Keeper of the Flame?

[s1m0n]

Cheney Voted "Keeper of the Flame".

Former Vice President Dick Cheney got an award Wednesday night, the Center for Security Policy's "Keeper of the Flame Award." As you might expect of Cheney, he didn't use the occasion to bask -- instead, he went on the warpath, attacking his liberal critics generally and the Obama administration specifically.

It was, to say the least, an interesting venue for that kind of speech. Admittedly, the award has been given to plenty of other prominent figures, from former President Ronald Reagan to James Jones, who's now President Obama's national security advisor, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. and Donald Rumsfeld. (Of that last man, Cheney said Wednesday, "truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.")

But the Center for Security Policy was founded by Frank Gaffney, who remains the organization's president.

The winners of this year's Keeper of the Pitchfork and Keeper of the Brimstone awards will be announced at a later date.

[Innocent Bystander]

If a guy is elected keeper of the flame, you have to expect that "flame" is what he will do.

[I.D.10-t]

So a politically "liberal" magazine questions a "conservative" nonprofit on it's choice of award recipients? Who'd of thunk.

[jim stone]

I'm sincerely confused about something. Are we supposed to have political threads like this one in
the Pub? Is there a policy? There are things to say in response to the first post,
but I thought (maybe mistakenly) this sort of discussion wasn't permitted here.

Heaven knows, these days there are plenty of issues we can discuss here in the Pub
if political threads are permitted.

[anniemcu]

(cough)http://cnfpoli.informe.com(/cough)

[brewerpaul]

I was tempted to post a picture of ignited flatulence, but thought the better of it...

[dwest]

Fire dept. showed up, nothing to worry about, all the flames are out.

[jim stone]

I'm sincerely confused about something. Are we supposed to have political threads like this one in
the Pub? Is there a policy? There are things to say in response to the first post,
but I thought (maybe mistakenly) this sort of discussion wasn't permitted here.

I would be grateful to the mods (or to anyone) for an answer to my question.
Is there a Pub policy about political threads? If so, what is it?

[Nanohedron]

Well, even with the existence of the TEH, Dale has recently come to express the preference that the Pub not be moderated against politics or religion now that the PROCT's been shut down. What will be moderated is the usual stuff including, but not necessarily limited to, medical overstepping, vulgarity (a grey area to be sure, for some, but you won't be seeing any changes from the patterns of past mod decisions), unseemly discursive behavior (to be judged at the time by the mod in question, but including of course things like namecalling, bullying, etc.), running interference against moderatorial decisions (also to be judged - by the mods, of course - as to a course of action), and threads falling hopelessly into tediously Ouroborotic argumentation with no resolution in sight. Yes, moderatorial high-handedness, arbitrariness, and oppression most vile still reign blithely on as if unchecked, so everyone can relax about that.

If someone absolutely must, must, must post politically in the Pub instead of the TEH, there's nothing stopping them at this time. Try not to turn the Pub into a Troll Pit, at least.

[Denny]

[s1m0n]

I'm sincerely confused about something. Are we supposed to have political threads like this one in the Pub?

It's a pun about a private citizen who used to be a politician. Relax.

[jim stone]

Well, even with the existence of the TEH, Dale has recently come to express the preference that the Pub not be moderated against politics or religion now that the PROCT's been shut down. What will be moderated is the usual stuff including, but not necessarily limited to, medical overstepping, vulgarity (a grey area to be sure, for some, but you won't be seeing any changes from the patterns of past mod decisions), unseemly discursive behavior (to be judged at the time by the mod in question, but including of course things like namecalling, bullying, etc.), running interference against moderatorial decisions (also to be judged - by the mods, of course - as to a course of action), and threads falling hopelessly into tediously Ouroborotic argumentation with no resolution in sight. Yes, moderatorial high-handedness, arbitrariness, and oppression most vile still reign blithely on as if unchecked, so everyone can relax about that.

If someone absolutely must, must, must post politically in the Pub instead of the TEH, there's nothing stopping them at this time. Try not to turn the Pub into a Troll Pit, at least.

Thanks for the answer. Should be fun.

[crookedtune]

Thanks, Nano.

And I agree with the OP. Relax. It's not as if anyone suggested old Dick'd turn the flame toward human flesh in hopes of extracting information, real or invented. Heck, flames are good for torches, at night, when you're gathering the villagers together for a field trip, and all kinds of other things.

Besides, let's face it, the guy's in a dark place. The more light on Dick Cheney, the better, poor guy.
Cheers.

[Doc Jones]

Well, even with the existence of the TEH....

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what's TEH?

Doc

[Denny]

The AMAZING C+F Poli Board