Dick Cheney a Sartorial Embarrassment

The BBQ Pit
201

That’s right Brutus, I posted the entire quote and used my bolding magick so that Dopers would be hypnotized and not notice that there were words at the beginning. Spot on.

In case you’re curious, the ‘loyal opposition’ isn’t a party. They’re not on the ballot, they have no website. It is a term for those who oppose current practices but are loyal to the nation. You can be a Republican member of the LO, or a Democrat, or a Libertarian, or a Communist, or whatever. It is not a single party.

Nor does it mean you oppose everything willy nilly. It is not adherance to an idea by rote. A member of the LO does not automatically oppose everything, even things that make sense to them.

If you want to claim people are partisans for an ideology, most of the LO would be partisans for justice, honor, democracy, etc… but, obviously, these should not contradict with any sitting president’s platform, now should they?

Your attempt to paint everybody who opposes Bush with the same brush is telling. Liars think everybody else is dishonest. Cheaters think everybody else cheats. Rabid partisans think everybody else is one too.

But this is fruitless, I’m not going to continue this debate with you right now. Your refusal to call a spade a spade is already on public record. You want to shift this focus to your imaginary enemies? Go for it. But everybody’s already seen that you can’t even say Cheney commited a faux pas and instead want to make all your ‘enemies’ fallaciously fungible.

You can have the last word, run with it.

202

Oh, and, before you post this website I’ll deal with it.

Just because one group calls its blog the ‘loyal opposition’ does not mean that, for instance, all Democrats are LO members or that LO members are Democrats.

Okay, I’ll let you have the floor now.

203

If you were looking for agreement from ‘Cheney Partisans’, you might consider that there were two different ways to approach this subject:

Way #1: “Did you guys see the way Cheney dressed for this occasion? What the hell was that? Did they forget his best suit? Couldn’t they cough up a suitably dark and respective wardrobe? That was a real faux-pas.”

My response: “Yeah, he looked like a dork. But I’ll bet he could pack away a few twinkies and a portable defibrillator in that getup, so it has its advantages.”

Way #2: “OMG! Did you see that fucking Cheney???!!! I can’t believe these assholes, disrespecting the holocaust like that! Of course, everyone knows that BUSH IS TEH HITLER!!!1!!, so it’s not surprising that he’d sneer at the holocaust like that! Have they no SHAME??? Cheney’s a fucking NAZI!!!”

My response: “Get a grip, you mindless idiot.”

In short - if you’re trying to get your political opponents to concede a point, you might want to consider taking the rhetoric down a notch or two.

204

Sure, but you ignore the parts of the defition that don’t suit you. That’s not the way it works. The definition has several criteria, and you disregard all but the one that serves your purpose.

I don’t understand what your fascination with the topic of the ‘Loyal Opposition’ is. I am aware of what that means, and I using it correctly, if somewhat sarcastically. What an odd tangent for you to take.

205

Well one of our 43 administrations has to be the worst in history right? I’d say at the end of the day this one is currently in the lead. If course you boneheads won’t realize that for another 20 years, but like the WMD and so many other things, we’ll eventually be proven right.

206

Well here are two things I Bush has proposed that I like. Chucking that death tax, and (I think it was today) proposing a bill to up soldier’s families death compensation from $12,000 to $250,000. He gets a golf clap from me on those. As far as rabid opposition, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. In 2000 I was for Bush, I thought he might be a little more “straight shooting” type of character, and I thought that’s what we needed. I was with him through 9/11 and Afghanistan, but when he started riding those 3,000 corpses to insanityland, I had to step off the bus.

I don’t look at repub / dem, I look at the individual, and judge them by their actions. Plenty on the right piss me off, and plenty on the left piss me off. I’d venture to say though that the left, in general, does a better job of looking at the big picture, then the right, who never seem to admit being wrong.

And believe me, if that was Edwards up there in that same getup, I’d be saying he looked like a tool too.

207

…not that it’ll make much of a difference, since these Bush apologists are too morally craven to 'fess up to their mistakes.

Just like their candidate.

208

Oh come now, the hardcore Bush apologists aren’t blindly loyal to their party over their country. I mean, there was a storm of controversy from them when it was proven that there weren’t any WMD and we’ve totaly ruined American credibility on the global stage. I mean, there was, wasn’t there?

Oh…

209

Out of line? Who the fuck made anyone here (cept the Mods, of course) a judge to say what or who is “out of line”

And yes, the GOP embraces and supports racism and bigotry, and is currently scrambling to pass Nuremberg-like laws to circumscribe the lives of gay people. Are Republicans Nazis? No. Does the GOP belong in that side of the spectrum? Most certainly.

210

Me.
You made the claim that the administration has contempt for the victims of the Shoah. The way I see it, that’s way over the line. Note, I’ve enjoyed most of your posts on that board, but you were out of line there. If you believe I’ve somehow entered ‘mod territory’, use the report post function I suppose.

Oh come on!
Is there anti-black legislation along with the anti-gay legislation? Anti-Jewish with the anti-gay legislation? Don’t get me wrong Gobear, discriminating against gay people on religious grounds is looney, but the GOP isn’t exactly an officially racist organization.

Godwin.
Describe the actual laws, let’s not bring the Nazis into this.

Ridiculous, and again over the line. That side of the spectrum? So what, they’re fascists, totalitarians? Are you accusing every member of the GOP of being a fascist? Only most of them? There’s a reason people point out Godwinizations Gobear. This is just ridiculous.

