Mickey Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 what the hell are you talking about?good grief.....take your conspiracy crap somplace else. don't you know we only deal with FACTS here on the PPP?????? 605603[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I heard it reported Dick prefers to drink Sterno before hunting. 605625[/snapback] Lies Everyone in the know knew he was huffing glue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 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. 605640[/snapback] Fact: Being so hung up on this non-issue is really an embarrassment. It's kinda funny how you fail to recognize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 I heard it reported Dick prefers to drink Sterno before hunting. 605625[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Fact: If this were a liberal politician Mickey would be calling all the current evidence circumstantial and chastising it as yet another "Right Wing Conspiracy." And now back to your regularly scheduled retardia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 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. 605640[/snapback] Guilty on 9 counts of Juxtaposition. Who is? That's for the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 Fact: Being so hung up on this non-issue is really an embarrassment. It's kinda funny how you fail to recognize it. 605644[/snapback] 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I am the only one still interested in this story. it is just me still talking about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 605669[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 sucks to be quoted verbatim.....even if it is taken out of context doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 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 605665[/snapback] Clinton was impeached because he was a president, and an officer of the court, who violated a couple of sacred oaths in the course of a trial. It is that simple. He was not impeached because of sex. Having the ability to stay firmly on planet earth and recognize that this was a hunting accident, not some kind of conspiracy, does not make someone a butt-kisser. Maybe you are taking this so personal because the guy he shot was a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 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 605665[/snapback] I scrolled over those links..... #1 - NY Times 2-6 Washington Post. Do you detect a trend? And wasn't it perjury about a blow job? If perjury about a blow job is ok, wouldn't (even in a VERY extrapolated scenario) perjury about a drunken hunting accident be equally ok in your book? If everyone should have shut up about Clinton, why shouldn't they shut up about Cheney? Should they wait until he commits perjury and then shut up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 sucks to be quoted verbatim.....even if it is taken out of context doesn't it? 605689[/snapback] See, and I thought we were just having fun and then you go and get serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 Clinton was impeached because he was a president, and an officer of the court, who violated a couple of sacred oaths in the course of a trial. It is that simple. He was not impeached because of sex. Having the ability to stay firmly on planet earth and recognize that this was a hunting accident, not some kind of conspiracy, does not make someone a butt-kisser. Maybe you are taking this so personal because the guy he shot was a lawyer? 605695[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 See, and I thought we were just having fun and then you go and get serious. 605780[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 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? 605844[/snapback] True. He didn't have to lie. But he did. Oh well. By the way, I have no idea, so maybe you know. Is there a law against drinking and hunting? We don't know that he was or wasn't drinking, by the way. Is there such thing as a HWI? Violating FISA? I don't know what that is either, so I'll have to get back to you. I won't automatically assume that it's more of your red team blue team partisan bluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 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. 605640[/snapback] I find this eerily similar to the type of character assasination that you're repeatedly complaining about coming from the Republican party. Or is it OK when it comes from a Democrat because y'all are so much more open-minded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I find this eerily similar to the type of character assasination that you're repeatedly complaining about coming from the Republican party. Or is it OK when it comes from a Democrat because y'all are so much more open-minded? 606078[/snapback] "But it's not character assassination. It's all facts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 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. 605844[/snapback] Kind of like AmEx cards. Membership does have privledges. So do some campaiging, send in some money, nominate someone who's not a wacko and take over the house. Until then STFU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 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. 605844[/snapback] Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. Last I checked, there was no "Whoops! That's not relevant!" exception to lying under oath to a grand jury. Which is not to defend anything else about that whole stupid process. Merely to criticize your own stupid "But that's irrelevent" defense of lying under oath in front of a grand jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts