Which is more offensive, a commentator regreting that a ist attack didn't kill the Vice President or a columnist questioning a cannidate's ual orientation?
2007-03-04 05:38:35 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clearly, a commentator regretting that an attack failed to kill the Vice President is way over the top.
BTW, Ann Coulter did NOT question a candidate's sexual orientation, but I think that is a legitimate thing to do. The way the Left got all hot about Mark Foley, you know they would want to know whether John Edwards would be trying to snare little boys the same way that Bill Clinton preyed on little girls!
Ann did NOT even accuse John Edwards of being a fa****, she merely implied it. I didn't know John Edwards was a Homosexual. I figure all the Lefties would be proud to have one of those as President.
2007-03-04 05:48:49 · answer #1 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you missing some keys on your keyboards there?
Anyway they both are pretty offensive. Which commentator regretted the attack on Cheney? I don't think anyone of any credibility would make that mistake.
2007-03-04 13:43:21 · answer #2 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The orientation tom,,,Cheney is a bigger goof in a attack ,than sitting in his chair at Bush side.decider
2007-03-04 13:49:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The regret of not killing a leader of a country.
2007-03-04 13:42:24 · answer #4 · answered by True Patriot 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Both are seemingly unfortunate.
2007-03-04 13:42:30 · answer #5 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are both equally offensive.
2007-03-04 13:45:12 · answer #6 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't know, I don't pay any attention to the liberal media.
2007-03-04 13:45:03 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