Cheney shoots something other than his own foot

[Terry in Crapchester]

If someone tells a lie under oath, they cannot be "trapped" by the lie.

What does that have to do with the fact that Cheney got drunk and shot someone about the head and shoulders?

True dat. It's amazing that a thread about a hunting accident involving Cheney morphed into a Clinton thread. He must really be in the righties' dome.

[BSmack]

If someone tells a lie under oath, they cannot be "trapped" by the lie.

What does that have to do with the fact that Cheney got drunk and shot someone about the head and shoulders?

True dat. It's amazing that a thread about a hunting accident involving Cheney morphed into a Clinton thread. He must really be in the righties' dome.

This is Godwin's Law all over again.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Clinton or blowjobs approaches 1.

[RadioFan]

Rack Roach.

[Cicero]

If someone tells a lie under oath, they cannot be "trapped" by the lie.

What does that have to do with the fact that Cheney got drunk and shot someone about the head and shoulders?

He was drunk?? link?

[Terry in Crapchester]

What does that have to do with the fact that Cheney got drunk and shot someone about the head and shoulders?

True dat. It's amazing that a thread about a hunting accident involving Cheney morphed into a Clinton thread. He must really be in the righties' dome.

You can thank Jimmy Meds and Eaglebauer for Clinton's appearance in this thread.

Actually, it was Sirfindafold who first mentioned Clinton, way back on Page 2 or 3, IIRC. In any event, Jimmy Meds is hardly a liberal.

And you can thank Terry for my comments on the Clinton debacle.

I think not. You first commented on it before I did. viewtopic.php?t=14088&postdays=0&postor ... &start=250

The duplicity you guys show is riotous.

Clinton's DNA is splattered on an intern's dress, and you fervently contend that Clinton didn't perjure himself when he testified with respect to that woman, Miss Lewinsky:

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No.

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

MR. BENNETT: I object because I don't know that he can remember.

JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, it's real short. He can – I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one.

Definition of Sexual Relations
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -

(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

(2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or

(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.

Yet, you guys are willing to conclude that Cheney was "drunk" when he shot Whittington with bird shot notwithstanding a complete lack of evidence to support any such conclusion. Rock on, sheep. Rock on.

Where did I say Cheney was drunk? Of course, he does have two previous DUI's (that I know of), but I suppose it's possible they're in his past.

[TenTallBen]

Why is this thread not in the spin zone? oh yeah, I know....it's a repub hayting thread.

Who gives a fuck about any law making shitbag? They are ALL full of shit. Move on and live your lives for crying out loud.

[PSUFAN]

TTB, you're always good for a post like that in a well-attended thread. I suppose the participants have had their arms twisted to necessitate their involvement. However, your presence was neither expected, nor, once occasioned, of perceptible use.

If you've got nothing to say, then don't fill your jowls with the anklemeat of those who do.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I stand corrected. I responded to BSmack first.

Thank you.

Not to mention that duplicity certainly is not relegated to one side of the political spectrum, certainly not on this board.

The same people who were so offended that Clinton lied about a consensual extramarital affair apparently are fine with the fact that Bush lied about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

And the same people who condemned Clinton for having a wandering eye have wondered aloud why John Edwards never traded in his wife for a more attractive model.

[PSUFAN]

Myself, I have a gut-level feeling that Clinton lied about his philandering.

I have the same gut-level feeling that Bush and Cheney lied about their reasons for going to war with Iraq.

I can't dismiss that feeling simply because I know that other presidents lied in their turn. I would be foolish to expect something different from such successful political animals - people who have won the Highest Office in the Land.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The same people who were so offended that Clinton lied about a consensual extramarital affair apparently are fine with the fact that Bush lied about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

And there you go again...

A lie is "a statement that one knows is false that is made with the intent to deceive".

Clinton definitely lied, under oath, when he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. That is, unless Hillary gave Monica a condom filled with POTUS juice and told her to dump a load on her dress...

Bush did not lie about Iraq. He, like many others, may have made a decision based on information that proved not to be accurate, but that is not a lie. Now, if you have proof that Bush knew that the intelligence reports were false, and yet he intentionally deceived the Senate and House to authorize the use of force against Iraq based on that false intelligence, you've got something. But you don't. And you know you don't.

He lied about the reliability of the intelligence.

