Dick Cheney - Page 2

Danzig · #21 05-17-2009, 10:25 AM

cheney must feel he has nothing to lose...he doesn't really. so, he'll be the attack dog for the republicans while they cast about for their new leader....

joeydb · #22 05-19-2009, 07:51 AM

Cheney is a patriot who wants to see the country's defenses remain strong.

dalakhani · #23 05-19-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Cheney is a profiteer who wants to see his bank accounts remain strong.

FTFY

joeydb · #24 05-19-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

FTFY

That was mature. That was about as intellectual as the current Democratic leadership, you know, the ones who are inviting another attack upon the United States for their own petty political motives.

Danzig · #25 05-19-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

That was mature. That was about as intellectual as the current Democratic leadership, you know, the ones who are inviting another attack upon the United States for their own petty political motives.

you can't be serious?!

joeydb · #26 05-19-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

you can't be serious?!

Why can't I be? Would you assert in the reverse that getting rid of special interrogation techniques is going to help our security? That niavete' is dangerous, especially coming from the White House. It is among the most absurd and ridiculous positions that I've ever witnessed from a president, and yes, that includes the numerous missteps of his predecessor.

Sorry, I'm an adult, so I don't believe that playing nice with the terrorist captives is going to make them stop attacking us. It won't. What Obama and the Congress are sending to the world through their actions is a perception that America is weak. That ultimately will result in another attack. When it does, since the Democrats are in total control (as they are fond of pointing out), all the blame, and all the blood, will be on their hands.

I hope it never happens, but that is the hypothetical situation as it now sits.

dalakhani · #27 05-19-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Why can't I be? Would you assert in the reverse that getting rid of special interrogation techniques is going to help our security? That niavete' is dangerous, especially coming from the White House. It is among the most absurd and ridiculous positions that I've ever witnessed from a president, and yes, that includes the numerous missteps of his predecessor.

Sorry, I'm an adult, so I don't believe that playing nice with the terrorist captives is going to make them stop attacking us. It won't. What Obama and the Congress are sending to the world through their actions is a perception that America is weak. That ultimately will result in another attack. When it does, since the Democrats are in total control (as they are fond of pointing out), all the blame, and all the blood, will be on their hands.

I hope it never happens, but that is the hypothetical situation as it now sits.

SO SAYETH THE PSALM!

dalakhani · #28 05-19-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

That was mature. That was about as intellectual as the current Democratic leadership, you know, the ones who are inviting another attack upon the United States for their own petty political motives.

It was about as intellectual as calling him a patriot. What makes him a patriot?

Was it the draft dodge or the no bid contracts?

joeydb · #29 05-19-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

SO SAYETH THE PSALM!

I would think it would be the self-proclaimed "messiah" and his supporters that would use that kind of phrase.

What I said follows from logic: if you end a technique that was adding safety to the country (a supposition), then it must follow that the country is less safe after the practice is ended. That means that the risk for an attack will increase. If the attack, which may or may not happen, actually occurs, than in hindsight it MUST be true, that those who chose to end the practice are to blame for the added risk and increased certainty of the attack that occurred.

What was speculative before the attack is a certainty after, and the people will be very angry with the Democrats. This in spite of whatever euphoria people currently are experiencing with the Obama administration in the first 100+ days.

That's not biblical. That's an equation. If you want to break the argument, break the logic.

joeydb · #30 05-19-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

It was about as intellectual as calling him a patriot. What makes him a patriot?

Was it the draft dodge or the no bid contracts?

OK, I'll grant you: he's not perfect. Nor is he a messiah.

But his stand on this issue is patriotic. So he is a patriot with regard to this issue specifically, and with American security in general as a result. More so than the Democrats who want to release the Guantanamo detained terrorists into the United States.

dalakhani · #31 05-19-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, I'll grant you: he's not perfect. Nor is he a messiah.

But his stand on this issue is patriotic. So he is a patriot with regard to this issue specifically, and with American security in general as a result. More so than the Democrats who want to release the Guantanamo detained terrorists into the United States.

I dont think obama wants to do that. I think obama wants to keep gitmo open and leave the tribunals in place which is a departure from what he campaigned for.

I applaud his willingness to change his mind.

joeydb · #32 05-19-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I dont think obama wants to do that. I think obama wants to keep gitmo open and leave the tribunals in place which is a departure from what he campaigned for.

