Threads on Cheney shooting need to stay grounded in reality.

[Harper_is_Bush]

I've been reading the flurry of topics on Cheney and his unfortunate incident.

First off, I hate that mother fucker more than anyone.

But the truth is this story has enough elements to rake him over the coals for years without people making shit up.

Two recent examples:

One post here revealed (with huge excitement) that Cheney lied to the Sherrif because the police report says "alcohol wasn't involved", yet Cheney said today that he had a beer at lunch. I think the poster wants us to suspend all reason and agree that a beer drank several hours previous to an incident equals alcohol involved in an incident under the law.

Another thread said Cheney was caught in a lie because in his interview today he first said of the poor bastards children:
"we wanted to make sure they were notified"
and then later in the interview said:
"I didn't make the calls to his children"
The reasoning that Cheney lied here is that the first statement is an admission that he himself contacted the children, which it's obviously not.

There are others, but the point is made with those.

There is PLENTY to roast the evil fat dude over this incident, including speculation. Speculation is fair...but let's not pollute the water with half-assed accusations presented as fact based on poor logic and backed up with exclamation points.

:tinfoilhat:

[Pirate Smile]

1. LOL. The thread right before yours is about if it could have been a NUDE

hunting party.

:D

[SPKrazy]

5. Which while silly on its face, does at least spur the question

how in the hell did the bird shot go through at least 2 layers of clothing, skin, ribs, cartilage, from the impact it would have slowed to in 30 yards?

[Carni]

10. LOL! I'm sorry but I can't accept the nude thing...

One of the women would have surely shot Cheny if that were the case!

[SPKrazy]

20. I don't accept the nude thing either

but the 30 yard story doesn't pass the smell test either

[Carni]

27. No it definitely does not

I know nothing about guns or algebra (blogs have been using that I guess to calculate what a bunch of crap the 30 yard thing is) but common sense tells me this guy was closer than 30 yards.

I think the large story here is that Cheney holds himself so above the law that cops were turned away until the next day AND what sort of jerk doesn't accompany a friend that they have shot to the hospital?

The only reason he would want to avoid the hospital would be to evade a sobriety test or questioning by cops IMO

[foo_bar]

18. depends if the pellets were made of lead

Shot Type Yards Velocity (fps) Energy (ft.-lbs.) Penetration (in.) in ballistic gel

LEAD
20 (yards) 1,001 7.16 3.26
40 (yards) 770 4.25 2.33

STEEL
20 (yards) 906 4.17 2.04
40 (yards) 647 2.13 1.30

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/hevi_hitter/

(edited to fix the columns)

[im10ashus]

41. That is a big difference from a ballistic standpoint.

Do we know if the pellets were lead or steel?

[SPKrazy]

47. Is Lead birdshot legal?

It isn't legal with hunting waterfowl, but I'm not sure about upland fowl

lead poisoning in the feeding grounds of waterfowl reasoning for illegality

[Blue Belle]

I can't imagine that a lead bb would be a good thing to have lodged

in your heart either.

[im10ashus]

69. That would most likely vary from state-to-state.

I've heard of it being used though. :shrug:

[foo_bar]

78. it's legal in Texas, but only for land fowl

Johnson said that if the birdshot was lodged in the heart muscle, it was unlikely that it would migrate into the heart. Whittington, however, could be at risk for lead poisoning from the shots, although Johnson said that was unlikely, too.

"It depends on the amount of birdshot he has in his body," Johnson said. "We have been told the count could be as low as six and as high as 200. That's a big range, and the more birdshot, the greater the chance of lead poisoning."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1621152

[Blue Belle]

66. Eeew! Now that the Cheney Naked Hunting Party visual is in my head...

I think I'll go throw up.

[Pirate Smile]

77. OMG. What if one of the birds tried to go after the worm?

[Blue Belle]

81. Stir the pot...

although... that bird would have to have amazing eyesight. :-)

[TahitiNut]

2. Well, ground yours and let others sore with the eagles.

:dunce: (Yes, I know how to spell when I want to.)

[SPKrazy]

3. Hey, Do We Need Someone Else Telling Us What Reality Is?

I see no problem with speculation

There's a lot of smoke, there must be some fire

there was "a beer" Cheney has a record of 2 DWI's (yes they were 30 years ago but has he driven much since then, mostly limo'd around I suspect) and he was kicked out of Yale for his drinking.

He's never said he quit, and obviously if he "had a beer" he HASN'T!

Anyone who knows about alcoholism (and yes, I think that is what we are dealing with here) knows that you can multiply that "a beer" by at least 6.

Also, the "witness" couldn't have been a witness if she thought that the emergency personnel of Cheney's were rushing to help Cheney thinking he's had a heart attack. If she saw him get shot and go down, then obviously she would put 2 and 2 together, duh!

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and we already have the RW trying to cap it off.

So excuse me if I choose not to let someone else define reality for me, okay?:rant:

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. uh, did you even read my post? I didn't say there was anything wrong

with speculation.

I said keep the claims of fact real. Look at the two examples I gave.
ie. "Cheney lied! Here's the proof....(followed by something that proves nothing of the sort)"
THAT kind of garbage.

sheesh.

