And Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian
In other news, that may also be the only pro-gun statement I’ve heard from Chuckles Schumer.
update: Stormy in comments at leanleft:
Yes, thankfully such people–Al Sharpton–are only found on the right. No one on the left–Jesse Jackson–would ever stoop to such depths. I mean, could you ever believe that a liberal–Cynthia McKinney–would try to appeal to anti-semitism for political gain?
tee-hee.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Yeah, becasue pointing out that the Vice President supports policies that hurts families — as evidenced by his own already out and proud daughter — is exactly the same thing as using Schumer’s Jewish heritage to attack him. Not at all different in any way. there is no differnece between clumsily highlighting the hypocricy of a political opponent and the very real life damage that hypocricy does to a member of his/her own family, and, by extension, all families and using anti-semitism to attack a political opponent. I mean, there must not be, because everyone knows that the two sides are exactly alike in all respects.
I swear, a Democrat could say that the Earth is round and you would immediately rush off to join the flat earth society.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
gimme a break. Both cases were political pandering, pure and simple. Edwards and Kerry had the same position on gay marriage as Bush/Cheney. They had no desire to help families and just wanted to inform their audience of something that they did not already know for cheap political pandering. period.
One is slightly different because it came from some lame-ass paper no one reads and the other comes from a prominent political figure.
I swear, if a democrat said shit taste like pumpkin pie, you’d belly up to the turd buffet with a bib and two forks.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Uncle:
Edwards and Kerry had the same position on gay marriage as Bush/Cheney.
Really? Edwards and Kerry supported a consitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage? Wow, I didn’t realize that!
They had no desire to help families and just wanted to inform their audience of something that they did not already know for cheap political pandering.
Again, this statement flies if you consider the statements “he’s a jew” and “he’s a hypocrite who advocates policies that harm his own family” are exactly morally equivalent.
Was the Edwards remark political in nature? Of course it was. But not all political pot shots are equally morally reprehensible.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
By Kerry, who did not mention he opposed the gay marriage amendment when he was running for president.
I will not be sucked into your rhetorical game. The more apt comparison is he’s a jew and his daughter is a lesbian:
Gimme a break.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
I liked the other night, when O’Reilly was trying to get Sharpton to admit racism exists in all groups.
Sharpton responded, incorrectly, that racism could only exist within the group “in power”. O’Reilly, the not-so-swift debater, didn’t have an answer to that, unfortuantely.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Uncle:
By Kerry, who did not mention he opposed the gay marriage amendment when he was running for president.
Wonder what he meant by that word “fundamentally?” In any case:
Banning gay marriage only at the state level, and only if civil unions are explicitly allowed. Yep, that looks to me like the same position as the president. And in no way can any of that be construed as speaking out against a federal gay marriage ban. Nope. Not at all.
I will not be sucked into your rhetorical game.
What was the context of the Edwards remark? I’ll give you a hint: It was directly relevant to the question at hand:
Notice that in the past, Cheney had used his “family experience” for context, when it suited him. Far from being out of nowhere, Edwards’ remark, while no doubt calculated as a snipe, also happened to be directly relevant to the topic at hand.
You can’t be seriously arguing that mentioning Cheney’s lesbian daughter in the context of a debate about Cheney’s support for a ban on same-sex marriage, and where the debate moderator had explicitly mentioned Cheney’s use of his family experience in the past, is anywhere close to being the same thing as bringing up Schumer’s religion when his religion has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. (By the way, I think that the point of mentioning Schumer’s religion wasn’t so much to point out that he is a Jew, as it is to point out that he’s not a Christian.)
Rhetorical game my ass.
Oh, and what does Edwards have to say about same-sex marriage:
To say that this is “the same position” as the administration’s, particularly in the context of implying that Edwards is a hypocrite for bringing it up, is patently and demonstrably false.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Wow. Better not tell Bush, who says the same thing but does propose a federal amendment.
Sorry, Edward’s snipe was entirely political pandering, which is why he said it twice. And Schumer’s religion is important at a new organization that caters to, oh i dunno, a religious group. Both are poltical pandering. Period.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
tgirsch :
It’s a magazine/paper based around religion. Everyone’s religion (or lack of it, for the atheostics), is of a subject matter.
If you believe that someone’s religion doesn’t matter when the entire paper is on religion, I’d think you’d be more offended when someone’s relative’s sexuality is to a question on sexuality.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Better not tell Bush, who says the same thing but does propose a federal amendment.
“It’ll be just like working in a fish market, only you don’t have to clean and gut fish all day.”
I don’t know how much more I can spell it out for you. The topic at hand for Cheney and Edwards was a federal constitutional amendment, and how the administration’s position seemed to contradict Cheney’s previous statements and family experience. On the question at hand, Edwards (and Kerry) and Bush/Cheney did not have the same position. Period.
And Schumer’s religion is important at a new organization that caters to, oh i dunno, a religious group.
Yes, because being relevant to the intended audience (in the Schumer case) is exactly the same thing as being relevant to the policy issue at hand (in the Edwards/Cheney case).
But no, I speed, and OJ simpson murdered two people, therefore we’re both criminals, identical in every meaningful way.
I have conceded that Edwards’ mention of Cheney was doubtless a snipe, but I have also demonstrated that it was a relevant snipe. Perhaps relevance to the actual issue in question is of no importance to you, but to some of us, it makes a pretty big difference. Your continued insistence on equivocating the two incidents is as tiresome as it is lacking in merit.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
boys, boys, take a pill. I would have thought both of you would have given up on trying to make the other understand your position. Uncle you should know better. When my eight year old starts in I nip it in the bud quick. I suggest you do the same. I do not listen to peoples arguments if they are ridiculous. Trying to make any lefty make sense is like herding cats. Rhetorical this and supposition that. They generally come from a position of no basis in fact and arguing a point is a fruitless exercise.
I will admit this is not always the case but more times than not.
I have better things to do than to try and educate them.
However it does make for good entertainment.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:33 am
t3rrible:
At least you’re willing to admit that you’re only willing to argue with eight-year-olds. 🙂
July 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Ouch!
I am taken back by your verbal barb.
I am rubber you are glue…..
Neener neener neeeeeener.