Two pecker-heads do not make a truth. Can I please hear a reasoned argument as to how a new Cheney is now in place?
Two pecker-heads do not make a truth. Can I please hear a reasoned argument as to how a new Cheney is now in place?
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Well, I certainly wouldn't call Obama a Cheney, because Cheney is just pure evil.
But we haven't seen any real change in foreign policy, nor civil liberties. WAY too much of the Bush admin policies have carried into Obama's. I can elaborate if necessary, but I shouldn't have to.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Well yeah, when the right is constantly wrong, you'd be smug and sniffing your own farts too
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001821/ <--- this is the fucking guy you guys defend.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Yes, 'the left' is attacking cheney because it feeds our ego, rather than being outraged that he's repeating lies to publicly attack Obama. I'd say that's a defense of Cheney (and a rather stupid one at that).
Besides that, i said, 'you guys' (not boberfett specifically).
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even better, I dare you to find one of his posts where he isn't being contrary
I agree with Red 100%.
Could that contrariness be because you need to feel smug and well you know the rest......?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Well the difference between you a Bober is that he can do it in much fewer words.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even better, I dare you to find one of his posts where he isn't being contrary
I agree with Red 100%.
Could that contrariness be because you need to feel smug and well you know the rest......?
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, I certainly wouldn't call Obama a Cheney, because Cheney is just pure evil.
But we haven't seen any real change in foreign policy, nor civil liberties. WAY too much of the Bush admin policies have carried into Obama's. I can elaborate if necessary, but I shouldn't have to.
Then let me just say that while you aren't a real pecker-head the 'real' differences between you and a pecker-head are WAY to much like those of a real pecker-head so as to put me on safe ground calling you at once a pecker-head but not a pecker-head at the same time. I wouldn't want anybody to be able to challenge my obvious schizophrenia and hypocritical twisting of ordinary reality into meaning anything I like when I want it to mean this or that and not leave some trace evidence that I might actually be sane somewhere else as a fall back position.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well the difference between you a Bober is that he can do it in much fewer words.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even better, I dare you to find one of his posts where he isn't being contrary
I agree with Red 100%.
Could that contrariness be because you need to feel smug and well you know the rest......?
Now you're just being contrary.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Ahahahahaha, Cheney Actually blamed Dick Clark for 9/11, the guy who warned the administration of the growing al quaeda threat ahahahahahahahahahahaha
Holy shit, john stewart rips him a new one
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...te-night-humor-23.html
edit:
holy fuck:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A22231-2004Mar24.html
Dick Cheney, eat a bag of shit, you lying fuck.
Holy shit, john stewart rips him a new one
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...te-night-humor-23.html
edit:
holy fuck:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A22231-2004Mar24.html
Dick Cheney, eat a bag of shit, you lying fuck.
Cheney's up to something. Not sure what but we can be assured he's up to no good for his own gain. It's worth keeping an eye on. And, it still hasn't been revealed what he was doing in all of his travels the last half of 2008.
He's fighting for their base, so that they don't only hear the Democrats' side, and trying to pre-empt the threat of more and more calls for investigation and prosecution of his crimes.
Some are speculating that he's playing a political game, with a 'thousand to one bet', that there will be another 9/11 - and if there is, he'll get and Republicans will get the huge 'I told you so' payoff, while if there isn't, people will just not remember much what he said. This is somewhat consistent with his '1% doctrine'.
Bill Maher thinks he's wanting to run for President in 2012, but I think Maher's wrong, that Cheney knows better.
Then again, who thought Bush could 'win' in 2000 or Reagan in 1980 (he was thought too old and too radically right-wing for years before) or Nixon in 1968?
Time and again they do, to the nation's harm.
I've thought of this but keep wondering why he would be chosen as the voice. He represents all that is hardcore repug and I think that even the repug base get that most people are now repelled by that core. I'm beginning to wonder if the 'leadership' gets this. Maybe they're flaming out more than anyone has predicted. Good riddance.
I've seen the polls that a lot of the public doesn't want an investigation. And, we all know that this is a land based on the rule of law - unless the public wants something different. If I had voted for the repugs the last eight years, I would want it buried too.
No one 'picked him', he picked himself in a vacuum of leadership - just as he picked himself for VP, as the man who was put in charge of choosing who should be VP.
You may be right, but just as many did not want Watergate pursued against the man who had won with the largest margin in US history then, it was not what was good for them.
It's well documented that Clarke gave the Bushwhackos explicit warnings about attacks by Al Qaeda. Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11. As usual, Cheney's reality check bounced.
Maybe he's trying to influence up a public perceptions before he goes on trial for treason, murder, torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. If that's his intent, I think the best he can expect is to establish an insanity defense. :roll:
If the leadership didn't approve of his message, they'd start debunking him.
I wonder who is paying for his activities now. Hopefully, not still the u.s. taxpayer.
I wasn't paying much attention at the time since I was more interested in high school girls. After all these years and the irrefutable revelations, I was stunned that some hardcore repugs thought nixon was "betrayed" by deep throat - something I didn't realize until after his outing a few years ago.
That's not really how it works. Each leader can stick their neck out, and can choose whether to be a 'team player' if they're hurting the team.
He has more than enough private support for his views to fund his speeches and such. For example, the Carlyle Group was paying Bush, Sr. $100,000 per speech as ex-president.
The taxpayers are not paying for his 'activities', just for his protection.
Don't worry, though, Cheney has plenty of money from his insider trading on Halliburton stock, selling it at the peak of $52 just before it plummeted, eventually going to $10 IIRC.
Like his partner Bush, he used his insider info on coming problems to get out early at large profit.
Not only that, Cheney and Rumsfeld personally held strong grudges for the pressure on Nixon to resign - and the right's seemingly nutty impeachment of Clinton was largely 'payback' for their imagined slight on Watergate, which they still don't understand was the democratic system *working*.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,724
- 8,295
- 136
Dick Cheney reminds me of a chronic misbehaving child that when interrogated, will make up the lamest and tragically comedic excuses on the fly whilst completely ignoring how blatantly dishonest he is being.
No matter how many times he's done it, I still find it amazing that he will stick to his well-known and thoroughly disproven lies in the face of the overwhelming preponderance of factual evidence that incontrovertibly refutes his claims.
Equally amazing are his supporters that also casually brush aside the wealth of evidence that irrefutably disproves every lie that Cheney has been sticking to since he came to power.
The agenda that fuels this hysteria must somehow be simply overpowering in nature for those that embrace it.
No matter how many times he's done it, I still find it amazing that he will stick to his well-known and thoroughly disproven lies in the face of the overwhelming preponderance of factual evidence that incontrovertibly refutes his claims.
Equally amazing are his supporters that also casually brush aside the wealth of evidence that irrefutably disproves every lie that Cheney has been sticking to since he came to power.
The agenda that fuels this hysteria must somehow be simply overpowering in nature for those that embrace it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter