The OAO third and FINAL Presidential Debate Thread

[Guest MikeSC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/30/politics...d4bf0b9&ei=5070

 

Mary Cheney, the daughter and chief campaign manager of Vice President Dick Cheney, had just slipped out of the room at a Davenport, Iowa, town hall meeting last week when her father publicly acknowledged for the first time that she was openly lesbian and that he disagreed with the president's support for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

 

So, ask Cheney. Her official position is director of vice presidential operations.

And she CLEARLY did not want to be in the spotlight.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Woah....she's the campaign manager? Still don't agree with it, but it won't be the first time shots have been taken at a member of a candidates campaign, and none of the comments were attacking. Should she be excluded because she's gay? I'm surprised all the Bush twins partying hasn't come up yet.

[Guest MikeSC]

Woah....she's the campaign manager? Still don't agree with it, but it won't be the first time shots have been taken at a member of a candidates campaign, and none of the comments were attacking. Should she be excluded because she's gay? I'm surprised all the Bush twins partying hasn't come up yet.

It does not matter hat her role is. She wishes to remain in the background and that should be respected. If she was giving speeches or talking to the press all of the time, then yes, she'd be fair game.

 

As it is, it was simply sleazy and an attempt to attract bigoted voters to the Kerry camp.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

It does not matter hat her role is. She wishes to remain in the background and that should be respected. If she was giving speeches or talking to the press all of the time, then yes, she'd be fair game.

 

Unfortunately Mike, it's the nature of the beast. She's not the first and will not be the last.

 

As it is, it was simply sleazy and an attempt to attract bigoted voters to the Kerry camp.

 

I don't think so. They spoke highly of her, and her relationship with her father. If they were trying to get the bigot vote, they would have slammed her, and not mentioned black and women issues.

There was obviously some motive, but I really can't figure out. I think they thought if they got Bush or Cheney to talk about it, there discomfort would be obvious, and it would look bad. However, neither took the bait.

 

Still sleazy though.

[Justice 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/30/politics...d4bf0b9&ei=5070

 

Mary Cheney, the daughter and chief campaign manager of Vice President Dick Cheney, had just slipped out of the room at a Davenport, Iowa, town hall meeting last week when her father publicly acknowledged for the first time that she was openly lesbian and that he disagreed with the president's support for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

 

So, ask Cheney. Her official position is director of vice presidential operations.

So this suddenly turns what is a private family issue public?

 

This is some sort of joke, right?

[Justice 0]

It does not matter hat her role is. She wishes to remain in the background and that should be respected. If she was giving speeches or talking to the press all of the time, then yes, she'd be fair game.

 

Unfortunately Mike, it's the nature of the beast. She's not the first and will not be the last.

Indeed, but that doesn't make it any less offensive or disrespectful.

 

I don't think so. They spoke highly of her, and her relationship with her father. If they were trying to get the bigot vote, they would have slammed her, and not mentioned black and women issues.

There was obviously some motive, but I really can't figure out. I think they thought if they got Bush or Cheney to talk about it, there discomfort would be obvious, and it would look bad. However, neither took the bait.

 

Still sleazy though.

 

It doesn't matter if they spoke highly of her, they brought up something that is extremely private and is a family matter and have tried to turn it into some shitty talking point. That's a horrible disrespect in itself.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

So this suddenly turns what is a private family issue public?

 

I'm not defending the tactic. Let me set that straight. I don't like it.

 

However, you have to know, if she was anyone other than his daughter with some sort of title in his campaign, she would be fair game.

[Guest MikeSC]

It does not matter hat her role is. She wishes to remain in the background and that should be respected. If she was giving speeches or talking to the press all of the time, then yes, she'd be fair game.

Unfortunately Mike, it's the nature of the beast. She's not the first and will not be the last.

Hardly. The Kerry daughters work on his campaign and if Bush mentioned them, it'd be wrong as hell of him.

 

There is no need, whatsoever, to bring her into it.

 

She IS the first family member brought into a campaign.