[SPKrazy]

8. I Did Read Your Post

and I gave my opinion of how the beer story is bullshit

and I don't believe anything these rat bastards say

so sheesh yourself!

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. I did not engage in "Telling Us What Reality Is". My examples

highlighted clear departures from reality.

I personally agree that there were probably was a bottle along on the hunt, along with a few cigars. Nothing like a cigar and a shot or two in the woods.

However, the Sherrifs report and Cheneys admission of a beer at lunch together are not proof of Cheney lying. Agree?

[SPKrazy]

14. No, I Don't Agree

They told the Sheriff one thing

and now they are saying another

[Harper_is_Bush]

112. No, the Sheriff report does not indicate that they were not told

about the beer at lunch.

It says alcohol was not involved.

This is a rudimentary distinction.

[JuniperLea]

15. No.

n/t

[bettyellen]

46. no. emphatically saying no booze, and then saying maybe some beers

are two different things.
it's a slipperly slope.
the story keeps changing, and that's of natural interest...
especially since the excuse for the delay was to make sure it was accurate.
doesn't seem like it was adequately rehearsed, does it?

[Harper_is_Bush]

114. But that is not what went down.

Cheney did not "emphatially" say no booze at any point before saying he had a beer.

[bettyellen]

131. no the woman cheney said would "get the story out correctly" said that....

and when the VP's office was questioned about it, they refered reporters to the incident report that had the box checked that said "no alcohol " was involved. that's how the story disappeared off the web.
armstrong, the swiss ambassador, and victim himself (through armstrong's BIL) all gave info to the press blaming the victim.
cheneey never said that, he did concur that the vic made a mistake.... but no, cheney never said that either.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. "Adequately rehearsed"

Even the best actors forget their lines sometimes :dunce:

[TahitiNut]

7. Always think inside the box and color inside the lines ...

... in Big Brother's Amurika! :silly:

[Carni]

17. Everyone who gets busted drinking and being stupid

Tries that "I had one or two beers" excuse--it's like the standard excuse!

Not only have I used it myself (don't flame me I am talking back in highschool)
but I worked at a court years ago and that is like the standard BS thing people say when they have had a 12 pack and they get caught in the midst of a legal intrigue!

[SPKrazy]

22. Exactly!

I used it

back in college 20 some odd years ago

I don't drink anymore

Cheney admits he still drinks, he has had 2 DUI's, kicked out of college, I think there is plenty of reason to doubt his explanations.

[Junkdrawer]

4. This afternoon we were being scolded about suggesting alcohol at all...

He who laughs last....

[JuniperLea]

9. Yup.

I think I'll start a thread bemoaning threads that bemoan threads:) Oh, wait, it's been done.


So many times the speculation here turns up to be fact. I say "brainstorming" plus "free speech" equals some pretty funny shit... and truth becomes funnier than fiction before our very eyes.

When I get annoyed with the Cheney shooting threads, I move on to something else. But every once in a while one of these threads are worth the read.

[Carni]

24. I keep saying...that flacid old fart was buzzed/ fell down

and discharged his weapon at his friend...

JMO

[corkerjoe]

32. bad shooten

I am a hunter and a sportsman for the last 30 yesrs. no body but nobody shoots that bad sober. case closed.

[converted_democrat]

76. Welcome to DU corkerjoe!!

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

11. Please read your own post...

"One post here revealed (with huge excitement) that Cheney lied to the Sheriff because the police report says "alcohol wasn't involved", yet Cheney said today that he had a beer at lunch. I think the poster wants us to suspend all reason and agree that a beer drank several hours previous to an incident equals alcohol involved in an incident under the law."

So, you believe the lying rat bastard when he said there was only one beer? And you further believe the rat bastard drank said single beer hours before the shooting? And you contend that a police report that states alcohol was not a factor, followed by an admission that he "drank one beer" isn't enough to think the lying rat bastard is lying his ass off again. Why on God's green Earth should we start believing a damn word he says now? THAT is ridiculous.


Doooooood... check that latte! Someone must have slipped you some Kool-Aid!

[SPKrazy]

16. ROTFLMAO!

:rofl:

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. You're a little off base friend.

To answer your peppering:
So, you believe the lying rat bastard when he said there was only one beer?
No.
And you further believe the rat bastard drank said single beer hours before the shooting?
No.
And you contend that a police report that states alcohol was not a factor, followed by an admission that he "drank one beer" isn't enough to think the lying rat bastard is lying his ass off again.
It is not proof, that is the point. We cannot point at those two pieces of public information and say "CHENEY LIED! HERE'S PROOF!"
Speculating is fine. Declaring a belief that he was fall-down drunk based on his history is fine. Saying that it constitutes a proof is not.
Get that?

Why on God's green Earth should we start believing a damn word he says now?
I don't know. I'm not suggesting you should.
THAT is ridiculous.
Yes, it was.

thx.

[JuniperLea]

28. The sheriff was not allowed to investigate

He was told by either Cheney or those who work for Cheney. If I say something to someone on behalf of my boss, which I do all the time, and what I say is not the truth, I have lied... therefore, my boss has lied. Simple.

[Harper_is_Bush]

37. Actually, the Sherrif was allowed to investigate

I saw the guy on TV telling all about it.

