I am taken back by your verbal barb.

I am rubber you are glue…..

Neener neener neeeeeener.

At least you’re willing to admit that you’re only willing to argue with eight-year-olds.

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.

“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.

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.

Yep, that looks to me like the same position as the president.

Wow. Better not tell Bush, who says the same thing but does propose a federal amendment.

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

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.

Wonder what he meant by that word “fundamentally?” In any case:

On 2/24/04 after President Bush said he would endorse a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages Kerry said, “I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the president of the United States should be adressing the central challenges where he has failed–jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world–rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”

On 2/27/04 Kerry said, in the Boston Globe about a Massachusetts amendment to ban same-sex marriage, “If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection.” He was referring only to the state constitution, not US Constitutional ban that Bush has endorsed.

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:

Question 12 – How can Cheney support Bush administration’s ban on same-sex unions?

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family’s experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration’s support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

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:

And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.

I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.

But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.

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.

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.

“The President and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.”

By Kerry, who did not mention he opposed the gay marriage amendment when he was running for president.

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.

I will not be sucked into your rhetorical game. The more apt comparison is he’s a jew and his daughter is a lesbian:

We’re all God’s children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was. She’s being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.

I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing

Gimme a break.

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.

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.

I swear, a Democrat could say that the Earth is round and you would immediately rush off to join the flat earth society.