Snake in the grass

[Scootter]

Right, why would you make a point in a national debate by saying I respect the fact that parents love thier daughter (news flash... most parents love thier kids) most parents embrace their children "It's a wonderful thing"

If you cant see this you are a drone to the system

It was used as a political point plain and simple and was not worthy of a responce.

By the way Bush is not pushing for the amendment only supporting it.

[lazs2]

oh this is good... why don't you just call tweety an idiot nash?

I know you want to... he betrayed you!  in front of everyone!   with michell moores  movie out and the "boss" doing the concert and  the slick debates and all.... what is wrong with him?

you will never get it nash so long as you continue to only go to your support groups.   It is the liberal failing.   It doesn't matter how smart or witty or artisic you are.... if you can't think you won't ever understand...

but even you must understand this.... Tweety will vote this election.... you and your friends won't.

cheer up tho... you can sit around and make fun of all us no talent rubes after the election.

lazs

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Scootter
Right, why would you make a point in a national debate by saying I respect the fact that parents love thier daughter (news flash... most parents love thier kids) most parents embrace their children "It's a wonderful thing"

If you cant see this you are a drone to the system

It was used as a political point plain and simple and was not worthy of a responce.

By the way Bush is not pushing for the amendment only supporting it.

Winner!

I am surprised/disgusted daily by what the left turns a blind eye to in their candidates out of pure hatred for this admin and their lust to replace them with ANYTHING/ANYONE

[storch]

Originally posted by Nash
Cheney is supporting a President who is undermining Cheney's very own daughter.

If Bush, by trying to ammend the very constitution  

Do you mean amend?  Interesting.  One man has the power to amend the Constitution of the United States all by himself!  Pull your head out of the sand.  In every state where the issue of homosexual marriage has been brought before the electorate the proposal has been soundly spanked.  It is only through the illegal activism for unelected judges in extremely liberal states that this agenda has been forwarded.  The people will decide if they want to preserve the cornerstone of society, the family, not any president.  If we are to protect ourselves from imbecilic liberals and their whimsical pursuits, be it homosexual marriage or plural marriages or whatever you people will think of next it would be wise on the part of the majority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as God ordained it to be.

On a side note I have a wife, she has a husband.  If the imbeciles win on this issue will the dictionaries all need to be changed?  what will adam and steve call each other? what about dana and eve?  will we need to come up new words to describe a same sex spouse? I'm sure it will go way beyond the dictionary as well.

[Dinger]

As an aside, I love the argument that "He's not so smart, but he's surrounded by smart people, so he'll do okay". I heard it four years ago, and I'm hearing it now.
And, how, may I ask, is he going to figure out who the smart people are, with a genuine interest in the welfare of the country, who are fellow idiots, and who are evil self-serving bastards intent on looting the public sector?

[slimm50]

Welp, after reading this entire thread to this point, I must say that that it has been an enjoyable read. Mainly because the tone has been mostly civil and respectful. Both side presenting reasoned thought, it appears to me. Oh, sure, there are some very marked disagreements, but it's like listening in on a conversation at a party: all the participants standing around with their favorite adult bevs in hand, pontificating on the world's ills, with a liberal (no pun intended) sprinkling of jabs left and right (pun intended). But nothing , so far, too inflamatory. This is the comfortable BBS tone from the past that we all had come to expect.  I welcome it back:D

[Horn]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Nash, did you watch the debate? The translation will not come through in the transcript. Edwards passively attacked Cheney for the simple fact his daughter is gay, and Cheney gritted his teeth and "thanked" him for the (CHILDISH HATEFUL- my words) attack and reliquished his time. Edwards is scum, and in Louisiana, he'd probably be in intensive care.

Here are the actual words from:

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1714027p-9519936c.html

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: Freedom means freedom for everybody. You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.

I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.

But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.

This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

IFILL: New question, but same subject.

As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.

We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.

For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.

But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.

Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.



Didn't look like much of an attack to me--and while I didn't see the debate (no TV) I did listen to it and I still don't see your point.

Edwards brought up the family point (after Cheney had a LOT to say about it)--in one portion, Cheney says that "Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference, " but then says he will support a constitutional read "federal" mandate that would take said power from the state.

Edwards pointed out the (continued) hypocrisy of this position using Cheney's own family as an illustration. As Cheney did!

Until I saw your post --at the time, I thought it was a telling point against Cheney--demonstrating the hypocrisy of using the Constitution as a vehicle to reduce the rights of a minority when it would negatively affect his own family.

h

[Preon1]

Originally posted by Dinger
And, how, may I ask, is he going to figure out who the smart people are, with a genuine interest in the welfare of the country, who are fellow idiots, and who are evil self-serving bastards intent on looting the public sector?

