What motivates people on this board to cut Cheney so much slack?

[mac56]

Sincere, genuine question.

Really, anyone who hypothesizes anything untoward on Deadeye Dick's part can guarantee they're gonna get dogpiled on by the Cheney apologists.

Would anyone on "the other side" be so courteous to us? Were they, way back when? Idonthinkso.

[Punkingal]

1. The thing that gets to me....

Are those who say accidents like this happen all the time. I come from a family of hunters...in fact, everyone hunts where I grew up, I am over 50, and I have never heard of a thing like this happening. And where I grew up you hear everything. Sure, it happens, but this is not an everyday, common occurence to be brushed off with, "Oh, well, this happens all the time."

[endarkenment]

2. Two types.

1) closet freepers: we have our lurkers and posers here.

2) liberal disease: we all tend to want to actually be fair and balanced, to rationally consider all sides, to evaluate arguments based on evidence and rational thought.

The first type can be ignored.

The second bunch are a real problem.

Evaluating arguments based on evidence and rational thought is all well and good but it ignores the fact that we are in a street fight against political opponents who are hell bent on establishing a one party tyranny. There are no rules. There is no time for rational discourse and playing fair. We need to go after them at every opportunity with everything we've got. Until we get down and fight them at their level we are going to keep losing.

[mattclearing]

8. Great. So we can't win until we become as crazed and vicious as them.

I don't totally disagree with you, but you have to admit, it's pretty depressing that it's come to this.

[endarkenment]

14. Yeah sucks doesn't it?

Too bad. We need to get off of our high horse and get down and dirty with these texas oil mafia asshats. Fuck them. They've gotten away with murder largely because we are too lazy to roll in the mud with them.

[Raksha]

62. We don't have to be crazed, but sometimes we have to be vicious, yes.

Personally, that doesn't bother me one bit!

[jobycom]

13. You see wanting evidence and rational thought as a bad thing?

There is no other difference between Republicans and Democrats. You don't want an opposition party, you want football teams to cheer for. That's the worst type of "Democrat." It's not a Democrat at all. It isn't our specific political platform that makes us Democrats, it's our genuine belief that all people deserve equal treatment. If you just want to replace one form of irrational bigotry with another, just join the Republicans, they are already set up for your brand of Democratic ideal. Assuming you haven't already.

There's winning, and there's joining the team that's already won and pretending you're winning. The latter is what you want.

[endarkenment]

17. Right I just want to be on the winning team.

No, I want my team to win. Here is a clue: we are getting clobbered. Yes it is a game. Wanna win, or wanna feel morally superior?

[jobycom]

24. I want to win. You want to join the other team

Just do it.

Here's a clue: my state district yesterday went Democrat. It was drawn by Tom DeLay to be a Republican district, and was, but because DeLay acted like you want to act, the Republicans in his district rejected his candidate and overwhelmingly (58-42) voted Democrat.

We won't win by becoming more like the Republicans. Corrupt lying jackasses already have a party to belong to. We win by being the other choice.

[endarkenment]

34. Hmm.. I should be insulted.

Ok I will try to explain this a bit.

1) programs and policies. I am not a republican because I am an ardent advocate of progressive programs and policies.

2) strategy and tactics. This is how a political party gains power in order to effect its programs and policies.

Our opponents, the republican texas oil mafia cabal, use every weapon they have without any consideration for 'proper rules of conduct'. They have been very EFFECTIVE at gaining political power so they can implement programs and policies that I find abhorrent. our party keeps playing by rules that no longer exist, and finds itself locked out of all three branches of the federal government. So we have our policies and programs, and we have played by the rules, and we have no power. But we get to feel morally superior.

You may think that playing nice is the road to power. I disagree. Not in this world. Not now. So go ahead feel all superior to morally depraved me. Be all smug. Keep telling me that I am a republican because I believe that we have to fight them on their level.

Cheers.

[jobycom]

64. Who said anything about playing nice? Aside from you.

Playing "nice" isn't the issue. The issue is whether we lie, slander, and make shit up without any "evidence or rational thought" (your words). You called a requirement for evidence and rational thought a "disease." (Yes you did, go back and read it).

For your points: 1) Why are you an "ardent advocate of progressive programs and policies?" Programs and policies come out of an ideology, not the other way around. The point of our platform is that it embodies and attempts to enact our ideology, and that ideology says that everyone deserves to be treated the same, as equals, not that we get to do unto their side before they do unto our side. If you just want to do to Dick Cheney what he does to you, then you're in the wrong party. Or at least a very different Democratic Party than mine.

2) Strategy and tactics: Are all strategies fair game? If you could kill the Republican candidate just before the election and get away with it, would you? If so, I want nothing to do with you. If not, then you agree there has to be a level of morality or the victory means nothing. It's just one side winning, not our ideology winning.

Next, not "playing nice" is not the same thing as lying, cheating, slandering, making shit up, and throwing out all "evidence and rational thought." You can play hardball without throwing out everything you are supposed to believe in. You can call Cheney a filthy, lying, murdering dog and back it up with "evidence and rational thought." No one but you said anything about "playing nice."

And last, we are not out of power because we have "played by the rules." There are no rules. We are out of power because we lie. We are out of power because we have "programs and policies" that are progressive and claim to care about all people, but we campaign and fight and wine and cry as though it were all just about winning to win. People would rather the honest decadence and corruption of the Republicans than the insipid duplicity of a party that claims to believe one thing but does another. People don't trust us, and throwing out lines like "CHENEY WAS STINKING DRUNK!" or "THE DUDE IS ALREADY DEAD, I GUARANTEE IT!" without any evidence is not going to convince anyone we have anything better to offer than the Republicans.

Last, you should feel insulted. You insulted me by calling me and my beliefs a "disease." I wasn't trying to play nice with you.

[The Wielding Truth]

55. How amazing it is that without a payoff like-Heaven,popularity,bribes,

Political power,or peer pressure,we are basically fair and we will not be corrupted!Thank you Skinner for your work to keep us connected.

[The Wielding Truth]

57. We do however have a strong desire for justice . We will not let go

of our need for truth and understanding. Then, in a law of consensus, we take those who have broken that trust to task. We make them compensate with a reasonable retribution. Something to reach them as to the importance of their wrongdoing.
We do become incensed at the disregard for common respect for our world and it's people.

[Solly Mack]

3. Fuck Cheney

He deserves no quarter

That's my motivation for - well..laughing my fool head off over him shooting his buddy.

[MrBenchley]

4. The same thing that motivates them to attack just about every Democrat

anyone's ever heard of.....

[Caution]

5. Hmmm, Maybe trying to live up to the ideals of the American justice system

You know, little things like Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. I may not like the guy but I'm not going to sit here and make unfounded accusations. These are the things that they are doing in order to destroy our country. The same tactics used against Clinton that we hated so much. So what happens when we use them too? I can answer that, once we take back the government in 2006 and 2008, we start that nasty cycle once again. It's bad for America and it's bad for the people of America. If we can do it to the Vice President, what's to stop the powerful from continuing to do it even moreso and without recourse to the less fortunate. I'm not going to contribute to the breaking of the system, I'd rather try to live up to the ideals.

[WinkyDink]

6. Nice gig if you can get it. Too bad CheneyCo won't ALLOW this

to come to a legal resolution.

[endarkenment]

9. yeah they might start swiftboating our candidates. nt.

[mac56]

10. I understand your point.

But I see no need to link arms with the Repugs and sing "Kum-Ba-Yah" about this.

[robbedvoter]

18. perfect name for you. What color is the sky in your world?

I remember when this was a nation of laws. heck, poor Al Gore thought it was so in december 2000 when he accepted the crooked SCOTUS decision.
Too bad laws don't seem to apply to that bunch - W says so every time he signs one of them.
So, to benefit of the presumtiopn of innocence ( a bit farfetched as no one seems to contest the facts) one would alse have to be bound by the Constitution, Geneva convention, FISA, the statute about uncovering a CIA agent etc, etc.
Can't have the benefits without the obligations. Or rather, shouldn't - because this bunch does just that. All the time!

[Caution]

28. So what is the solution?

To ignore the laws? To ignore the Constitution? Either you believe in the ideals of the Founding Fathers and those that followed or you don't. If you don't, you either move or you advocate a new form of government. Personally, I believe in America and the Great Experiment. If I didn't, I'd move. If we go ahead and copy their methods and techniques we become them. That's not just pretty rhetoric that you hear in the movies, that's the actual truth of the matter. I am not going to become something I despise just to destroy my enemy.

[endarkenment]

58. I must have missed the constitutional prohibition against

mudslinging and dirty political fighting. I guess either I slept through that part of civics class or perhaps you are conflating two separate issues.

[robbedvoter]

7. Knee jerk opposition to the main opinion? I dunno.

For me this is all perfectly in character for Satan Cheney. Everything, from using wingless birds for target practice straight from the car, to depraved indifference to people, his having dinner with fellow hunters while his victim was being treated, the secrecy, the lies - first release offering off the bat that he had a licence when he didn't, the obvious indifference to the victim "Cheney's office called him at the hospital" (latest release), the bunker concocting of evidence - doctors having to check with the White House....
Of course Cheney has killed and maimed on a larger scale, nut this incident, like a drop of water, reveals the whole...

[Armstead]

11. I'm not a Cheney apologist but I hate jumping to conclusions about anyone

I guess I have the liberal disease mentioned above.

I see a major difference between suspecting something might not be what it seems and assuming the worst is true about people one doesn't like before there is any evidence.

It's like when Wellstoine died. Immediately many people just "knew" the plane had been sabatoged rather than it being a basic accident.

[seabeyond]

12. who the hells giving him slack. why are so many people on this board

creating made up issues. there is enough things to be dealing with. focus

[mac56]

15. You don't see it? And think this is a made up issue?

What are ya, new in town?!

[seabeyond]

23. actually talk about something instead of just htrowing at an accustaion

and i will show you how much i know what a bunch of crap...


who is feeling sorry for cheney
who is making excuses
what are the excuses
what is your definition of "slack"
wht is you level, moderate extreme in slack......

do tell me about all your valuable information. an i expect fact. you dont have fact.... then it is ????? useless

[mac56]

26. Start with the posts on this thread.

Then tell me what you think.

[seabeyond]

32. ??????

anyone who hypothesizes anything untoward on Deadeye Dick's part can guarantee they're gonna get dogpiled on by the Cheney apologists.



wha.... this. you want me to tellyou what i think. well. i have been talking shit about cheney and the stuff we are getting on this event and the whole bullshit of it for three days now, and i have never been "dogpiled" by anyone that has apologized for cheney???????????

this is really what you wnat to talk about hm......

[Kingofalldems]

16. If Clinton had a hunting accident

There would be 24/7 coverage----complete with computerized graphics etc. All the RW pundits would be calling for his arrest and imprisonment.

[Atman]

19. Part of the problem lies in your very post..."Cheney apologists?"

The man is vile pond scum. But using your terminology, I guess I am one of the "Cheney apologists" you rail on against. I've been beaten silly here for the past two days because I refuse to sign on to the wild speculation that Cheney was "obviously" drunk, and that those of us who don't think so are somehow, suddenly, unintelligent morans.

What is this about? Revenge? Or TRUTH?

Much of what we do here at DU is point out the inherent flaws in the BushCo operating system...ie: their penchent for dragging people out of their homes and locking them up for mere SUPPOSITION of wrong-doing, without real proof. Stopping people from boarding airplanes just because of their name. In short, eschewing the basic principles of THE LAW in favor of convenient, easily voiced rallying cries like "HE WAS OBVIOUSLY DRUNK AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SEE THAT IS A STUPID IDIOT!"

I have nothing but disdain for Dick "dick" Cheney. But I have also seen nothing which elevates the "obviously drunk" meme to anything more than popular drum-beating. There are, in my opinion (which is so obviously worthless on DU unless I'm willing to be a sheep) several equally "obvious" explanations as to what happened. All of them STILL lead to a terrible shooting, and inexcusable behavior on the part of the VP and his staff, and the WH in general. But since we don't actually know anything about the actual incident other than the limited stories dribbling out, I do not see how it jibes with being the intelligent, curious, open-minded Democrats we all fancy ourselves, when we make declarations such as "MY THEORY IS OBVIOUS, SO YOU'RE STUPID!"

I am very, very disheartened at the three days worth of threads on this subject. I've seen some of the worst of my fellow DUers. Reasonable discussion flew out the window on this one...no open-minded posts are allowed, no speculation that doesn't include "he was obviously drunk" will be tolerated. Perhaps we really are no better than they are, and now that we have our chance, we'll prove it to the world.

[endarkenment]

21. I'd like to see a link for that quote.

"HE WAS OBVIOUSLY DRUNK AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SEE THAT IS A STUPID IDIOT!"

please provide a link.

[Atman]

33. No. But you can fish through your own posts if you'd like.

You are right there at the top of the list, as I am sure you're aware. Most likely that is why you're now demanding I provide a link to something which I assumed (incorrectly, it would appear) was clearly illustrative, since I didn't attach it to any one poster. So, now you want me to post a link, hoping it's to one of your posts, I guess, so you can rag on me for inaccuracies in my quote ("I said 'stupid moron, not stupid idiot!' See you're lying!"), while avoiding any of the substance of my post.

Not playing, that's a republican game. Thanks for asking, though.

[endarkenment]

37. So you have no links

And you have made it up and exaggerated your case. OK.

Please provide a link where I called you stupid or a moron or an idiot. I don't believe I have done that. I could of course be wrong.

[Atman]

39. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

;-)

[endarkenment]

42. ???

You claimed that people have called you names. Now you have claimed that I personally called you names. When challenged to prove your assertions you refuse.

Nice. And you are arguing that people shouldn't post stuff about Cheney that they can't prove. Do you see the irony here?

[Atman]

45. I said I wasn't going to play your game, and I may regret this...

...but do the board a favor and go back and read my original fucking post. I didn't accuse YOU of anything. I made a general statement, which you then hoisted upon your shoulders and assumed the poor beleaguered victim position. I'm not wasting any more time on this discussion with you. It does nothing but help distract from the serious issues at hand, and I get a pretty strong feeling you're just in it for the fight, and not out of any real desire to find common ground.

Oh, and do you really not know what "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" means? Your response is a perfect example...I wrote a general post about people which COULD HAVE included you, but actually didn't at the time I wrote it. You obviously saw yourself in my words, and jumped up in defense, even though I never addressed you at all. Your subconscience guilt got the better of you. It was not about you, although it sure is now, isn't it? Nice job.

[endarkenment]

48. Just back your claims up. Seems only fair.

"No. But you can fish through your own posts if you'd like.
You are right there at the top of the list, as I am sure you're aware. Most likely that is why you're now demanding I provide a link to something which I assumed (incorrectly, it would appear) was clearly illustrative, since I didn't attach it to any one poster. So, now you want me to post a link, hoping it's to one of your posts, I guess, so you can rag on me for inaccuracies in my quote ("I said 'stupid moron, not stupid idiot!' See you're lying!"), while avoiding any of the substance of my post."

Please post the link where I called you any names at all.

Then please provide the link for your original post's made up quote that you cannot provide a link for.

The please explain why it is ok for you to do this but wrong for us to attack Cheney without all the evidence.

