Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

[Upchurch]

You're starting from an assumption that you don't have enough evidence for. We have a two sentence quote from Cheney. How on earth can you conclude that from two sentences, you have a full grasp of the nuances of Cheney's presentation?

Well, we also have 6 years worth of listening to Chaney play this same game. How many spoon benders do you have to test before you start seeing a pattern and understand what they are doing?

 

[steverino]

Don't nit pick. That is the nature of debate. He doesn't necessarily mean it as personal animosity. I certainly don't, but in this thread I consider that I have taken an opposing position from Zig and am, thus, his opponent. We may very well be on the same position in the next thread.

Wow! I agree with Upchurch.

 

[steverino]

Well, we also have 6 years worth of listening to Chaney play this same game. How many spoon benders do you have to test before you start seeing a pattern and understand what they are doing?

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public. Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?

 

[davefoc]

Was Cheney's claim the equivalent of claiming that there were Al-Qaida elements operating in the US before the 9-11 attack?

Cheney for president. Go Cheney, Go.
http://www.nysun.com/article/51783

I noticed one of the people that left a comment to the editorial suggested a Cheney/Keyes ticket. That was a good idea but I like the idea of a Cheney/Nixon ticket. It's true that Nixon is dead but should that necessarily disqualify him?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, we also have 6 years worth of listening to Chaney play this same game. How many spoon benders do you have to test before you start seeing a pattern and understand what they are doing?

I see a pattern all right. I see the press jumping on short quotes from Cheney every chance they get, and I see people like you gobbling it up without thinking for a second about whether or not it actually makes sense, or whether there might be more to the story. And this is a perfect case in point. You were so convinced that Cheney is a liar that the accusation alone now seems to suffice. And yet, you can't actually back it up in this case. So now you just refer to a nebulous past history, because hey, I'm not going to be able to shoot down every single accusation of dishonesty against Cheney. And if he ever lied in the past, then what's wrong with labelling him duplicitous now even if he didn't actually mislead anyone in this case? After all, there's a higher truth to pursue. Fake but accurate, and all that jazz.

Weak, Upchurch. Really weak.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Cheney is clearly trying to mislead the public, and make himself look better in the process.

That isn't working.

Failed turd polishing for fifty, Alex.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

People who hold opposing points of view are opponents in debate. Discussions on this board are commonly debates, and debate is indeed adversarial, which is why it's possible to have debating contests (if it were cooperative, it wouldn't be much fun to watch). But opponents are not enemies, and there have only ever been a few people on this board (and nobody in this thread) who ever qualified as the latter for me.

 

[Upchurch]

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public.

I did? When?

Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?

This one. eta: This one as long as you change "false" to "misleading".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd like a third option to liar and moron: Orwellian.

Saddam Hussein was our enemy and always was our enemy.

Saudi Arabia is our friend and will always be our friend.

War is peace. Military occupation is democracy. Imprisoning people with no due process is freedom. (You can tell because we don't say "French fries".)

If it weren't so frightening, it would be funny.

 

[Michael Redman]

Do you have a transcript of the entire show? Do you actually know the full context in which this statement was made? If all you're going by is the story linked in this thread, then no, you DON'T. If you've got additional information, then provide links to support your argument. How the hell do you know what Cheney ommitted? How the hell do you know that it isn't the AP which ommitted something? I don't think you do. I think you've jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence because it fits your preconceptions.

My evidence? Cheney has been saying the same half-truth since before the invasion, to bolster the administration's claim that removing Saddam was a necessary part of the war on terror. Saddam did not tolerate the presence of terrorists in Iraq, but Cheney has been able, by telling this half-truth, to convince many people that he did, and therefore was a threat to us. At least one person posting in this thread has made the claim that Saddam did tolerate the presence of terrorists, if you'll recall, despite a lack of any evidence in support of the claim. Cheney's deception is successful.

True, I am assuming he didn't admit he's been lying all along on Rush's show. I don't think that's jumping to conclusions, however. If I'm wrong, I owe you an apology.

 

[Darth Rotor]

(You can tell because we don't say "French fries".)

If it weren't so frightening, it would be funny.

Being neither moron, prol, nor drone, I still order French Fries and French Toast. I drink the occasional glass of French wine, though I prefer Italian wines.

What's your problem? Are you afraid that nobody but you (and the clearly superior people who think as you do) can think for themselves?

DR

ETA: Clunky Prose stinks.