[Eaglebauer]

Bush did not lie about Iraq. He, like many others, may have made a decision based on information that proved not to be accurate, but that is not a lie. Now, if you have proof that Bush knew that the intelligence reports were false, and yet he intentionally deceived the Senate and House to authorize the use of force against Iraq based on that false intelligence, you've got something. But you don't. And you know you don't.

The proof is all over the place. You have to willfully blind yourself to it NOT to see it.

The depth of the lies are so much more vast though that we don't have the convenience of a cum-stained dress to prove it.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Myself, I have a gut-level feeling that Clinton lied about his philandering.

I have the same gut-level feeling that Bush and Cheney lied about their reasons for going to war with Iraq.

I can't dismiss that feeling simply because I know that other presidents lied in their turn. I would be foolish to expect something different from such successful political animals - people who have won the Highest Office in the Land.

Most modern Presidents have lied.

Johnson and Nixon both lied about Vietnam. Nixon also lied about Watergate.

Reagan and Poppy Bush both lied about Iran-Contra.

Clinton lied about his sex life. And W lied about the reliability of intelligence data underlying his reason to go to war with Iraq. I also believe that he lied about his reasons for wanting to go to war with Iraq, although I can't prove that.

[Terry in Crapchester]

And there you go again...

A lie is "a statement that one knows is false that is made with the intent to deceive".

Clinton definitely lied, under oath, when he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. That is, unless Hillary gave Monica a condom filled with POTUS juice and told her to dump a load on her dress...

Bush did not lie about Iraq. He, like many others, may have made a decision based on information that proved not to be accurate, but that is not a lie. Now, if you have proof that Bush knew that the intelligence reports were false, and yet he intentionally deceived the Senate and House to authorize the use of force against Iraq based on that false intelligence, you've got something. But you don't. And you know you don't.

He lied about the reliability of the intelligence.

Oh. Bush knew it was unreliable, yet he said it was reliable? Interesting.

Bush certainly knew it was less reliable than his administration had represented it as being.

Where were the other people who knew it was unreliable when the authorization to go to war was granted?

Most of them were in the Bush Administration. A number have since come forward -- O'Neill, Clarke, etc.

[Moving Sale]

Where were the other people who knew it was unreliable when the authorization to go to war was granted?

We were telling him to stop lying to us.

Look you dense fuck, he admits he lied in the Downing St memos.

And what does that have to do with the VP getting drunk and shooting a man in the face?


Cicero,
He admitted that he got drunk before he shot the dude. Where have YOU been all week?

[RadioFan]

Bush did not lie about Iraq.

Technically, no, he didn't.

But he implied Saddam Hussein was a direct threat to this country.

Complete bullshit, and the notion itself was a lie.

Imo, he and others DID lie, in that -- the war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs, nor any sort of direct threat to this country, nor any sort of plausible, verifiable tie (of 9/11) to Saddam (outside of Saddam funding Palestinian terrorists, of which he is far from alone). Hell, he even stated so. We're there because this administration wants to rearrange the political makeup of the region. Period.

Only that couldn't be used as a justification for war, politically.

Let's not coat it in a bunch of higher-than-thou, sanctamonious bullshit. He lied. Right war, wrong selling point.

And Clinton lied about what, again? History will judge whose lie was more significant, obviously.

[Moving Sale]

Bush did not lie about Iraq.

Technically, no, he didn't.

But he implied Saddam Hussein was a direct threat to this country.

'Implied?' WTFRU talking about?

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? "

Oct. 7, '02

From the same speech..."It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

How is that not a lie?

Just because other people were telling you the same thing back then doesn't make it not a lie. Even if he believes it to be true it still a lie because he knows that he has no proof it is true.

[War Wagon]

Imo...

No shit?

We're there because this administration wants to rearrange the political makeup of the region. Period.

You're not very bright, are you RF?

We are there because of OIL. Period.

I'd ask how old you are, but dangit, any schoolgirl knows this.

Please try to obtain at least a rudimentary education before posting again.

[RadioFan]

Again, it is implied.

A little lesson in advertising 101:

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? "

Average American, "Oh, Ok. We better stop him, NOW!"

[RadioFan]

We are there because of OIL. Period.

Have another drink, Whitey.

Sincerely,

The Illuminati, and oil doubling in price and not going down anytime soon since we've been there, dumbass.

[War Wagon]

Have another drink...

Don't mind if I do, but it won't change the fact that you're a clueless dumbfuck.

