DICK Cheney in action

[deveil]

Hugh,

I think this story says more about the supporters, adulators, and cohorts of Marble, than about Marble himself.

come on, don't hold back. SPELL IT OUT, DUDE! if you don't say it , then i gots no targets. where's the fun in that, i ask you?

[Marco Zee]

Matt,
I guess I should have inserted "option C" for further clarity.

I said previously:
Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a right" .

A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always" as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.

and conversely,

B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?

<< I personally do not believe it is NEVER or ALWAYS appropriate to F Bomb someone (neither A nor B)...see C) below >>

If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his free speech rights. <<Marc seem to be taking this position>>

My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a "higher double standard" ( his words).

OPTION C) : My position is that there are times when someone deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.

So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't have all the facts.

Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL. Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
<<ADDED: if he was inconvenienced by the VP motorcade, then he should have yelled at the Secret Service people....he just had a political "bone to pick" with Cheney, and did so. >>

So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.

Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.

Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F Bombed Leahy to begin with?

I hope this clears things up for you.

Marco

To summarize the three possibilities:
A) It is ALWAYS wrong to F bomb, ergo, both Cheney and Marble are wrong,....or

B) It is ALWAYS right to F Bomb, since it is free speech, ergo Cheney are Marble are both right.....or....

C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not include the F Bomb).

I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for use of the F Bomb than what I said?

Marco

PS: Gary, I'm not pouting, far from it...been busy with work, soccer season, watching the Confirmation Hearings for our next Chief Justice...he is one sharp guy.....those Dems don't have a chance to shoot him down. But it is fun to watch them try, and fail miserably time after time LOL. I thought Biden was gonna blow a gasket !!! Can't wait to get the next nominee up there. I'm pulling for Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown. Then we'll see who drops out next....Stevens or Ginsberg, or both.

[Matthew]

Marco,

Stop trying to obfuscate the issue. This has nothing to do with yelling FIRE in a movie theatre. Each man had some reason for dropping the F-Bomb, both political and otherwise. Plus, the specific motives are unimportant. They were angry and used their free speech to express their anger. So is your choise A or B? And if you have some sort of C again, then please explain your doube standard?

Matthew

[mcelrah]

So far, Roberts looks like a responsible jurist. He has said that
Roe v. Wade is settled law. We shall see... I'm not up on all the
other prospective Supreme Court nominees, but I seem to recall that
Brown is a judicial activist, reaching for certain outcomes rather
than following the law where it leads. - Hugh

On 15 Sep 2005, at 23:27, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Matt,
> I guess I should have inserted "option C" for further clarity.
>
> I said previously:
> Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a
> right" .
>
> A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to
> besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always"
> as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
>
> and conversely,
>
> B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have
> been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
>
>
>>
>>
>
> If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and
> Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as
> they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F
> bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his
> free speech rights.
>
> My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they
> appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for
> Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and
> enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double
> standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a
> "higher double standard" ( his words).
>
> OPTION C) : My position is that there are times when someone
> deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or
> justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you
> unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP
> discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and
> have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
>
> So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate
> justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is
> warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know
> what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I
> know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't
> have all the facts.
>
> Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his
> justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with
> Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL.
> Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as
> Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
>
>
> So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F
> bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and
> Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb
> Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a
> response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
>
> Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in
> the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire.
> Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are
> free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail
> for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps
> bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in
> legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am
> not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an
> informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything
> adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
>
> Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is
> acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This
> comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But
> if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F
> Bombed Leahy to begin with?
>
> I hope this clears things up for you.
>
> Marco
>
> To summarize the three possibilities:
> A) It is ALWAYS wrong to F bomb, ergo, both Cheney and Marble are
> wrong,....or
>
> B) It is ALWAYS right to F Bomb, since it is free speech, ergo
> Cheney are Marble are both right.....or....
>
> C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the
> discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I
> don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was
> clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not
> include the F Bomb).
>
> I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble
> opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for
> use of the F Bomb than what I said?
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Gary, I'm not pouting, far from it...been busy with work,
> soccer season, watching the Confirmation Hearings for our next
> Chief Justice...he is one sharp guy.....those Dems don't have a
> chance to shoot him down. But it is fun to watch them try, and
> fail miserably time after time LOL. I thought Biden was gonna blow
> a gasket !!! Can't wait to get the next nominee up there. I'm
> pulling for Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown. Then we'll see who
> drops out next....Stevens or Ginsberg, or both.
>

[deveil]

But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco

...
this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was straining to be....allow me to add the words,' obscene' and 'vulgar'.

.
an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation' employs a specific tactic over and over... 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if need be. .......

