Pity for the Impotent Dick
 

I really don't know why so many people are piling on this guy.
He's been a straight shooter in the past. My guess is that his hunting buddy and he are still "friends", though I doubt they've been looking for quails lately. Fast trigger, shooting fast...Dick has had problems.
But look at all the good he's done!
Halliburton, and subsidiary Brown, Kellog & Root... all good!
Now Rahm wants to defund him? Oh my? Is Dick going to go limp?
Will he rise again?
The "Exectutive Branch" needs to STAND UP!...unless it's not part of that body. Shoot!
Straight and firm is the way to go!

So, what is all of this unviagra like behavior really about?
Someone please explain.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/

And now the Washington Post? I remember what happened to the last guy named Dick that they went after.
Is there no mercy?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

LOL you're so punny.

This is an OUTRAGE!!! To say these kinds of things about one of the most patriotic vice presidents this country has ever, EVER! had.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-...p_b_53519.html

Come on, Dick!!! STAND UP!! Don't go limp!
Dick, you must THRUST BACK!
Penetrate!
You have the POWER, Dick!

Dts, An honest question,
Are you really that bored, that you must sit around and come up with ways to post common dreams or huggington post articles? It would be great if you actually came up with your own ideas instead of posting something that someone else wrote. If i wanted to read those articles, I would go to that site.

Skippy,
Believe it or not, some of the things that are being said about my beloved Dick are just so...

so...

Well, I can't put "it" into words.

The claims that he's not part of the "executive branch"!!! Indeed!
Dick knows his branch!

Look at what these folks are saying about Dick:
http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=900

When Dick finally comes up, I hope he sticks it right in their b-u-t-t-s!!

GO DICK!!!! GO!!!

And from one of my favorite books...

Dick goes up.
Up Dick.
Up.
Jane comes down.
Down Jane.
Down.
See Spot run.
Run Spot run!

Looks like DTS can't keep Dick out of his mouth.

Skippy, all penis jokes aside, DTS is posting this (I assume) because recently many things Cheney has said have come to light that make it pretty clear he considers himself above the law. From the Washington Post:

"For months, Olson and his Justice Department colleagues had pleaded for modest shifts that would shore up the government’s position. Hamdi, the American, had languished in a Navy brig without a hearing or a lawyer for two and a half years. Shafiq Rasul, a British citizen at Guantanamo Bay, had been held even longer. Olson could make Cheney’s argument that courts had no jurisdiction, but he wanted to “show them that you at least have some system of due process in place” to ensure against wrongful detention, according to a senior Justice Department official who closely followed the debates.

The vice president’s counsel fought and won again. He argued that any declaration of binding rules would restrict the freedom of future presidents and open the door to further lawsuits. On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in the Hamdi case that detainees must have a lawyer and an opportunity to challenge their status as enemy combatants before a “neutral decision maker.” The Rasul decision, the same day, held 6 to 3 that Guantanamo Bay is not beyond the reach of federal law."

In short, these kind of actions mean Cheney believes the Executive Branch has the right to imprison you, without charges, with no access to a lawyer or contact with your family, torture you, and never face any sort of legal ramifications. You could die in prison, never having been charged with anything, or with ever being permitted to know why you were imprisoned. This is a very big deal. This is supposed to happen in banana republics, not in the USA. And just because you don't want to read the articles doesn't mean it's not happening. And it's happening because somewhere along the way, we got cowed enough to allow it.

I'm sorry; I should have posted the link to the complete WaPo article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/chene...esi/index.html

First to Pillow Putz,
No Dick in my mouth.

Next to Genuine Risk,
BINGO!
You might find this to be of interest. The calls for impeachment will increase, and if you read this, you might be amazed to see which ones are going to toss Dick like a urine stained jock strap.
http://newsforreal.com/

I've always loved pressure on Dick.
Prediction: Serious "health issue" within two months.
Dick will not rise again.

The democrats are stupid enough to try and impeach him. Right around election time, too. Might as well give the white house to the elephants for another 4 years so you can cut and paste links from your half-a-fag bookmarked sites.

Ben Affleck is about the most rational out of the bunch. He said dems are afraid to be called pussies. And he's right. They were elected to congress to change things. Here we are 6 months later and they haven't done jack sh.it. It's too late to start the impeachment process now.

Pillow,
If you read the last link I put up, you might be surprised.
It won't be the Dems (just my prediction).
As it states in that link, if it seems likely that the Dems will win the 2008 elections, take a guess at the party that won't want a VP to have the same powers as Cheney has established.
Lots more rats are going to be jumping off this sinking ship.
Watch them swim away.

How will the dems have any shot with the top 3 they currently have? Do you honestly think that someone as polarizing as Hillary has a shot? Obama? Sadly the south isn't ready for that, and the muslim deal will get beat into the ground. Edwards? Maybe, but Hillary and Obama aren't helping his chances of getting the nomination.

Watch and see what happens. We'll have another actor turned politician in the White House.

You might have faith in our fellow americans, I don't.

I'll watch and see what happens.
I don't like Hillary.
Edwards? Maybe.
This might be one to watch for, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least...
Gore/Obama.
Stay tuned.
The Repubs are going to do some fancy dancing. Guilliani? Losing support.
9/11 facts are coming out.
Romney? Mormon Church deferment requests. McCain? Lots o luck. Running on "surge"?
The actor? That's their best hope? Where is going to announce? At the Creation Museum? Will his platform include vetoes of stem cell research? Is he going to run against "illigal immigrants"? His best line so far has been an attack on Michael Moore. Oh! That's vision!
As you said, "I'll watch". And I won't be surprised when a late development happens with the Dems. It also wouldn't be a surprise to see a 3rd party candidate come along (Bloomberg/Hagel).
Should be interesting.

Yeah! How dare the Dems not fix six years' worth of Bush's incompetence and Cheney's tyranny in six months! How dare they! Why, they should be able to push anything they want through with their what, one vote majority (and it's Lieberman. Give me a break)?

There's plenty to be mad at the Dems for not accomplishing, but getting angry because they don't have a 60-vote majority and thus can't get anything past Bush's buddies in Congress is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

Six years of gutting worker safety, environmental regulations, selling public lands off to private corporations and endorsing torture, illegal detentions, the suspension of habeus corpus, Katrina, attorney firings etc- all under a Republican Congress- apparently you were fine with that. But the fact that the Dems haven't fixed all that in six months, and you're accusing them of not having done anything? What? Especially seeing as how they are barely the majority.

Though I suppose it means you're holding Dems to a higher ethical standard than you do Repubs. We're flattered. ;)

DTS, they're not going to impeach Cheney. Because America doesn't care. As long as we convince ourselves that it's some terrorist-lovin' towelhead being imprisoned without charges, we don't care. As a poster on another forum so elegantly put it, no one wakes up saying, "You know what thisi country needs? A little more fascism." No, instead we just hit the snooze button over and over until we wake up and go, "What the hell happened?" as we and ours are being taken away without cause.

We'll see what happens in 2008. I can't believe the Bush and Cheney cabal would seize all the power they have only to risk handing it over in another two years. Oh well; time to hit snooze again.

Works for me!:p

Did they vote on this or did Dick Cheney illegally order it?

People are being seized out of suburbia on a daily basis!!

Impeaching is so passe

GR,
I understand what your saying and you post is precisely what I mean. I want to read posts that are least rationale, but it irrates me to no end to see someone just post a link just regurgitate what the article said. I can read, what im interested in is the posters original thoughts are on the subject. If i just wanted to read the news I would. I don't agree with a good a deal of what you and dts say, but that doesn't mean I enjoy reading your viewpoints. People who have differing viewpoints help to refine how i view a problem or situation. My point is this, come up with something original to a situation. Great discussion happens when people of opposing viewpoints can share viewpoints in a civil and meaningful way. Making light of a topic or the overt usage satire are not always the best weapons. In the future, I'll just ignore his posts, I was merely trying to generate an actual discussion on what I deem to be an interesting topic.

The Democrats can't get out of the way of themselves,much less do something positive in Congress!

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

This administration has proved beyond a doubt that when you put people who have open contempt for government in charge, they will do a crummy job running it.

