oh my God... did I just gain some respect for Dick Cheney

[smileyeagle1021]

I still think Mr. Cheney is wrong on most things... but, there is one issue that we apparently do now agree on.
Dick Cheney supports gay marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney)
Yes, that's right... to use his own words, "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." and "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,"
You know, I don't think I'll ever say he did a good job as VP... but it is refreshing to see that he understands the importance of at least one social liberties and civil rights issue.

[tabbyblack13]

:eek: I......I don't believe it. Is the world coming to an end? I though he was against gay marriage. I'm confused now.

[joe hx]

he has a gay daughter, which probably influenced him a lot.

[AFPheonix]

Considering the bile he's been spewing lately, I guess something good had to come out eventually.

[MadMike]

Considering the bile he's been spewing lately, I guess something good had to come out eventually.

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)

[Slytovhand]

Oh great! And I was just about to start on my great overseas adventure... and now the world has to go and end on me! I knew it was getting a little cool... I thought that was just winter catching up... I didn't think it was Hell freezing over!


But it's good to hear - especially coming from a) someone so politically high up and important (even if it was from by-gone glories), and b) formerly against the whole idea... it will give others an ok precedent to follow.

[Boozy]

Great. His lesbian daughter has shown him the light.

Now Cheney needs an Iraqi daughter, a disabled daughter, a daughter who lived in New Orleans, and a daughter unlawfully detained at Gitmo.

Then he may somewhat come to resemble a human being. :rolleyes:

[Talon]

he has a gay daughter, which probably influenced him a lot.

Wait - is this the same daughter who's been on tv lately, parroting daddy's bullshit about his torture policy?

If I didn't know better, I'd say they struck a deal. "I'll support torture if you support gay marriage." Fortunately I know better. After all, a US administration would never ignore a warning of a terrorist attack, then after it happened, invade the wrong country. Oh wait... :p

[smileyeagle1021]

I knew it was getting a little cool... I thought that was just winter catching up... I didn't think it was Hell freezing over!

thanks for the new sig :D
I think I'll use it in CS rather than here though :)

Wait - is this the same daughter who's been on tv lately, parroting daddy's bullshit about his torture policy?



I'm pretty sure that's his other daughter... I could be mistaken though...

[kiwi]

So he had 8 years in power to actually create some kind of change towards gay marriage
and he did what.... jack shit

Sorry he can say whatever the hell he wants now, he has no responsibility anymore, kind of like a sinner recanting on his death bed.
I would put more credit to this if he had actually done something about it in the last EIGHT years.

[Rapscallion]

The timing is interesting. As far as I'm aware, he's no longer running for any particular political position (I may be wrong on this, but there's nothing major on the radar right now). He's not doing it for the votes he could garner.

By the same token, he no longer has to toady to the more rabid supporters in his party, so maybe his true feelings were hidden? If that's the case, then he was probably more repellant for pretending to be a hater to get votes...

*ponder*

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

Lookie! It's Al Gore with a different field. Think about it. Gore has been proclaimed as a "Champion for the Environment" (despite that when asked if he will take any of his own advice to reduce his own 'carbon footprint', which is more than most communities he refuses comment, but that's not the point here.) But when he was the VP, he wouldn't even talk to the environmental groups that praise him now.

I see no difference between what Gore did then and what Cheney is doing now. The only difference is the subject.

[joe hx]

So he had 8 years in power to actually create some kind of change towards gay marriage
and he did what.... jack shit

he didn't do much except encourage the iraqi war, hide, have heart attacks, and try to accidently shoot people while hunting

i'm guessing he kept quiet about gay marriage because his boss (bush) was against it. remember bush wanted to put it in the constitution?? gah, even if gay marriage was wrong, it don't belong in the constitution

[Slytovhand]

I'm thinking something fairly similar.

Not long ago down here, the "Liberal" government (which is, ironically, conservative!) tried to push through various workplace reforms... and they got it. Once they got kicked out of power, a couple of those politicians (who since resigned) admitted that they weren't happy with what was happening, but were toeing the party line.

[SG15Z]

Really? Wow, um didn't see that coming....

[anriana]

Didn't he say multiple times while in office that he didn't support it?

