Cheney supports gay relationships

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>Dick Cheney could wake up one day and risk his life pulling

>gay people out of a fire in a gay bar, and then go on national

>television and get fucked up the ass by 50 guys in order to

>show support for gay rights and to illustrate that there is

>nothing wrong with homosexuality, and at the end of the day,

>when asked about it, gay liberals will scream "HALLIBURTON!!"

Doug, you are such a drama queen.

First, Cheney would have a heart attack from that much exertion.

Second, Cheney screws people, not the other way around.

Third, you're right.

After all the evil and the manipulation and the plotting and schemeing, he's actually done something good. Even the most evil of men (Saddam anyone?) profess love for their children. Cheney is not Saddam (but close), but obviously his love for his child means more to him that anything else and that is an admirable thing.

Cheney does indeed provide cover now for those spineless Republicans who can't stand on their own. Now he just needs to get his little puppet in line.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>* Kerry supports a constitutional amendment to make marriage

>between a man and a woman only.

If my memory serves me correctly - isn't Kerry a Catholic?

That being said - how can his stance on gay marriage be a surprise to anyone?

> What was it that John Garner said about the office of Vice

>President? Something about "warm spit",I believe.

What he said was "The vice-presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss."

The news media at the time toned it down.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>>So Cheney's opposition to the amendment is inconsequential.

>

>>It was going nowhere with or without his support.

>

>He didn't just say that he opposed the amendment. He talked

>in far more persuasive and profound terms about the rights of

>gay citizens to have the freedom to form their own

>relationships without the government dictating terms, and he

>spoke eloquently and movingly about his love and respect for

>his "gay daugther."

>

>If you don't see the significance of someone who is one of the

>most respected political leaders among CONSERVATIVE AND

>HEARTLAND VOTERS making such strong pro-gay statements, then

>it's because you don't want to.

>

>>Doug, you are little confused about the pending amendment to

>>the Massachusetts Constitution.

>

>Would you mind taking your patronizing Boston platitudes and

>shoving them deep up your asshole? I'm not confused about

>anything. The following are simply facts:

I guess I struck a little nerve her Dougy. It iw out of character for you to make such a personal attack in response to issues. The truth seems to be frustrating you.

>

>* Kerry supports a constitutional amendment to make marriage

>between a man and a woman only.

>

>* That constitutional amendment is bigoted at its core, as it

>rests on the premise that marriage by its very nature excludes

>gay couples and that there is something inherent about

>marriage that requires a man and a woman.

I agreed from the outset that I do not support that amendment, and I am working to defeat it. Still offering Civil Unions with full legal benefits of marriage isn't the worst case scenario. The U.S. Constitutional amendment is the worst case scenario. I call the Massachusetts Amendement unfortunate and bad, but I don't put it into the category of bigoted. The bigoted folks in Massachusetts wanted an amnedment that did not even allow Civil Unions. Progress can be made with imperfect steps.

>

>* Cheney has never supported the notion that marriage is

>between a man and a woman, and when asked about it, said:

>"Boy, that's a tough one," indicating that he is conflicted on

>whether marriage should exclude gay couples. That, by far, is

>the most pro-gay sentiment of anyone running for national

>office this year.

>

>* Both Kerry and Edwards - along with all other leading

>Democratic lights, such as Hillary Clinton - have made similar

>bigoted statements, making clear that they think marriage is

>between a man and a woman only.

>

>Do you think that it is a position of bigotry to advocate that

>the Massachusetes State Constitution be amended to state that

>marriage is between a man and a woman only, even if it

>provides for "civil unions." Can that even be disputed?

>

>How can gay people support a candidate who favors a

>constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a

>man and a woman only (a position John Edwards also supports).

>How self-hating can gay Democrats be?

Doug, did you read the Republican Platform on Gay issues today? Now that is truly bigoted. They not only oppose gay marriage, but also gay civil unions and the oppose virtually every other right for gay people. John Kerry has always supported gay rights int he steps that we have taken (first city ordinanaces, then some state laws, and then more anti-discrimination laws). John Kerry does not hate gay people and he is not afraid of them. Those that drew up the Republican Platform certainly do hate gay peoeple and they want to deny us even our basic civil rights. Even Patrick Guerrero, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans, was shocked and dismayed by the RNC Platform. When I saw him on TV last night he looked like he was about to cry.

