birdog1960

perhaps you listened to this interview or read the transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/2014/06/25/dick-cheney-sounds-obamas-handling-iraq. both participants seem really well connected to the word "scary".

i hoped that people would read it as an article making strong, well supported points and illuminating blatant lies. i don't care who wrote it. many of the words in the article came from cheney's mouth. what does it matter who quoted them? but first it's a context problem and when that doesn't stick it's ad hominem. none on the right that i'm aware of are defending his statements because that's impossible. the tact is then to minimize his influence. i don't think that's a defensible argument either. If you read the 2nd article i linked it recounts the story of bush interviewing rumsfeld's eventual successor, gates. bush asks gates to pose the big question on his mind: cheney. if that doesn't speak to the mans power, nothing does. by claiming that he was powerless and not responsible you avoid defending all the messy quotes and pathology. the problem with that argument is that the premise is simply false. he was powerful, he was extremely influential and he was responsible. and despite what you claim about his present level of influence, when he talks people still listen. as many of you frequently note, fox has quite a large news audience. they continue to afford him a pretty large soapbox as do other outlets. that alone makes him relevant in present day politics.

how would you know? have you infiltrated a local starbucks? i'd propose that where progressives hang out is largely dependent on demographics. most of those that i know in my age group don't hang out at coffee shops. boardrooms, professional offices, governmental offices, classrooms, courtrooms, labs and their associated breakrooms, yes. coffeeshops, not so much., perhaps you're more familiar with the juvenile form of the progressive. not much to be gleaned from them. i was right of atilla the hun in my earlier years.

you know what's funny? your stereotype of progressives as do- nothing coffee house, sitcom characters. i don't frequent coffeehouses. i work a lot. it's almost as if you are resentful of the privileged. like they don't deserve it. vaguely reminiscent of the class warfare you so frequently accuse me of. and whether "the nation" had this story teed up for just this moment (sure they did!) because...well, because krauthammer wrote such an inspiring, beautiful anti palestinian literary piece that they felt compelled to rebut in some way, is inconsequential. the story is true. cheney helped change the world for the worse and for generations to come. and what you said about the obama presidency is the truth as well. amazing that it occasionally springs from your keyboard. too bad it's universally buried in sarcasm.

your answers are here: http://www.thenation.com/article/178320/how-dick-cheney-became-most-powerful-vice-president-history# . his actions have very long lasting effects and the ripples continue to spread.

because "shutting their piehole" rather than actually engaging in argument, is what the ultimate goal is for some of you.

com'n. was in a hurry for lunch but i'm confident you got the point.: who from the list of liberals that you cited advanced any of those reasons to support invading iraq. even among those liberals that voted for the war, all have recanted and admitted that the premises upon which the war was waged were incorrect. their mistake was believing the lies advanced by the likes of cheney, not in promoting those very lies.

and who from your list cited any of those things or at least confirmed that those things we're incorrect?

when did any of those you cited link iraq and 9/11? That was the justification for the entire fiasco in the minds many americans. and leave edwards out of any serious discussion. he's a discredited, shameful, disgusting subhuman pos that his been fully excommunicated from the dem party....just as cheney should be from the repugs. then it's truly asounding how similar your positions are to those put forth by those media ouitlets.

the iraq war and it's negative outcomes were and are the most impactful us foreign policy actions in the last 20 years. everything else pales in comparison in terms of human and economic cost. yet if we can't identify the mistakes that lead to the disastrous outcomes, we are likely doomed to repeat them. but cheney thinks his mispent youth was his biggest mistake. presumably, he'd do it all over again just the way he did it the first time. and by extension, ya'll seem just fine with that as evidenced by his presence on multiple right wing stages.

it's shocking that the cons here don't want to discuss cheney's purposeful and calculated dishonesty on it's own . they need to bring in tangential issues to muddy the waters. chaney lied repeatedly. the lies were important in promoting a hugely unsuccessful and costly war. and he accepts no blame. the shooting quip was an attempt at humor. ya know, the allusion to burr? i'm also shocked that the cons sense of humor poorly matches the authors! finally, was anyone convinced with his answer to the report of private discussions with goldman sachs involving his recommendation that iran and iraq be attacked simultaneously? why is he disussing such topics privately with goldman sachs at all? i don't believe that you don't watch fox. what feed were you watching during the last presidential election? never seen links to his spoutings on drudge?

why don't you enlighten us with the context that makes repeatedy linking iraq to 9/11 defensible? I'll wait...

why don't you critique the actual points made in the piece rather than its author? in what regard is he wrong in this analysis?

how bout pointing out where the piece is inaccurate? kinda like what the piece did with cheney's statements...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/opinion/begala-dick-cheney-lies/. a republican friend told me about this piece recently. unsurprisingly, he's a moderate but what is wrong with the far right missing the absolute deceit in this guy or not missing it and condoning it? anyone wanna put forth a theory as to why this pathologic liar still has a national voice that some people heed?

getting pretty impatient with it now.

the key is the word "global": http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/earth-sees-hottest-june-since-1880-says-noaa/

wow. mesmerizing.

and american interests were not affected in any significant manner except that american families stopped losing young men and women to war...for a little while, at least.

you're right. i misread it but i certanly agree with the statement. perhaps nbc will explain the security risk issue in some other manner but it was naive to think they'd admit bias.

NBC's statement explaining the reporter's removal: "over the last 2 weeks, mohyeldis' reporting has been more balanced and even-handed than the standard pro-Israel coverage that dominates established american press coverage; his reports have provided context to the conflict that is missing from most american reports and he avoids adopting israeli talking points as truth. as a result, neocon and "pro israeli" websites have repeatedly attacked him as a "hamas spokesman" and spouting "pro hamas" rants. http://www.businessi...za-strip-2014-7

or maybe he was just kicking a soccer ball with them on a beach and felt it unthinkable that anyone would attack a group of 4 kids playing. talk about displaced blame!

many commentators disagree: http://www.salon.com...6/03/israel_42/ . the tribalism stuff starts at about pp 10. it's even easier to find experts on the israeli side blaming most of the troubles on muslim tribalism. i think there's more than enough to go around on both sides.

it's about tribalism to a great degree. and the tribes are based on religious history.

we're going to go the patio route (pavers, pea gravel, walkable ground cover plants) with our new house. our current house has wood decks and they're warped and rotted in several places. 7 years old. needs significant work before we sell. if i were to do a deck ever again, it would be composite, however. and brazilian walnut is truly beautiful. i like brazilian tigerwood as we'll. we have the walnut inside in different lengths and widths and love it. it's extremely hard (can take dog claws better than most) but does fade with sunlight. very expensive way to build a deck but i'm sure it would be very grand.