dayman Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Absolutely. Can you even name the VPs over the last 50 years? LOL no need to get defensive and lash out. That's fine if you feel that way. It's a little surprising to me to hear you say that but that's just me. To each his own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 LOL no need to get defensive and lash out. That's fine if you feel that way. It's a little surprising to me to hear you say that but that's just me. To each his own I guess. Name one better. Maybe...just maybe Hubert Humphrey. . Biden? Gore? Quayle? Bush? Monday? Rockefeller? Ford? Agnew? Humphrey? Johnson? That's quite an impressive list (I think I got them all). Go ahead pick one and give me a reason. LOL no need to get defensive and lash out. That's fine if you feel that way. It's a little surprising to me to hear you say that but that's just me. To each his own I guess. BTW you asking me if I serious and I say absolutely I'm lashing out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Prevent it? He caused it! Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Name one better. Maybe...just maybe Hubert Humphrey. . Biden? Gore? Quayle? Bush? Monday? Rockefeller? Ford? Agnew? Humphrey? Johnson? That's quite an impressive list (I think I got them all). Go ahead pick one and give me a reason. BTW you asking me if I serious and I say absolutely I'm lashing out? What about the rest of the week? I m know who you meant though. Walter "Fritz" was a great side kick for JC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 What about the rest of the week? I m know who you meant though. Walter "Fritz" was a great side kick for JC. What the hell?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Name one better. Maybe...just maybe Hubert Humphrey. . Biden? Gore? Quayle? Bush? Monday? Rockefeller? Ford? Agnew? Humphrey? Johnson? That's quite an impressive list (I think I got them all). Go ahead pick one and give me a reason. BTW you asking me if I serious and I say absolutely I'm lashing out? i'll take rockefeller for 500, alex. all the rest, in there position of vp, were quite benign (as they should have been). cheney was the only truly malignant vp in that list. "monday" spoke at my commencement from undergrad, but it was on a saturday and he was actually impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 First explain what proof you have of this and second you need to crack open a history book Waiting for the history books to be written on Cheney. Some people say it takes 30 years of distance to view the past with any retrospect. By the time Cheney left office his approval rating was 13%, enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Waiting for the history books to be written on Cheney. Some people say it takes 30 years of distance to view the past with any retrospect. By the time Cheney left office his approval rating was 13%, enough said. Because how you did in office, how you helped defend America, how you shaped history, .........................................all depends on media polling. Idiot. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 was listening to a report on cia analysts yesterday. since the iraq war they have changed protocols regarding prognosticating and predicting future events mostly in response to the bullying that occurred at that time in an effort to justify going to war. many have reported this and cheney was one of the prime offendors. they are much less likely to go out on a limb in their analyses as a result. i don't know if that's a good thing but i think cheney's actions, in part causing it,are bad things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 was listening to a report on cia analysts yesterday. since the iraq war they have changed protocols regarding prognosticating and predicting future events mostly in response to the bullying that occurred at that time in an effort to justify going to war. many have reported this and cheney was one of the prime offendors. they are much less likely to go out on a limb in their analyses as a result. i don't know if that's a good thing but i think cheney's actions, in part causing it,are bad things. I believe that's less a change in the analysis than in their presentation. As I recall, most of the analysts were suggesting that the administration (Cheney and Rumsfeld, in particular) were giving the info far more credit than they objectively deserved (since quite a bit of it was single-sourced). But the flip side of that was: there were a lot more people than just the CIA involved (the multiplicity of intelligence agencies in the US government is amazing, not including the Brits). Given that that multiplicity was basically in agreement on most things, Faulting the CIA for being politically bullied (or the bullies themselves) masks a deeper problem of methodology. Plus..."bullying" is an exaggeration of what was really "confirmation bias". People see what they think they should see, particularly in ambiguous situations with incomplete data. Such as when they're too dumb to recognize their own bias in calling it "bullying". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I believe that's less a change in the analysis than in their presentation. As I recall, most of the analysts were suggesting that the administration (Cheney and Rumsfeld, in particular) were giving the info far more credit than they objectively deserved (since quite a bit of it was single-sourced). But the flip side of that was: there were a lot more people than just the CIA involved (the multiplicity of intelligence agencies in the US government is amazing, not including the Brits). Given that that multiplicity was basically in agreement on most things, Faulting the CIA for being politically bullied (or the bullies themselves) masks a deeper problem of methodology. Plus..."bullying" is an exaggeration of what was really "confirmation bias". People see what they think they should see, particularly in ambiguous situations with incomplete data. Such as when they're too dumb to recognize their own bias in calling it "bullying". that was the word used by the analyst if i recall correctly...will look for the reference later. you can spin it anyway you like, multiple cia officials have publicly stated they felt extraordinary pressure to produce data in support of wmd's and invading iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Ok Hey, that's what Van Jones tells me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 first link that came up when googling the cia piece. amazingly, i fully agree with this bankruptcy attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 (edited) Again! Why do I torture myself reading these posts? The truth does hurt, doesn't it. Perhaps you should come back when you have the ability to handle it. But honestly? I'm beginning to doubt whether you could handle me lying either, or be able to tell the difference. Mr Cheney was a very good VP, which is why he has so many detractors on the left. I would also like to point out the irony of the phrase "So modern GOP still views Bush as Aids" in the title. When, of course,it is common knowledge that Mr. Bush was an honored champion of those fighting Aids around the world. Another term would have been better............... I know, right? With the clown that currently holds that office? IF we are going to be nasty, then: Talking about Cheney is yet another distraction designed to make the monthly ass-raping Biden gives them hurt less. They have a gag-ball with Cheney's name on it. And, after Biden is done, they take it off and it reminds them to talk about Cheney. Edited May 26, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts