V.P Cheney comes out in favor of gay marriage..

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

Muzzling?

I can't get on board with "muzzling" speech. That is exactly what that "out there" Limbaugh would say would be your response. Why hand him such a bouguet? If good ideas require the "muzzling" of other ideas, then they aren't good ideas.
 
Rocketwarrior,

I am firmly convinced that there are also good people who are Republicans and conservatives.

Please remember that a good deal of what is said on any given posting reflects a long history of private and older conversations here. We are never to mention it, but quite a bit of what goes on in a related organization also has an effect.

That said, many of us here who stood up during the last eight years and spoke our minds against shrub & Co. had the delightful pleasure of being sent nasty-o-grammes by some of the conservatives and Republicans around here.

At least twice, members of the group had their employers contacted by conservative members who tried to get those folks fired - and succeeded in one case.

Several of us were turned into the FBI by a conservative Republican here who insisted we were traitors and dangerous.

Now, I know it is not fair to throw all conservatives into one pot and I am very well aware that there are conservatives who are gay and conservative gays who are Republican. I can't get my mind around it but I know it is so.

It is just, after several years of being actively, aggressively ill-treated by some Republicans, many of us are more than a bit touchy on the subject.

Does that make sense?

I know it isn't fair, and I am really trying hard not to assume every conservative here is like that. But it hurt and it left many people very very angry and bitter.

Frankly, I do think the Republican party is in turmoil. I have friends who are business Republicans and they are literally tearing their hair out, trying to figure out what to do with the party. Many intellectuals (and once upon a time, the Republican party had many intellectuals on offer) have been booted out of the party (Noonan, Douthat to name two who were torn to shreds last year).

It's going to be a rough slog for conservatives like you. I am sorry about that - you have a right to your opinions. If I recall correctly, the only thing we agree on is gun rights. If it makes you feel any better, my statement that gun control means using both hands means a large part of the knee-jerk liberals around here hate me just as much as do many conservative Republicans.

I think we are all going to need a while to recover from the culture wars of the last eight years.
 
....what goes on in a related organization....

I am interested in issues. I know (way to well) about the bickering and off-thread nastiness that can go on. There are probably some cultural issues there that we cannot address because we need to be so careful.

But back to the issues: Long, long ago, I was asked annually to speak to law students about interviewing, etc. And in those days, there were a lot of conservative, all white, all male, all ?straight? firms. And the 70's women's movement was just revving up. Now, if an interviewer asks an "inappropriate" question, you could walk out and raise a fuss. But my view was that you learn how to role with the question, get the job, and then be part of change. I always felt that I could do more from inside than walking around the building with a sign. And with the support of like minded conservatives, we hired our first woman attorney, our first legal assistant, etc., etc. Just could not have done that from outside.

And there is no way that I am going to trust our government, the Democrat(ic) Party, the Republican Party, Obama, Limbaugh, to get get anything meaningful accomplished without challenge. Tough challenge. It is hard enough keep politicians honest without giving them Carte Blanche.

But back to gay rights. There are some who are comfortable with the proposition of federal government controlling and owning everything. I am not. And I don't think that makes me a raving mad man. So when you try to box Cheney as being disingenous with his support of gay rights by saying he supports state's rights I don't think you are being fair.

When "our government" went apeshit over Terri Schiavo, I suspect most of you agreed that the feds should stay the heck out of it. It was a local, Florida, court that let them remove the tube. Not the federal government. So you see, you can be in favor of the right to let her go and still be in favor of a State's right to deal with the matter.

So back to Cheney - the suggestion that because he believes in State's rights he doesn't really believe in gay rights doesn't cut it. And I don't know why his just being supportive of his daughter isn't good enough faith for y'all. How do you think women finally got into sports big time? Do you think fathers supporting their daughters might have had something to do with it. That has been my experience.
 
Everyone was content to leave to the states the question of what constitutes "marriage" -- until the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 singled us out and explicitly denied us this right at the federal level.