Now it will be interesting to see if your new sensitive gay-loving hero, Dick Cheny, will stand up to the RNC Platform committee and fight for gay rights on the floor of the Republican Convention. Yeah right, like that is going to happen.

And Doug you started the name calling here, so it becomes more and more obvious with each passing day that you are the worst kind of self-loathing hypocrite that there is. Go ahead vote for the party that takes a formal stand on denying you all of your Civil Rights. I don't think that anything in that part of the RNC Platform is defensible.

I will vote Democratic, because they have historically supported our rights, and they work with us and listen to us. It is a process, amd it is not perfect. Gay people at least had access to the Clinton White House, and I'm sure no openly gay person other than Mary Cheeny has ever gotten into the Bush White House.

Besides gay rights, I will also work against Bush because of the War, the economy, the environment, the undue influence of big business, etc, etc, etc.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>All in all, this just seems like another instance of positions

>motivated by selfishness. If they didn't have a gay daughter,

>most likely they'd be just as homophobic as the rest of the

>right wing of the Republican Party.

Actually, Dick Cheney has long been entrenched far more in the Libertarian wing of the conservative movement than he has been a member of the religious right. He has evinced very little interest in promoting a "socially conservative" (meaning socially intrusive) agenda either in his political career prior the Vice Presidency or as Vice President.

The fact that the current occupant of the White House happens to be a Jesus freak and his primary political adviser cyanically recognizes the power of the evangelical vote has obscured the fact that a huge number of conservatives have long believed, and still believe, in minimizing gratuitious governmental interference in all phases of our society - including the social, sexual and personal lives of citizens.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>If my memory serves me correctly - isn't Kerry a Catholic?

>That being said - how can his stance on gay marriage be a

>surprise to anyone?

His supposed Catholicism hasn't stopped him from vigorously defending the right of women to slaughter their babies.

But on the issue of gay marriage, you are absolutely correct - Kerry's views are identical to those of the Catholic Church: marriage is for a man and a woman only, not for gay couples.

It's amazing how far desperate, self-hating gay liberals will go to claim that there's nothing offensive about Kerry's position on gay marriage.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>First, Cheney would have a heart attack from that much

>exertion.

You underestimate that heart of his. In just 3 short years, he invaded two separate countries, scrapped all of those intrusive environmental laws, brushed to the side those annoying little Geneva Convention nicities, and convinced liberals and Europeans that Satan has returned to earth in the form of a balding, fat white guy occupying the position of Vice President.

Given all that, I think his heart could certainly handle a little ass fucking - as long as he stuck to the Franco size range and didn't venture into the 5-inch area or beyond.

>Even the most

>evil of men (Saddam anyone?) profess love for their children.

You're assuming - falsely, I think, that Cheney would be an anti-gay crusader if it weren't for his dyke daughter. As I just explained in a post to Bucky, Cheney has long been entrenched in the libertarian wing of the conservative movement, and has shown little, if any, support for any parts of the socially intrusive agenda. Gay daughter or not, his view on states' rights and gay equality is fairly consistent with the rest of his political philosophy.

>Cheney is not Saddam (but close),

VERY close to Saddam - almost identical even. Cheney has the rape rooms, the mass graves, the disappearances of anyone who speaks ill of him, the pilfering of public money to build vast palaces while his people starve, and the history of slaugthering his political opponents. If only he gassed his own people (and that's what he definitely plans in the second term, right?), he would be a Saddam clone.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>I guess I struck a little nerve her Dougy. It iw out of

>character for you to make such a personal attack in response

>to issues. The truth seems to be frustrating you.

When you begin a discussion by condescendingly telling someone who has a different political view than you do that they are "a little confused," you are in no position to complain of "personal attacks in response to issues."

