This is just perfect.

[Yukon Cornelius]

While I've been away I've been saving all my cigarette butts in coffee cans in the shed to dump on the sidewalk in front of your office. I have 7 cans now.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

[H8tank]

Bring it on cigarette boy, when you're through, I'll give you the $5 for cleaning my windows.

[billay]

what am i denying? what point am i missing? that "cheney is the figurehead of a movement to villianize gays"? he is no such thing. that is bad-faith political reductionism at its finest. like saying harry reid is the figurehead of a movement to villianize people of faith. it is not only ridiculously incorrect, it is truly skins-like.

 

 

Ok, for the sake of good natured debate, I'll recant a bit. I'll admit that my choice of titles for this thread could have been more, shall we say, relevant. How about Cheney Pregnancy demonstrates Republican Hypocrasy" I probably did give the impression I was enjoying his perceived misfortune. This was not my intention however. My point was obscured by how I presented it. Mea Culpa

BUT, Good lord, Az. Why can't you just concede a valid point that has already been articulated. Must you choose 1 word to get hung upon for the sake of trying to score an irrelevant point? I call him a figurehead for dramatic emphasis. When Harry Reid is the president of a senate that tries to pass a constitutional amendment to ban religion, then I won't object if you call him a figurehead ok?

 

This administration has profited from stoking the fire of fear of terror, gays, Islam...Let's get Grits in here to talk about the "great gay conspiracy" to convert our kids to be gay. The Bush administration (i.e. Dick Cheney) panders to the lowest common denominator in order to remain in power while, at home his relationship with his daughter flies in the face of that which his party promotes. Surely you can see this?

[billay]

#1 billay is gay

 

You know I have that pic of you in that cute genie outfit set up as my desktop background.

[Azazello1313]

Ok, for the sake of good natured debate, I'll recant a bit. I'll admit that my choice of titles for this thread could have been more, shall we say, relevant. How about Cheney Pregnancy demonstrates Republican Hypocrasy" I probably did give the impression I was enjoying his perceived misfortune. This was not my intention however. My point was obscured by how I presented it. Mea Culpa

BUT, Good lord, Az. Why can't you just concede a valid point that has already been articulated. Must you choose 1 word to get hung upon for the sake of trying to score an irrelevant point? I call him a figurehead for dramatic emphasis. When Harry Reid is the president of a senate that tries to pass a constitutional amendment to ban religion, then I won't object if you call him a figurehead ok?

 

This administration has profited from stoking the fire of fear of terror, gays, Islam...Let's get Grits in here to talk about the "great gay conspiracy" to convert our kids to be gay. The Bush administration (i.e. Dick Cheney) panders to the lowest common denominator in order to remain in power while, at home his relationship with his daughter flies in the face of that which his party promotes. Surely you can see this?

 

 

the problem with this argument is that republicans are no more monolithic when it comes to gays than democrats are. the list of democrats who are openly opposed to gay marriage is probably just as long as the list of republicans who aren't anti-gay bigots. you want to lump everyone into two black-and-white camps, and that is the skinsesque bad-faith reductionism. cheney has never been anything close to an anti-gay firebrand, and he had repeatedly, and publicly, acknowledged and accepted his daughter's sexuality and lifestyle. in the debates i think he even made a point to say, when it comes to gay marriage, he feels the same rights should be extended to everyone, but that obviously the president, and not he as VP, sets the policy of the administration. to call him a "hypocrite" because he belongs to a political party the majority of which opposes gay marriage is absurd. as i've already stated, the majority of the democratic party is opposed to gay marriage as well. does that make a gay-rights democrat a hypocrite as well? cheney's not a hypocrite here....the attempt to make this an issue demonstrates pretty clearly who the real hypocrites are.

[spain]

When did I become more liberal than Kerry and Edwards, both of whom are AGAINST gay marriage? You want to talk about your f'n hypocrites Billay, you might start with those 2 losers...

[billay]

the problem with this argument is that republicans are no more monolithic when it comes to gays than democrats are. the list of democrats who are openly opposed to gay marriage is probably just as long as the list of republicans who aren't anti-gay bigots. you want to lump everyone into two black-and-white camps, and that is the skinsesque bad-faith reductionism. cheney has never been anything close to an anti-gay firebrand, and he had repeatedly, and publicly, acknowledged and accepted his daughter's sexuality and lifestyle. in the debates i think he even made a point to say, when it comes to gay marriage, he feels the same rights should be extended to everyone, but that obviously the president, and not he as VP, sets the policy of the administration. to call him a "hypocrite" because he belongs to a political party the majority of which opposes gay marriage is absurd. as i've already stated, the majority of the democratic party is opposed to gay marriage as well. does that make a gay-rights democrat a hypocrite as well? cheney's not a hypocrite here....the attempt to make this an issue demonstrates pretty clearly who the real hypocrites are.

