Jump to content

dick cheney:face of the right and worst vp in history


Recommended Posts

You've somehow turned a conversation about someone else into a conversation about you.

 

Bravo.

 

Nope, once Greggy used the term group think with someone who shares a lot of the conservative ideals that I do it also became about people like me. Sure he was bagging on LA's crusade against everything Obama which I don't do here as much but I did take offense to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope, once Greggy used the term group think with someone who shares a lot of the conservative ideals that I do it also became about people like me. Sure he was bagging on LA's crusade against everything Obama which I don't do here as much but I did take offense to it.

 

"All of my comments were specific to LA and come from long experience with his posts."

 

Yeah, I can totally see how you'd take offense to that.

 

Quick question. Do you talk about the "pussification of America?" What about "everyone can be offended by everything in this country?" Keep in mind, I don't know the answers. But if I've guessed correctly, you being offended that some other poster has gotten his posting and political style, whether correctly or incorrectly, critiqued is downright hilarious.

 

If I've presumed too much, then I'm offended that you're offended.

Edited by FireChan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the OP really think that anyone on here wasn't going to think that Paul Begala is a hyper-partisan hack?

 

What does the job that Cheney did 5 -13 years ago have anything to do with the current geo-political situation? Bush? Yes... Cheney? Not so much.

I wonder if in 7 years, people on the right will be complaining about the job that Biden did as VP?

 

I stand firm in my belief that history will be fairly kind to the Bush -Cheney presidency. Bush was no Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson, but he was no Harding. BO will be compared to Harding IMHO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the OP really think that anyone on here wasn't going to think that Paul Begala is a hyper-partisan hack?

 

What does the job that Cheney did 5 -13 years ago have anything to do with the current geo-political situation? Bush? Yes... Cheney? Not so much.

I wonder if in 7 years, people on the right will be complaining about the job that Biden did as VP?

 

I stand firm in my belief that history will be fairly kind to the Bush -Cheney presidency. Bush was no Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson, but he was no Harding. BO will be compared to Harding IMHO...

 

Harding? He could at least point to the Washington Naval Conference as an accomplishment. What does Obama have again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All of my comments were specific to LA and come from long experience with his posts."

 

Yeah, I can totally see how you'd take offense to that.

 

Quick question. Do you talk about the "pussification of America?" What about "everyone can be offended by everything in this country?" Keep in mind, I don't know the answers. But if I've guessed correctly, you being offended that some other poster has gotten his posting and political style, whether correctly or incorrectly, critiqued is downright hilarious.

 

If I've presumed too much, then I'm offended that you're offended.

 

I get what you're saying. Sure Greggy has a hardon for LA and I inserted myself into that (no that's not a gay reference......at least I don't think it is). My issue was Greg's use of the term group think. He's the type that thinks that if anyone has a difference of opinion than his it's because they have not, nor cannot thing for themselves is asinine.

 

Kind of like when a Patriot's fan call a fellow Bill's fan an !@#$ you'll stick up for the Bill's fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone wanna put forth a theory as to why this pathologic liar still has a national voice that some people heed?

 

Um, he's not. Other than nutty liberals ranting about him, I haven't heard his name spoken in years.

 

Anyone wanna put forth a theory as to why left wing media is still talking about Cheney and Sarah Palin instead of people who actually hold (or have ever held) national office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying. Sure Greggy has a hardon for LA and I inserted myself into that (no that's not a gay reference......at least I don't think it is). My issue was Greg's use of the term group think. He's the type that thinks that if anyone has a difference of opinion than his it's because they have not, nor cannot thing for themselves is asinine.

 

Kind of like when a Patriot's fan call a fellow Bill's fan an !@#$ you'll stick up for the Bill's fan.

 

Which is an "us vs. them" stance. Which is Greg's overarching point.

 

I don't believe Greg has a difference of opinion on most of what LA and you have said in this thread. Only the way it is conveyed. The issue is that this is the nature of politics and humans in general. We have a habit of standing together on common ground and drawing a line in the sand. Instead of coming together, we're divisive. That's civilization.

 

Still, with what little information I have, I don't know if LA meant "Republicans/the right" or "opponents of the bill/posters who have been against it." when he said "we."

 

He's the type that thinks that if anyone has a difference of opinion than his it's because they have not, nor cannot thing for themselves is asinine.

 

The "anyone" here should be just LA. And while I agree with that point being asinine (I'm not sure he went there though), I don't think that was what he was trying to say.

 

And now I'm done speaking for someone else.

Edited by FireChan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when those if us (see what I did there) disagree with pretty much everything this administrations does we're biased and we don't think for ourselves? We watch Fox (I don't even have cable) we read Drudge (been there maybe 5 times total and only because it's been linked here) and follow the rights talking points (I can't stand politicians left or right). And we follow what the church tells us (I haven't been to church in decades and when people ask for prayers for some tragedy I tell them I'm sending positive thoughts).

 

Conservative ideals are oftentimes more personal than any others. These are things we believe because we've truly thought about how those ideals will make for a stronger society. So get off you high !@#$ing Hollywood horse of "I've considered both sides and have formed my own ideal" crap.

 

I understand that you share views with LA, and if you listen closely enough you'd understand that I share quite a few of them myself. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs, only LA's approach. It's an approach that causes more harm than good, more ignorance than enlightenment, and is the product of the hyper-partisan bubbles the large majority of us live in.

