Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Stuff

Could we get a fact check on the "politically homophobic." bit? Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I dunno how to check, but wouldn't his vote (or public opinion) on stuff like that silly anti-SSM amendment do the trick? --Kels 22:08, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

He ran for office on a platform that emphasized opposition to same-sex marriage. Is there dispute about that, or is the question whether 'politically homophobic' is a reasonable way to describe that? --jtl^talk 22:23, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd lean to granting the VP some voter-base pleasing on this issue. I think his "personal opinion" is there is nothing "wrong" with gay folk, though politically he almost has to be agin SSM and the like. ~~ Cracker 22:25, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I suspect that many (maybe even most) of the high-level Republican politicos don't actually see anything wrong with gay people. But as long as they intentionally appeal to people who do (or worse, inflame that dislike), I think it's fair to call them 'politically homophobic'. And since I beat everyone else to the category page itself, that's how I defined it there... --jtl^talk 22:40, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

And that's what I meant when I made upt he cat. on the Phyllis Schl. page. human^{be in} 21:47, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I am against same sex marriage. I don't believe I am homophobic. They are two different issues. One has to do with the attempted redefinition of a word, and the other has to do with bigotry. So yes, aside from being against a SSM, which doesn't make a person homophobic (there are homosexuals who are against SSM), why would you classify the Vice President as a homophobic? I think you'd have a much stronger case in putting him in a category of politicians who should take gun safety course. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:44, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

aside from being against a SSM, which doesn't make a person homophobic. No, I'm afraid it really, really does. Also, you're spouting right-wing talking points like "redefining marriage" and "there are homosexuals against SSM" (AFAIK, there is one, Elton John, and he lives in Britain where the Domestic Union rules were specifically written to be legally indistinguishable from legal marriage) --Ebon 15:26, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, we should do that also. human^{be in} 21:47, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Do you agree that there are people who just don't like gay people? And do you agree that they are against same sex marriage, and adoption by gay people, and protection for gay people from being fired for being gay, and non-marriage marriage-like-arrangements ("civil unions" and the like) for same sex couples, and on and on? And do you agree that the Bush/Cheney campaigns in both 2000 and 2004 were designed to appeal to such people? That is what I, at least, mean by "politically homophobic"; if you agree with all but the label, I'd be interested in hearing suggestions for alternative language. If you disagree on any of the rest, I'm certainly interested in hearing your views, but I'm less confident that we'll be able to come to a compromise we're both happy with. --jtl^talk 23:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Politicians who frustrate liberals on issues relating to homosexuality? Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:57, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

How about "Political activists who inflame and/or take advantage of anti-gay sentiment"? --jtl^talk 00:05, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

LOL. Homosexuals have existed since the dawn of time. It wasn't the conservatives that decided to redefine marriage. How about: Politicians who frustrate liberials. I don't know. Anyway, it's not like I have control. Could you give specific example, though? To me, Cheney isn't all that tough, and neither is Bush, on the issue of homosexuality. For example, it is an executive order that created the "Don't ask, don't tell policy." It could have been rescinded at any time during Bush's administration, but he has not. So why? I say, tacit approval of the Clinton doctrine. (Bush is left of Clinton on many points, and Clinton was right of Bush on many points.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 01:54, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

(unindenting, because I can't count that many colons) (and without conceding that allowing same-sex marriage would be 'redefining' it) First, remember that the point I'm trying to make here isn't that Cheney is personally homophobic; it's that he preys on voters' anti-gay feelings for his own political purposes. And I don't know why Bush hasn't rescinded don't-ask-don't-tell; that's an interesting question.

It wasn't the conservatives that decided to redefine marriage. Who was it, then? I mean, if 50 wives and 100 concubines was good enough for King Solomon, I don't see why it isn't good enough for us... --Gulik 00:56, 14 December 2007 (EST)

SSM

On the SSM issue, gay activists may have created the issue, but I don't have any doubt that the Bush/Cheney campaign consciously utilized it to drive voters to the polls, even in states where there was no real chance that SSM would be legalized any time soon. I admit I don't have smoking gun cites to offer, and I wish I had more to offer. Here's a paper exploring whether the strategy worked; unfortunately for this discussion, the authors seem to think that the fact that such a strategy was used is too basic to need citing. This BBC article says " Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, famously said that the key to this election was turning out four million evangelical Christians who did not vote in the year 2000.", but again it's too 'famous' to need an actual cite. (Amusingly, that article also has a prominent picture of Ted Haggard as part of a discussion of "values voters".) --jtl^talk 03:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

How about Politicians who do not correct misconceptions that they are anti-gay, to the frustration of liberals and conservatives? Again, don't ask/don't tell could have been reversed with Bush's signature, but it is still stands. Heart♥Gold ^tx 03:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

(NOTE: The preceeding observations about Bush's refusal to revert Clinton's executive order is probably what makes me too conservative for Conservapedia.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 03:39, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I have to agree with Heart, we should go back to the traditional, fundamental definition of marriage: A division of property between the parents of strangers --Kels 05:43, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh noes!

I'm related to Cheney :-P. Seriously. Cousins like 3d removed.-AmesG 21:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I like Dick Cheney, though I disagree with much of his radical viewpoints (e.g., Let's invade Iraq). We should have went after Saudi and Pakistan in my opinion, since there were many more direct links that they, like Afganistan, were providing aid and comfort to enemies that attackes us on 9/11. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:23, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

So Ames, do you get any trickle-down of that Halliburton money?

And HG, "we" went after Iraq because they were threatening to sell oil in euros, instead of dollars, which would have destablized our position as the "provider" of the global currency reserve. IE, it might have crashed the dollar. Osama who? human^{be in} 23:29, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I've heard that theory, and it might be part of why. However, the Republicans aren't exactly looking out for U.S. interests in the continuation of Clinton global free trade, in which we pay China to industrialize while we deindustrialize. But Wolfowitz et al had their eyes on Iraq before Saddam switched to Euros in the food for oil (read: UN Corruption). Whether or not this was before they threatened to, I do not know. But, like evolution, the euros theory is a conspiracy theory (may even have some merit, but it is not scientific). Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:51, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

If you're going to mention the Oil For Food Scandal, you are obligated to explain what it was about. (I have 95% certainty that you know it was VERY VERY BAD, but are fuzzy on the details.) --Gulik 00:59, 14 December 2007 (EST)