 

[hgc]

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public. Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?

I have a new theory. He's been busy building false dichotomies out of strawmen.

 

[Upchurch]

I see a pattern all right. I see the press jumping on short quotes from Cheney every chance they get, and I see people like you gobbling it up without thinking for a second about whether or not it actually makes sense, or whether there might be more to the story.

There might be more to the story, but the point is that he never presents it, does he?

edited to remove silly redundant redundancy.

And this is a perfect case in point. You were so convinced that Cheney is a liar that the accusation alone now seems to suffice. And yet, you can't actually back it up in this case.

Here's a sampling with analysis, if you are actually interested.

So now you just refer to a nebulous past history, because hey, I'm not going to be able to shoot down every single accusation of dishonesty against Cheney. And if he ever lied in the past, then what's wrong with labelling him duplicitous now even if he didn't actually mislead anyone in this case?

But what if he mislead a lot? How many incidences would be necessary for you to see a pattern? The above link has 51 examples on Iraq alone, some repeated multiple times in good ol' talking point fashion.

 

[LawnOven]

Really? And are those who defended the Clinton administration "apologists" too?

Yes? maybe? I don't think you will find that you will get that kind of debate from me. You seem to be associating some sort of negative identity with the word 'apologist'. Apologist doesn't mean liar...

Well, again, Lawn, you used the term "apologists" for your opponents.

Again, is there something wrong with the word apologist? That is what Ziggurat is doing.

I don't think of him as my "debate opponent", because I have yet to make a claim in regards to any of Zigguarat's claims.

My opinion on the thread subject was that Cheney was lying. Zigguarat seemed to think differently which is why I was asking him those questions. He was providing what he considered acceptible answers which is what apologists do.

Not every conversation has to be an adversarial debate, where you then claim that those with differing opinions are illogical. Honestly though what really bothered me about that statement was that because others didn't understand the situation the way Zigguarat did, they were illogical, and, "oh, he grows so weary of us simpletons".

Reality in regards to the interactions between humans has always seemed to have a very subjective nature to me and I got tired of prefacing all my statements in this forum with "In my opinion..." a long time ago.

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in what is going on in his head.

 

[LawnOven]

People who hold opposing points of view are opponents in debate...

Fine, fine you guys, whatever.

Just, don't refer to people who disagree with you as illogical when debating politics. That's really what pissed me off.


edit: Haha, Ive been participating in this forum longer than either one of you, and you want to lecture me on what goes on here?!

 

[Ziggurat]

There might be more to the story, but the point is that he never presents it, does he?

Cheney doesn't present it? Or the AP doesn't present it? How on earth are you able to tell the difference without a complete transcript? You can't, and yet you insist on doing so anyways.

Here's a sampling with analysis, if you are actually interested.

No, actually, I'm NOT interested. I told you I'm not playing that game. That wasn't an invitation to keep pushing that logical fallacy.

But what if he mislead a lot? How many incidences would be necessary for you to see a pattern?

We're not talking about a pattern. We're talking about a particular instance. And you can't back up your position on this instance.

 

[LawnOven]

Cheney doesn't present it? Or the AP doesn't present it? How on earth are you able to tell the difference without a complete transcript? You can't, and yet you insist on doing so anyways.



No, actually, I'm NOT interested. I told you I'm not playing that game. That wasn't an invitation to keep pushing that logical fallacy.



We're not talking about a pattern. We're talking about a particular instance. And you can't back up your position on this instance.

Uh oh, now you guys are debating what you are actually oponents about.

Which means you are not even having this supposed debate yet.

 

[Upchurch]

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in what is going on in his head.

I would rephrase what you said as:

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in the message he is sending.​

 

[Upchurch]

No, actually, I'm NOT interested.

Then:

1. Don't tell me I can't back it up
2. Don't tell me that I'm the one mired in political dogma
3. The discussion cannot move forward because you are not open to other points of view.

We're not talking about a pattern. We're talking about a particular instance. And you can't back up your position on this instance.

I very specifically said I was talking about a pattern of behavior. I very specifically backed up my position. If you want to discuss it, you can't just ignore what I say and keep on ranting your position.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would rephrase what you said as:

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in the message he is sending.​

Wrong again. I'm saying you can't back up your position on the message he's sending. You can only appeal to this supposed past pattern, but cannot establish that in this case any such deceptive message was intended or relayed by Cheney, by direct words or by implication.