It’s funny how dearly liberals hold the constitution when they talk about nebulous, impossible to define concerns. But when it comes to concrete issues, like gun ownership or limiting the power of the federal government an any way connected to the 10th amendment, they run like hell.

who’s running like hell DKL?

I think someone had better be standing by this thread with a fire extinguisher.

il_sinky: Why don’t they have Bill Clinton speak? Or Hillary, or Obama?

That’s completely different. They’re evil.

il_sinky: DKL, let’s be careful before labeling people as liberals based off of one post

Fair enough. Perhaps I should clarify, though, that sometimes when I say “liberal” I mean “one who dislikes Dick Cheney.”

Because they are all three in violation of the honor code

1) Bill is a poster child for Inappropriate gender-based behavior & Sexual and similar misconduct

2) Hillary doesn’t own a dress and in some circles is considered a beard for enabling the violations listed in #1

3) Obama’s Ecclesiastical Endorsement form was lost while Reverend Al Sharpton was scuffling with a Lubavitcher in Red Hook

DKL,

I wonder if there was ever a moment in time in which Harry Whittington qualified as a liberal under your definition.

On a more serious note, I’m sure there are plenty of conservatives that don’t care for the Vice President.

“We stand here today, dressed in the robes of a false priesthood to bestow a secular, prideful honor on a secular, prideful character…”

DKL-

I don’t know that it is myopic and steeped in hysteria. Bill Clinton never would have been given an honorary degree, if not for his politics then definitely for his loose sexual lifestyle.

To me what is going on in Iraq is a lot more egregious then some sexual shennigans. I think that most people would agree that Cheney/Rove are the people who establish Presidential policy on almost all issues, and that George is merely the mouthpiece. Thus, Cheney can be viewed as the instigator of the Iraq mess. Which is sketchy to being with but becomes even more sketchy when his involvement with Haliburton is taken into account.

a random john,

Are you more concerned about opening minds about the proclivities Dick Cheney or BYU?

Did I use a donkey?! It just sounded better than disconfirmed expectancy elephant

Did they block YouTube in Heaven as well?

And here I thought that YouTube was the terestrial precursor to us all having our own celestial urim and thummim — imagine all the cool uncensored stuff we’ll be able to vouyer then!

“Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people”

Fortunately, we don’t elect “rulers” in America. We elect impeachable servants instead.

Broz,

Remember that Mr, Cheney happens to be the vice-president of the United States of America. And as such, he deserves respect for the important position he holds.

No he doesn’t. I don’t give a damn what his position is, this man does not deserve respect.

The funny thing about Broz’s remark, and not to sound overly repetitive, but I am pretty sure that Broz would have freaked out had Al Gore been invited to speak when he was VP.

The hypocrisy in this statement of having respect for people in important positions runs deep. Bill Clinton is probably one of the most hated people in Mormondom. He isn’t respected for the “positions” that he has held(I could make a pun here but I won’t), and it wouldn’t be difficult to argue that Clinton did a great job as president.

So we should respect a republican official, but if they happen to be a democrat then we don’t have that same duty?

And in regards to Clinton, I really don’t care if Republicans show the same disdain for him that Democrats show for Cheney. Both Cheney and Clinton are reaping the fruits of their labors. The lack of respect for both individuals stems from their actions, not from the views or beliefs of those who disrespect them.

I should also note that those that attempt to redirect the argument from one about the merits of this specific Vice President to the need to honor Vice Presidents in general seem to me to be conceding that at this point the title is all he has going for him.

MAC,

I agree that Dick Cheney has behaved admirably in public towards his daughter. I also agree that Bill Clinton’s record interacting with women is less than stellar. A friend that worked in the administration once marveled to me that Clinton was able to weather a credible rape allegation, which he found more troubling than the more well known incidents.

That said, what troubles me about Cheney isn’t his interpersonal relationships or whether he is liberal or conservative. It is how he has executed his duties as Vice President on issues of balancing security and civil liberties for citizens, the execution of the Iraq war, the treatment of prisoners, and the growth of extraordinary rendition. I’ll even admit that Clinton started that last one.

MAC,

does someone have to personally drag black-hooded suspected terrorists to Romania in order to be considered bad? Or can they order underlings to do their dirty work for them?