I think you're referring to the news that came out that some deputies went to the ranch and were not allowed to see Cheney. I know that news came out...that the SS told some deputies (or deputy) that they couldn't interview Cheney that night...were "turned away". And NOW everyone is saying differently. So the story has evolved...it's suspicious but not proof of anything.

So, we cannot say anyone was not allowed to investigate with certainty.

But I think you're making the point that testing for alcohol wasn't done that night, so witnesses supporting the case that Cheney was not drunk could be lying. Sure.

[SPKrazy]

50. Is There Any Certainty In The World?

when yesterday MSNBC had a story quoting Armstrong talking about beer.

Then they scrubbed it from the story.

Then today it is back in the story, a little differently worded.

I took a screenshot today, because tomorrow it might be gone again.

Certainty in a world where up means down, and you didn't see anything here, move along now

And, no one could "hate Cheney" as much as you do, right?

:shrug:

You are working hard to defend, your OP?

[Harper_is_Bush]

54. That's pretty deep. Actually, yes, there is certainty in the world.

My statement:
"So, we cannot say anyone was not allowed to investigate with certainty."
stated previous can be made with certainty.

[doc03]

35. Excuse me

"And you contend that a police report that states alcohol was not a factor, followed by an admission that he "drank one beer" isn't enough to think the lying rat bastard is lying his ass off again.
It is not proof, that is the point. We cannot point at those two pieces of public information and say "CHENEY LIED! HERE'S PROOF!"

I am under the understanding that when the local police came to the ranch to interview Dickhead that the SS turned them away and said come back in the morning. So, if that is true how could you prove Dickhead was plastered or not. I am sure if any of us shot someone the police would interview us immediately not say Oh! ok we'll come back tomorrow.

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. see post #37. thx,n/t

[doc03]

48. The accident report said alcohol was not involved and

by Dickhead's own admission he did have a beer at lunch. So he falsified a statement to an Officer.

[Harper_is_Bush]

58. As I said in the topic post...

One post here revealed (with huge excitement) that Cheney lied to the Sherrif because the police report says "alcohol wasn't involved", yet Cheney said today that he had a beer at lunch. I think the poster wants us to suspend all reason and agree that a beer drank several hours previous to an incident equals alcohol involved in an incident under the law.

That was one of my examples of suspended logic.

YOu:So he falsified a statement to an Officer.
This conclusion is false.

[JuniperLea]

57. The story keeps changing...

When your story changes, guess what? You are lying, or someone is lying on your behalf.

Drinking and shooting is illegal, just like drinking and driving. He drank, he said so. Unless you want me to believe he was lying when he said he was drinking... Ask any cop, if they pull someone over for weaving and that person says, I had a beer or two but that was hours ago, guess what? They are lying.

If you say one thing, then say another, there is no other fact to believe except that you are lying. Sorry. The truth does not change. The truth is constant. It remains the truth regardless of anything else. When you tell the truth the first time, you don't have to change your story.

[doc03]

62. I agree, If you or I were involved in a shooting accident

and we said we had a beer at lunch you can bet we would be taking a Breathalyzer test. But since the police never even interviewed him until the next day the test would has been useless anyway. So, according to the original poster you can't prove anything. Myself I want the Dickster to stay as VP he just can't help F---ing up, he's our secret weapon.

[FormerRepublican]

13. Given the fact that I'm the guilty party in one of the cases you cite,

...you said:

"Another thread said Cheney was caught in a lie because in his interview today he first said of the poor bastards children:
"we wanted to make sure they were notified"
and then later in the interview said:
"I didn't make the calls to his children"
The reasoning that Cheney lied here is that the first statement is an admission that he himself contacted the children, which it's obviously not."

Given that the question was regarding why Cheney delayed to inform the press about what happened, and Cheney's response is "we wanted to make sure they were notified" IMPLYING that he was directly involved in the notification and thus was so busy he couldn't inform the press, then says he doesn't know when the children were notified because he didn't make the calls, IMPLYING he was so uninvolved in the process he doesn't even know when it was done - well, WHAT WAS CHENEY DOING, then, that kept him busy and unable to talk to the press?

I fail to understand your logic in saying that is not a direct contradiction.

[SPKrazy]

19. Touche! n/t

[corkerjoe]

26. one beer?

That is what I always tell the officer. that i had 1 or 2 drinks.I sure hope the pres. in charge of vice is not that that stupid.

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. I think you're reaching there.

You said in that thread:
So, first he makes excuses that he was too busy to let the press know what was going on because he was busy notifying the family, then he says he wasn't involved in notifying the family. Which is it, Lying Dick?

Problem is, he DIDN'T say he was busy notifying the family. So NOW you clarify here that you meant he only IMPLIED he was "directly involved" in notifying the children.

The quote in question is:
That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

He's not even implying that he was directly involved in the notification of the children in that. He says all these things were considerations of everyone at the ranch.
And why the hell would HE be notifying the children himself when the mother of the children is there??


:shrug:

[FormerRepublican]

36. Then what was he doing that kept him from notifying the press?

Harry was out of there in 30 minutes, per Cheney (so the ambulance thing couldn't have occupied him):

"and within about 30 minutes we had him on his way to the hospital."

