Rush Limbaugh Live Radio Thread 03/05/07

That's a definite...
No way, no how...

LOL!

?? What's with the eye protection?

Nope. It was Oct. 4 for the only VP debate and Oct. 13th, the second Pres debate, when Kerry brought it up. The VP debate was so heated and Edwards so hit-and-run slick (besides the fact not so many watch the VP debate... except us chickens and the press, burp), that it was glossed over. When Kerry did it you saw it coming... and Edwards shouldn't have gotten away with it... so JFK knew he was screwing up before he opened his mouth; Followed by Mary Beth Cahill's remarks right after saying "she was fair game", cause everyone knew... that flamed it more.

Ifill brought up freedom for everybody... it went from there:

IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

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?

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.

And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.

EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.

Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not.

We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

***Now, as to this question, let me say first that 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. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

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.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.

This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

IFILL: New question, but same subject.

As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.

We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.

For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.

But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.

Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

It's not Mrs. Bill Clinton Rush, it's Butterfly McQueen.

Shhhh... you must not say Bechtel (and don't mention the Katrina contracts either), dems are associated with it a la Halliburton. (ducks, runs)

Point taken.

Is there anyway we can stream Ch. 4 on the net? I'm tired of checking the vid sites... especially Jihadtube.

Blum (Di fi's hubby) is even more involved with Perini. They got a wholebunchalotta Iraq contracts as well.

Thanks... I sent it out.

" Funny how quick people forget how Edwards brought Mary Cheney's sexuality up in the VP debate... isn't it? "

Right, and Horseface himself also used that during the Debates.

Yep, maybe it's time to bring that out as well.

"Yep, maybe it's time to bring that out as well."

I don't know how. The DBM won't and Rush, Sean etc. haven't and this stuff is all out there if they were interested. We here at FR are up on it, but compared to the electorate (numbers wise), we're not even a mote in God's eye.

Very cute post. Tweety is going to get burned!

I used my "ring" from before - 8 frames I believe - just enlarged and rotating in both directions

Delay = 5