 

You exceed your own standard for argumentation, Az. Cheney is not a hypocrite for being a Republican. Cheney is the #2 (arguably #1) in political power that has chosen to embrace a segment of the american public which vilianizes gays in order to gain political advantage. If he were to espouse anti-gay beliefs then he would not be a hypocrite, he would be consistent. But by demonstrating that he does not believe or endorse such ideas against gays and by seeking out the support of the anti-gay movement by furthering its agenda represents a glaring incosistency. He is trying to halve his cake and eat it too. Either he supports the agenda because he believes in it, or he is being disingenious by supporting it solely for political gain. He is, apparently, a man who either, does not stand up for his convictions, or he has none at all. In either case, such a man should be nowhere near the oval office.

Edited December 7, 2006 by billay

[wiegie]

I love how people keep trying to make the choices that Dick Cheney's adult daughter makes, into some kind of condemnation of Dick Cheney himself. Doesn't he give you all enough ammo on his own?

 

I would think that he would actually be praised by liberals for unconditionally loving his daughter even though she obviously chooses a lifestyle that is contrary to his beliefs. Guess not.

 

That's what you don't get. If Dick Cheney had been a good parent, his daughter would not be choosing this type of lifestyle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(unless, perhaps, being gay is not a choice)

 

 

there is sarcasm in this post and I am putting this disclaimer here just in case some of you momo's don't get it and misinterpret what I am saying and then when I tell you that I was being sarcastic you try to accuse me of being sarcastic retroactively

[Azazello1313]

You exceed your own standard for argumentation, Az. Cheney is not a hypocrite for being a Republican. Cheney is the #2 (arguably #1) in political power that has chosen to embrace a segment of the american public which vilianizes gays in order to gain political advantage. If he were to espouse anti-gay beliefs then he would not be a hypocrite, he would be consistent. But by demonstrating that he does not believe or endorse such ideas against gays and by seeking out the support of the anti-gay movement by furthering its agenda represents a glaring incosistency. He is trying to halve his cake and eat it too. Either he supports the agenda because he believes in it, or he is being disingenious by supporting it solely for political gain. He is, apparently, a man who either, does not stand up for his convictions, or he has none at all. In either case, such a man should be nowhere near the oval office.

 

 

right, sure, whatever. nice arguing with you, skins. the only thing i'm not clear about is what cheney has done to "seek out the support" of the anti-gay movement by "furthering its agenda". is he furthering the anti-gay agenda simply by virtue of being a republican?

 

so is a pro-life democrat also a hypocrite? or a democrat who drives an SUV and owns wal-mart stock? a democrat who prefers to work in a non-union shop? or does this requirement of yours to be a monolithic party, where any deviation from the perceived norm is proof-positive of deception and hypocrisy, extend only to republicans?

[Yukon Cornelius]

has DICK come out and said he was for the gays??? or against the gays...

 

what has his supporter/party said?

[Azazello1313]

has DICK come out and said he was for the gays??? or against the gays...

 

 

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

 

“The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,” he said.

 

Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.

 

“I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved,” Cheney said. “The courts were making the judgment for the entire country.”

 

Addressing Bush’s position on the amendment, Cheney said: “At this point, say, my own preference is as I’ve stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He’s made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”

 

that makes it pretty clear he opposes the constitutional amendment, which takes the right to define marriage AWAY from the states.

[Yukon Cornelius]

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

 

“The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,” he said.

 

Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.

 

“I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved,” Cheney said. “The courts were making the judgment for the entire country.”

 

Addressing Bush’s position on the amendment, Cheney said: “At this point, say, my own preference is as I’ve stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He’s made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”

 

that makes it pretty clear he opposes the constitutional amendment, which takes the right to define marriage AWAY from the states.

 

cool were was the published....

did he try not to make it public or was it the liberal media keeping the info from getting out .

[Azazello1313]

cool were was the published....

did he try not to make it public or was it the liberal media keeping the info from getting out .

 

it was published by the AP (here's one liberal media link), reporting on a very public town-hall meeting type campaign speech.

[Yukon Cornelius]

it was published by the AP (here's one liberal media link), reporting on a very public town-hall meeting type campaign speech.

so did it get repressed or just not covered all that much ..

i never herd a thing about it when it happened..

i glad to here he back his daughter but i still thinken hes hypocritical for what his party was and is trying to do with the subject of gays and gay rights...

[Azazello1313]

i never herd a thing about it when it happened..

 

you musta been out sick that day

 

it was covered quite a bit, really.