As it is, it was simply sleazy and an attempt to attract bigoted voters to the Kerry camp.

 

I don't think so. They spoke highly of her, and her relationship with her father. If they were trying to get the bigot vote, they would have slammed her, and not mentioned black and women issues.

Nope. If you want to attract bigots without getting any heat for doing so, simply mentioning that Bush has a lesbian attached to his campaign.

 

Do the Dems not know any other lesbians BESIDES Mary Cheney?

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

She IS the first family member brought into a campaign.

 

Roger Clinton

[Guest MikeSC]

She IS the first family member brought into a campaign.

 

Roger Clinton

The GOP didn't mention Roger. God knows they could have made hay with that blithering putz.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Ah, I just wanted to say "Roger Clinton". You gotta admit, nothing's funnier than Roger Clinton.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The only possible reason is that these voters are bigots, and it is partly on that basis that the GOP is appealing to them.

By providing, according to Kerry, the IDENTICAL stand on gay marriage?

For the millionth time, supporting partner benefits is a tremendously different stand than endorsing a ban any sort of homosexual marriage or union. Sure, it's still not supporting gay marriage, but is it about 1,048 rights closer to it.

 

I really don't give a shit about the Mary Cheney thing. Really? It's not evil. I guess if you consider bringing a person's family into a campaign in any scenario, it is. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that somebody who is out is gay, and the reaction that Kerry did something distasteful seems to just be underscoring the belief of many that homosexuality is distasteful. Kerry's already said that he meant no offense and wanted to illustrate the loving relationship between the Cheneys and their homosexual daughter, who is in fact a person deserving of rights. Why is it so hard to believe Kerry, yet have no problem believing Cheney when he chooses to clarify his vague statements about voting for Kerry possibly leading to a terrorist attack? Give these guys some credit.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Edwin basically said what I failed to try to get across, that the issue of homosexuality is not an issue at all, and the fact that people are blaming Kerry for bringing it up shows that they look at it like its a problem. Everything else Kerry said about how he feels regarding homosexuality should've negated that point, but see what you want to. He boldly stated that it wasn't a choice, and yes that is bold considering many bigots feel that they choose to be that way. If he was trying to attract bigots, he wouldn't have mentioned that.

 

Kerry: I don't mind homosexuals, like you know Cheney's daughter is gay (unnecessary, but not "sleazy". It didn't sound insulting and it almost came off as if he was simply trying to say that neither side looks at it as wrong, which is why he mentioned Cheney. A stretch? Sure, but not as far off as thinking that this was a bold political move to attract the bigots. Whether you want to admit it or not, most bigots will side with Bush since he's shown that he doesn't believe in Gay Marriage. For those who will spin, no Bush isn't a bigot, but the bigots will go with Bush. Not that hard to understand.)

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

The Republicans always get the bigot vote. No denying that. The Republicans are the white party. That may be ugly, but it's true.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But... Mike said that the Democrats are more bigoted than the Republicans!

[Guest MikeSC]

The only possible reason is that these voters are bigots, and it is partly on that basis that the GOP is appealing to them.

By providing, according to Kerry, the IDENTICAL stand on gay marriage?

For the millionth time, supporting partner benefits is a tremendously different stand than endorsing a ban any sort of homosexual marriage or union. Sure, it's still not supporting gay marriage, but is it about 1,048 rights closer to it.

 

I'm going with KERRY'S own words on the subject.

I really don't give a shit about the Mary Cheney thing.  Really?  It's not evil.  I guess if you consider bringing a person's family into a campaign in any scenario, it is.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that somebody who is out is gay, and the reaction that Kerry did something distasteful seems to just be underscoring the belief of many that homosexuality is distasteful.  Kerry's already said that he meant no offense and wanted to illustrate the loving relationship between the Cheneys and their homosexual daughter, who is in fact a person deserving of rights.  Why is it so hard to believe Kerry, yet have no problem believing Cheney when he chooses to clarify his vague statements about voting for Kerry possibly leading to a terrorist attack?  Give these guys some credit.

