I agree with Kathleen Parker

[Everose]

Opinion (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker1.asp)

On her view of Kerry and Edward's intentions in mentioning Mary Cheney during debates.

As you read this, please remember that it is one person's opinion. But this issue has really bothered me ever since the last debate. I have read various opinions on it, and I read this in a local paper this evening and searched to find a link to post here because her opinion closely resembles my conclusion of the matter.

I don't remember this subject being brought up on this board, and I would like to know how other people feel about this.

Please keep in mind, I feel strongly there is a lot of ridiculous stuff thrown by both candidates. I get equally irritated when each side does this, and I have been getting more and more irritated lately. :D

Did this bother anyone else besides me?

[ruthie]

Agree and disagree. I felt when Edwards said what he said, it was not with sharpened arrow,and I thought cheney acted classy in his response to Edwards. I felt that that particular interaction was fine.
when kerry made his comment, it seemed inappropriate and rude. It was needless to have that be any part of his answer.

[Everose]

Ruthe, I appreciate your answer. I guess Kerry's response just really let me down. It wouldn't have let me down if I had not expected it from him, if you can understand what I mean. I just didn't expect it from him.

It is not like I don't expect a lot of crap from both parties, and it will be worse the closer we get to Nov. 2nd.

[Biggles]

Everose

I am not sure. As it is removed from my own political sphere perhaps I am not engaged enough for it to jar.

As I understand it, it is the Republican side that is the more anti-gay, and after delving into some of this lady's writings it would seem she is firmly in the same camp.

Politicians are politicians and the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of this world are as mean as the next one.

[Everose]

It has always seemed to me, in the past, that of the Republicans and Democrats that I know, the Republicans have a harder time accepting sexual orientation other than their own. This is only my perspective/experience.

And I also feel this is exactly why Mary Cheney's sexual orientation was brought up in the manner it was. Most would call it politics. I call it underhanded and shifty. :D Dang it. Same thing.

I can honestly say, I did not read any other of Kathleen's opinions. This one is the one I agreed with so I posted it. (but now I am curious so will go back to the site and give it the eagle eye.)

[Busyman]

I didn't see anything wrong with what Kerry said.

If Cheney already made his daughter public, what's the big deal? :blink:

When Kerry said it in the debates I literally didn't give a second thought until Pat Robertson brought it up in the post debate wrap-up.

The Cheneys are idiots for even being offended. The gay community isn't fooled I'm sure.

If Bush had a sick daughter and Kerry mentioned it in a decent light, would there be this, "I'm offended and outraged and UPHEAVALED :huh: " SHIT.

A son with autism?
A daughter that's a prominent lawyer?
A brother who is wheel chair bound?

IT'S A TRAVESTY AND A SHAM AND A MOCKERY!!!!

IT'S A TRAVESHAMOCKERY!!! BERGERFLICKEL!!!

Those who are outraged STFU!!!

Let Kerry at the very least say something offensive.
He didn't say Bush was a drunk or his daughters are too.
He said something that Cheney was already public about. DUH! :blink:

What I would say to the Cheneys or anyone else:

If you are ashamed of your family, it's your loss.
Don't blame others. :dry:

[ruthie]

Bravo, Busyman.

[Mathea]

i didnt see either debate so im afraid i cant post much of an opinion based on that... but from reading kerry's quote it seems like it was merely a tactic to push away from really making a statement... which seems to be his MO

so shame on him

[Mathea]

oh but i would like to add that i agree with busyman in that it is public knowledge, so its not exactly taboo for him to mention it

[ruthie]

Well, he did say he wasn't for making an amendment to the constitution against gay marraige,and that he personally doesn't believe in it, but....

[Mathea]

Well, he did say he wasn't for making an amendment to the constitution against gay marraige,and that he personally doesn't believe in it, but....
who did?

[ruthie]

Kerry

[Mathea]

well thats something. again, hes entitled to his opinion, and by NOT makin an amendment hes allowing other people theirs. I just odnt understand why its such a big deal... really it is so sad that in this day and age things like this are such a big issue. People should have the right to marry whomever they want... and really as far as i can tell the only thing that really makes it an issue is that ppl deem it "wrong", and as far as i know that all stems from religion.

once again, church and state should be seperate.