And, to be perfectly honest, the reason that I said what I said to you has nothing to do with the issue in question. The attribute I dislike most in a person - the attribute which I think renders a person completely pointless, boring, and worthless - is for a person to be a predictable cliche. You are a total cliche - a standard, mediocre liberal Boston faggot who has adopted every cliched, predictable platitude of what you are. That's because your mediocrity prevents you from creating or thinking for yourself, and so you just absorb and conform to what has been created for you - much the same way some upper-middle class straight white kid from Connecticut just sort of morphs uncritically and unthinkingly into the moderate Republicanism which his cliche demands.

Everything you think and say is right out of the standard gay Massechusettes liberal script. It is deadly boring and sad. So, in the future, whenever you detect any hostility in my responses to you, I won't object if you try to make yourself feel better by telling yourself that my reaction is the result of your overpowering advocacy and intellectual force, but the reality is that it will really be the result of my resentment at having some of the finite time comprising my life squandered by the empty banalaties of a walking cliche.

Dukakis '88!!

>I agreed from the outset that I do not support that amendment,

>and I am working to defeat it. . . . I call the Massachusetts Amendement unfortunate and bad, but I don't put it into the category of bigoted.

If you don't think it's an example of bigotry for John Kerry to advocate the enactment of a constitutional amendment which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only, then you have absolutely no business calling other gay people "self-hating" (even though I know that your Boston Gay Democrats Club script requires that you say this to any gay person who doesn't dutifully and obediently spout liberal orthodoxy).

I can't think of anything more self-hating than for some gay person to run around justifying and excusing a straight politician who wants to amend a constitution to exclude gay people from marriage. But when it comes to John Kerry, that's exactly what you and your fellow liberal homo cliches do, and the self-hatred involved in that spectacle is really something to behold.

>Doug, did you read the Republican Platform on Gay issues

>today? Now that is truly bigoted.

Yeah, that platform is bigoted. That's why I don't support it, and why I don't support the re-election of the candidate who is running on that platform. Because I won't support a candidate who esposues that form of bigotry. Too bad you can't say the same thing about youself.

>Now it will be interesting to see if your new sensitive

>gay-loving hero, Dick Cheny, will stand up to the RNC Platform

>committee and fight for gay rights on the floor of the

>Republican Convention. Yeah right, like that is going to

>happen.

Yeah - just like John Kerry and John Edwards stood up on the floor of the Democratic Convention and fought for gay rights - by never mentioning it a single time, even though gay people and gay groups have been pouring their time and money into their campaign.

That's because they know that self-hating homos like you will excuse anything they do - including not mentioning your issues at the convention and even announcing that they think your relationships aren't good enough to be called marriage. As long as they pat you on the head when nobody is looking, you'll kneel and be happy and grateful - and will never complain or object when they advocate constitutional amendments which relegate your relationships to second-class status. You'll just sit there like a good little doggy, grateful for the abuse.

Next time you find yourself about to write the term "self-hating," you should think about your canine behavior when doing so.

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>You underestimate that heart of his. In just 3 short years,

>he invaded two separate countries, scrapped all of those

>intrusive environmental laws, brushed to the side those

>annoying little Geneva Convention nicities, and convinced

>liberals and Europeans that Satan has returned to earth in the

>form of a balding, fat white guy occupying the position of

>Vice President.

Nice summation. You also forgot him cussing out a Senator on the floor of the Senate and all the business he gave Halliburton while screwing the American people at the same time.

>You're assuming - falsely, I think, that Cheney would be an

>anti-gay crusader if it weren't for his dyke daughter. As I

>just explained in a post to Bucky, Cheney has long been

>entrenched in the libertarian wing of the conservative

>movement, and has shown little, if any, support for any parts

>of the socially intrusive agenda. Gay daughter or not, his

>view on states' rights and gay equality is fairly consistent

>with the rest of his political philosophy.

From NewsMax(ipad):

"What I said in 2000 was that the question of whether or not some sort of status, legal status or sanction, ought to be granted in the case of a relationship between two individuals of the same sex was historically a matter the states had decided and resolved and that is the way I preferred it," Cheney told the Post.

In the interview with the News, Cheney said that is still his opinion.

Bush has said he respects homosexuals' rights but draws the line at gay weddings. He asked government lawyers to research ways to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman after courts in Massachusetts and other states recognized the right of gays to the civil benefits of marriage.