Cheney's comments were no different than the Dems "They made us less safe" BS --- and INFINITELY better than Kerry's claims that a Bush win makes a draft far more likely.

 

If Bush decided to comment on Mrs. Edwards heft in a discussion of health care, it'd be comparable.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Edwin basically said what I failed to try to get across, that the issue of homosexuality is not an issue at all, and the fact that people are blaming Kerry for bringing it up shows that they look at it like its a problem. Everything else Kerry said about how he feels regarding homosexuality should've negated that point, but see what you want to. He boldly stated that it wasn't a choice, and yes that is bold considering many bigots feel that they choose to be that way. If he was trying to attract bigots, he wouldn't have mentioned that.

No, a true sign that homosexuality is an issue is PEOPLE BRINGING IT UP. And one side is bringing it up. And that one side isn't the Republican one.

 

It's not an issue for Dick or Lynne Cheney as they don't feel the need to mention it constantly. Meanwhile. both Edwards and Kerry have brought it up and Mrs. Edwards put down the pudding pops long enough to shove her hoof down her gullet about it.

 

Using your questionable logic, that Bush doesn't mention that he has black advisors means he must have a problem with blacks.

Kerry: I don't mind homosexuals, like you know Cheney's daughter is gay (unnecessary, but not "sleazy". It didn't sound insulting and it almost came off as if he was simply trying to say that neither side looks at it as wrong, which is why he mentioned Cheney. A stretch? Sure, but not as far off as thinking that this was a bold political move to attract the bigots. Whether you want to admit it or not, most bigots will side with Bush since he's shown that he doesn't believe in Gay Marriage. For those who will spin, no Bush isn't a bigot, but the bigots will go with Bush. Not that hard to understand.)

The Republicans always get the bigot vote. No denying that. The Republicans are the white party. That may be ugly, but it's true.

No, you simply demonstrate a staggering lack of insight as to conservative voters.

 

Don't try and analyze this as you are insanely bad at it.

 

I'd find you insulting, but you're too fucking moronic for me to worry myself about.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The only possible reason is that these voters are bigots, and it is partly on that basis that the GOP is appealing to them.

By providing, according to Kerry, the IDENTICAL stand on gay marriage?

For the millionth time, supporting partner benefits is a tremendously different stand than endorsing a ban any sort of homosexual marriage or union. Sure, it's still not supporting gay marriage, but is it about 1,048 rights closer to it.

 

I'm going with KERRY'S own words on the subject.

Get your fingers out of your ears.

 

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

 

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

 

which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

 

Kerry is for partnership rights. He supports civil unions. This is one issue that no amount of bullshit spin can cover.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It does not matter hat her role is. She wishes to remain in the background

There's a lot of campaign people who's like to remain in the background, but can't. That's politics. That's what happens when you have a meeting hall, a hotel, or a restaurant full of reporters watching everyone's every move and scribbling notes. You go out there and join a national campaign, you have your name mentioned in a newspaper or on TV once or twice, that's practically a consequence.

 

This isn't like the Prince William media spotlight where it never leaves him alone. I already said I think all mention of her has been respectful, same with Laura and the twins.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Edwin basically said what I failed to try to get across, that the issue of homosexuality is not an issue at all, and the fact that people are blaming Kerry for bringing it up shows that they look at it like its a problem. Everything else Kerry said about how he feels regarding homosexuality should've negated that point, but see what you want to. He boldly stated that it wasn't a choice, and yes that is bold considering many bigots feel that they choose to be that way. If he was trying to attract bigots, he wouldn't have mentioned that.

No, a true sign that homosexuality is an issue is PEOPLE BRINGING IT UP. And one side is bringing it up. And that one side isn't the Republican one.

 

It's not an issue for Dick or Lynne Cheney as they don't feel the need to mention it constantly. Meanwhile. both Edwards and Kerry have brought it up and Mrs. Edwards put down the pudding pops long enough to shove her hoof down her gullet about it.

 

Using your questionable logic, that Bush doesn't mention that he has black advisors means he must have a problem with blacks.