211

Your opinion on an event of incontrovertible fact is heavily informed by the rhetoric of the opposition? It is impossible for you to say “Cheney is a fucking tool for dressing like that” and “get a grip, you fucking morons”? Your commitment to basing your opinions on observed fact looks downright Orwellian to me.

212

Mebbe so. I think this one and LBJ’s are neck-and-neck. Fuckin’ Texans. At least tho’, LBJ declined to give us an encore. Kinda. And he did manage to push the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. Bush II on the other hand has given us, umm . . . what was that again?

213

How is it over the line? Cheney showed disrespect to the victims of the Holocaust, that is the topic of this thread, is it not?

The GOP has opposed every dingle opiece of civil rights legislation since the 1950s and many of its leading members are racist or have ties to racist organizations.

My state, Virginia, whose statehouse is dominated by Bible-thumping Pubbies, passed a law this past summer that voids contracts between same-sex partners. According to the state of Virginia, I can’t give power of attorney to my partner, I can’t leave him anything in my will, we can’t buy a house together.

Not content to pass the most stringent anti-gay legislation in the country, the VA Pubbies are now planning to write the same language into the state consitution. Virginia currently forbids companies from offering same-sex partner health care benefits, even if the company wants to. Virginia allows gay people to be fired for being gay, even though it bans race or gender-based discrimination. You want to know who’s behind this? Republicans. They are using discrimination against a minority for political adavantage.

I’m not saying that they’re Nazis, not even close, just that if you consider totalitarianism as one end of the scale and absolute libertarianism at the other, the Republicans are closer to one end than the other. They are not liberators, but persecutors.
Ridiculous, and again over the line. That side of the spectrum? So what, they’re fascists, totalitarians? Are you accusing every member of the GOP of being a fascist? Only most of them? There’s a reason people point out Godwinizations Gobear. This is just ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

214

That is, of course, what I would have typed if I wasn’t so fumble-fingered. Here’s some rhetoric for you: you’re an idiot. You people are so closed-minded that you can’t admit anybody on your side could possibly screw up in even a small way. Cheney was disrespectful - it’s really that simple. Is it the end of the world? Not hardly. I can only assume that you must keep your finger in the dike so firmly because the acceptance of any intimation that the adminstration did something wrong would lead to the flooding away of your entire worldview.

215

You didn’t say Cheney showed disrespect, you said

Bolding mine. You were painting with much too wide a brush, and your rhetoric was out of tune with reality. If you want to discuss Cheney, go for it, I’d still disagree that disrespect equals contempt, but we could at least discuss that. But you made a rather broad generalization and, yes, I still think it was out of line. But this is the Dope, I respect you as a poster and a human being, so I think I can call you on your bullshit without it being hostile.
I hope I’m right.

Truth be told I’m not aware of the history of legislation on civil rights since the 50’s. However, even if that is gospel I still think it’s bad form to make a group fungible. Certain members of the GOP opposed certain bills, let’s not get into full political rhetoric mode here.

Well that sucks and is wrong.
But, by the same token, not every state that’s dominated by Republican leadership has done the same. This, to me, suggests that the problem is not quite as systemic as you make it out to be. It is still a problem and every mouthbreathing idjit who supports legalized discrimination is an asshole, but let’s not blur the lines of reality in order to make a fiercer point.

Bad stuff my friend, and I oppose it. But that reflects on the Virgina repubs, or, more specifically, those who voted in accord with such measures.

Dangerous, dangerous rhetoric Gobear.
Who’s behind it? Some but not all Republicans.
Otherwise, if that rhetoric is valid, one might point to NAMBLA and say “Who’s behind this drive to sleep with underage children? Gays. They want to further their nefarious goals.”

Then you really shouldn’t use the comparison.

Ehhhh… I find this sort of rhetoric to be obfuscatory at best, deceitful at worst. What is the need to suggest that, even on a spectrum, the Republican party is close to totalitarianism? Call specific members out on their actions, but…

216

Really? Let’s look at the article you cited…

Bolding mine.

Has a court actually used this to nullify a will, a bank account, a medical directive, a power of attorney, a joint purchase? Are such things actually stopped by this law or could the law be theoretically abused to disallow them?

I totally agree that VA is wrong if it disallows a private company to give domestic benefits to gay partners. That’s a violation of free-association & private-property rights, just as much as forcing them to give domestic benefits to gay partners would be.

217

I’d say Woodrow Wilson’s WW1 Admin was far, far worse.

His abuse of Civil Liberties & press censorship was vile!
He was far more of a fanatic than the Shrub, & created laws that could & did throw anybody & everybody who criticised the War into Federal prison.
His bungled mishandling of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic took a nightmare & turned it into Total Disaster. Postwar, he is primarily responsible for the first Red Scare. He did nothing right.

218

Finn Again’s right, I let my disgust for the GOP get the better of me. Cheney certainly shpowed disrespect, but maybe there are Republicans who would agree that his dress was poorly thought out. Maybe.

Just put “black” or “Jewish” for “gay” in that paragraph to read the bigotry. If a benefit is available to some employees, it should be available to all employees. Period.

219

Kudos to you Gobear for your honor and rationality.

I’m sure that many of the Party Faithful wouldn’t see a problem with anything done in their party’s name. But there are good folks out there who are Republicans, and this country has seen enough strife. We’re all Americans after all, and we should come together, and hate them damn furriners :wink:

220

Let’s not forget the glory that was the Buchanan administration! W. has managed to make Grant look good, and if he gets back on the sauce*, the Pierce family might have reason to be thankful. But he’s still in the bottom five with a bullet.

*Based on his public speaking, I think the man’s got a head full of Xanex most of the time.