[Tanasi]

Cheney couldn't done anything about gay marriage from his office as VPOTUS. Marriage is regulated by the individual state governments not on the federal level. Should he have said something before now??? I guess that depends upon your opinion about gay marriage.

[smileyeagle1021]

Marriage is regulated by the individual state governments not on the federal level.

as a slight side note... WRONG WRONG WRONG. Marriage is recognized by the federal government as well as the state... don't believe me, pull out your 1040 from last year and tell me what one of the first questions it asks you is.
Just because they aren't issuing individual licenses, they most definitely are still involved.
Also, if they weren't involved there would be no 'need' (sic) for the horribly misnamed DOMA.

*gets off soapbox*

[Tanasi]

The first question my 1040 asks is my name and then my SSN. The federal government does say who can or who can't get married. If they could I would suspect a bill would be brought up in the US legislature.
Marriage doesn't enter the 1040 until calculating taxable income and deciding on the tax table to use. Not too long ago taxes were higher for filing married as opposed to married filing seperatly or single.

[smileyeagle1021]

Marriage doesn't enter the 1040 until calculating taxable income and deciding on the tax table to use.

the point still being though, marriage is something that affects the federal level. I can be in just as steady and committed relationship as my married heterosexual neighbor, with identical household income... my neighbor will pay less in federal taxes. And that's just what comes to mind without even thinking. I'm sure you could find other things, but for now, I think taxes is a big enough issue to mull over.

And it still is a valid point that it is one of the first things they ask, first is your name, second is your SSN, third is your spouse's name, fourth is their SSN, and the 8th is your marital status for purpose of filing. Now, I know I have a simplistic view on life at times, but I've always had the understanding that the more important questions are always the first ones asked.

[DesignFox]

just playing devil's advocate...would it matter who could get married if the tax breaks and other government "benefits" of marriage didn't apply?

If we threw all that shit out the window...would it really matter? Just food for thought.

[Gravekeeper]

Great. His lesbian daughter has shown him the light.

Now Cheney needs an Iraqi daughter, a disabled daughter, a daughter who lived in New Orleans, and a daughter unlawfully detained at Gitmo.

Then he may somewhat come to resemble a human being. :rolleyes:

Only if one of them concedes to donating a heart. ><

[lordlundar]

Only if one of them concedes to donating a heart. ><

I think you need one to donate.:D

[AFPheonix]

The problem is if he got a new heart, he'd just kill it off with a massive cholesterol injection right away, so it would be a futile effort.

[smileyeagle1021]

just playing devil's advocate...would it matter who could get married if the tax breaks and other government "benefits" of marriage didn't apply?

If we threw all that shit out the window...would it really matter? Just food for thought.

if all the government benefits of marriage didn't apply, I for one would consider it a moot point. If the only 'benefit' was that the government recognized my relationship, I wouldn't give a crap. I don't need the government telling me whether or not it's OK to love who I love. But when it comes down to the real world where a $25 marriage license for straight couples is only achievable for gays and lesbians with multiple different contracts and lawyers in a process that ranges from several hundred if you the majority of the work yourself to several thousand if you have the lawyers do most of the work, and you still don't get the tax break.
Oh, and that $25 marriage license are almost never contested in the courts, Terry Schiavo's parents tried, and they failed miserably, the hundred to thousands of dollars worth of contracts can easily be contested in courts.

[Gravekeeper]

The problem is if he got a new heart, he'd just kill it off with a massive cholesterol injection right away, so it would be a futile effort.

Or consume it for sustenance.

As for gay marriage. Don't give a damn. You should be able to marry whomever you want. Problem is religion keeps butting in on what is ultimately a civil issue, honestly.

Of course its all legal up here in Canada so moot point for us. -.-

[DesignFox]

if all the government benefits of marriage didn't apply, I for one would consider it a moot point. If the only 'benefit' was that the government recognized my relationship, I wouldn't give a crap. I don't need the government telling me whether or not it's OK to love who I love. <snip>

But my point is, if there weren't government benefits attached to marriage, would the concept even be an argument?

I'm 100% behind the idea that anyone should be able to marry the love of their life, regardless of what gender that person is. But would anyone even think twice about it if it was purely a spiritual matter?

[smileyeagle1021]

But would anyone even think twice about it if it was purely a spiritual matter?

