The Dick Cheney Countdown

[hgc]

Which isn't to say it probably isn't true. Honestly, I doubt politicians have changed much over the ages.

However, that doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. Those cliches are truisms (or at least the second one is), not an excuse.

One could certainly make a case that it's true, but that doesn't make it any more useful, i.e., it's a truism, as you said. People are going into voting booths to choose actual candidates, and discussions are raging all over about this, that or the other option. "Fire them all" just isn't an option. "They're all the same" does nothing to evaluate the choices. Sure politics hasn't changed much throughout the history of civilization - in certain ways. So what? It is what it is. Do the best within that framework.

(Not to sound like I thought you were disagreeing, Upchurch. I'm just on a roll about something that pisses me off.)

 

[Azure]

Some of his harshest criticism, even on the right, has to do with his lack of tolerance for disloyalty, dissent, and his cronyism. Do these characteristics sound familiar?

Merely an opinion.

Your belief that he won't be accountable to the American people is simply an assumption.

People also thought Obama was educated in Muslim...oh wait, that was Hillary.

 

[Azure]

A choice that was not a black and white issue, difficult as it is for some people to admit.

In any event, please don't derail into a discussion of Mr. Clinton.

I never started it.

Upchurch did.

 

[Azure]

All this is interesting opinion, but it doesn't change what I said before. "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Worse than useless actually. Their intent is to stifle discussion of comparative preferability of one or the other candidate. They're usually employed by someone when his own particular preference is being criticized.

Lets throw another cliches around here.

Power corrupts people. Now I know there are some politicians out there who do their best to serve the American people, Democrat or Republican. But I find it that such candidates are not always in the front running to be CIC.

Now, I like Obama, I think he is a respectable candidate....but he will face a lot of opposition, especially from that bitch Hillary, so the jury is still out on him.

I hope he succeeds though.

It's a colloquialism.

Whatever.

I lived in New York City while he was mayor for eight years. He is every bit as secretive and hostile to executive accountability as Dick Cheney. It was bad enough for New York, and would be truly awful if he were to continue that legacy at the federal level.

Ah, a valid reason.

Interesting,

 

[Upchurch]

I never started it.

Upchurch did.

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

 

[President Bush]

Will it be Laura?

Oh, no!

 

[geni]

The best reason to resign would be so his replacement has time to establish a reputation before he runs for Pres.

I think that saying well away from bush is quite high on the priorities of most likely candidates.

 

[Azure]

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people.

Go back and read your freakin' post.

 

[TragicMonkey]

He weighs more than a duck, not as much as a duck.

Ni.

DR

The last time someone tried to get Cheney and a duck together to compare their weights, he got shot in the face for his efforts. I don't think anyone's too eager to attempt the experiment again.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event:

QUESTION: Tell me what happened?
ANSWER: Well, basically, we were hunting quail late in the day ...
QUESTION: Describe the setting.
ANSWER: It's in south Texas, wide open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country. I've gone there, to the Armstrong ranch, for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday ...

DR

 

[hgc]

That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event:


DR

What do you mean? An African or European quail?

 

[Upchurch]

You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people.

And ignored everything else.

Go back and read your freakin' post.

Read it yourself. You obviously didn't the first time.

 

[Azure]

I don't get it.

You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?

 

[Tricky]

I don't get it.

You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?

No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.

 

[Azure]

No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.

I said nothing about Bill Clinton.

Upchurch first mentioned Bill Clinton.

I know he has 11,000 plus posts and all, but this is pathetic.

 

[Tricky]

I said nothing about Bill Clinton.

Upchurch first mentioned Bill Clinton.

Nevertheless, in post 51, you first brought in Hillary Clinton for no apparent reason other than what appeared to be an attempt at a tu quoque. It was at that point that the derailing began. (Just for accounting purposes.)

 

[Azure]

Nevertheless, in post 51, you first brought in Hillary Clinton for no apparent reason other than what appeared to be an attempt at a tu quoque. It was at that point that the derailing began. (Just for accounting purposes.)

Or not. I brought up Hillary because we were talking about possible future Presidential candidates, which she is, and how accountable they will be to the American people.

I never said a word about Bill, was never talking about him, and never even thought about mentioning him until Upchurch did. Frankly, I have no idea why he even brought his name up. Last time I checked, Bill had served his 8 years.

I guess you must have missed that too.

 

[Azure]

Since you guys have such a short memory span, and go anal blaming me for derailing the thread, and simply can't read for yourself, I'll give you a hint.

I said this...

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

Now where exactly did I mention Bill? And why the hell did Upchurch post this?

First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power)

Thanks.

I would ask for an apology, but I imagine the pride of having 10,000 plus posts goes straight to the head.

 

[Tricky]

Or not. I brought up Hillary because we were talking about possible future Presidential candidates, which she is, and how accountable they will be to the American people.

I don't believe anyone else was discussing that topic before that point.

I never said a word about Bill, was never talking about him, and never even thought about mentioning him until Upchurch did. Frankly, I have no idea why he even brought his name up. Last time I checked, Bill had served his 8 years.

Nevertheless, this thread wasn't about the Clintons. Perhaps he derailed it in a different direction than your derail, but if it is really that important to you to know who derailed first, I'm just pointing that out.

My own personal feeling is that there is no sense in worrying about not derailing threads. It happens. Unless it starts to get ugly, people can happily meander all over the place.

I guess you must have missed that too.

I don't have a dog in this race.

I would ask for an apology, but I imagine the pride of having 10,000 plus posts goes straight to the head.

You see, I think this sort of personal attack is what causes threads to get ugly. Some of my favorite posters here are newbies. Some of my least favorite are members of the "10,000 plus club", neither is my respect for them based on whether they are "left" or "right".

But you needn't apologize. These are politics forums. If I were thin-skinned, I wouldn't come here.

 

[Upchurch]

Anyway, getting back to my original point.

Duke Cunningham owned up to his many indiscretions.
Bill Clinton owned up to his misleading the American public.

The point is that personal accountability is not unheard of in politics, nor is the executive branch heeding the power of the legislative branch.