Mickey

I don't beleive I ever said he was drunk, just that he might have been and no one bothered to figure that out one way or the other. I certainly never attributed that claim to you and then mocked you for having made it. I'd be happy to do so though if you are feeling left out. I know how lonely you fascist geeks can get. Do you want the Kangaroo's phone number?

Are you referring to the time you argued on behalf of the merits of white slavery until I demonstrated beyond doubt that from an economic standpoint, slavery, once you add in insurance rates and legal fees, was a drain on the economy? I think that was right after you wrote passionately in favor of pediatric cancer until I showed you the error of your ways.

How dare you call AD a liberal? Well, you were close but the password was "masturbation". Don't worry, we have some nice consolation prizes for you.

Really, the only debate that is a close one as far as this line is concerned is: Which is worse, the tackles or the three inside guys? Oh I know a good argument could be made that our tackles are among the worst in the league with the exception of newcomer Peters. Still, I have to go with the inside trio of red cape waivers that have managed to make the quaint notion of a "pocket" non-existent in Buffalo. Reasonable minds may differ as to whether we suk more on the edge than we do on the inside but there is no question that we succotash.

There is a word for the kind of post where you simply make up senseless positions for the other guy which he has never taken and then spew all over them. A picture, however, is worth a thousand words so rather than giving it a name, check out AD in this video demonstrating his personal method of debate (hint: he is the guy in the kangaroo suit): AD's Debating Syle

Would you settle for "America Hating Fascist"?? I'm flexible.

HALLIBURTON WINS CONTRACT TO RECONSTRUCT CHENEY’S REPUTATION At $42 Billion, Largest Contract of its Kind, Company Says Details at: Cheney Contract

Don't you know that all you have to do is wave the magic wand of democracy and sing bippity-boppity-boo and wa-la, instant freedom, peace and prosperity? Get with the program. Certainly, free people wouldn't choose to hate us because we are so durn likeable. Free people wouldn't allow their government to drag them into a needless war....er, um, okay, bad example. But you know what I mean. I wish it were so.

I am an anti deficit, anti gun control, pro drilling in ANWR, liberal. Either that or I am a pro choice, pro science and pro gay marriage conservative. Then again, I am against torture, illegal wiretaps and Dick Cheney so I guess after all is said and done I am a fascist.

I don't know, that kind of thing is governed by state law so it would vary from place to place. Most states have some sort of statute dealing with criminal negligence. To get a little technical, this would be an assault if it were "intentional" and that word has a meaning in the law that goes beyond specific intent. It could include conduct so reckless, so careless, that the law implies intent to do harm. If you fire a gun into a crowd of people, you can't argue that you "didn't mean to hurt anyone". Even though you might not have had that specific intent, your conduct was so reckless, so clearly likely to result in harm that the intent to do harm is implicit in your actions. It would be preposterous to suggest that Cheney specifically intended to shoot anyone let alone this particular fellow. However, that doesn't end the discussion as to whether a crime was committed. That is why I find his statement in the Hume interview that he saw the guy fall to be a critical one. It means there was nothing obscuring his sight, no trick of the light that hid the victim so that Cheney could not see him. If that were so, that same obstruction or trick of the light would have also kept him from seeing the guy fall. What then is the explanation for having shot him? He was there to be seen, he was not inivisible. Cheney was able to see him, there was no trick of the light (sun in his eyes, shadows, etc) and there wasn't anything partially obstructing his vision either (brush, trees, etc.). Why then did he shoot a guy 30 yards away when he was able to see him? What, excluding the absurd idea that he meant to shoot him, are the possibilities? Diminished capacity due to alcohol consumption would certainly be a candidate, at the very least something to investigate right away, even if just to make sure it wasn't an issue. The way to determine that is for an experienced officer to interview the shooter as soon after the accident as possible. That was not done here. Therefore, we will likely never know whether alcohol was a factor. I find the delay, the lack of a proper investigation of that aspect of the incident to be significant. Sure, nothing can be proved but that is kind of the point. It could have been easily proved or disproved if the same investigation that the police routinely perform in these situations was done. If you are Dick Cheney and you have a history of DUI's, were seen drinking a beer at lunch and then you shoot a guy in the face, wouldn't you want your sobriety at the time of the shooting to be demonstrated as a rock solid fact? Why pursue a course of action that leaves any doubts as to that issue? He has an entire medical team traveling with him for God's sake, you mean to tell me that they couldn't have done that? Its not like it is a hard thing to do or that its time consuming. Why was it not done? Is it partisan bluster to wonder why the VP's sobriety at the time of the shooting wasn't demonstrated? If had a client involved in a similar situation and I failed to try and determine that fact, one way or the other, I'd be committing malpractice. I think the partisan bluster is coming from those who deride any questions about what happened in this tragic incident as spinning conpiracy theories. The incident is hardly a week old, very little actual evidence has been made public and already the right has concluded it is an open and shut case of a simple accident and that anyone posing questions about what happened is a conspiracy crackpot.