I doubt people would think twice. If it was purely spiritual churches would do whatever they wanted to with regards to marriage, and if one church decided it wanted to allow gay marriage then the other churches that don't agree would of course raise a little fuss about how what this other church is doing is wrong and tell their congregation they should feel lucky to be in a church that hasn't given into sinful desire, blah blah blah, and then people would move on. Churches are already doing that.

[joe hx]

Or consume it for sustenance.

that reminded me of L'il Cheney on L'il Bush... always biting the head of something and sucking the blood out of the body...

[Estil]

Now all of a sudden I don't feel so wierd for voting against the marriage between a man and a woman amendment back in 2004 even though I'm mostly a conservative (except that I'm anti-death penalty and pro-gay rights) and thus voted for Bush/Sen. Jim Bunning/Rep. Ron Lewis.:D

[tropicsgoddess]

So he had 8 years in power to actually create some kind of change towards gay marriage
and he did what.... jack shit

Sorry he can say whatever the hell he wants now, he has no responsibility anymore, kind of like a sinner recanting on his death bed.
I would put more credit to this if he had actually done something about it in the last EIGHT years.

I guess he didn't want to ruin his rep during those 8 years as the evil son of a bitch we all knew. :rolleyes:

[Talon]

Playing devil's advocate here, why would Dick(head) Cheney do anything for gay marriage equality? The hardcore religious right would drown in their own angry froth. As for the gay community, I'd like to think they are not so naive as to blindly cast votes for a tyrant just because he threw them a bone. I'd like to think that kind of crass wedge-issue strategy won't work with Democrats and Liberals.

Simply put, he'd have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

[Rapscallion]

As for the gay community, I'd like to think they are not so naive as to blindly cast votes for a tyrant just because he threw them a bone.

You'd be surprised how often that works. Just because someone's gay doesn't mean that they share the same political views. They'll vote as with anyone else - support those that are going to benefit them most, or fit with their political ideals.

I'd like to think that kind of crass wedge-issue strategy won't work with Democrats and Liberals.

Are they democrats and liberals because of their sexuality? That's the question you have to ask and find the answer for. I fear that you're going to be disappointed. As I pointed out in one of the many gun threads on here, if the NRA saw a better deal for its members from the democrats instead of the republicans, they'd swap alleigance.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

Are they democrats and liberals because of their sexuality? That's the question you have to ask and find the answer for. I fear that you're going to be disappointed. As I pointed out in one of the many gun threads on here, if the NRA saw a better deal for its members from the democrats instead of the republicans, they'd swap alleigance.


oh so true... I right now vote for the liberals because I don't have the privilege of being able to care about anything other than gay rights issues for the time being... I live in a state where I can be fired for being gay... I'd love to be able to worry about a candidate's views on economic policy or immigration policy.
Really though I lean much more libertarian when it comes to everything else, I think the government should stick to doing only what truly is only most efficiently done by government, providing national security, providing police and fire protection, providing a universal education system regardless of whether or not a person can afford it, same with health care, provide transportation infrastructure (roads and transit), and maybe a little bit of short term social safety net. Yes, there should be regulations when it involves public health and safety, but otherwise the government shouldn't be regulating it. I however have to vote for the person who wants to spend government funds on anything and everything and thinks every aspect of our lives should be regulated simply to gain equality... it is a terrible compromise to have to make.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I guess I lean a little more to the liberal side from libertarian if only because I think many republican politicians aren't really against spending either, they just want to spend it differently and in my opinion far more uselessly. Both sides seem to be willing to allow gross inequality by legislating towards their views.

It's really important to remember that both major parties sling a lot of crap. But between gay rights and the 2nd amendment I'll chose gay rights now, right to carry later... legalizing drugs WAY later.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's really important to remember that both major parties sling a lot of crap. But between gay rights and the 2nd amendment I'll chose gay rights now, right to carry later... legalizing drugs WAY later.

I'm kind of the same way. I support every American's right to bear arms (now, I do think that there should be some regulation, such as there's no reason for a civilian to have an RPG or minigun, and perhaps more stringent education required before being licensed, but still open to all)... that said, I don't own a gun nor do I have a desire to, so while I support that right, having it removed will not affect me at all... legalized discrimination though, will affect me.