Whittington's wife went with the ambulance and was out of there in that same 30 minutes:

"She wasn’t with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry."

So the only thing Cheney had left to do was to notify the children, which he admits he didn't do.

So what was Cheney doing, and why did he imply that notifying the children (which was the only task left) is what kept him so busy he couldn't talk to the press?

And by the way - the mother wasn't there, she was in the ambulance on her way to the hospital with her husband. Read the transcript again. You've missed some important facts.

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. My point is in the op..

I'm not interested in debating what Cheney was doing. I don't really care. Sobering up, maybe? As I said, you're free to speculate without critisism from me.

It's the factual claims based on nothing which torch my ass.

And by the way - the mother wasn't there, she was in the ambulance on her way to the hospital with her husband. Read the transcript again. You've missed some important facts.
Yes, and the wife of a millionaire wouldn't have a cell-phone. This "important fact" isn't really important at all. Before doing your gotcha's you should really take a moment to think and proof read.

[FormerRepublican]

56. And you're missing the entire point that CHENEY HIMSELF is saying...

...those things are what kept him from informing the press, and then he says that he doesn't even know when it was done. If that's not a direct contradiction and a lie, then what is it?

And it wasn't me who said Cheney was involved in notifying the kids, it was CHENEY HIMSELF (and he didn't say their mother did it, cell phone in ambulance or not).

Answer this question - when Cheney says "we", does that include himself? Or is he just blowing smoke about the "we" part and thus really isn't involved? Define "we" in Cheneyesque. Recall he said:

"He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn’t hear on television that their father had been shot."

Well, who is "we" when he says "we wanted to make sure they were notified"? And what exactly does that mean - in the context of taking up Cheney's time, which is the subject of the question - if it doesn't mean contacting the kids to make sure they're notified? Please define your alternate read of what Cheney said.

and yet he says:

"I didn’t make the calls to his children, so I don’t know exactly when those contacts were made. One of his daughters had made it to the hospital by the next day when I visited."

OK, he's saying he was so uninvolved with the process that he didn't know when the contacts were made. And the implication in his statement is that he didn't know ANY of them had been notified until he talked to one of Whittington's daughters the next day. So he knows she knew by the next day in time to make it to the hospital, but he has no idea when (or if) she'd been notified before then.

If "we wanted to make sure they were notifed" consisted of agreeing with their mother than she should call and notify them, then his part was done in 30 minutes, when she was off to the hospital in the ambulance. Thus, how could that prevent Cheney from contacting the press?

What ACTION - as implied by taking up Cheney's time - is involved in "we wanted to make sure they were notified"?

I think the thinking and reading should be done at the OTHER side of this conversation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

67. Now you've missed the point I just made.

I don't care about all that. Forgive me if I don't engage. Again, speculation is all good. Just please don't make anymore proclamations of definite fact when you're engaging in speculation.

[FormerRepublican]

71. OK, I don't get your point because it doesn't make sense.

I've explained how what Cheney said couldn't possibly be true. If it isn't the truth, then what is it if it isn't a lie?

And how is pointing out a lie speculation?

You've cast aspersions on my honor (kinda, lol!) so you BETTER engage and explain your position!

[Harper_is_Bush]

86. I have clearly engaged that point and explained why your

claim of a lie was false. See the topic post.

I'm sorry for using you as an example. I didn't name you and didn't link your thread, so YOU made the choice to come here and put your "honor" on the table!
If you don't agree with what appears obvious to any logical examination, that's your choice.
Be assured though that you DID NOT explain "what Cheney said couldn't possibly be true".

And pointing out a lie isn't speculation, you are correct. You did not point out a lie. sorry.

[FormerRepublican]

92. Er - the flaw in logic is not mine.

You still haven't argued your point as to why what Cheney said IS true, which is the issue. Your opinion regarding what Cheney said is speculation, given Cheney's track record of lying at every opportunity (and thus, we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt WRT honesty). I've gone in-depth into why Cheney could not be telling the truth about the comments in question. Now it's your turn to explain your reasoning that Cheney WAS telling the truth. Where are the facts to back up that position?

WRT honor - you quoted my words to advance your speculation regarding my words, and you have yet to adequately explain why you think Cheney was telling the truth. Whether my name is attached or not is irrelevant. Anyone could look up my comments in the threads and find out it was me who said it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

94. I NEVER made a point that what he said IS TRUE!!!

Where the HELL did you get that from?

My only point was that your claim of a factual conclusion was based upon implied assumptions. Didn't you yourself admit you were operating off of implied assumptions of your own?

My reasoning is in the topic post. I appreciate that you're upset that I used your thread as an example of making factual claims based on nothing, but I did not name you or link your topic. I will not argue my assessment of your post. I said all I have to say about it in the original post above.

[FormerRepublican]

97. Well, if I said what he said was a lie, and you disagree with that, then..

...aren't you arguing that it's true? Something is either true, or it's false. Not a lot of gray area when talking about factual statements by the VP. Especially when describing events that happened after he shot someone.

And you still haven't adequately explained why what I said was not accurate.

Edit to add: Just answer one question: What time consuming ACTION by Cheney is involved in "we wanted to make sure they were notified" if not calling them to notify them?

[Harper_is_Bush]

101. No.

I'm arguing that you can't make the claim given the evidence you use to support it.

