Will Cheney get indicted for manslaughter....
-
jasontg wrote:
Considering that the polls show that considerably more people dislike Cheney than like him, the media is simply feeding on that.
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it. Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it.
Yep, thanks to Mr. go-f*ck-yourself Cheney himself.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong.
Hey, what a coincidence, we're discussing Cheney and you bring up Quayle. If only Cheney had shot one of those instead of his hunting buddy. :sigh: Anyway, Dan was not nearly as good as Bush, but he was still very proficient at making an ass[^] out of himself in public. I wonder if that had anything to do with his image. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Don't make me come down there. - God
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny.
And it's all in your silly head. (Or did Rush and Hannity tell you to say that?)
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
Wow, you guys are desperate! The VP of the US shoots some guy in the face, he hides it for 24 hours, he doesn't even make a statement about it, and now the fact that the media is anxiously looking for answers (because, after all, it's the VP of the US, and he SHOT someone) is proof that every charge leveled against this administration is baseless? How moronic! Tell me if Rush or Hannity have presented my take: This incident proves once again the arrogance, incompetence, and criminality of this administration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country
Quick! Look over there... at that other guy! He's the real bad guy, not us!
Don't make me come down there. - God
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Wow, you guys are desperate! The VP of the US shoots some guy in the face, he hides it for 24 hours, he doesn't even make a statement about it, and now the fact that the media is anxiously looking for answers (because, after all, it's the VP of the US, and he SHOT someone) is proof that every charge leveled against this administration is baseless? How moronic!
It was a hunting accident. If the "victim" had been a younger man, he would not even have been hospitalized. He didn't 'hide' anything because there was nothing to hide, because nothing important happened.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
This incident proves once again the arrogance, incompetence, and criminality of this administration.
:laugh: You apparently have no clue how rediculous you make yourself sound. If this is an example of the arrogance, incompentence and criminality comparable to all the others this administration is accused of, than it must be one of the best administrations in history. And, btw, now that I have sirius satellite radio, I spend most of my radio time listening to the left not the right. It is far more funny - just like you. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 10:41 Wednesday 15th February, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I purposefully step in front of your car while jay walking the charges will be much different than if you plow through a red light while I'm crossing legally.
You still go to jail for manslaughter. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You still go to jail for manslaughter
Maybe, maybe not. The pedestrian always has the right of way, but if the accident is unavoidable, and the driver was otherwise legally operating the vehicle, it is unlikely jail time will be served. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I never mentioned Iraq one way or another. But the immediate linkage of a silly hunting incident in Texas to the invasion of Iraq kind of says it all. Anything, regardless of how silly and insignificant that might in even the most remote way deligitimize the Bush administration is related to Iraq. By doing so, you deligitimize whatever small amount of legitimate criticism might exist. "You get that which you tolerate"
You said "This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been" well the messed up invasion of Iraq was a huge charge leveled against the Bush administration. So I mentioned it. Pretty obvious really. You indirectly linked it with the hunting incident and I pointed out that that was crazy. Do try to keep up.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Wow, you guys are desperate! The VP of the US shoots some guy in the face, he hides it for 24 hours, he doesn't even make a statement about it, and now the fact that the media is anxiously looking for answers (because, after all, it's the VP of the US, and he SHOT someone) is proof that every charge leveled against this administration is baseless? How moronic!
It was a hunting accident. If the "victim" had been a younger man, he would not even have been hospitalized. He didn't 'hide' anything because there was nothing to hide, because nothing important happened.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
This incident proves once again the arrogance, incompetence, and criminality of this administration.
:laugh: You apparently have no clue how rediculous you make yourself sound. If this is an example of the arrogance, incompentence and criminality comparable to all the others this administration is accused of, than it must be one of the best administrations in history. And, btw, now that I have sirius satellite radio, I spend most of my radio time listening to the left not the right. It is far more funny - just like you. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 10:41 Wednesday 15th February, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
He didn't 'hide' anything because there was nothing to hide, because nothing important happened.
Nothing to see here. Now move along. Just a hunting accident. Carry on now. :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
You apparently have no clue how rediculous you make yourself sound. If this is an example of the arrogance, incompentence and criminality comparable to all the others this administration is accused of, than it must be one of the best administrations in history.
You see, Stan, I'm not an old geezer that has lived and endured the incompetences of every previous administration of the past century. So I don't sit here comparing every incident to similar incidents in previous administrations to obtain a relative measure of how not-bad it is. I compare this administration to my idea of what a good administration should be like. I don't care what Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan did. They're all history. They don't matter any more to my present and future. One thing's for sure though, there's a lot more people who consider this the worst administration ever, instead of the best one, like yourself. Maybe you should ask them why.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, btw, now that I have sirius satellite radio, I spend most of my radio time listening to the left not the right. It is far more funny - just like you.
Oh yeah? What shows do you regularly listen to?
Don't make me come down there. - God
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
He didn't 'hide' anything because there was nothing to hide, because nothing important happened.
Nothing to see here. Now move along. Just a hunting accident. Carry on now. :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
You apparently have no clue how rediculous you make yourself sound. If this is an example of the arrogance, incompentence and criminality comparable to all the others this administration is accused of, than it must be one of the best administrations in history.
You see, Stan, I'm not an old geezer that has lived and endured the incompetences of every previous administration of the past century. So I don't sit here comparing every incident to similar incidents in previous administrations to obtain a relative measure of how not-bad it is. I compare this administration to my idea of what a good administration should be like. I don't care what Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan did. They're all history. They don't matter any more to my present and future. One thing's for sure though, there's a lot more people who consider this the worst administration ever, instead of the best one, like yourself. Maybe you should ask them why.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, btw, now that I have sirius satellite radio, I spend most of my radio time listening to the left not the right. It is far more funny - just like you.