MAC,

Your logic has overwhelmed me! I conceed that it is unlikely that Cheney has personally harmed anyone other than Harry Whittington recently. Therefore he bears no responsibility for any of his policies that have resulted in actual harm to people.

Mac, then why not Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmie Carter, etc. None of these people would ever be invited because there would be such an outcry. The Bush administration has been one of the biggest presidential failures of all-time. Do you realize that George W. Bush could go down as the WORST president in United States history? Cheney is directedly tied to Bush, and the decisions made by his administration.

You seem to be fine that a polarizing figure is speaking at BYU, because he fits into your political agenda. I voted for the guy and I don’t think he should be honored. Would you feel the same way about honoring the VP at BYU if he didn’t fit in your political agenda?

Dan: Respect is earned, DKL, not given.

That’s just a meaningless platitude. No serious analysis of leadership claims that respect is (or even should be) earned. Respect comes for a multiplicity of reasons, almost none of which resolve simply to earning or giving.

In any case, you’re not alone in asserting this meaningless platitude. It’s also what Republican’s protested when I told them how stupid their hyper-aversion to President Clinton was. The only purpose your platitude serves is to provide a mindless justification for your mindless hatred of those who irritate your delicate political sensibilities.

The bottom line is that you can’t claim to be all grown up and have “standards” and then vilify your political opponents just because you attach one of societies latest moral hula hoop to them and claim that it’s a moral issue. It’s childish and moronic, and we must lose no opportunity to say so. Again, this is something I’ve told Republican’s who fume over Clinton, and it’s what I tell Democrats who fume of Cheney.

DKL,

When is it appropriate to fume over a President or other public official?

Is DKL saying he’s never said anything disrespectful toward Clinton, Gore or any other Democratic President?

Also, where does the respect end? Do I automatically have to respect Supreme Court Justices? How about Senators? Oh, please tell me I don’t have to respect junior Senators, they’re barely more important than I am. Mayors? What offices exactly does someone have to be elected to before I should respect them no matter what they’ve done?

I fume over many things, and I have been heavily critical of Clinton. But Dan, your fixation on the wickedness of those with whom you are having something that is best described as “an honest disagreement” is just plain strange. It’s like you take the talking points that come out of the DNC headquarters and think that they’re the God’s honest truth. I’m reminded of how intensely you insisted on stretching the term “torture” to match what Americans were doing in order to push home the moral hula hoop of the day. It’s a perfect demonstration of the principle that logic has no impact on the true believer.

Back to the subject at hand: Though I’ve been critical of Clinton, I have no problem with BYU giving them an honorary degree. He was, after all, the President. I agree that it’s unlikely that BYU would give him one, and I recognize that if I’m right then there’s a double standard. But most other colleges would be as loath to give Cheney an honorary degree as BYU is Clinton. Big deal. It seems like the issue isn’t so much that BYU has a double standard, but that it has a different double standard.

ARJ, sure respect can be lost. Until very recently, I worked for a small company. So there was this guy who signed my paycheck. That engenders a certain amount of respect on my part. If he had lost his company do to incompetence of malfeasance or even just bad luck, he’d lose that respect. But he sold it, so that he transfered that responsibility to someone else, the situation becomes more complicated. My point is that it’s the platitude “respect is given, not earned” is useless, and that there is a certain amount of respect that goes along with being president. That doesn’t mean that everyone is required recognize it, but it does mean that it’s appropriate for people to honor presidents in certain contexts simply by virtue of their title.

And sure, there are situations where one could imagine that an American president would be a disgrace. Bertrand Russell argued that Kennedy’s and Johnson’s involvement in Vietnam was criminal, and (in some sense) history has proven him right. Big deal. Both of them were still a far, far cry from being a blot on our national history. And Bush’s missteps, even assuming the worst, are a farther cry still. There are fully democratic republics in the world where parties representing communism and fascism command a significant fraction of the vote — these are rabid anti-semites and apologists for the Soviets. Nobody but a spoiled, narrow minded American fool could think that our elected leaders approached this level of indecency.

jjohnson, that kind of argument is demonstrative of what’s known as the slippery slope fallacy. But if you’ll refer to the final sentence of my 3rd paragraph (addressed to ARJ), you’ll see that you’re mistaken to suppose that you’re required to show any respect at all to elected officials. But it is stupid to protest that other people do.