Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
superbelt, so the nipples were fake?
|
The nipples are irrelevant.
Maybe bush could bring up kerry's daughter if she were a member of some sort of terrorist organization. This would be a good way to point out that kerry didn't have what it takes to fight terrorism, because he has a terrorist in his own family. If this were true, i have no doubt that most of the people in this thread currently feigning offense for cheney's daughter (someone they've never even met, and whose right to marry they would probably deny) would have no problem mentioning kerry's "unmentionable terrorist daughter".
Back here in this reality, kerry's vp's family doesn't exist in direct opposition to kerry's proposed policies, whereas bush's vp's family does exist in direct opposition to bush's policies. Accept it and move on.
Admit it, you're just pissed because kerry exposed one of those, what do they call them, exagerati- i mean, inconsistensies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
So, based upon that statement, I assume you support non-voluntary "outing"? After all, if the sexual orientation of people (even people NOT running for office) is relevant to the political debate, don't we have a RIGHT to know if they're gay or not?
Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation is no more relevant than Kerry's daughters being hose-beasts. It was an inappropriate comment.
|
She wasn't "outed" by kerry. She's been out for a long fucking time.
You should stop calling it innapropriate if you can't provide a rationally based reason to support the idea that it was innapropriate.
If the president chooses to run a campaign based partly on the promise of denying the rights of a certain portion of the populace, he shouldn't be surprised if his opponent points out the fact that the president and the vp are working against the interests of the vp's daughter.