[Atman]

49. No

I owe you no explanations for anything. My posts were quite clear, and I encourage you to 1) go back and read from the beginning, and 2) ask yourself why you've taken such a defensive position against my original post which contained absolutely no reference to you whatsoever.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

And now me thinks you're just dogging me for the sake of dogging me. :eyes:

[endarkenment]

50. You can stop replying anytime.

You specifically accused me of insulting you by calling you names. Please provide a link where I did so.

[H2O Man]

20. Respect.

It's a combination of respect for the office and respect for the man. Most people on DU are aware of the fact that Cheney is a decorated war hero, from the Vietnam era. Where people like Gore and Kerry did everything they could to avoid serving in uniform, and even McCain used his father's pull to get into the National Guard, Cheney was in the special services. Oliver Stone made a movie about his journey up the river to experience the hell of war there, so that we didn't have to be attacked by Viet Cong in Dominoe's Pizza today. Like Bush, Cheney volunteered for numerous tours of duty, often three or more at the same time. He suffered terrible wounds that make it so that he can only talk out of one side of his mouth, is unable to look people straight in the eye, and is incapable of putting one hand up to be sworn in for testimony. DUers recognize that people around Cheney wear quail tie clips to remember when Dick Cheney personally saved the lives of his shipmates in the famous PT109 incident in the first Golf War. Saddam had used WMDs to sink the SS Skipper Cheney in the sands of Nero Jima, and Dick swam a full ten miles uphill to save his mates.

Younger DUers should be forgiven for questioning Dick's heroism. The man doesn't like the attention he deserves. But he is a legend.

[endarkenment]

22. ROFL! nt.

[Solly Mack]

29. hehehehehehehehehe OHMyGoodness! LMAO

Yeah, that's it.

[H2O Man]

31. Surely you remember

that Sgt Barry Sadler wrote the song "Fighting Soldiers" about Dick Cheney.

[Solly Mack]

38. I'd forgotten that

:)

[H2O Man]

41. The Ballad of Dick Cheney

Spiro Agnew used to sing this at Republican fund raisers.
http://www.brownielocks.com/balladofthegreenberetsWAVE.html

[Solly Mack]

44. Seriously? About Agnew? Blech

Learn something new every day - even if it is disturbing. :)

[H2O Man]

51. Well .....

kind of serious. Almost.

[Solly Mack]

52. Whew...my little brain damn near exploded

lol :)

[H2O Man]

53. Guess you were

looking through your Spiro Agnew albums, especially the soundtrack for the movie "The Doors." Some of Spiro's best music.

[Solly Mack]

54. LMAO! Who told!?!

Honestly - I read that about Agnew and thought "No way!" - THEN I thought "I can see Reagan doing that", so maybe...

[Solomon]

35. LOL ! Good one H20!

[HughBeaumont]

40. You know what's sad?

There are still Freepers out there who would look at what you just typed and go "Yeah. YEAH. Damned right! You're starting to make sense now, libtard!"

[H2O Man]

43. Yeah.

You are definitely right. Watch Fox news for five minutes at the top of the hour. They are pretending that the "real story" is that Americans are pissed off at the journalists who savage poor Scottie at the press charades.

[marions ghost]

25. "dogpiled on by Cheney apologists"...?

where did that happen? Examples or links? :shrug:

For ex I've seen only a few posts pointing out that maybe they weren't drinking. The responses indicated more sceptics than pollyannas on that thought. Seems to me it's been open season on Cheney here. You are saying that we should be tougher on him? How?

[bryant69]

27. Maybe because it's because you Cheney attackers

make the rest of us look like paranoid conspiracy driven morons.

It's really quite pathetic - what are we, fucking lazy? We have more than enough ammunition on Cheney, but instead we have to spin this hunting accident into some kind of grande guignol, a blood thirsty act of evil.

It's pathetic.