Ah, Timm, one can always count on you to toss out regurgitated Rush Limbaugh with nothing to back it up. I'll go check the Margaret Sanger thread since I think you've posted on it since then. ;)

I think though, the posting of links is to attempt to give some credence to what one is saying- it's all well and good for me to say "Cheney supports torture" but if I can't back it up with facts, it's just me yammering, much like right-wingers who scream about Hillary being a lesbian (how someone's sexual preferences, true or not, became a criticism of character, I don't know, but they sure like to throw that rumor around a lot without any backup). Admittedly, I don't see the point in posting someone else's commentary, unless it says something funnier or more eloquently than I can (and lots of people say lots of things funnier or more eloquently than I can; it's why those people get paid to do it).

I like to read most of the links posted, though, and I think it's worth taking a look at opposing views, because many times, if the writer is any good, he or she will have some points to make. And if I disagree with the viewpoint, I need to be able to articulate why (a good example is the article condemning the HPV vaccine that Timm posted a while back- read the article thoroughly and it was clear it was playing fast and loose with the facts, but I had to read it through a few times to figure out what was not ringing true, and that improved my critical thinking skills, so thanks for that, Timm. Seriously. :) ).

What I find irritating, honestly, is people attacking someone's points without reading the links the person has posted to support them. It's like they're so terrified they'll find something to change their minds they won't look at it. Read the link. Or don't comment on it. Whatever. Not so hard. Lord knows I'm not perfect in that respect myself, but at least I try.

You said that in a more respectful manner than I would have. Thanks.

You are kidding right? You cant be serious?

Right, but then just don't comment on it. Because it makes the respondant look dumb, and depending on the tone of the responding post, also angry and mean to say, "That's a stupid link I didn't read." A lot of the responses aren't so much funny as they are just mean (and I've seen this on both sides, so I'm not pointing fingers at just one side) and that makes me think less of the person responding. It's easy to call names and throw out what one thinks are witty bon mots but in fact are just schoolyard-level bullying. Address the issue or don't. The issue. Must remember that myself. ;)

Next president= Hillary

They're certainly being seized out of suburban Baghdad daily.

GR with all due respect New Orleans needs to be rebuilt in a place other than a river delta. Building a city next to an ocean that is 15 ft below sea level is just plain stupid. The Corps of Engineers knows this. You can levy, and canal all you want, and it will not help the situation when the right storm strikes again, which will most certainly happen.

Off topic. Sorry. Back to Cheney. And that rounds it off to 2,540 posts. Laters.

Hopefully Bloomberg can turn $500 Million into a win and we'll have a president who actually accomplished something while being held accountable.

Congress right now is a total joke. Congressmen have to start running for reelection as soon as they are voted in and forget about the Senate. Senators are the crown princes of our society. There is actually very little incentive for Senators to do anything other than worry about being reelected.

People dislike the republicans for their religious connection and the current administration, not so much for their flaunting power -- since they all do it -- but there certainly appears to be an almost measurable smugness as they go about it.

It's really too bad for Bush. He has no chance for being remembered during the next 20 years for anything other than Iraq.

And screw the Democrats. Their campaigning on earmark reform was a sham as they almost all recently declined to publish their own earmarks, choosing to now call it 'legislatively-directed spending' instead of pork. And while everyone agrees immigration reform is needed, the Democrats will fight to the death before allowing something to pass. It's obvious they do not want a solution. They want the issue.

Screw 'em all.

Vote none of the above!!

Genuine Risk,
Does it surprise you that those that complain about links regarding Cheney, despite not having read them, have yet to post a comment concerning Cheney? Disagreeing with views seems ok to me, but childish attacks on the person that posts those differing views shows the bankruptcy of "thought".
Back to discussion of the vice president, please.

i really wonder tho how much of an open mind people have--if you are far left, or far right, or dyed in the wool conservative or republican, you won't change your mind one whit based on any link anyone posts. if you read it and disagree ( and chances are you will) exactly what have you accomplished by reading it? or the link posted will face accusations by one side of being biased for the other. seems also that one side is all for using such an argument, as long as the other side is the one being swayed to what is right and true!

yeah, dick cheney is what he is. not as bad as some say, or as good as others. he's your typical pol, the R version of harry reid, who is what he is as well. they are party members who toe the party line for ever and ever amen. now pass the collection basket.