Changes

*The Mary Cheney business is worth investigating; as I recall, what a person does in their private sex life is no bodies business, and Senator Kerry voted to uphold that sacred principal in the Clinton Impeachment Trial.  Why he decided to expose Mary Cheney's sex life to 80 million viewers, there is only one possible explanation for this 'flip-flop' of moral principal, and it coincidentally parellels the charges made by Swift Boat Vets -- to further his own career.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

*The Mary Cheney business is worth investigating; as I recall, what a person does in their private sex life is no bodies business, and Senator Kerry voted to uphold that sacred principal in the Clinton Impeachment Trial.  Why he decided to expose Mary Cheney's sex life to 80 million viewers, there is only one possible explanation for this 'flip-flop' of moral principal, and it coincidentally parellels the charges made by Swift Boat Vets -- to further his own career.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mary Cheney had been, prior to that, public about her sexual orientation.  When John Edwards mentioned Ms. Cheney's sexuality at the VP debate, Chaney thanked him for the kind words.  Stating publically available information is not "exposing" anybody, nor, if it was, would it indicate Kerry is of week morals, nor, if it did, would it connect to the swifties at all because the theoretical moral issue is about privacy and not deception, as the Swifties accuse.  Honestly, do you even understand a single thing that you've been talking about here?  How can you confuse exposing facts with concealing facts? --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mary Cheney had been, prior to that, public about her sexual orientation.  When John Edwards mentioned Ms. Cheney's sexuality at the VP debate, Chaney thanked him for the kind words.  Stating publically available information is not "exposing" anybody, nor, if it was, would it indicate Kerry is of week morals, nor, if it did, would it connect to the swifties at all because the theoretical moral issue is about privacy and not deception, as the Swifties accuse.  Honestly, do you even understand a single thing that you've been talking about here?  How can you confuse exposing facts with concealing facts? --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous.  B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.   

The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous.  B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.   

:Why would I?  That would be prejudicial and flawed research methodology.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Why would I?  That would be prejudicial and flawed research methodology.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Marvelous.  So you have no problem with the edit.  Lord knows why it took you a few days to say as much, or why you felt the need to drag Noam Chomsky, Virginia Tech, and Mary Cheney into it, but thats as may be and I suppose its my fault for not predicting this kind of behavior here.  I'll be making the change later. when I have more time.  --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Marvelous.  So you have no problem with the edit.  Lord knows why it took you a few days to say as much, or why you felt the need to drag Noam Chomsky, Virginia Tech, and Mary Cheney into it, but thats as may be and I suppose its my fault for not predicting this kind of behavior here.  I'll be making the change later. when I have more time.  --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)