[deveil]

whereas there may be a concern among some (myself among them) that i, markemX, my personal style of hyperbole, would be a detriment to participation by those of, let's say, a moderate republican viewpoint...perhaps such persons may actually be more intimidated by the idea of being associated with someone, purporting to be from their side of the tracks,... who would feign sincere, serious representation of a particular school of thought and/or philosophy and/or loyalties... yet be willing to speak in in such disgusting,rabid, irresponsible fashion...unselfconsciously , unblinkingly, un(you-name-it)

hey.....it's just a thought (admittedly self serving, but not necessarily therefore illegitimate).

[Marco Zee]

Matt, You said: <<Marco, Stop trying to obfuscate the issue. This has nothing to do with yelling FIRE in a movie theatre. Each man had some reason for dropping the F-Bomb, both political and otherwise. Plus, the specific motives are unimportant. They were angry and used their free speech to express their anger. So is your choise A or B? And if you have some sort of C again, then please explain your doube standard? Matthew>>

I stand by my "C" position stated earlier. I wholeheartedly disagree with you that the "specific motives are unimportant".
It is my opinion the the specific motives are critical in determining if the F-Bomb was used appropriately, or not. Just being angry for "any ol' reason" does not, in my opinion, give you the "right' to F-Bomb someone.

Look at two schoolyard examples:

Example 1) the teacher tells the class to go back to the classroom because recess is over. A boy gets angry because he loves recess, and F-bombs the teacher. The boy has free speech, doesn't he? Is this an appropriate use of the F-bomb? Most people would say no.

Example 2) the same teacher finds the same boy alone in the bathroom, and demands the boy strokes the teacher's now-exposed manhood. The boy gets angry, F-bombs the teacher, and runs out of the bathroom. The same boy got angry at the same teacher for two entirely different reasons, and used his free speech to say the same thing. Is this an appropriate use of the F-bomb? Most people would say yes.

So, the critical determinant as to the appropriateness of its use hinges on the specific motivations that illicited the anger. Hence, option C.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Marco--your view of the world gets more draconian all the time (jah mein furher!)!

So I see that your system of law is based on the "justness of anger" principal! Now there's a concept that is a foundation of true democracy if there ever was one!

emperor Ming

[Marco Zee]

Hey Marc,

That's a nice conglomeration of words. How about Justifiable Anger?

Wasn't this country founded on the basis of Justifiable Anger ???

Remember...TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ???

This was a major factor in revolting from England. The Colonists were angry with the King for taxation without representation. I wouldn't be surprised if they even F-bombed the King's troops at Valley Forge.

And I'm certain there were plenty of nay-sayers and doom & gloom types back then that did not want to revolt from the King too, fearing that the challenge was too great and too hopeless, and that Colonists had never had a democracy before, so why chance it now. Sound vaguely familiar? Nice analogy, eh?

Marco

[deveil]

Hey Marc,
Sound vaguely familiar? Nice analogy, eh?
Marco

no.
pretty damn weak actually.
if you thought that was good...well no wonder nothing is getting through to you
stick to straight BS and suckerpunching
they seem to be your strengths

[mcelrah]

Yeah, I dig that Taxation Without Representation slogan - it's on all
the DC license plates. Republicans won't let DC have a voting rep
'cause they know it'd be a Democrat.
I think what you and Rance call hatred from the left is...
Justifiable Anger. - Hugh

On 17 Sep 2005, at 18:06, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Hey Marc,
>
> That's a nice conglomeration of words. How about Justifiable Anger?
>
> Wasn't this country founded on the basis of Justifiable Anger ???
>
> Remember...TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ???
>
> This was a major factor in revolting from England. The Colonists
> were angry with the King for taxation without representation. I
> wouldn't be surprised if they even F-bombed the King's troops at
> Valley Forge.
>
> And I'm certain there were plenty of nay-sayers and doom & gloom
> types back then that did not want to revolt from the King too,
> fearing that the challenge was too great and too hopeless, and that
> Colonists had never had a democracy before, so why chance it now.
> Sound vaguely familiar? Nice analogy, eh?
>
> Marco
>

[deveil]

hey! ya just don't try and take a bone from a dog -
'course he's gonna take it personal!
after all, the cad was [expletive] ing with his bidness !

from today's wash post, style section, 'a web of truth':

..."[expletive] yourself!" former haliburton chief executive and current veep dick cheney snapped at a senator last year in an exchange related to greenhouse's allegations.
...with the war looming , the agency wanted to award a no-bid "emergency" contract to kellogg, brown and root (a halliburton subsidiary) that was originally scheduled to last for two years - and up to five years - to provide a range of services in iraq.
a potential five-year emergency? worth billions? on a no-bid contract?
greenhouse thought that was absurd.
...the fbi opened an investigation - still ongoing-into alleged price-gouging, overbilling and awarding of sole-source contracts to a politically connected company...

turns out it wasn't the color of his tie!