"At this stage, obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes," Cheney told the Post.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/11/101918.shtml

>VERY close to Saddam - almost identical even. Cheney has the

>rape rooms, the mass graves, the disappearances of anyone who

>speaks ill of him, the pilfering of public money to build vast

>palaces while his people starve, and the history of

>slaugthering his political opponents. If only he gassed his

>own people (and that's what he definitely plans in the second

>term, right?), he would be a Saddam clone.

Yes, these places are often referred to as Cheney's "undisclosed location"

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>When it come to contentious national dispute, there is a very

>important and potent weapon that you seem to never have heard

>of. It is called "persuasion." "Persuasion" occurs when one

>person expresses an opinion in a way that is designed to

>cause, or cause, other people who don't have that opinion to

>either consider adopting it or to adopt it.

No, Doug. "Persuasion" occurs when someone actually succeeds in getting another person to change his opinion. I don't think you can come up with anyone who will be persuaded by what Cheney has said. Nor can you point to any real efforts by Cheney to persuade others. If that is really his intent, he'll bring up this issue every chance he gets. But he isn't doing that.

>If Gloria Steinem or Ted Kennedy or Angeline Jolie or Margaret

>Cho stand up and say that they believe in the right of gay

>couple to have the freedom to enter into their own

>relationships without governmental interference and that they

>therefore oppose the Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment,

>that will cause the likes of you and Rick Munroe

To paraphrase Bob Dole, stop lying about me, Doug. If Kennedy actually does something about gay marriage he'll deserve my support and he'll get it. As for the others, they are entertainers, not lawmakers or statesmen like Cheney. I don't hold a comedian like Margaret Cho responsible for making public policy -- only an idiot would. Cheney, on the other hand, is one of the most powerful people in the administration. He must be held responsible both for what he does and for what he does not do.

>But the people who need to be persuaded - meaning the

>people who are vigorously opposed to gay marriage and gay

>equality generally - do listen to Dick Cheney.

That's not true. The people who need to be persuaded are not the members of the extra-chromosome Right Wing who think the sun shines out of Cheney's fat ass. The people who need to be persuaded are the swing voters who don't hate gays but are a little uncomfortable about two men getting married. Cheney has no influence with them.

>Dick Cheney is perceived to be about as conservative as it

>gets while still being a viable political figure nationally.

Cheney is not a viable political figure nationally. If Bush died and Cheney replaced him on the ticket, the Republicans wouldn't have a prayer.

>Anyone who claims not to see the significance of his very

>public and unusual defense of the dignity and equality of gay

>relationships

Anyone who can't see this for the cynical ploy it is needs a brain transplant.

>Do you seriously contend that any

>>legislator who is on record as favoring the amendment will

>>change his position because of what Cheney said?

>Yes.

Okay, name one.

>>If African Americans had been satisfied with the kind of lip

>>service we're getting from Cheney rather than real change,

>>there would still be "colored" and "white" restrooms in

>every

>>public building in the South. They were not satisfied with

>>empty words and neither are we.

>Well, most gay people are going to vote for a candidate who

>advocates that the Constitution of his state be amended to

>provide that gay people are excluded from marriage, which

>is between a man and a woman only. Regardless of what

>else that amendment provides, isn't it a rather stunning

>example of bigotry for Kerry to advocate an amendment to the

>state constitution which provides for this?

Nope. Kerry thinks that gay marriage should be a matter for the states to decide. There are a lot of people in the gay community who think it's unwise to try to force our position on this issue down the throats of the majority by using court decisions, as was done with busing and affirmative action. I'm one of them.

>In response, most gay Kerry lovers will say: "well, that may

>be wrong, but it's not as bad as Bush." To me, that is

>identical to a black voter saying: "I'm voting for the

>candidate who thinks that we should count as 4/5 of a citizen,

Or it might be identical to a black voter saying "I'm going to vote for FDR for president even though he wouldn't support a federal anti-lynching law because he does support a lot of federal programs that benefit me and my family and his opponent doesn't."