[ruthie]

yuppers. :)

[Mathea]

i just dont understand how it is still ok that it isnt seperate. Hell, it was just on the news bout threats of gettin kicked out of the church if u didnt vote for bush right?

they are supposed to be seperate and they arent. furthermore its obvious. how is that allowed? :frusty:

[Spam-King]

Vote Nadar

[scroff]

Ok, first, how do I get rid of this dam dark background in the reply box??

As far as The Kerry Comment... I thought it was cheesy, a cheap shot since Cheney wasn't there. Edwards addressing Mary Cheney's sexuality to Dick Cheney is one thing, but I think it had a gossipy flavor when Dick wasn't in the room. I'm not saying he shouldn't have one it, but he didn't pull it off too well.

Having said that... I go back to my earlier assertions about "liberals" rolling over and playing dead in the interest of "balance". There was no concern from Ma and Pa Cheney when Alan Keyes, the Great Black Hope of the Republican party in Illinois said Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist".

Now, in classic Bush administration revisionism, the Bush camp is trying to say that the Kerry camp is trying to use Mary Cheney as a "wedge issue".

Excuse me? Isn't there a Constitutional amendment floating around out there? One that basically says LGBT (that, uh, would include Ms. Cheney) are second class citizens whose relationships are not worthy of the recognition of the state.

Mary Cheney isn't some poor innocent caught up in all of this... she's working on her father's campaign... she worked on the 2000 campaign. Incidentally, after Cheney's acceptance speech at the RNC, his whole family came out on the stage to stand with him, right?

Wrong. Little Mary stayed off the stage... yea, I know, I can kick my lesbian daughter, but don't you dare!

Right. All I have to say to the Cheney's is get over it.

In my not so humble opinion, the Bush camp is using this incident to scream foul. They're making mountains out of molehills, further polilticizing, for their own gain, what many of them see as Mary's shortcoming. Gimme a break...

[DanB]

Scroff go to user cp > options then down at the bottom change it from full editing interface to standard :)

[Busyman]

Ok, first, how do I get rid of this dam dark background in the reply box??

As far as The Kerry Comment... I thought it was cheesy, a cheap shot since Cheney wasn't there. Edwards addressing Mary Cheney's sexuality to Dick Cheney is one thing, but I think it had a gossipy flavor when Dick wasn't in the room. I'm not saying he shouldn't have one it, but he didn't pull it off too well.

Having said that... I go back to my earlier assertions about "liberals" rolling over and playing dead in the interest of "balance". There was no concern from Ma and Pa Cheney when Alan Keyes, the Great Black Hope of the Republican party in Illinois said Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist".

Now, in classic Bush administration revisionism, the Bush camp is trying to say that the Kerry camp is trying to use Mary Cheney as a "wedge issue".

Excuse me? Isn't there a Constitutional amendment floating around out there? One that basically says LGBT (that, uh, would include Ms. Cheney) are second class citizens whose relationships are not worthy of the recognition of the state.

Mary Cheney isn't some poor innocent caught up in all of this... she's working on her father's campaign... she worked on the 2000 campaign. Incidentally, after Cheney's acceptance speech at the RNC, his whole family came out on the stage to stand with him, right?

Wrong. Little Mary stayed off the stage... yea, I know, I can kick my lesbian daughter, but don't you dare!

Right. All I have to say to the Cheney's is get over it.

In my not so humble opinion, the Bush camp is using this incident to scream foul. They're making mountains out of molehills, further polilticizing, for their own gain, what many of them see as Mary's shortcoming. Gimme a break...
Category:

Mountains Out Of Molehills

One Of Many Answers:

He Lied About A Blowjob, Impeach Him!!!

[scroff]

Scroff go to user cp > options then down at the bottom change it from full editing interface to standard :)
Thankee, sir... my eyes are bad enough! :blink: