Cheney Daughter Remark

[elcorazon]

Why don't we just agree to disagree? 
There are no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me and we just disagree.

[J. J.]

Why don't we just agree to disagree? 
There are no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me and we just disagree.

Well, largely because this has been a pattern with Kerry, intellectual dishonesty.  A were week ago a posted here about Kerry's military policy, not negative; I chided Republicans for giving partisan answers.  Some Democrats, were able to explain parts of it.  I said that Kerry was intellectually honest in those parts, even though I disagreed with his stand. 

They could not explain the rest.  This is yet another example of Kerry's intellectual dishonesty, he says something and then doesn't explain it.  His supporters couldn't explain it.

This is yet another example of it.

[J. J.]

Just to put the verification that Bush was not pandering to his right wing supporters, read this story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

[elcorazon]

Bush knows that opposing any form of rights to gays comes off as mean spirited, if not bigoted.  That's why he chose to not give a clear answer.  It allows him to continue to straddle the fence on the issue.  It's a logical political move.  He needs his base to come vote, but he doesn't want to lose those "swing" voters who are less sure that gays should be treated as outcasts of society.

[J. J.]

Bush knows that opposing any form of rights to gays comes off as mean spirited, if not bigoted.  That's why he chose to not give a clear answer.  It allows him to continue to straddle the fence on the issue.  It's a logical political move.  He needs his base to come vote, but he doesn't want to lose those "swing" voters who are less sure that gays should be treated as outcasts of society.

Here is what Bush actually said:

"“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

That statement isn't going to get him too many votes among Christian conservatives.  With Bush, like him or hate him, you know he stands.

With Kerry you don't.  That's why his intellectual dishonesty is an issue.

I do love how try to explain away what Bush actually says and try to assign a position to Kerry, when he doesn't say it.

[elcorazon]

I know exactly where Kerry stands on this, and frankly I disagree with him.  He is clearly against "gay marriage" but for civil unions and everything that could potentially go along with that. 

Bush is against gay marriage.  He's for state's rights with respect to the civil union issue.  He's not stated whether or not he actually supports civil unions, only that it should be up to the states.

He is opposed, however to states' courts determining that gays have a right to marriage. 

That's my understanding anyway.

[J. J.]

I know exactly where Kerry stands on this, and frankly I disagree with him.  He is clearly against "gay marriage" but for civil unions and everything that could potentially go along with that. 

Bush is against gay marriage.  He's for state's rights with respect to the civil union issue.  He's not stated whether or not he actually supports civil unions, only that it should be up to the states.

He is opposed, however to states' courts determining that gays have a right to marriage. 

That's my understanding anyway.

I certainly couldn't tell where Kerry stands, from his answer.  Kerry's answer to the question asked was an intellectually dishonest non-answer.  He told us what he thinks other people think.  He didn't tell us what he thinks or even if he agreed with them.

You think Bush is opposed to gay marriages, but all evidence, which has been posted, is that he feels that it should be left to the states and that one state should not be forced to recognize another state's marriage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I know exactly where Kerry stands on this, and frankly I disagree with him.  He is clearly against "gay marriage" but for civil unions and everything that could potentially go along with that. 

Bush is against gay marriage.  He's for state's rights with respect to the civil union issue.  He's not stated whether or not he actually supports civil unions, only that it should be up to the states.

He is opposed, however to states' courts determining that gays have a right to marriage. 

That's my understanding anyway.

I certainly couldn't tell where Kerry stands, from his answer.  Kerry's answer to the question asked was an intellectually dishonest non-answer.  He told us what he thinks other people think.  He didn't tell us what he thinks or even if he agreed with them.

You think Bush is opposed to gay marriages, but all evidence, which has been posted, is that he feels that it should be left to the states and that one state should not be forced to recognize another state's marriage.

Kerry's position is clear: He's against gay-marriages, but against a constitutional admendment banning them. He's for leaving it up to the states. He's for civil unions.

[J. J.]

Kerry's position is clear: He's against gay-marriages, but against a constitutional admendment banning them. He's for leaving it up to the states. He's for civil unions.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the question that propted Kerry's sleazy comment.  The question was, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"  Kerry didn't answer it, tell the moderator what he thought other people believed.  That is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.

If he had said, "I think gay people are born that way," I wouldn't be making that charge.  I would have partially disagreed, but it would have been an honest answer.

[elcorazon]

That was exactly the point of his answer.  If you can't follow it, that's your problem.  Does anybody question whether Kerry thinks it's a choice? I'm absolutely certain that Kerry believes it is NOT a choice.  He could be wrong, but that's his belief.  Your refusal to follow his point is mere politicking in my view and an attempt to obscure larger issues.

[J. J.]

That was exactly the point of his answer.  If you can't follow it, that's your problem.  Does anybody question whether Kerry thinks it's a choice? I'm absolutely certain that Kerry believes it is NOT a choice.  He could be wrong, but that's his belief.  Your refusal to follow his point is mere politicking in my view and an attempt to obscure larger issues.

He does not say.  I have no idea what he thinks.  Kerry's intellectual dishonesty is that he doesn't tells you what he thinks; he tells you what he thinks other people thinks.  I certainly could not claim Kerry believes it choice based on this answer.  He might have said something someplace else, but not here.

[elcorazon]

I guess it depends on what "is" means huh?

[J. J.]

I guess it depends on what "is" means huh?

We'll, that is another examle of intellectual dishonesty from a Democrat.  Look, I've been perfectly willing to say that some of Kerry's were intellectually honest, even thought I disagree with it.  That isn't the case here.

Here Kerry was intellectually dishonest by not answering the question.  He was sleazy in assigning an opinion to "Dick Cheney's daughter" without knowing it.  Now, if she had given an interview and said, I wouldn't be complaining; she didn't.

[alcaeus]

I guess it depends on what "is" means huh?

We'll, that is another examle of intellectual dishonesty from a Democrat. Look, I've been perfectly willing to say that some of Kerry's were intellectually honest, even thought I disagree with it. That isn't the case here.

Here Kerry was intellectually dishonest by not answering the question. He was sleazy in assigning an opinion to "Dick Cheney's daughter" without knowing it. Now, if she had given an interview and said, I wouldn't be complaining; she didn't.

    "Is" has several defintions in Black's Law Dictionary.    Clinton was in a hearing.  Every single word mattered.

[J. J.]

I guess it depends on what "is" means huh?

We'll, that is another examle of intellectual dishonesty from a Democrat. Look, I've been perfectly willing to say that some of Kerry's were intellectually honest, even thought I disagree with it. That isn't the case here.

Here Kerry was intellectually dishonest by not answering the question. He was sleazy in assigning an opinion to "Dick Cheney's daughter" without knowing it. Now, if she had given an interview and said, I wouldn't be complaining; she didn't.

    "Is" has several defintions in Black's Law Dictionary.    Clinton was in a hearing.  Every single word mattered.

Ah, be had a followup where he said that "is" didn't mean at the current time.  We don't have a Kerry answer here.  Kerry didn't answer the the question.