>At the very least, nobody should have to endure the sickening

>piety and dictatorial tone of gay liberals in this election

>screetching about the absurdity of gay people voting for the

>Republican ticket

You are going to have to endure it because there is only one candidate who wants a second-class status for gays and lesbians enshrined in the Constitution forever, and that candidate is George Bush. A gay man who supports him is comparable to the Kapos who helped the Nazis run the ghettos.

>of the 4 individuals on the national ticket, the one who has

>made the most pro-gay statements on gay marriage is the

>Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

That is a lie. Not having attended the fundraisers held for Kerry by the GLBT community, you haven't heard what Kerry and his wife have said about gay marriage to gay audiences. All you have heard is a few snippets and sound bytes from the various candidates relayed to you by the media. In fact, since you claim not to have a television I suppose you have not heard an entire speech by any candidate about anything.

>Speaking of doing nothing, did you happen to catch the

>prime-time speeches at the Democratic Convention? Did you

>like all the rousing defenses of gay marriage and gay

>equality? Dick Cheney went infinitely further in defending

>gay equality than any speaker that I heard - including John

>Kerry.

How would you know? Since you claim not to have a television there is no way you could have seen any of them.

>>Dick Cheney is nothing but a slimy crook. He made a fortune

>heading >up a company that is little more than criminal gang,

>just like the >Crips and the Bloods in Los Angeles, constantly

>ripping off the >public. In a just society he would be burned

>at the stake.

>This is really the heart of the matter, so why not just be

>honest and admit it? You hate Dick Cheney, so no matter what

>he does, you will find reason to attack it and impugn his

>motives.

Why don't you just be honest and admit you started this discussion not because you have any positive feelings about Cheney but because there is nothing much going on in your life and you fill up the hours by baiting people with controversial statements on this message board? You have stated over and over again that you aren't going to support Bush in November, and you know that your chances of persuading anyone on this board to do so are nil. This is nothing but a way for you to pass the time. No matter what happens in November Cheney is not going to be running for office in the future, nor is he going to do anything about this issue during a second Bush term, so there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to his remarks. They have no real world significance.

>Dick Cheney could wake up one day and risk his life pulling

>gay people out of a fire

If Cheney rescued a gay man from a fire I would congratulate him for doing so. If Ken Lay or Gary Winnick did the same I would congratulate them as well. But that wouldn't change the fact that those men are crooks who have lied and cheated their way to a fortune. If Hitler, instead of sending gays to the camps, had said there's nothing wrong with being gay and left gays alone, would that change your opinion of him? After all, Roehm was gay and he was one of Hitler's closest associates for years. You think Adolf didn't know what Ernst did in his spare time? If Hitler hadn't decided to lump gays in with Jews as enemies of society, would that make him a decent guy?

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>>VERY close to Saddam - almost identical even. Cheney has

>the

>>rape rooms,

Abu Gharib

>the mass graves,

not Mass yet, but certainly approaching 1000.

>the disappearances of anyone

>who

>>speaks ill of him,

Paul Wellstone anyone?

>the pilfering of public money to build

>vast

>>palaces while his people starve,

Halliburton

Yep, pretty damn close to Saddam.

Doug please-

He only said that cause he was affaid his Lesbo daughter would kick his butt.:+

RE: Cheney Bullshit

>>I guess I struck a little nerve her Dougy. It iw out of

>>character for you to make such a personal attack in response

>>to issues. The truth seems to be frustrating you.

>

>When you begin a discussion by condescendingly telling someone

>who has a different political view than you do that they are

>"a little confused," you are in no position to complain of

>"personal attacks in response to issues."

>

>And, to be perfectly honest, the reason that I said what I

>said to you has nothing to do with the issue in question. The

>attribute I dislike most in a person - the attribute which I

>think renders a person completely pointless, boring, and

>worthless - is for a person to be a predictable cliche. You

>are a total cliche - a standard, mediocre liberal Boston

>faggot who has adopted every cliched, predictable platitude of

>what you are. That's because your mediocrity prevents you

>from creating or thinking for yourself, and so you just absorb

>and conform to what has been created for you - much the same

>way some upper-middle class straight white kid from

>Connecticut just sort of morphs uncritically and unthinkingly

>into the moderate Republicanism which his cliche demands.