As for Cheney, IMO he's a perfect example of right-wing hypocrisy. E.g. 80% of Americans who identify themselves as conservative say they favor laws against abortion, and a similar percentage of *these same people* also say they wouldn't want the government involved if THEIR OWN child became pregnant. Likewise, it's easy to voice opposition to same-sex marriage, but much harder when you imagine it's your own gay son or daughter who wants to marry.

This same hypocrisy applies to many other issues. Just imagine if federal law required the children of our elected representatives to enlist and serve in our armed services, before anyone else's children. If such a law existed, can anyone seriously claim we would have invaded Iraq, or committed troops to Vietnam, or anywhere else in the world since the end of World War II? It's so easy to send other people's kids to fight and die.
 
Hyprocrit

If we exclude all persons who do or say hyprocital things from our support, our failure is guaranteed. Finding a label and attaching it to someone is pretty easy. And that is what happens when you simply don't like someone - analysis and debate ends, and labelling and name calling begins. That kind of discussion deterioration happens all the time around here.
 
Sending kids to war

This is a specious argument. Requiring children of elected representatives to enlist - or requiring pregnant unwed children of representatives to get an abortion or requiring them not to, or requiring judges to be executed before sentencing anyone to execution, or any other sentence, etc, etc. That is not a point or an argument. - That isn't even rhetoric - it is attempted distraction.

An elected representative, a trust officer, a judge, has a fiduciary obligation to manage/vote in ways that might be different than for their personal situation. You can invest one way as a fiducary, but another for yourself.

...and why do you limit it to "since WWII?" -- Are you saying you agree with the U.S. getting in to that one and concerned that elected representatives with a requirement that their children go first might have choked?
 
> ...and why do you limit it to "since WWII?" -- Are you saying you agree with the U.S. getting in to that one and concerned that elected representatives with a requirement that their children go first might have choked? <

I'm saying the truth: the last proper deployment of U.S. armed forces (and by proper, I mean deployment with a declaration of war from our Congress) was WWII. Everything since has been "military action", "police action" etc.

And my hypothetical is not a distraction, it merely points out a simple truth: Bush and Cheney (and Clinton and Bush Sr and Reagan and Kennedy and Johnson) would have thought much longer and harder about their decisions to commit our armed forces, had they been required to send their own children to fight first.
 
Logic?

...but your "truth"/logic would suggest that congress would not have voted to get into WWII. In your argument, you presume that personal issues will override fiduciary responsibility. And do we simply ignore the exceptions, those who had children 'at risk'? Outliers?
 
Let's bring this in for a landing....

I don't think anyone disbelieves that conservative/republican folks would genuinely and sincerely support granting equality to all in terms of same sex marriage. That's not even a question, at least not in my mind. I have conservative friends who think the whole debate is ridiculous. But why, all of a sudden, is Tricky Dicky II coming out vocally in support of state's rights vis a vis gay marriage rights? I think folks question more what the underlying motive might be rather than his sincerity, especially given that he does have a lesbian daughter. He may personally favor gay marriage, or not. That's his choice/opinion and it's not anyone's business. But he casts suspiscion on himself when he publicly states his support for "state's rights" in the manner that he has. Again, goes more to motive than personal belief/support of the cause on his part. Simply said, it's very un-Cheney like to make such a statement (even though he is not saying that he supports gay marriage), but to couch the statement in such a manner. Maybe I'm just being overly analytical here, and that could be so.
 
Mark, I don't doubt for one second that Congress would still have declared war after Pearl Harbor, even if this hypothetical law had been in place. In fact it's my exact point: deployment of our armed forces should always be reserved as a last resort, truly a last resort. But since the end of WWII this has not been the case. We've reached the point of almost continuous military adventurism, where e.g. Halliburton selects military targets in Iraq based on their profit potential for rebuilding these targets. It's beyond obscene, and if Dick Cheney isn't the personification of pure evil I can't imagine who ever could be. This clown, while awarding Halliburton no-bid government contracts, was receiving $270,000/year from the company in "deferred" income.

If this was 1949 instead of 2009, Cheney would already have been tried and hung as a war criminal, and probably Bush along with him.
 
I think it's time for a Republican viewpoint here.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. "



Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top