And I have more than adequately explained why what you said was not a fact-based conclusion.

AGAIN:
In your thread, you said:
So, first he makes excuses that he was too busy to let the press know what was going on because he was busy notifying the family, then he says he wasn't involved in notifying the family. Which is it, Lying Dick?

This is an accusation of lying, agreed?

The problem with it is that part if your evidence is that cheney said he was personally busy notifying the family. He never says that though.
He says "He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified," while describing "considerations" that they all had that evening.

Your assumption that because this was a general consideration means Cheney was involved in the subsequent communication is empty.
And the subsequent accusation of lying is empty.

I have gone to great lengths to explain this to you. I'm becoming more puzzled that you will not admit the truth here.

[FormerRepublican]

108. You still haven't answered the question - what Cheney ACTION took...

...place?

The only action possible was actually calling the children to notify them. If you disagree, name the action involved.

[Harper_is_Bush]

111. You are asking me to defend things

that are irrelavent to what I've said thus far.

You cannot create an issue and pretend I am on the opposite side, sorry.

[FormerRepublican]

113. You fail to explain why I was in error.

If Cheney says "we wanted to make sure they were notified," the "we" part indicates HE was involved, and the "make sure they were notified" has only ONE time consuming action - to call and notify them.

Thus, my point that Cheney's first statement "we wanted to make sure they were notified" and his second statement "I didn't make the calls to his children, so I don't know exactly when those contacts were made" was contradictory is valid. Cheney himself is saying HE TOOK NO ACTION, and therefore was free to talk to the press. He lied.

Unless you can come up with some other time consuming action in "we wanted to make sure they were notified"?

[Harper_is_Bush]

116. I did so, clearly. I'll engage with your points ONCE more:

Cheney says he is talking about the "considerations" at play that night. I'm guessing you won't deny there were "considerations" at play?
One of those considerations of "we" (the word he uses to describe everyone there, presumably) was notifying the children.
That does not indicate in any way that Cheney was directly involved in notifying the children. You suggest that the entire group of people acted as one fulfilling all of the considerations Cheney mentions.

You made a claim of a lie.

I have pointed out how your evidence behind that claim was empty.

I am dealing only with what you claim as fact and the evidence you use to support it, so please do not pepper me questions about other Cheney related scenarios with the implication that I'm defending them.

:spank:

[FormerRepublican]

124. And you fail to explain how that group activity kept Cheney from talking..

...to the press, which is the whole premise of the question. You imply that all Cheney did was sit around all night and think about how the children needed to be notified, but no action was required by Cheney to do anything about it. That's just plain foolish. And the only action Cheney COULD have taken associated with "make sure they were notified" is to call them himself. And personally, if I'd shot someone, I'd be calling the family personally regardless of who I was.

You can't argue the thing out of context. Cheney was responding to a question as to why HE, specifically HE, was not able to talk to the press about the matter previously.

Your argument that the two quotes are unrelated - "we wanted to make sure they were notified" and "I didn’t make the calls to his children, so I don’t know exactly when those contacts were made" is faulty. Cheney is claiming his involvement to "make sure they were notified" at the same time he says "I didn't make the calls to his children". "Considerations" is not time consuming ACTION, it's a thought process. But Cheney's use of "Considerations" implicitly contains action since the considerations are what prevented him from notifying the press. If this is not true, then all Cheney did was sit around all night thinking about how the children needed to be notified - and that's just foolish reasoning.

Cheney was talking about HIS specific actions that prevented HIM from notifying the press.

You raised this issue and involved me, so debate your point. How is "we wanted to make sure they were notified" not the same as "I didn't make the calls to his children" and he has no clue when they were notified? That's what you're arguing in the OP by saying my argument he lied is speculation. You're claiming that the two comments are unrelated events - back up your assertion with facts. How, exactly, am I speculating?

It's not enough to just make the assertion that I'm speculating - you have to back it up with facts of your own that counter my argument. Otherwise your position is itself speculation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

127. No, I don't "fail" in that because I never touched upon that...

it was never something I addressed in any way.

We've been down this road before. Don't pretend that I'm engaged in a debate with you that I'm not.

[FormerRepublican]

130. That portion of my post, in it's entirety, states:

"Cheney lies again about why there was a big delay in releasing the story.

First he says:

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think: I need to call the press. My first reaction is: My friend, Harry, has been shot and we've got to take care of him. That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

But we also didn't know what the outcome here was going to be. We didn't know for sure what kind of shape Harry was in. We had preliminary reports, but they wanted to do a CAT scan, for example, to see how -- whether or not there was any internal damage, whether or not any vital organ had been penetrated by any of the shot. We did not know until Sunday morning that we could be confident that everything was probably going to be okay."

THEN he says:

"Q When did the family -- when had the family been informed? About what time?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, his wife -- his wife knew as he was leaving the ranch --

Q Right, what about his children?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't make the calls to his children, so I don't know exactly when those contacts were made. One of his daughters had made it to the hospital by the next day when I visited. But one of the things I'd learned over the years was first reports are often wrong and you need to really wait and nail it down. And there was enough variation in the reports we were getting from the hospital, and so forth -- a couple of people who had been guests at the ranch went up to the hospital that evening; one of them was a doctor, so he obviously had some professional capabilities in terms of being able to relay messages. But we really didn't know until Sunday morning that Harry was probably going to be okay, that it looked like there hadn't been any serious damage to any vital organ. And that's when we began the process of notifying the press."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

So, first he makes excuses that he was too busy to let the press know what was going on because he was busy notifying the family, then he says he wasn't involved in notifying the family. Which is it, Lying Dick?"