Kerry: I don't mind homosexuals, like you know Cheney's daughter is gay (unnecessary, but not "sleazy". It didn't sound insulting and it almost came off as if he was simply trying to say that neither side looks at it as wrong, which is why he mentioned Cheney. A stretch? Sure, but not as far off as thinking that this was a bold political move to attract the bigots. Whether you want to admit it or not, most bigots will side with Bush since he's shown that he doesn't believe in Gay Marriage. For those who will spin, no Bush isn't a bigot, but the bigots will go with Bush. Not that hard to understand.)

The Republicans always get the bigot vote. No denying that. The Republicans are the white party. That may be ugly, but it's true.

No, you simply demonstrate a staggering lack of insight as to conservative voters.

 

Don't try and analyze this as you are insanely bad at it.

 

I'd find you insulting, but you're too fucking moronic for me to worry myself about.

-=Mike

I never said the Republican Party is bigoted, simply that most gay hating douchebags will vote Republican, probably because they fall closer to the conservative line of thinking when it comes to gay marriage. There's a reason why the "liberal" view on gay marriage is for while the "conservative" view is against. If you hated gays, which side would you be closer to?

 

About what I said about it being an issue, you're missing the point. He brought it up, a fact about Cheney's daughter. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that people look at this is as an insult means that they FIND IT INSULTING. Do you understand now? It has nothing to do with it being brought up or not, as it was a question asked in the debate, nothing wrong with that. It has to do with the fact that people are trying to spin this into an insult after he mentioned it, talked about how it's NOT A CHOICE, and that they deserve equal rights. Yeah, I am sure all the bigots are gonna be voting Dem now.

 

The black advisor thing is not accurate at all as I pointed out. Kerry pointed out Cheney's daughter was gay. Not insulting, Bush points out his wife is a cow. Very insulting (and mature of you too, though you're not above the usual fat joke, although your hero seems to be Rush but that's another story). As you can see, you're equating being called a lesbian with something as insulting as calling a middle aged woman a cow. Classy.

 

So Kerry goes on about homosexuality (after being asked, he didn't bring it up) and how it's not a choice, that they deserve equal rights and gives an example of a famous person that he knows. Of course, you spin this into him trying to attract bigots. You still don't think that this is biased?

 

I will point out this much; I think Kerry is a hypocrite, if only because he talks about not inflicting his views on people in regards to abortion, but then goes on to ban gay marriage, a personal view. It shows that he sides with the majority, and goes with whatever popular opinion asks of him, very lame and stupid really. At least GWB has principles in that case and sticks to his beliefs, relying not on popular opinion but rather on some method of absolute truth. HOWEVER, Kerry seemed, to me at least, to be much more genuine when asked about homosexuality and seemed to know what he was talking about, as opposed to Bush who doesn't seem as educated on the issue to me personally. He also seemed to call Bush on how he allows some embryonic stem cell research, as opposed to truly believing conception is the start of life and making sure there's no embryonic stem cell research. But I digress, since they both oppose gay marriage it really shouldn't be an issue, so I say GWB is the better candidate if only because I *know* he is genuine about what he says. I don't know how much of a "Catholic" John Kerry really is, probably a fact he's throwing out to attract a certain vote. The problem I noticed with all the debates is that rather then really answering the question and presenting their opinions, they tend to just dodge it and attack the other person. Am I naive for expecting anything more?

 

EDIT: I don't know if Mike was calling me a fucking moron, but I quoted the post up there anyway since I was quoted in there somewhere.

[Guest MikeSC]

I never said the Republican Party is bigoted, simply that most gay hating douchebags will vote Republican, probably because they fall closer to the conservative line of thinking when it comes to gay marriage. There's a reason why the "liberal" view on gay marriage is for while the "conservative" view is against. If you hated gays, which side would you be closer to?

The "liberal" view is NOT for gay marriage as Kerry has been MORE than open about NOT supporting gay marriage. Many conservatives feel the way I do --- we do not CARE, but we sure as hell do not like the courts making law rather than legislatures.