Which part of "get an education" didn't you understand?

Hint: It's going to take more than 12 minutes, but I'm patient.

[Mister Bushice]

Too late RF. Whitey's liver deep in liquid courage.

[War Wagon]

Too late RF. Whitey's liver deep in liquid courage.

And as per usual, you're deep into being a stoopid cunt.

[Diogenes]

Why is this thread not in the spin zone? oh yeah, I know....it's a repub hayting thread.

Who gives a fuck about any law making shitbag? They are ALL full of shit. Move on and live your lives for crying out loud.

TTB, you're always good for a post like that in a well-attended thread. I suppose the participants have had their arms twisted to necessitate their involvement. However, your presence was neither expected, nor, once occasioned, of perceptible use.

If you've got nothing to say, then don't fill your jowls with the anklemeat of those who do.

Are you denying the double standard?

If someone were to start a thread about Al Gore trashing the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, it would be shuffled off to Siberia before it reached page two.

[PSUFAN]

It's the cunt way - to cry about a political bias guiding the placement of threads around here.

In that, you and Gunslinger are cuntbrothers. You both cry that the political orientation of the mods and admins stands against you. It's absurd, actually. There is a broad variety of political representation here.

Stop crying about the Blue Meanies.

As for this thread - the whole nation was talking about the Cheney shooting incessantly. This thread belonged exactly where it was.

Now - you regard the Spin Zone as "Siberia". I find that interesting. The same folks who discuss politics here do so in there. I'm often reading threads there, as are many other folks. I'm not sure why you feel so offended if a political thread gets moved there, do you miss a larger stage on which to abase yourself?

[Gunslinger]

In that, you and Gunslinger are cuntbrothers. You both cry that the political orientation of the mods and admins stands against you. It's absurd, actually. There is a broad variety of political representation here.

What is this retarded shit?

Someone hire a bouncing ball for PSUFAN, he's not following along and making shit up.

[PSUFAN]

Follow along with this: you've done your share of screeching about politics being your obstacle here, just as Dio is doing now, and TTB seems to log in only to do. The only obstacle for you here is your (in)ability to hold your own with posting.

[Gunslinger]

Follow along with this: you've done your share of screeching about politics being your obstacle here, just as Dio is doing now, and TTB seems to log in only to do. The only obstacle for you here is your (in)ability to hold your own with posting.

I followed along and your post had some problems with the english language. I'm not game for grammar smack, but one of your sentences made no fucking sense. Sometimes you can ration what the poster was meaning and thats fine. I post sometimes while shitting, so I don't consider this form of communication as an exam.

I've never bitched about the mods here. I've never stated there was a bias on this board. I post. When it comes to politics, there are certain posters who are fucking cult lunatics of the Republican party. As there are many of these nutjobs all across the US. It's the reason they have their own news channel, their own medium (radiowaves if you are a dumbfuck) of communication.

The average American generally doesn't post on a message board of any kind. It takes a certain personality to post on message boards. One of those personality types happens to be cult looney right wing nutjobs. And I loathe them and wish others would start not taking them seriously. You've got a wing of this board that posts on another message board of a man who posts on about 15 right wing message boards, has his own right wing website, and basically his fat ass fingers have grown into his keyboard (shutyomouth).

Get your fucking facts straight and 90% of my posts are more creative and funnier than any shit you put out. Just because I don't have "my internet buddies" following up to RACK me, doesn't mean I don't produce some quality shit.

And I have never complained about the mods and really don't even know who they are, cuz I don't care.

[Diogenes]

It's the cunt way - to cry about a political bias guiding the placement of threads around here.

In that, you and Gunslinger are cuntbrothers. You both cry that the political orientation of the mods and admins stands against you. It's absurd, actually. There is a broad variety of political representation here.

Who's 'crying', cunt?

TTB made a valid point and you came back with the 'well-attended thread' comment. The only reason the thread is well attended is because the forum is. Do you think this thread would be as long as it is if it was moved as soon as it was started? And you've had at least four other idiot threads on the same uberscandal in the last week, none of wich were moved. All I asked is wether you were going to admit there was a double standard here, I'll take your answer as a no. You won't admit it, that is. As far as the 'crying, I didn't mention it when the other thread was moved or even bring up the subject. But carry on with your Inky ways, Dave.

[Diego in Seattle]

Here ya go, Dio......