Anyone remember those guys? They were a band in the 70's that were pretty unique, did a satire on syrupy ballads called "Sylvia's Mother" that was a huge top 40 hit as a syrupy ballad. Shel Silverstein, the cartoonist for Playboy, was also an accomplished song writer (he wrote "A boy named Sue" for Johnny Cash and "Unicorn" for the Irish Rovers) and was looking for a band that could interpret his songs when he ran across these guys who had been playing the seediest bars in Union City New Jersey starting in 1968. Their lead singer, Ray Sawyer, had been in a car accident and lost an eye so he wore a patch which is where they got the name "Dr. Hook" from. Dennis Locorriere had a uniquely powerful and versatile voice, unbelievable range and could do more strange voices than Mel Blanc. They had a wild sense of humor, once disguising themselves as another band so that they could open for themselves. They had some great songs like "Looking for kitty", "Who the [eff] is Alice" and some hits you might recall like "Cover of the Rolling Stone", Queen of the Silver Dollar" and "Little bit more". The bars they played were often dangerous. "We would play anything that would make them not hit us" Dennis used to say which is how they developed the ability to play so many styles. One night they were playing in an awful bar called the Sands Lounge because it had plastic palm trees in each corner of the dance floor. That night a burly trucker came in named Wayne Tibbs who, after seeing Ray with a patch over his eye, walked over to him and asked him "You ever see what a shotgun does to a man's face?" Ray said he didn't know but could guess. The guy got a few drinks and kept telling the band that he was going to shoot someone that night. Later on, he was found in the parking lot, drunk, and waving a gun at anyone who came near. The police were called and eventually they were forced to shoot him. While lying on his back, bleeding all over the lot, Tibbs looked up at the cop who shot him and said "Hey, that was a pretty good shot!". That was when rock and roll was rock and roll.

I'm all for shooting Texas lawyers, especially ones who donate so heavily to the GOP. What do you do for a living? We all know it was a hunting accident, that is not the issue. I don't suspect that Dick Cheney tried to intentionally kill that guy. Further, you don't need an elaborate conspiracy theory to explain that maybe Dick had too much to drink and that they delayed a police interview for a day for him to sober up. And yes, refusing to even consider that Cheney should have been promptly interviewed and his condition at the time of the shooting determined is butt-kissing. Clinton lied during a deposition on a question ultimately held to be irrelevant. There was no trial. He was impeached because Republicans controlled the House. Can I assume from your answer that you are in favor of impeaching Bush for violating FISA?

See, and I thought we were just having fun and then you go and get serious.

You know the lack of an ellipsis is actionable here in NY. Treble damages are available. Do you have any substantial assets I could attach? Your beer can collection doesn't count, it's immune from the reach of judgment creditors.

At least you guys have a long, practically fossilized, history to fall back on.

I am not fascinated by golf balls, just by their willingness to tongue wash them. I first noticed it when noted conservative journalist Jeff Guckert a/k/a Gannon, a/k/a "Bulldog" publicly scrubbed the golf balls of Dear Leader during press conferences and in-between his night job as a gay prostitute. Tell me, do you think they start small with marbles or something and work their way up to basket ball size or do they just jump in whenever needed no matter the size? I don't have any conservative friends I can ask.

I know, we can impeach a president over a blow job but god forbid we spend more than a few days talking about a VP shooting a guy in the face. Afterall, VP shootings happen all the time, at least once every century or so. Common as dirt. Can't imagine why anyone is still talking about it or why the fact that they are makes you conservo-butt-kissers so uncomfortable. By all means though, ignore reality and pretend that I am the only one still interested in this story. Just pretend that these stories, dated today, don't exist because it is just me still talking about it: Cheney Shooting story #1 Cheney shooting story #2 Cheney story #3 Cheney story #4 Cheney Story #5 Cheney Story #6

That would explain the pallid complexion and why you so easily relate to him. What is a better nickname for him do you think, "Deady Eye Dick", "DUI Cheney" or "The Go Eff Yourself Before I shoot you in the face VP"? I'd like your input.