 

And if I hated gays, I can name a LARGE number of civil rights groups with less than impressive views on homosexuality.

About what I said about it being an issue, you're missing the point. He brought it up, a fact about Cheney's daughter. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that people look at this is as an insult means that they FIND IT INSULTING.

Nobody said it was an insult. They said it was cheap and tawdry for him to drag somebody's family into all of this when they do not want to be involved in all of this.

Do you understand now? It has nothing to do with it being brought up or not, as it was a question asked in the debate, nothing wrong with that.

It was not asked in EITHER debate. Kerry and Boy Wonder decided to bring it up to try and get some points against Bush and Cheney.

It has to do with the fact that people are trying to spin this into an insult after he mentioned it, talked about how it's NOT A CHOICE, and that they deserve equal rights. Yeah, I am sure all the bigots are gonna be voting Dem now.

Why not mention Rosie O'Donnell? Why not mention any of the assorted lesbians who will happily jump off a cliff on behalf of the Democrats?

 

Why mention Mary Cheney, who CLEARLY does not want to be on the national stage?

The black advisor thing is not accurate at all as I pointed out. Kerry pointed out Cheney's daughter was gay. Not insulting, Bush points out his wife is a cow. Very insulting (and mature of you too, though you're not above the usual fat joke, although your hero seems to be Rush but that's another story).

As you can see, you're equating being called a lesbian with something as insulting as calling a middle aged woman a cow. Classy.

How is it insulting, since it is very much accurate? Mrs. Edwards is fuckin' huge. She's pushing a solid 2 bills. And obesity IS a national health care issue. Hell, if he wasn't in Congress, her husband would be suing the people whose food she happily scarfs up like Pac-Man.

 

And, just in case you missed it, Rush dropped his weight roughly 7 or so years ago. Try and keep the insults a little timely.

So Kerry goes on about homosexuality (after being asked, he didn't bring it up) and how it's not a choice, that they deserve equal rights and gives an example of a famous person that he knows. Of course, you spin this into him trying to attract bigots. You still don't think that this is biased?

That is EXACTLY what it was about. He mentioned a "famous person" who was gay?

 

Famous to who?

 

How many people actually knew she was gay before Kerry and Edwards brought it up?

 

He could've mentioned a lot of famous lesbians to make his point. He chose to target somebody few people would know if she was standing in front of them. I know, in the land of make-believe that you joyfully inhabit, Kerry couldn't POSSIBLY have an ulterior motive.

HOWEVER, Kerry seemed, to me at least, to be much more genuine when asked about homosexuality and seemed to know what he was talking about, as opposed to Bush who doesn't seem as educated on the issue to me personally.

Bush said he does not know if homosexuality is genetic. Shockingly enough, it is FACTUALLY ACCURATE. Nobody knows, whether you like it or not. And Bush simply stated the fact.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

No, you simply demonstrate a staggering lack of insight as to conservative voters.

 

Don't try and analyze this as you are insanely bad at it.

 

Who do you think the Klan is voting for? Kerry and his black loving ways? Yeah, right.

 

Listen Mike, don't be personally offended. I didn't say all Republicans are bigots. That is clearly not the case. However, the majority of bigots are gonna side with the Republicans. There is no question there, you couldn't possibly disprove it.

 

And while I'm at it, insulting a poster does nothing to discredit the points that he makes. Plus, 3/4 of your posts are nothing but insults, and frankly, your creativity is getting a little low. Thus, you don't come off as this cool, witty cat that you strive to be. You come off as close-minded, arrogant, unintelligent, and SCARED senseless of an opposing view point. And by the way, why bother typing a new response to this. It's gonna be the same boring flame-bate you always do, so why don't you just copy and paste any of your other posts. They're all the same.

 

Personally, I would rather debate the issues at hand, and lay aside the personal attacks, but you don't appear to have the mental aptitude to do so.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, you simply demonstrate a staggering lack of insight as to conservative voters.

 

Don't try and analyze this as you are insanely bad at it.

