited by on Oct 15, 2004 at 04:42pm.]
doesn't really answer any questions, but it raises a few good ones.
Flight 77.
The real W revealed
Don't you know, flight 77 was a made up flight, it was a made up crew flying an imaginary plane with made up people that never landed. Of ocurse all the realatives had funerals for and are missing the made up dead people, they're all part of the evil buschco plot! We now return you to your herion induced paranoia after a words from our sponsors.
freedomunderground.org=paranoidleftwingwacko.net.
Try again, crabhole.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Of course... still, it's weird the anomolies surrounding the attack.