[BroomJockey]

such as there's no reason for a civilian to have an RPG or minigun,

You might have been kidding, but there are currently 11 miniguns around the US in private hands.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You might have been kidding, but there are currently 11 miniguns around the US in private hands.

According to my (somewhat lackluster it has to be said) research into automatic weapons in the US, most are owned by organizational or business entities largely for convenience of use and licensing as well as certain profitable pursuits such as renting them at ranges so you can experience shooting something without having to buy one, as well as certain loopholes that make it easier to acquire certain otherwise banned parts that may be needed for repairs such as correct lower receivers, bolt carriers, and the like now banned under the pretense of a complete ban on automatic weapons.

The complete ban on automatic weapons has made pre-ban prices soar to ridiculous levels and as far as I'm concerned is a major blow to collectors and target shooters who wish to own those weapons. I myself will now never be able to own a HK G36 (my dream) because those that do exist in the us are incredibly expensive when they change hands, not that it happens often either.

And I know I'm ranting now, but please bear with me:

I am against any and all restrictions that don't effect crime. All of the legally acquired automatic weapons have never once been used in a crime of any sort (generally, there are exceptions to everything.) therefore I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to own one so I can shoot it at the range or just for the pleasure of having it. I think only those restrictions that actually reduce crime should be kept while those un-necessary laws should be scrapped.

Anti-gun politicians have openly admitted that they are trying to ban all weapons in small steps and are outraged when weapons companies make simple changes to suit the dumb laws they make up. They often make grand and unsubstantiated claims that rely on the general firearm ignorance that people have. Often claiming that the changes made to civilian weapons are merely cosmetic when those changes are in fact quite meaningful. It's important to remember that just because something looks like an assault rifle that doesn't mean that it is an assault rifle. nor does it mean that such a weapon is easily convertible or anything like as dangerous as the fully automatic weapon.

That said I would just like to underline what my ideal carry weapon would be for perspective's sake:

Taurus M9 series 9mm either in a IPSC concealed or SERPA non-concealed holster for personal carry. one to two extra magazines if any. Vehicle: AK74 style semi-auto rifle with receiver rail attachment and a decent quality RD sight (can be acquired at Airsoft/paintball supply centers these days) to facilitate easy target acquisition and fear factor. Two spare magazines.

That's it. I'm not looking for a freakin arsenal. one defensive, one ranged, that's it. Why? Because I think that the more people out there capable of defending themselves, the better. I don't think I'll ever have to use either, but I want to be an example.

Thoughts?

[BroomJockey]

Thoughts?

That you only need an armed populous if you're either expecting invasion or not trusting your government, and no civilian, under any circumstances, should ever need a fully-automatic weapon.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

and no civilian, under any circumstances, should ever need a fully-automatic weapon.

That's where the disparity comes. I don't think civilians do need automatic weapons, but this country is supposed to be founded on rights, not needs. My right to own an automatic weapon legally effects the safety of others to no real extent beyond what a semi-automatic weapon would. Absent some sort of danger there is no foundation for removing rights.

Also, I'd like to point out that CC is about reduction of crime and one's right to defend themselves. It's unreasonable to limit that right by refusing the reasonable use of current technology (semi-automatic pistols in this case).

Maybe I should just start my own thread, like Ruby's 'I'll answer all your questions' thread...

[MadMike]

That you only need an armed populous if you're either expecting invasion or not trusting your government, and no civilian, under any circumstances, should ever need a fully-automatic weapon.

No citizen, under any circumstances, should trust their government either.

[BroomJockey]

No citizen, under any circumstances, should trust their government either.

Thus the eternal divide between Canadians and Americans is writ large in one sentence.

[MadMike]

Thus the eternal divide between Canadians and Americans is writ large in one sentence.

Maybe I was a bit extreme, but I feel that no one should blindly trust their government, or much of anything else, for that matter.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe I was a bit extreme, but I feel that no one should blindly trust their government, or much of anything else, for that matter.

Because blind trust is the exact opposite of logic, and that's just not acceptable. :D

[Flyndaran]

Because blind trust is the exact opposite of logic, and that's just not acceptable. :D

I could take that in a religious direction, but I won't ;)
Trust is earned, and I will only trust individual people that have earned it. Governements by their very nature change staff regularly.