Fact: VP was not interviewed by a police officer until the next day. Fact: We have no idea if he was or was not drinking Fact: The reason we have no idea is because of the lack of a police interview Fact: When a person is shot in the face, the police interview the shooter, asap. Fact: Cheney has two prior DUI's Fact: He shot a guy in the face Fact: He said himeself that he saw his victim fall, thus nothing obscured his vision Fact: Cheney is an experienced hunter Fact: Alcoholic hunters who shoot people under the influence go to jail: Alcoholic Hunters Was he unbelievably, ridiculously careless? Absolutely. Was he drunk? Dunno. Do know that intoxication could have been definitively ruled out easily and it wasn't.

I apologize if this seemed like a thinly disguiesed insult, it was not meant that way. I intended it as a direct, crystal clear, totally undisguised insult. My understanding is that such posts are not against the rules here and in fact, in my own opinion, are pretty much encouraged. Rather than rail against the machine, I have joined in on the fun. I thought that was obvious, I even said it directly in an exchange with OGT recently: "You are right, I don't usually call you or your argument stupid but since that is usually your response to me as was the case here, I decided to join in on your fun and adopt your style. It is very liberating." If this means I can no longer have a meaningful discussion with the likes of RK or wacka, well, I will just have to endeavor to persevere witihout such rarities. As I recall, you took a shot at cleaning the place up yourself at one point which led to a lot of frustration. What were they calling you? Fascist? I don't remember but it was something like that.

I know it is rank speculation. I'm not saying he was drunk, just that we don't know if he was or he wasn't and a quick interview with a police officer within an hour of the incident would have nailed it one way or the other. Presuming he wasn't drunk is just as speculative as presuming he wasn't. Reminds me of the many, many, many, many one car accident cases I have worked on. Shockingly, about 80% of them involve drinking and the other 20%, mostly bad weather. That is why one of the first things the officer does is to determine whether alcohol was involved, after securing the accident scene from further danger and getting the right medical help involved of course. I haven't had as many hunting accident cases but of the ones I have had, alcohol has played a major role, almost without fail. Experienced hunters, in the day, 30 yards away, shooter was able to see victim....hmmmm. Shooter has two prior DUI's, admits to the proverbial "I only had one beer" (wish I had a dime for every drunk I've heard that one from). Speculation about the drinking in these circumstances is to be expected. In this case, it likely would have exonerated the VP and silenced any speculation at all that he was drunk if a bac was done within an hour or so of the accident.

As a service to my conservative friends who have refused to be critical of the administration on any issue, I give you the BT-1300 This handy dandy, cutting edge machinery is the cornerstone of testicle management systems everywhere. Your favorite conservative just shot someone in the face? Never fear, the BT-1300 will scrubb those cahones to a spit shine in no time. Stubborn corruption scandal stain got you down? If you act now, you can get the BT-1300 with optional pre-soaker free of charge guaranteed to remove even the most persistent lapses in character leaving behing a gleaming set of brass ones everytime. Secret wiretapping keeping you awake nights? With our special "invoke terrorism to justify anything" rebate, you can upgrade to the BT-1950 for the industrial sized ball washing needed to cover a constitutional crises. The BT-1950 can hold 1,000 balls in the hopper and kick out 400 squeaky clean scrotum fillers per minute, just the speed and capacity you need for the assembly line ball washing your congressional majority requires. Act now while supplies last.

You mean the cops who sent an officer over that evening who was sent away and told to come back the next day, presumably after Dick sobered up? Is that the police you are talking about? I'd like to see a drunk driver try that, "come and interview me tommorow officer, after I have sobered up, spoke to a lawyer or two and made sure all the witnesses have their story straight."

Not a conspiracy to shoot the guy but certainly a planned effort to spin it and hide whatever negatives could be hidden. You don't think they were trying to get everyone's story straight during the time they went black? You don't think they chose that rinky dink local paper without some thought? I read the transcript of that Hume interview and a first year law student could have done a better job. For example, the VP said he saw his victim fall. That means that the victim was not obscured by a bush, a gulley or the sun unless one of those things obscured him when the shot was fired but, in the instant before he fell, somehow vanished so that he could be seen falling. In the law, you are charged with seeing that which was there to be seen. If you or I shot a guy in the face who was in full view, we'd be facing charges. Also, he kept talking about Armstrong being the best eye witness and so that is why they had her contact the press. Yet, she said that when she first saw the secret service people and all running to the scene, her first thought was that he had a heart attack. Doesn't sound to me like she was very close to what happened or saw very much. Maybe the secret service guys got a better look? Well, to interview them a blow job would have to be involved, shooting a guy in the face doesn't qualify. Don't you get it? There could be key details that are being withheld which, if revealed, could fuel even better jokes about all this. Our constitutional rights to all the info we need to laugh our butts off at all this are being violated. I will not remain silent.