|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Dick Cheney
Scowl image[edit]
The first thing I thought of was that if the image were wider you'd see Larry Craig behind Cheney. --Edgerunner76 21:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)
OK, might get flack[edit]
I hate this man. Consider him to be the prince of darkness, particularly because of his support of torture. However, should he be considered "politically homophobic" when he personally came out in support of states being able to determine their own marriage laws? Researcher 01:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- Yes. Look at the party platform he supports. He could have fought for some inclusion over the last seven years, but he spent no capital on the issue at all. Remember, that states rights thing is just a fig leaf... human
03:12, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- In this case, though, it puts him on the less homophobic side of his party. (There were even a few wingnut calls for him resignation over not supporting the FMA). Moreover, in this case, "states rights" could only be a fig leaf for trying to increase homosexual rights, rather than restrict them. I personally feel he and Mary both should have done more, but I have a hard time calling him "homophobic" over it. Researcher 17:12, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- That's why it says "politically homophobic". I honestly believe that in spite of his lack of a soul, he is not actually "personally homophobic". But we are critiquing the Vice President, not the father. It's a bit like Bush on race - he really knows that the hard line approaches to immigration reform are not the answer, but he and his party continue to pander to racist streaks in voters wherever it will help them. human 17:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- Firstly, apologies. I didn't realize this very topic had already been discussed. However, I have to say that a man who comes out in favor of the possibility of gay marriage despite the backlash against him from his supporters shouldn't be considered politically homophobic. However, as it seems that the mob has already ruled otherwise, I rescind the objection. On another level, do we have a category for "people who'd love to torture someone"? Because his policies definitely fit that. Researcher 17:25, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- I don't think we do yet, but you could always make one. Romney "double Guantanamo" is a candidate for that category. John McCain, of course, would be the poster boy for the only one of them who knows what it's actually like. And as far as the cat under discussion, yes, it's a fine line. But while Cheney may have spoken up, he didn't do anything to change any minds, did he? (Much like Bush Sr. becoming "pro life" in order to run with Reagan?) human 18:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- I don't think we do yet, but you could always make one. Romney "double Guantanamo" is a candidate for that category. John McCain, of course, would be the poster boy for the only one of them who knows what it's actually like. And as far as the cat under discussion, yes, it's a fine line. But while Cheney may have spoken up, he didn't do anything to change any minds, did he? (Much like Bush Sr. becoming "pro life" in order to run with Reagan?) human
- Firstly, apologies. I didn't realize this very topic had already been discussed. However, I have to say that a man who comes out in favor of the possibility of gay marriage despite the backlash against him from his supporters shouldn't be considered politically homophobic. However, as it seems that the mob has already ruled otherwise, I rescind the objection. On another level, do we have a category for "people who'd love to torture someone"? Because his policies definitely fit that. Researcher 17:25, 26 December 2007 (EST)
- That's why it says "politically homophobic". I honestly believe that in spite of his lack of a soul, he is not actually "personally homophobic". But we are critiquing the Vice President, not the father. It's a bit like Bush on race - he really knows that the hard line approaches to immigration reform are not the answer, but he and his party continue to pander to racist streaks in voters wherever it will help them. human
- In this case, though, it puts him on the less homophobic side of his party. (There were even a few wingnut calls for him resignation over not supporting the FMA). Moreover, in this case, "states rights" could only be a fig leaf for trying to increase homosexual rights, rather than restrict them. I personally feel he and Mary both should have done more, but I have a hard time calling him "homophobic" over it. Researcher 17:12, 26 December 2007 (EST)
"Debunktion Junction"?[edit]
When I was researching some references for the article, I came across this debunking blog called "Debunktion Junction." About half of their article on Dick Cheney is literally word-for-word what ours says, including external links and references. Does anyone know if the site (which describes itself as "a parody website and personal blog produced for the refutation of pseudosicentific bunk and ludicrous crank ideas") is trying to rip us off or whether or not someone here chose to rip the site off? Sam Tally-ho! 01:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Looking around, the Rush article is ripped as well. ТyJFBAA 01:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming we aren't working closely with them, is this something we should be concerned about? Sam Tally-ho! 02:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- If they haven't attributed us, then yeah. And I saw no such thing. ТyJFBAA 02:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I went looking, and found a bunch more. Opened a topic in the bar. Make of it what you will... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- If they haven't attributed us, then yeah. And I saw no such thing. ТyJFBAA 02:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming we aren't working closely with them, is this something we should be concerned about? Sam Tally-ho! 02:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Valerie Plame affair[edit]
It seems relevant enough to include with a link to doxing; it's not as simple as just pulling a single trigger, like with the hunting incident. Fingers can slip once, having them slip a thousand times is unbelievable. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- So write something about it in the article. Slipping an unexplained link in the "see also" section & expecting the reader to know or guess what the connection is is just silly. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
To be fair[edit]
Should we add a category for people, who were homophobic but changed their mind?--Arisboch (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)