 

It's why you cannot have an actual conversation with LA on this forum. That's all I was pointing out. You don't do that. You engage with more than partisan talking points and listen to the other person you're having a conversation with. There's a giant difference between your approach and his.

 

 

You've somehow turned a conversation about someone else into a conversation about you.

 

Bravo.

The democrats call that "leadership." He's presidential material.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

I get what you're saying. Sure Greggy has a hardon for LA and I inserted myself into that (no that's not a gay reference......at least I don't think it is). My issue was Greg's use of the term group think. He's the type that thinks that if anyone has a difference of opinion than his it's because they have not, nor cannot thing for themselves is asinine.

 

Kind of like when a Patriot's fan call a fellow Bill's fan an !@#$ you'll stick up for the Bill's fan.

 

That's not what I believe nor what I said. If anything, it's the opposite. I don't for one second believe I have all the answers, or even half of the answers. I have beliefs and principles, same as any guy, but I'm willing to listen and evolve when faced with new information which challenges my world view. I don't think that makes me unique, nor do I claim any sort of superiority.

 

But I do think group-think is the most dangerous !@#$ing thing a person can succumb to. I didn't apply that label to anyone other than LA because it fits his posting style. What does it get him? He's not running for office nor is he sitting behind a microphone, he doesn't need votes or ratings -- so why only spout the same partisan hysteria over and over again? Why not come here and actually engage with people on a more honest level?

 

He can do what he likes, I find LA amusing (in all seriousness). I never said he was wrong or attacked his beliefs (or yours). He hasn't attacked mine either, truthfully that's only because when he reads my posts all the sentences and letters jumble together into one huge collage that says: I SUPPORT OBAMA.

 

 

Which is an "us vs. them" stance. Which is Greg's overarching point.

 

I don't believe Greg has a difference of opinion on most of what LA and you have said in this thread. Only the way it is conveyed. The issue is that this is the nature of politics and humans in general. We have a habit of standing together on common ground and drawing a line in the sand. Instead of coming together, we're divisive. That's civilization.

 

Still, with what little information I have, I don't know if LA meant "Republicans/the right" or "opponents of the bill/posters who have been against it." when he said "we."

 

He's the type that thinks that if anyone has a difference of opinion than his it's because they have not, nor cannot thing for themselves is asinine.

 

The "anyone" here should be just LA. And while I agree with that point being asinine (I'm not sure he went there though), I don't think that was what he was trying to say.

 

And now I'm done speaking for someone else.

 

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the OP really think that anyone on here wasn't going to think that Paul Begala is a hyper-partisan hack?

 

What does the job that Cheney did 5 -13 years ago have anything to do with the current geo-political situation? Bush? Yes... Cheney? Not so much.

I wonder if in 7 years, people on the right will be complaining about the job that Biden did as VP?

 

I stand firm in my belief that history will be fairly kind to the Bush -Cheney presidency. Bush was no Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson, but he was no Harding. BO will be compared to Harding IMHO...

i hoped that people would read it as an article making strong, well supported points and illuminating blatant lies. i don't care who wrote it. many of the words in the article came from cheney's mouth. what does it matter who quoted them? but first it's a context problem and when that doesn't stick it's ad hominem. none on the right that i'm aware of are defending his statements because that's impossible. the tact is then to minimize his influence. i don't think that's a defensible argument either. If you read the 2nd article i linked it recounts the story of bush interviewing rumsfeld's eventual successor, gates. bush asks gates to pose the big question on his mind: cheney. if that doesn't speak to the mans power, nothing does. by claiming that he was powerless and not responsible you avoid defending all the messy quotes and pathology. the problem with that argument is that the premise is simply false. he was powerful, he was extremely influential and he was responsible. and despite what you claim about his present level of influence, when he talks people still listen. as many of you frequently note, fox has quite a large news audience. they continue to afford him a pretty large soapbox as do other outlets. that alone makes him relevant in present day politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can say that Cheney was certainly the most powerful VP ever, and that for six years he pretty much ran US foreign policy and internal security. Sometimes I think he may be the one of the most repugnant human beings in US politics but that is probably unwarranted sentimentality and anthropomorphism.

Edited by ....lybob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can say that Cheney was certainly the most powerful VP ever, and that for six years he pretty much ran US foreign policy and internal security. Sometimes I think he may be the one of the most repugnant human beings in US politics but that is probably unwarranted sentimentality and anthropomorphism.

 

Does he scare you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find LA amusing (in all seriousness).

 

Now you're starting to catch on, Skippy. You think I run around all day outside this message board yapping about what a stuttering clusterphuck of a president Obama has been?

 

No.

 

Why?

 

Because everyone knows he's a stuttering clusterphuck. Hell, even Dianne Feinstein knows he's a stuttering clusterphuck, and she's as big a stuttering clusterphuck as he is. How bad is that?

 

About 80% of the schitt I write here I write because I sit at a desk all day, on calls, writing proposals, answering phone calls, and reading enough embarrassing tripe from the likes of gatorman and birddog that pissing all over the knob-gobbling Obama love breaks the monotony of the day.

 

So relax, Skippy. You're neither as smart as you think you are, or as dumb as you think I am. I'm just a dude at a desk who flips in and out of here when time permits. At the end of the day, I have dinner with my family, put my child to bed, and wake up again tomorrow to run my company and piss on progressive trolls when the time permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...