As you see clearly above, I derived my comment based on the actions that Cheney himself described that prevented him from notifying the press. And you still have not explained why that conclusion was faulty based on the evidence that Cheney himself provided. If Cheney wasn't "busy notifying the family" when he says "we wanted to make sure they were notified," then what WAS he doing? What does "we wanted to make sure they were notified" mean? And yes, this is relevent to your argument since you assert that my conclusion Cheney was lying is faulty and speculation. Cheney contradicts himself by saying they care spit about whether or not the family was notified since Cheney himself admits that HE didn't notify them and he has no idea when they WERE (or IF they were) notified. Logically, can Cheney want to "make sure they were notified" at the same time that he has no idea if they were ever notified until he talks to the daughter the next day? That's ridiculous!

You can't just say my conclusion is speculation without backing it up with some facts of your own. Facts, not assertions regarding my conclusion that itself has no basis in fact.

[spacelady]

99. Exactly what part of Cheney's version of "reality" do you think is true?

If you are going to parse these various accounts into little compartments, which one is plausible? Note that I am not asking what can be "proven", just what you can glean from the "proof".

[Harper_is_Bush]

104. What is the point of your question in light of the

topic?

I have not claimed I think any of Cheneys version of "reality" is true, so why are you asking the question?

And make your question a little more specific and I'll be happy to answer.

[spacelady]

109. Well, the topic was "grounded in reality" , correct? That any comment

involved here should be just that. What parts of this incident do you feel is grounded in reality? Perhaps you are referring to what has been reported that is not part of Cheney's or his hunting party's statements. What parts of this incident is "reality" to you?

[Harper_is_Bush]

110. It's quite simple

the things that we can state as fact based upon known information, they are "grounded in reality".

The rest is speculation.

I sense you're in need of examples. I believe I listed two in the topic post.

If you want the links to those examples PM me.

[spacelady]

115. Three questions.

1. Did Dick Cheney Shoot his Hunting Companion?

2. Had Dick Cheney Consumed Alcohol within 8 hours before hunting?

3. Did Dick Cheney observe the most basic rules of hunting such as identifying the target before pulling the trigger?

[Harper_is_Bush]

117. Yes. Yes. Yes/No/we don't know.

Regarding number 3... he may have identified the target, but the target moved to a point in front of the victim. So, was he negligent? Yes.

[spacelady]

119. Thank you. That will be all.

[omega minimo]

84. You and your contradicktions!

[yellowdogmi]

23. I agree.

I hate Dick too. But that does not help our cause. This morning on Excite.com I actually found a story that talks about all of the theories being expoused by the left. While the idle speculation and jokes have been kind of fun mainstream america realizes that a man is in the hospital and it makes us look sort of ghoulish. If we are to win the hearts and minds we cannot be labeled as the lunatic fringe. Besides there are much bigger fish to fry. Let us hammer them about the budget. Let us hammer them about the spying. Let us hammer them about the treason (plame case). Let us hammer them about the unpatriotic act deal.

:rant:

[SPKrazy]

29. Our Cause?

This is a complicated story that is trying to be made simple

We haven't been told the truth from the beginning about this.

so agree all you want, it is your right

but this has nothing to do with "our cause" (whatever that is)

[yellowdogmi]

40. Sorry Southpaw.

By "our cause" I was referring to acting vaguely like an opposition party that can mount a meaningful opposition. You are right about not being told the truth from the beginning on this story but the speculation doesn't help us much. Especially when the right uses our speculation to make all of us look bad. There are some very serious discrepancies in Dick's story and I am not saying don't discuss it. I am saying keep it rational and in good taste. Otherwise dems maybe painted as callous and insensitive. We all know what would have happened to Gore under the same circumstances. The rw press would have had a field day about the abuses of power. There are some legitimate issues but let us be smart about presenting them. We are not the only ones that come here. Others also read some of our posts. I was just trying to tone down some of the silliness so we do not come across as heartless opportunist. The other point I was trying to make was that there are issues that matter more than this shooting. Like the examples I pointed out.

[bigtree]

39. yeah, let's just hit them on the issues

while they rip our guts out with whatever they can find

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

25. horse shit

Drink and shoot somebody, BIG TROUBLE. For anybody in the country. Even Dick Cheney.

[Carni]

34. LOL What they said! eom

[Harper_is_Bush]

44. Drink one beer at lunch with food and shoot someone at 6pm

that's "big trouble"?

Have you ever actually had a beer yourself?

:toast:

NOTE: I'm not saying he wasn't drunk or didn't have more than one beer or even maybe some shots around 5pm, so please don't tell me about his DUI's. thx.

[sandnsea]

49. Yep, BIG trouble

In every police investigation in the country. If you don't think it is, your defense of your beers might just be the reason why.