[Yukon Cornelius]

you musta been out sick that day

 

it was covered quite a bit, really.

 

well i didnt see it but its still kinds hypocritical.... no way around that

[skins]

It is cool how Asz can put a lump of coal up his butt and pop out a diamond.

 

But when he puts an argument up there, all that comes out is poop.

 

Confusing.

[The Misfit]

I think what az is trying to say is Cheney smokes the pole, but he doesn't inhale.

[Bengal Mania]

It is cool how Asz can put a lump of coal up his butt and pop out a diamond.

 

But when he puts an argument up there, all that comes out is poop.

 

Confusing.

 

 

I'm amazed at just how savvy you are at times, Skins, I really should listen more to what you say.

 

So Cheney being "not as anti-gay" as the Republican platform strikes you as hypocritical beyond belief.

ok.

 

Yet this person with a wildly different viewpoint is still deemed worthy by his party to be the VP to their president.

 

Do you see a ProLife Democrat (who would also be a hypocrite by your stellar logic) ever being a VP on the Dem ticket? Me neither. Which party is the party of inclusion again?

[wiegie]

You know I have that pic of you in that cute genie outfit set up as my desktop background.

 

+1

[H8tank]

I am soo hard right now.

[billay]

I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved,” Cheney said. “The courts were making the judgment for the entire country.”

 

If it is truly a states right's issue, then why would one state making it legal for gay's to marry effect anyone other than citizens of that state? One state says its ok, and that's wrong, but the federal gov. say's it's wrong and who's making a decision for the entire country?

 

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.

 

That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one.

 

You make it sound as though, Az, that the growth of the anti-gay lobby is entirely coincidental, that Cheney just happened to be around when that happened and to hold him or anyone in this administration accountable for that is little more than guilt by association. Why does George have a conference call with evangelical leaders every week? Why is he pushing a constitutional ban on gay marriage that no other republican would touch with a 10 foot pole? His daddy didn't. Why is that? There must be something particular about this administration that gave these issues legs. Pardon me for holding the President and the VP accountable.

[spain]

Billay: Your arguements in this thread were well below your usual standards and I for one am very disappointed in your efforts quite frankly. Azz blew you up on each point and you keep sticking your nose back in there only to have it smashed time and again. You need to stick to discussing utterly ridiculous religions that worship obese statues...

[Azazello1313]

If it is truly a states right's issue, then why would one state making it legal for gay's to marry effect anyone other than citizens of that state? One state says its ok, and that's wrong, but the federal gov. say's it's wrong and who's making a decision for the entire country?

 

uhh, right. that's why he's against the amendment.

 

You make it sound as though, Az, that the growth of the anti-gay lobby is entirely coincidental, that Cheney just happened to be around when that happened and to hold him or anyone in this administration accountable for that is little more than guilt by association. Why does George have a conference call with evangelical leaders every week? Why is he pushing a constitutional ban on gay marriage that no other republican would touch with a 10 foot pole? His daddy didn't. Why is that? There must be something particular about this administration that gave these issues legs. Pardon me for holding the President and the VP accountable.

 

 

the "anti-gay lobby" has been around a long time. the anti-gay-marriage lobby never really had any reason to exist until gay marriage advocates started making noise. this didn't happen in a way that most people paid attention to until the mid-90s, when a non-republican president signed the "defense of marriage act" into law. "gay marriage" as a hot-button political issue simply didn't exist before that time (i.e., when bush's "daddy" was in charge). but ever since it HAS existed, cheney has been clear in his own position, even when it brought heat on him from "evangelical conservative" groups. calling him a hypocrite on this issue is lame and simply contrary to the facts.

 

by the way, could you please answer these questions...

the only thing i'm not clear about is what cheney has done to "seek out the support" of the anti-gay movement by "furthering its agenda". is he furthering the anti-gay agenda simply by virtue of being a republican?

 

is a pro-life democrat also a hypocrite? or a democrat who drives an SUV and owns wal-mart stock? a democrat who prefers to work in a non-union shop? or does this requirement of yours to be a monolithic party, where any deviation from the perceived norm is proof-positive of deception and hypocrisy, extend only to republicans?

Edited December 7, 2006 by Azazello1313

[skins]

I'm amazed at just how savvy you are at times, Skins, I really should listen more to what you say.

 

So Cheney being "not as anti-gay" as the Republican platform strikes you as hypocritical beyond belief.

ok.

 

Yet this person with a wildly different viewpoint is still deemed worthy by his party to be the VP to their president.

 

Do you see a ProLife Democrat (who would also be a hypocrite by your stellar logic) ever being a VP on the Dem ticket? Me neither. Which party is the party of inclusion again?

 

 

Who are you?