Whoa, Dinger...  you don't really mean that do you?  You CERTAINLY didn't say that about Dick Cheney.  I mean, the guy's been in public service his ENTIRE LIFE.  He was the Chief of Staff when he was 33.  He was a congressman for like 10 years.  He served as the Secretary of Defense.  He's now the sitting Vice President of the United States.  This isn't the resume of an 'evil self-serving bastard'.

[Dinger]

Hehe ripsnorted Dick Cheney and Resume into google, and came up with this:

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8329&fcategory_desc=Dick%20Cheney%20and%20Halliburton

or maybe a resume from a site that's critical of all politicians:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=2

his entire life, except for that period where he privatized a good part of the military, then became a CEO and got filthy rich off that privatization.
And yeah, KBR's been right there beside our troops when we needed them, not fearing enemy attacks or capture, and charging a fair price.

But I didn't call anyone in particular an "evil bastard"

[Preon1]

The military has done a lot to cut costs and expand its mission capacity through privatization.  Simply put, private companies that are in business to perform a function that doesn't include killing the enemy and taking his land are much more likely to perform their task faster and cheaper than military personnel.  Do you fault Dick Cheney for working toward that goal?

Now, I'm in the Air Force and I do a lot of program management.  In the last 2 years I've learned a LOT about how the government expects private companies to do business with it.  When I get out of the Air Force, that knowledge will be greatly sought after.  Would it be greedy of me to take advantage of that knowledge?

[Horn]

Originally posted by Preon1
 Would it be greedy of me to take advantage of that knowledge?

Not at all. Many folks come out of DoD program mgmnt into industry--but get it right--it's not your program mgmnt skills that are sought after--matter of fact, few will care how well you can do in that department. What will mattter (and what will determine how long you last/your pay) is how much business you will bring to the contractor through your old DoD contacts and understanding of the procurement systems specific to your DoD experiences.

The sooner you realize what industry values, the better you will do when you get out.

This is the reason a Cheney or hell, Carlyle Group does so well. Do you think Carlyle can offer a 25-30% ROI to their investors because they are just sharp businessmen? They are also SERIOUSLY connected. They attract those with political contacts to get things done in the Gov't. May not be ultimately ethical but that is the game nevertheless.

h

[Preon1]

Originally posted by Horn
Not at all. Many folks come out of DoD program mgmnt into industry--but get it right--it's not your program mgmnt skills that are sought after--matter of fact, few will care how well you can do in that department. What will mattter (and what will determine how long you last/your pay) is how much business you will bring to the contractor through your old DoD contacts and understanding of the procurement systems specific to your DoD experiences.

The sooner you realize what industry values, the better you will do when you get out.

This is the reason a Cheney or hell, Carlyle Group does so well. Do you think Carlyle can offer a 25-30% ROI to their investors because they are just sharp businessmen? They are also SERIOUSLY connected. They attract those with political contacts to get things done in the Gov't. May not be ultimately ethical but that is the game nevertheless.

h

That's what I meant.  Almost anybody can do the job of program management.  When I leave the DoD, I'll know who to talk to and know how to garner favor from the system (at least in the area of missile defense) because I've been in it.  Is that an unfair advantage?  Maybe.  Am I evil for taking that advantage?  I'd hope not.

[midnight Target]

The moderator asked the question. Cheney went the "states rights" route with it, basically side stepping the issue. Edwards said what Cheney would have loved to have said, and Cheney simply thanked him and let it go. It was a classy play by both men.

[Trell]

I didnt see the attack on  Cheney's daughter,  All i saw was the attack on bush's Idea about banning gay marrages. that and the idea that Cheney  would support a law that would hurt his daughter. in the long run, and treat them like second class americans.

[Dinger]

Sure Preon, but did you write the rules? The guy was Secretary of Defense in the administration that brought about the excesses of the current system, then he goes into the private sector and gets rich off of it. The only reason it's not illegal is because he made it not be illegal.

As for the merits of the current system of contractors, that's quite a debatable point. Yes, they can save money, since they don't cost anything when we're not at war. But their effectiveness in war is questionable; and we've been at war for 3 years now, and I don't see any end in sight, regardless of who wins in November.

In our current system, there's nothing wrong with selling the experience the military gives you; in fact, that's still the major point of recruitment. But we spend a _lot_ of money on the military, and the ties between the Military and Industry can and do become quite incestuous. That's why your "Defense Contracting 101" guidebooks have extensive and explicit procedures laid out.
But the critical difference between you and Dick Cheney is that if you happen to make a ton of money specifically because of some change that he oversaw, you'll be able say, "I don't make the rules; I just play by them."