Cheney treated like others, angry about it

Blitzer knew exactly what was going to happen. There is a long history between him and the Cheney's. He created a story by pushing the right buttons.

I know he didn't vote. I'm just saying that he's of course encouraged to vote along party lines (like any politician).

I did read the whole thing and while speculation of family life goes with the job, if it's not relevant, people really have no right asking questions like that. One of the comments below phrased it a LITTLE better, but still, if someone is going to spend time interviewing someone, you'd might want to pick a more poignant question.

Here's the video. The topic at hand arises at 2:25.
YouTube - Cheney Spars with Blitzer Over Criticism of Iraq, (http://youtube.com/watch?v=iaiwtbsyGuw)

Cheney handled the situation, very well IMO. He didn't blow his top like some would lead you to believe.

This is a little off topic, but I don't think the government has any right to be involved in marriages ... as if people need the government's permission to get married. :doh: Wasn't the separation of church and state a fundamental reason for the establishment of America? Just another case of the government abusing it's power.

As long as we don't sling baseless comments and insults at each other (like actual politicians) this might work. It will probably get really heated again come election time so we need to be very cautious.

I will say this though, it's a lot better without Shane involved. Sorry Shane

I agree. I think that the key to having decent discussions is to stringently not allow those who will dominate the discussion and cause serious rancor. Shane simply dominated discussions and really brought them to the next level in terms of rancor. If we can not take these discussion too seriously and not let them really change our opionions of each other I think they can be good. Of course of politicians could do the same it would be great.

For example, I can basically see that Matty and I have pretty much polar views on politics but I still think he does a great job on the site and seems like a good guy. Just because we disagree politically doesn't mean I think he is dumb or dishonest or anything. In fact I would say based on a lot of history that he is very honest and comes off intelligent.

I am guessing unfortunately that their will be some who cannot see a distinction when disagreeing with someone else. We need to watch out for these types.

This is a little off topic, but I don't think the government has any right to be involved in marriages ... as if people need the government's permission to get married. :doh: Wasn't the separation of church and state a fundamental reason for the establishment of America? Just another case of the government abusing it's power.

What the founding fathers envisioned of the so-called 'separation of church and state' and what people believe it to be today are two completely different things.

This is a little off topic, but I don't think the government has any right to be involved in marriages ... as if people need the government's permission to get married. :doh: Wasn't the separation of church and state a fundamental reason for the establishment of America? Just another case of the government abusing it's power.

Seems to me the answer to the whole marriage issue is just that. The gov should get out of the marriage busniess all together. No telling one group they can't marry and no recognizing marriage in any way other than a religious thing.

Get rid of 'legal marriage' and simply institute some type of civil union. A union between any two people or whatever sex and or relationship. Give it the current tax benefits of legal marriage and have a nice day. Move on to something else more important like sealing our borders to terrorists.

What the founding fathers envisioned of the so-called 'separation of church and state' and what people believe it to be today are two completely different things.

They didn't envision anything like 'separation' as most believe. In fact they didn't believe in separation at all. They believed in no state sponsorship of religion. IE: no national religion and no government telling you it is better to be one religion or another. That has been interpretted to mean no support at all of religion in any way which I would say is a little overboard.

They didn't envision anything like 'separation' as most believe. In fact they didn't believe in separation at all. They believed in no state sponsorship of religion. IE: no national religion and no government telling you it is better to be one religion or another. That has been interpretted to mean no support at all of religion in any way which I would say is a little overboard.

Bingo, bongo.

Here's the video. The topic at hand arises at 2:25.
YouTube - Cheney Spars with Blitzer Over Criticism of Iraq, (http://youtube.com/watch?v=iaiwtbsyGuw)

Cheney handled the situation, very well IMO. He didn't blow his top like some would lead you to believe.
herein lies the differences of the 2 parties. the republican machine wallows in arrogance, thinking that their policies are good enough for everyone but them. they seem to believe they are above the common folk, i.e. the wiretapping, and checking into your own personal finances. and even when mistakes are made, the blame is almost always shifted to someone else( scooter Libby?)