>

>Everything you think and say is right out of the standard gay

>Massechusettes liberal script. It is deadly boring and sad.

>So, in the future, whenever you detect any hostility in my

>responses to you, I won't object if you try to make yourself

>feel better by telling yourself that my reaction is the result

>of your overpowering advocacy and intellectual force, but the

>reality is that it will really be the result of my resentment

>at having some of the finite time comprising my life

>squandered by the empty banalaties of a walking cliche.

>

Doug, I was away this weekend, so I missed your response. Thanks for defining me. Now my identity crisis is over! Thanks.

Actually, I supported Howard Dean this year, and I consider my self to be an un-repentant liberal. And I mean that in a good way. I am more than a single issue voter, but I am from Massachusetss, and I consider myslef to by liberal, anti-war and in favor of gay rights.

>Dukakis '88!!

>

>>I agreed from the outset that I do not support that

>amendment,

>>and I am working to defeat it. . . . I call the

>Massachusetts Amendement unfortunate and bad, but I don't put

>it into the category of bigoted.

>

>If you don't think it's an example of bigotry for John Kerry

>to advocate the enactment of a constitutional amendment which

>states that marriage is between a man and a woman only, then

>you have absolutely no business calling other gay people

>"self-hating" (even though I know that your Boston Gay

>Democrats Club script requires that you say this to any gay

>person who doesn't dutifully and obediently spout liberal

>orthodoxy).

>

>I can't think of anything more self-hating than for some gay

>person to run around justifying and excusing a straight

>politician who wants to amend a constitution to exclude gay

>people from marriage. But when it comes to John Kerry, that's

>exactly what you and your fellow liberal homo cliches do, and

>the self-hatred involved in that spectacle is really something

>to behold.

Again you continue to miss the point. The Massachusetts Amendment, if it passes, will gaurantee Civil Unions with all the rights and priveleges of marriage. This is better for gays than in any other state, including Vermont. It would be great progress, even if it isn't the desired end result. If a politician supports gay people getting the full rights of straingt peoeple, I don't call that bigoted. I think it is unfortunate that we have not yet reached our goal with some polititicans, but I will take progress.

It is not self-hating if you at least get a place at the table. It is self-hating to support a party who wants to deny you all of y our rights.

>

>>Doug, did you read the Republican Platform on Gay issues

>>today? Now that is truly bigoted.

>

>Yeah, that platform is bigoted. That's why I don't support

>it, and why I don't support the re-election of the candidate

>who is running on that platform. Because I won't support a

>candidate who esposues that form of bigotry. Too bad you

>can't say the same thing about youself.

And who will you be voting for then, Ralph Nader. And I do not consider myself a single-issue voter, so I will go with the party that most closely represents my positions, and the party that will at least listen to me and those with my views. I don't think we will see a gay congressman or the head of the HRC gattign platform slots at the RNC, as they did at the DNC. Yes, gay issues are not at the top of the Democratic agenda, but they are not afraid of us either.

>

>>Now it will be interesting to see if your new sensitive

>>gay-loving hero, Dick Cheny, will stand up to the RNC

>Platform

>>committee and fight for gay rights on the floor of the

>>Republican Convention. Yeah right, like that is going to

>>happen.

>

>Yeah - just like John Kerry and John Edwards stood up on the

>floor of the Democratic Convention and fought for gay rights -

>by never mentioning it a single time, even though gay people

>and gay groups have been pouring their time and money into

>their campaign.

>

>That's because they know that self-hating homos like you will

>excuse anything they do - including not mentioning your issues

>at the convention

Doug, Doug, Doug...Gay issues were mentioned at the DNC. And there were gay speakers at the podium, Barney Frank and Cheryl Jaques. Please stop saying that the Democrats did not address gay issues,because they did.

and even announcing that they think your

>relationships aren't good enough to be called marriage. As

>long as they pat you on the head when nobody is looking,

>you'll kneel and be happy and grateful - and will never

>complain or object when they advocate constitutional

>amendments which relegate your relationships to second-class

>status. You'll just sit there like a good little doggy,

>grateful for the abuse.

>

>Next time you find yourself about to write the term

>"self-hating," you should think about your canine behavior

>when doing so.