And incidently, I say this not because I like Cheney, and to hell with anybody who suggests that I do.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Caution]

30. Well said.

[Atman]

36. Bravo.

Double Bravo.

:applause:

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Who the hell is cutting him slack? I missed...

most of the threads but if by "apologists" you mean anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagons of assertions of him being drunk or deliberately shooting the guy then I guess I'm one too. Anything's possible with this crew, but you gotta have evidence.

It was an "accident" but one that probably could have been avoided. Exactly how, I don't know 'cause I wasn't there but I'd go with Dead-Eye Dick being an arrogant prick enough to just shoot without thinking of any consequences. And being enough of a cold-heated sumbitch to not be sorry about it at all.

Beyond that, the criticisms of the pantload can go OTT and just look stupid.

[onenote]

47. because credibility matters

It is the willingness of this administration to shade, bend, and ultimately break the truth, to operate under a cloak of secrecy, to exagerrate and misrepresent, that we are fighting against. In order to persuade those who don't already realize this, we need to maintain our own credibility. So when some DUers suddenly go Fristian, offering their certain diagnoses and prognoses on Whittington's condition based on god knows what, or who state that Cheney was drunk, or was cheating on his wife, or that the shooting never happened (yes there was at least one such post), or that Cheney shot Whittington intentionally....well, that sends the message that we are no more credible than the other side. And yes, that message does get out.

Its not about being an apologist for Cheney, its about not making statements that blur the distinction between us and the other side.

onenote

[Skittles]

56. I don't understand what you mean

do I think Cheney is an evil bastard? Yes. Do I think that shooting was an accident? Yes. Do I defend any of his actions since this accident? FUCK NO. He should get on TV and tell the American public about it but fer chrissakes we already KNOW Cheney is a fucking COWARD. I'm not cutting him slack; that is what I think.

[Generator]

59. Cheney apologists on DU!!!?

Really? I've seen all kinds but I really haven't seen that kind. Cheney is everything that's wrong with America-and I still think he's probably the whole problem-I know some disagree but I come to think Bush BELIEVES he's a Christian, Bush believes he has the right to do anything he wants-because nobody in his stupid freaking life has ever told him NO. You almost (almost I say) can feel sorry for him. Bush is dumb, deluded and pathetic. (Again some think his dumbness is an act-yeah he's a vile politican but he understands nothing of the world-which to me means-dumb)

Cheney's smart as a fox. And evil as they come. The epitome of the greedy warmonger politician-the worst thing that has ever happened in Washington. Hell, we speculate-jokingly that he's not even Human. That he's an alien. Apologists-where? Let me at 'em.

And for the record I think the hunting accident was just that-an accident. But I think that everything that this administration ever says has some lies attached to it. So there is more to the story..hell they even lie about the weather! So probably he was drunk, probably he has a mistress,and that's your basic story. Stupid drunk evil man who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

[endarkenment]

61. So why shouldn't we run with that?

Calling those apposed to speculation about what actually happened last weekend (i.e. guns/sex/alcohol) 'cheney apologists' is way over the top. However, the ardent opponents to going full bore (pun intended) on the scandal side of this are, in either misguided or deliberate fashion, aiding and abetting the rightwing texas oil mafia. The cabal would like nothing better than for this all to blow over, for the unpleasant questions to NOT GET ASKED, for at least some breathing room so they can get their act together. Why should we help them do this?

[Generator]

65. Hey I agree

Look, if you (the general you) don't like speculation-some of it wild-some of it that eventually (weeks later dammit!) breaks in the mainstream news as fact then DU is not a place you are going to enjoy. Me-I love it all. I like to think of every possiblity. And if it's just stupid and baseless I usually ignore it. Some of it is predictable-I imagined DU gone wild over the Cheney story-and well of course we did. But one valid reason is the truth we are given is so lacking well TRUTH.

[go west young man]

60. "Fuck him. He's a ruthless murderer.

[Misunderestimator]

63. Trolls like Cheney.