I applaud his willingness to change his mind.

Well, I'll applaud that too. That makes sense. Of course that also means that Bush was not wrong with regard to using Gitmo and having tribunals. It can't be that Obama was right and Bush was wrong when both had the same stand on the issue.

dalakhani · #33 05-19-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well, I'll applaud that too. That makes sense. Of course that also means that Bush was not wrong with regard to using Gitmo and having tribunals. It can't be that Obama was right and Bush was wrong when both had the same stand on the issue.

Agreed. Bush wasnt wrong about everything and Obama won't be right about everything.

I don't know if I agree if he is right here. Time will tell.

Cheers!

hoovesupsideyourhead · #34 05-19-2009, 06:13 PM

well a few of my favorites here

d cheney.. just review the movie 'w' i think you will see what i mean

rush..l the 'jimmy the greek' of the republicans

polosi = 5 martini drinker.

im a 'rightie' bob thats rough from you.but these people are just soap scum

again the whole republican party cant be roped into these few things..ill grow tired if we had to defend the past 4 years for the next 4..

bigrun · #35 05-19-2009, 06:36 PM

So this Big Dick draft dodger

backs this big slob draft dodger

Over this decorated Four Star General

And some of you applaud the draft dodgers....

Figures

Danzig · #36 05-19-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Why can't I be? Would you assert in the reverse that getting rid of special interrogation techniques is going to help our security? That niavete' is dangerous, especially coming from the White House. It is among the most absurd and ridiculous positions that I've ever witnessed from a president, and yes, that includes the numerous missteps of his predecessor.

Sorry, I'm an adult, so I don't believe that playing nice with the terrorist captives is going to make them stop attacking us. It won't. What Obama and the Congress are sending to the world through their actions is a perception that America is weak. That ultimately will result in another attack. When it does, since the Democrats are in total control (as they are fond of pointing out), all the blame, and all the blood, will be on their hands.

I hope it never happens, but that is the hypothetical situation as it now sits.

i am not naive, nor do i believe that taking a position opposite of george bush indicates a desire to have this country be attacked. that's an overly simplistic view of dems vs reps in my opinion. and, as dala said, the closing of gitmo is not seemingly on obamas list of things to do.

SCUDSBROTHER · #37 05-19-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

obama/pelosi. did we give up on obama/blago?

the litmus test for dems has to be that so long as republicans are focused on linking him to the somewhat less popular flavor of the moment, things are going pretty well. particularly with dick cheney insisting on being the public face of the opposition.

and i love the evolution of republican arguement.

1) we don't torture.

2) okay. we do torture but it works.

3) so, we're not sure it works but nancy knew.

thats a path back to power if i ever saw one.

Fox News is based on that 1-2-3 dance method. They often keep going 'til about 10 though.

hi_im_god · #38 05-19-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am not naive, nor do i believe that taking a position opposite of george bush indicates a desire to have this country be attacked. that's an overly simplistic view of dems vs reps in my opinion. and, as dala said, the closing of gitmo is not seemingly on obamas list of things to do.

no one wants a terrorist attack in the united states more than poor sulking rejected conservatives. you can almost smell the relish for that lovely day when they roll out triumphant "i told you so's". if we had just been allowed that 184th waterboarding session, none of this would have happened...

as a nation, you may have moved on america but your old boyfriend still holds a grudge. he's praying you have a car wreck with the new guy. then you'll be sorry.

i hope obama fails and thousands of you die.

Danzig · #39 05-19-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

no one wants a terrorist attack in the united states more than poor sulking rejected conservatives. you can almost smell the relish for that lovely day when they roll out triumphant "i told you so's". if we had just been allowed that 184th waterboarding session, none of this would have happened...

as a nation, you may have moved on america but your old boyfriend still holds a grudge. he's praying you have a car wreck with the new guy. then you'll be sorry.

i hope obama fails and thousands of you die.

i get the feeling you're thinking of folks like rush when you say that. and you're probably right-they would say told you so if it was to happen.

hi_im_god · #40 05-19-2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i get the feeling you're thinking of folks like rush when you say that. and you're probably right-they would say told you so if it was to happen.

since the rest of the republicans have ceded the field to a foaming rabble, what's the real difference?

it's not like that party is going to nominate another john mccain in 2012.