Yes I've had a beer or two in my time, and listened to denial a year or ten or twenty, too. Heard it all and so have the cops. A beer at lunch and a shooting at 6 usually means the drinking started at lunch and continued until somebody died.

[SPKrazy]

52. Defense of Beers?

or defense of ......????

[Harper_is_Bush]

64. That's all speculation, which I support and applaud.

The only thing you stretched the truth on was saying it's "big trouble".
A beer at lunch followed by a shooting at 6pm is not "big trouble".

NOTE: I'm not saying this is how I believe the reality was. I'm saying those are the details given in this story. Obviously the cops aren't going to care about a beer drank 5 hours before an incident, that is not "big trouble" unless they can prove there's more to the story. Which I don't think they can here.

[sandnsea]

118. Where do you people live???

When someone is shot and there's been drinking involved in the previous 24 hours, it means a BIG trouble investigation. They most certainly are going to pay attention to drinking on the day of a shooting, because they know how often alcohol is related to accidents and crime. You think the cops just BELIEVE when people say they only had one beer? :rofl:

[Harper_is_Bush]

121. Ok. So tell us, what's involved in this "BIG trouble investigation"?

Why exactly is any investigation "bit trouble" anyway? Aren't the charges themselves the only thing that is actual "trouble"???

and your comment about what I believe is ridiculous. Try to refrain from such bs.

[sandnsea]

128. It's big trouble to me

Being investigated for criminal negligence and possibly homicide, with drinking involved. Most peole would call that big trouble. I've got a friend in that situationt right now, with NO drinking involved. He calls it big trouble. If you ever get in that situation, here's a heads up for you, it's big trouble. Get a lawyer.

[JuniperLea]

60. I still can't believe you are believing...

the lying rat bastard on this! Your entire argument is based on your believing this one piece of the story.

You are assuming there was very strict documentation of said beer and said clock... that is just foolishness.

[Harper_is_Bush]

70. I still can't believe you are believing

that I believe him.

You are not winning any reading comprehension awards around here, that's for sure.

You are completely incorrect in everything you just posted.

[JuniperLea]

132. You are funny...

Reading and writing is how I earn my living:) There seems to be some other sort of disconnect here.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. Amen. It's getting ridiculous!

Ridiculous! I say.

[Harper_is_Bush]

45. Testify brother!!!

:bounce:

[SPKrazy]

53. He is the nude hunting party thread OP author

perhaps it was sarcasm

perhaps you knew that

[Harper_is_Bush]

59. Where is the love?

Where?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Agreed Completely. But We See That Here All The Time Anyway.

Some just post to post ya know? No real logic or reasoning, just want to throw something out there to feel included lol.

It does get a bit silly, but the only times it bothers me is when it is done in such a persuasive manner that people really start buying it and spreading it around, without really looking objectively.

For example, I'll never forget that bush giving the finger to the media incident that was so clearly his thumb LOL

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. The bush** evil agenda isn't *grounded in reality* so them first, I say.

And we take what we can get to bring them down! Maybe Dead eye should have come clean in the beginning and there wouldn't have been wild based speculation as to what happened? The plenty to roast the evil fat dude over.. doesn't stick! This just might!

[Harper_is_Bush]

51. I think the fact that he shot his good buddy in the chest/face

sticks pretty well.

The threads claiming factual conclusions based on obviously faulty logic don't stick at all, 'cept to those too lazy to read and think.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. Ah, yes, us lazy morans who speculate when the VP could easily

put an end too our laziness by coming clean! Nice try!

[Harper_is_Bush]

72. "claiming factual conclusions based on obviously faulty logic" does not

mean "speculate".

Ironic you sarsaticly refer to yourself as lazy!

Over and over again I have made the point in this thread INCLUDING the original post that I do not critisize speculation.

Read the topic post for two examples of what I am critisizing. Speculation is not it.

[bpilgrim]

65. how do you know he is his 'good buddy'?

talk about buying whatever the elite push :eyes:

face it, we don't know SHIT & that is just the way they planned it & why we have nothing to do but speculate.

get real

peace

[Harper_is_Bush]

75. It was in the MSM that they are good friends. Is there a point

to your point?

And again, I have no critisism of speculation. I am spending a lot of time clarifying something that shouldn't need clarifying.

So "get real" right back atcha.

[bpilgrim]

83. that's my point, the M$M has been spewing neoCON BS for 5 years & now

and you wanna confine the conversation to that?

this is our refuge from the M$MWs, fyi

peace

[Harper_is_Bush]

87. oh. ok. n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

61. Threads that use the qualifier "i hate so-and-so worse than anybody"

and then go on to give total credence to so-and-so and pontificate that any deviation from the allegedly despised and discredited so-and-so's obviously bullshit, self-serving statements because they "make us look bad"

SUCK!!!

I hope those were enough exclamation points to demonstrate that I'm totally series and this Cheney story is HUGH!!!!

:eyes:

[im10ashus]

82. LMFAO!!!

:rofl:

Thank you for saving me the time. Honestly. :hug: I love ya' man. :toast:

[Mandate My Ass]

90. right back atcha

The ultra rich white guys swaggering with overpowered firearms to compensate for their shortcomings hunting-tame-birds outing that turned into a drunken face-blasting incident has multitudes of panties wadded up in obviously painful bunches against already tightly-puckered sphincters.