 

Who do you think the Klan is voting for? Kerry and his black loving ways? Yeah, right.

 

 

 

 

Well, seeing as how one of their one is an elected Democrat, it's a more likely possibility than the GOP. I notice you still can't actually back up your claim, skippy.

Listen Mike, don't be personally offended. I didn't say all Republicans are bigots. That is clearly not the case. However, the majority of bigots are gonna side with the Republicans.

And that's bullshit.

 

Who do you think the Nation of Islam will vote for? They're the most racist group out there right now.

There is no question there, you couldn't possibly disprove it.

Since YOU made the asinine point, it's up to YOU to back it up. And you can't even come close.

And while I'm at it, insulting a poster does nothing to discredit the points that he makes.

Your posts alone do that. I'm just piling on.

Plus, 3/4 of your posts are nothing but insults, and frankly, your creativity is getting a little low.

Trying to make certain that you can follow along without outside assistance.

Thus, you don't come off as this cool, witty cat that you strive to be. You come off as close-minded, arrogant, unintelligent, and SCARED senseless of an opposing view point.

Well, if fucking idiocy is an opposing view point...

And by the way, why bother typing a new response to this. It's gonna be the same boring flame-bate you always do, so why don't you just copy and paste any of your other posts. They're all the same.

Well, it'll make your post readable, since it'll split up the sub-moronic bullshit into more easily digestable bits.

Personally, I would rather debate the issues at hand, and lay aside the personal attacks, but you don't appear to have the mental aptitude to do so.

When you make a cogent point, I'll be happy to. When you make fucking moronic comments --- which is about all you've hit to date in all of the folders I've seen you in --- I will not waste my time or energy disputing posts so lacking in logic, thought, or content that debunking them would simply be a waste of time.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Cool then. I won't waste my time trying to converse with you. Feel free to skip over all of my moronic posts, for I fear you will actually lose IQ points by reading them. I will not lower myself anymore to someone who has no ability to dicuss issues, only to sling insults. Yeah, you're a real smart one Mike. Keep believing that.

[Guest MikeSC]

Cool then. I won't waste my time trying to converse with you.

Cool deal.

Feel free to skip over all of my moronic posts, for I fear you will actually lose IQ points by reading them.

I have the benefit of laughing at you too much to really take you seriously.

I will not lower myself anymore to someone who has no ability to dicuss issues, only to sling insults. Yeah, you're a real smart one Mike. Keep believing that.

WMD, it's impossible to notice that you have an IQ comparable to the temperature of a porcelain toilet seat in Anchorage in January.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

WMD, it's impossible to notice that you have an IQ comparable to the temperature of a porcelain toilet seat in Anchorage in January.

 

Ah, I couldn't resist. First, that's not humorous. Not at all. You suck at playing the dozens. You should go with yo' mama jokes.

 

Second, you misworded your insult. It's impossible to notice? I think you meant " not to notice" dumbass. I may be stupid, but at least it's impossible to notice.

 

That's hilarious.

 

OK, I'm done now. You may die now.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Strom Thurmonds daughter is gay.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~drtaylor/kerry/kerry.html

 

 

 

Captions of John Kerrys stance on the issues^

[Guest MikeSC]

WMD, it's impossible to notice that you have an IQ comparable to the temperature of a porcelain toilet seat in Anchorage in January.

Ah, I couldn't resist. First, that's not humorous. Not at all. You suck at playing the dozens. You should go with yo' mama jokes.

 

Wasn't shooting for humor, more for obscure comparisons.

 

And, no, compared to the (unintentional) humor in your posts, I do have a long ways to go.

 

The only thing you've shown is that your performance in other folders here ISN'T an aberration.

Second, you misworded your insult. It's impossible to notice? I thnk you meant " not to notice" dumbass. I may be stupid, but at least it's impossible to notice.

 

That's hilarious.

 

OK, I'm done now. You may die now.

Don't worry. At some point, the barely functional brain stem that has served you so poorly will tire out and you will cease to exist, much to the betterment of society as a whole and your family in particular.

-=Mike