04 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFpathetic, lately you've been even worse than zeeblebot, are you going to make up your own "hot keys" as well?
Thank you for your thoughts.
I assume you're unable to answer the question, thats not surprising, but you can't possibly expect other people not to notice your left-wing politics, "centrist" what a joke.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat I find curious is that surely Dick Cheney is a disgrace in a way that would make true conservatives think he was a disgrace and yet I can't find a single so-called consrvative that is prepared to say so.
Dick Cheney is a disgrace.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIsn't dick cheney allowed to express his views?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
For a former President or Vice President to publicly accuse the current President of being weak during a time of war is unprecedented. Is it not?
Just throwing that out there. Dick Cheney is a disgrace.
I don't see how this is a disgrace.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoOf course he's allowed to. I said it is disgraceful not illegal.
Isn't dick cheney allowed to express his views?
I don't see how this is a disgrace.
If babble mouths like Limbaugh or Hannity, or even some of the Republican babble mouths in Congress want to call Obama "weak on terrorism" that's one thing. I think they're being hypocritical partisan shills who constantly contradict themselves, but at least it's par for the course.
What we have now the former Vice President of the United States publicly calling the sitting President "weak" during a time of war. When lesser entities do so it's just partisan mudslinging. But when former President or VP does it those contemptuous words are coming from the highest office in the land and that makes us look weak.
The fact that Cheney's accusations are outright lies only makes it worse.
06 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDick Cheney has a right to express his views. This seems really simple to me. He's not giving away state secrets to the enemy or anything like that.
Of course he's allowed to. I said it is disgraceful not illegal.
If babble mouths like Limbaugh or Hannity, or even some of the Republican babble mouths in Congress want to call Obama "weak on terrorism" that's one thing. I think they're being hypocritical partisan shills who constantly contradict themselves, but at least it's par for the cours ok weak.
The fact that Cheney's accusations are outright lies only makes it worse.
The opposition should not be muffled because there is a war going on. It's important that they keep their role in that country's democracy.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI agree that cheney's actions may be bad for the country, considering the circumstances, but I wouldn't go as far as saying its a "disgrace", other former presidents/vice-presidents (as well as other respected politicians) have made outlandish remarks in the past (regarding whoever happened to be president), cheney is not the first one.
Of course he's allowed to. I said it is disgraceful not illegal.
If babble mouths like Limbaugh or Hannity, or even some of the Republican babble mouths in Congress want to call Obama "weak on terrorism" that's one thing. I think they're being hypocritical partisan shills who constantly contradict themselves, but at least it's par for the cours ...[text shortened]... ok weak.
The fact that Cheney's accusations are outright lies only makes it worse.
Furthermore, Obama may be "weak" in cheney's view considering he stopped the use of torture and was always opposed to guantanamo bay,etc. When you look at Bush/Cheney's hardline approach, its understandable why he'd think Obama is weak.
Also, its unrealistic to expect former office-holders not to be partisan.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoI even thought it was in bad taste when Carter came out with his criticisms of Bush. And even he didn't try to call a wartime President weak. No previous has ever done that. You agree that they may be bad for the country, but as the former Vice President of the USA, shouldn't he put the country before his partisan rants?
I agree that cheney's actions may be bad for the country, considering the circumstances, but I wouldn't go as far as saying its a "disgrace", other former presidents/vice-presidents (as well as other respected politicians) have made outlandish remarks in the past (regarding whoever happened to be president), cheney is not the first one.
Furthermore, ...[text shortened]... a is weak.
Also, its unrealistic to expect former office-holders not to be partisan.
Further more, Cheney's latest criticisms are based entirely on blatant lies. Here is one example, but not the only one.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/03/dick-cheney/cheney-says-obama-wont-admit-us-war-against-terror/
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaNobody is suggesting that "being disgraceful" is illegal or that Cheney should have reduced human rights. The topic - unless you want to change the topic to something slightly different - is the "disgrace" or "virtue" or "appropriateness" that is in play.
Dick Cheney has a right to express his views.
As for whether the opposition should not be muffled because there is a war going on and the importance that they keep their role in that country's democracy, well Cheney can - without doubt - meet with the serving president, or his staff, and give him the benefit of his knowledge and views. And the former vice president could set any number of acolytes in motion to go on TV and pitch whatever it is that he wants to see pitched.
None of these things are illegal either and either way democracy would benefit.
No. The issue is whether or not his actions are a "disgrace".
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFWhy are they a "disgrace"? Because of the timing or because of the alleged lies? These are completely different issues, in my opinion. Timing has nothing reproachable, lies do but not more than any other in politics.
Nobody is suggesting that "being disgraceful" is illegal or that Cheney should have reduced human rights. The topic - unless you want to change the topic to something slightly different - is the "disgrace" or "virtue" or "appropriateness" that is in play.
As for whether the opposition should not be muffled because there is a war going on and the importance th ...[text shortened]... cracy would benefit.
No. The issue is whether or not his actions are a "disgrace".
I also don't see why being an ex-Vice President should matter.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimo"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Nov. 7, 2003
Isn't dick cheney allowed to express his views?
I don't see how this is a disgrace.
I think the quicker the twerp shuts up, dies or is blown to pieces by a radical vegetarian... the better.