:hi: :hug: :patriot: :toast:

[im10ashus]

96. I'm so glad I don't suffer from penis envy.

AND I was an expert marksman in the military. :patriot:

[yellowdogmi]

63. This is destined to turn this into a flame worthy thread

While we have all had some fun with the jokes that have been born of this incident, occasionally we go to far.IMO. How would you feel if you were related to his victim and came across this.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4750639

My Original point is that while we should hold Dick accountable I think we should avoid being this callous. Discuss the facts sure. Yell the facts to anyone that will listen. OK. But have a heart for the repuke lawyer and his family.

[bpilgrim]

68. you wanna talk 'callous'? these people are RAPIST, TORTURES & MURDERS

hello!

http://nobravery.cf.huffingtonpost.com

imagine how they feel...

peace

[Harper_is_Bush]

79. Agreed. That's black humor.....

something that I am guilty of sometimes. I agree that should be curbed also, but if I had to choose I'd rather see all the factual claim based on nothing threads go away.

And this thread is relatively polite so far! Got my foil hat on tight....

[left of center]

73. Harper_is_Bush has a point. Do we really want to be like the

Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world by exploiting terrible situations like this? This is the kind of crap their side threw at Clinton. It's good to have fun and all, be we should have higher standards.

[bpilgrim]

74. yeah, we stay calm in the face of world destruction torture and murder!

even of CHILDREN, for christ's sake...
this is nothing + we have our image to worry about!

peace

[Harper_is_Bush]

88. You've gone pretty far off topic...

...are you saying that because the Bush administration is guilty of crimes against humanity it's OK for us to present speculation and bad logic as fact here?

[bpilgrim]

89. no, it is called CONTEXT - these THUGS have earned far more than our SCORN

and RIDICULE, hello...

i am saying that they have 0 trust and ALL their actions should be held up to SCRUTINY and SPECULATION, always.

why you think we - DU - is so popular?

peace

[Harper_is_Bush]

91. Hopefully they haven't earned

our dishonesty.

[tyedyeto]

93. Who's having fun?

I want the truth...something The Dick knows nothing about.

Many questions have been left unanswered...Why did he turn and shoot at a man who was BEHIND him? Why was local law enforcement denied access to the shooter and witnesses until the following morning? Would that have been SOP for you and me? I think not!

[Harper_is_Bush]

95. There is no proof that law enforcement was denied access.

The reports to that effect were contradicted later by the same people who made the original statements. So, regardless of what we believe we just don't know and can't make a factual claim on that.

We can say there were contradictions, which is very interesting. The he said/they said/she said on that point is complex.

[tyedyeto]

98. Here's your link

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-cheney14feb14,1,4997143.story?page=2&ctrack=1&cset=true

<snip

After being stabilized at a hospital in Kingsville, Whittington was evacuated by helicopter to a larger facility in Corpus Christi — where he was placed in the intensive care unit. The Secret Service reported the shooting to the Kenedy County Sheriff's Office; no one from that agency interviewed Cheney until Sunday morning.

The Secret Service said it had turned away one sheriff's deputy at the ranch the night of the accident because arrangements had been made for Cheney to be interviewed the following morning, Associated Press said.


snip>

[Harper_is_Bush]

103. Yes, I have read ALL the stories. There are contradictions though

stories on that point contradict, and in some cases people have changed thier story.

So, the conclusion cannot be made until we have a deputy (or SS agent) come out again and set the record straight.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tyedyeto]

80. Methinks the OP protest too much... Cheney enabler? n/t

[SPKrazy]

85. self delete

[im10ashus]

100. Ayup! eom

[VOX]

102. Sorry, but when it comes to Darth Cheney, I'm flying the black flag.

That guy is the embodiment of the Evil Empire, and is one heartless SOB. He's been given pass after pass after pass, is never recognized for the total asshole that he is, and the media has just said he's taken "full responsibility." Horseflop.

Very little of what the right wing does is grounded in any acceptable reality (weird mix of Rapture-ready nuts and obscene profiteers).

So, when it comes to Cheney, whose soul is utterly stained with blood, big money and oil, it's no quarter. :grr:

[Cleita]

106. Lying?

I'm certain that no one could ever connect Mr. Cheney to a lie.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Harper_is_Bush]

107. Yes, Mr. Cheney is a liar IMO. He has lied (or been badly

incompetant) when talking about Saddam and Iraq often. I don't believe he's as incompetant as he'd have to be to say the things he said..

In this case here though there is no concrete evidence at this time that he lied about anything.

Agree?

[spacelady]

120. You will be surprised that I agree. We were not there witnessing.

By the way, Harper is one of my close family names. What is your Harper connection?

[Harper_is_Bush]

122. Harper = Stephen Harper, the new Conservative PM of Canada!

:D

[SPKrazy]

125. Are You Stephen Harper?

Is that what you are saying?

[Harper_is_Bush]

129. Uh.....no.

:rofl:

[spacelady]

126. I take it that's not you. heh heh

But really, Cheney is a Dick!

[Harper_is_Bush]

133. In all fairness to Stephen Harper...

I think he's busy fucking up his government to post here. :)