Oh yeah? What shows do you regularly listen to?
Don't make me come down there. - God
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
You see, Stan, I'm not an old geezer that has lived and endured the incompetences of every previous administration of the past century. So I don't sit here comparing every incident to similar incidents in previous administrations to obtain a relative measure of how not-bad it is.
Well, I am an old geezer, and I do make historic comparisons.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
One thing's for sure though, there's a lot more people who consider this the worst administration ever, instead of the best one, like yourself. Maybe you should ask them why.
I already know why. They are pro-capitalistic, pro-religion conservatives who had to make hard decisions after one of the most violent attacks ever sustained by this country. Those decisions are now being exploited by the American Socialist party to regain power at the expense of American security and hegemony so that we can continue our march towards becoming a European Social Welfare state. Nothing difficult to understand about any of it.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Oh yeah? What shows do you regularly listen to?
Driving around, I often listen to Alex Bennett, Thom Hartman and maybe Ed Schultz. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
You see, Stan, I'm not an old geezer that has lived and endured the incompetences of every previous administration of the past century. So I don't sit here comparing every incident to similar incidents in previous administrations to obtain a relative measure of how not-bad it is.
Well, I am an old geezer, and I do make historic comparisons.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
One thing's for sure though, there's a lot more people who consider this the worst administration ever, instead of the best one, like yourself. Maybe you should ask them why.
I already know why. They are pro-capitalistic, pro-religion conservatives who had to make hard decisions after one of the most violent attacks ever sustained by this country. Those decisions are now being exploited by the American Socialist party to regain power at the expense of American security and hegemony so that we can continue our march towards becoming a European Social Welfare state. Nothing difficult to understand about any of it.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Oh yeah? What shows do you regularly listen to?
Driving around, I often listen to Alex Bennett, Thom Hartman and maybe Ed Schultz. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Driving around, I often listen to Alex Bennett, Thom Hartman and maybe Ed Schultz.
Ed Schultz is the only I've heard of. I catch him sometimes on my way home. He's the good twin. :-)
Don't make me come down there. - God
-
Perhaps I've not understood this correctly but has Cheney actually done anything wrong? It was, from what I've read, an accident. Please enlighten me. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
Perhaps I've not understood this correctly but has Cheney actually done anything wrong?
I think there are some people who curious as to why the Secret Service did not let local authorities question Cheney until 24 hours after the accident. Some have the wild idea that some drinking may have been going on. No real proof of any neglect. I think it was a honest accident and should serve as a reminder to emphasize on safety when hunting. Paul
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it.
Yep, thanks to Mr. go-f*ck-yourself Cheney himself.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong.
Hey, what a coincidence, we're discussing Cheney and you bring up Quayle. If only Cheney had shot one of those instead of his hunting buddy. :sigh: Anyway, Dan was not nearly as good as Bush, but he was still very proficient at making an ass[^] out of himself in public. I wonder if that had anything to do with his image. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Don't make me come down there. - God
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
he was still very proficient at making an ass[^] out of himself in public
God those are all so funny. I am a southern Californian and I think the Pheonix one is funny because Pheonix is in ARIZONA! I also don't know about being prepared for any unforeseen events, did he have a crystal ball or call one of those hotline numbers with fortune tellers? Paul
-
John Carson wrote:
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage.
Actually, Hillary's van did hit someone. VanGate My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Hillary's van did hit someone.
I like the way you phrased this, it almost sounds like her van was possessed at the time. Or could it be something else? Let's read the story. 1. It wasn't her driving. So that's why you say "Hillary's van did hit someone.". Ok that's cool. At least it wasn't possessed. 2. She failed to tell her driver to stop for more than 100 yards as they went by at 35 mph. The statement implies that she did tell her driver to stop, but only after they had went more than 100 yards past the scene. If you do the math here, you will see that 35 mph is about 17 yards per second. That means the driver continued driving for 5.84 seconds after hitting the security guard. I'm sure he should have stopped earlier, but 5.84 seconds isn't bad at all. 3. She failed to call and see how the guy was doing after the accident. Well I would assume that's because she didn't hit him, and being a senator probably means she has a lot of things to do. Now sure, she could have done a nice PR thing and called to see how he was, but no normal person ever does that after an accident...it would only be PR, and who wants to be patronized like that? Plus, it's obvious from the tone of the article that the writer has severe bias. I mean look at his choice of terms: "Hillary handler" and "Clinton flack". Why would any serious writer use these terms to refer to someone if not to be seen as a sensationalist idiot? Anyways good luck making something out of nothing, like you accuse the people here of doing for wondering if there's anything more to the story of Cheney *shooting* someone. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it.
Yep, thanks to Mr. go-f*ck-yourself Cheney himself.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong.
Hey, what a coincidence, we're discussing Cheney and you bring up Quayle. If only Cheney had shot one of those instead of his hunting buddy. :sigh: Anyway, Dan was not nearly as good as Bush, but he was still very proficient at making an ass[^] out of himself in public. I wonder if that had anything to do with his image. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Don't make me come down there. - God
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Anyway, Dan was not nearly as good as Bush, but he was still very proficient at making an ass[^] out of himself in public. I wonder if that had anything to do with his image
I know you are going to believe what ever the media tells you to believe, but, honestly, go look at the actual congressional careers of Quayle and Edwards, and based upon that, decide which one was the most astute politician. "You get that which you tolerate"