Don't know if anyone's seen this. It happened on the Senate Floor. Senator Leahy of Vermont stepped up to say "hello" to Cheney. Cheney took the opportunity to complain about Leahy's attacks on the awarding of Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Naturally, Leahy had his own beefs, pointing out he and colleagues didn't appreciate the silence of Cheney and others while those who opposed a certain judicial nominee were being labeled "anti-Catholic."
Evidently, Cheney ran out of coherent comments at that point. And he has announced he's not apologizing - that he "felt better" after saying it.
Remind me again about how this "family values" and "role model" stuff works?
quote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Typically a break from partisan warfare, this year's Senate class photo turned smiles into snarls as Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly used profanity toward one senior Democrat, sources said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was on the receiving end of Cheney's ire, confirmed that the vice president used profanity during Tuesday's class photo.
A spokesman for Cheney confirmed there was a "frank exchange of views."
Using profanity on the Senate floor while the Senate is session is against the rules. But the Senate was technically not in session at the time and the normal rules did not apply, a Senate official said.
The story, which was recounted by several sources, goes like this:
Cheney, who as president of the Senate was present for the picture day, turned to Leahy and scolded the senator over his recent criticism of the vice president for Halliburton's alleged war profiteering.
Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and Democrats have suggested that while serving in the Bush administration he helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm, including a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq.
Cheney's office has said repeatedly that the vice president has no role in government contracting and has severed all financial ties with the Texas-based oil services conglomerate.
Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. He resigned when he became George Bush's running mate.
In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."
quote:Cheney, interviewed by Fox News Friday, said he had no regrets about his remarks to Leahy. "I felt better after I said it," and he added, "A lot of my colleagues felt what I said badly needed to be said."
It's really interesting to see the VP explain his behavior this way. Instead of saying "I feel I have been treated unfairly by this man. I was tired and resorted to an obscenity.", He goes with: "it made me feel better. Cool."
Nice role modeling, Mr. Cheney.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
F*** poor people!
Posted by Ezzlan (Member # 6569) on :
I think it was the New York Times that referred to it as Cheney telling Leahy to perform an "anatomically impossible sexual act."
Euphemism hall of fame.
[ June 26, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Ezzlan ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
You know what? That actually kinda makes me like him... *Shifts eyes guiltily*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It goes back to the question? Do I want a President who behaves better than I would, or do I want a president who shares my vices so that I feel less alone. I'm not looking for buddy, I'm looking for a leader and inspirer.
I'm not saying that I would not have done the same thing, I do know that I would be contrite, and that I ought not have done it.
[ June 26, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
It doesn't do that for me, Book. Leahy was just exchanging pleasantries. Cheney started in on him and then Leahy reminded him he had reasons to feel wronged by Republicans. At that point, Cheney seems to have run out of things to say.
I think it's safe to say that both Bush and Cheney see themselves as role models.
For kids reading the news, what does the following communicate?
"It made me feel better. I won't apologize."
(yeah, I'm paraphrasing here)
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I don't support why he's doing it, but his bluntness and rashness wins a way into my heart. I'm just not a civil person.
I'd like to hear an exact accounting of the discourse, though.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Either way, it's not a big deal. And I don't believe for one moment that you are not a civil person. Would it have been less blunt to say, "I don't like you,you don't like me. So why don't we turn around and smile for the camera so I can go back to figuring out how to get you fired in '06."
[ June 26, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I don't understand. All I'm saying is that I find it highly amusing that the VP said f*** you to a congressman, and that I sorta admire him for it. I'm not shooting highbrow here at all.
EDIT: Also, it's virtually impossible for the VP to get a Congressman "fired."
[ June 26, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That the VP resorted to profanity doesn't bother me.
That the VP resorted to profanity so quickly in the exchange instead of countering or acknowledging the point, that bothers me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It bothers me, but not that much.
Not saying, "I was mad, I shouldn't have said that, it was wrong" bothers me a LOT more.
Dagonee
Posted by DocCoyote (Member # 5612) on :
Since I've been accused of using the same word far too often in my own life, I won't presume to censure the VP for saying that particular bon-mot. I don't generally use it directed at anyone, though. In fact, unless I'm smiling when I say it to my man after a particularly sharp short-person joke, I can't remember the last time I directed it at a person.
Has anyone noticed that we're not a particularly civil nation these days? Like him or not, despise him or not, the VP had no cause to direct that comment at another person. Period. Common courtesy. Does anyone remember the joke about "My, how nice!"? (Punchline is that the society lady's husband gave her the gift of charm school so whenever the other women were one-upping each other she could say, "My, how nice," instead of whatever the VP said.
$0.02
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Jesus told Cheney to say "f*** yourself!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Who tells you to say the things you do?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I heard his explanation...he said that he was annoyed that the guy was making attacks about him and questioning his ethics when he was not around...but then was action all warm and fuzzy when they saw each other.
While perhaps it was not the "right" thing to do...and he could have chosen another word...I can't say I blame him. If someone was bashing me when they talked to other people, but then acted all warm and fuzzy to my face I would be ticked. Plus, I just like seeing a politician being told off for being a politician. Of course, the fact that it was the VP that did the swearing…rather than another congressman makes it kind of bad, but I guess it shows that even a VP is human.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
children should go f*** themselves, no?
Lead on, Cheney! Lead on!
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
How many of you folks got worked up when John Kerry flipped off the vetran who was heckling him? Was that civil discourse?
Anybody have any idea what kind of vocabulary Clinton had?
Is there anybody left in this country who actually gets offended consistantly by actions, instead of offended by any action done by somebody they politically disagree with?
Okay, that's not directed at the people in this thread. I admit I'm not on Hatrack enough any more to know some of your political alligences. It's mostly a rant on the trend in general.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I heard his explanation...he said that he was annoyed that the guy was making attacks about him and questioning his ethics when he was not around...but then was action all warm and fuzzy when they saw each other.
That is called politics. Been happening since Caeser got stabbed by all the politicians he thought loved him. Jeepers...I would think an insider like Cheney would realize that. Heck, talking behind people's backs and being sweet to them face to face starts in High School for goodness sake.
But, far be it from me to stop Bush Administration apologists from doing the "Clinton must have done it first or worse" routine. Like we haven't heard THAT before.
But, I like Dag's point...saying the word was one thing. Saying afterwards that he "felt better" after doing it and not apologizing, that is another. Very liberal of him.
fil
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
The Bush admin seems to think anything Clinton did was bad. Clinton was well spoken, and pronounced words correctly. So Bush must consistently talk about something that doesn't exist (nucular weapons), and pause for five seconds in the middle of long sentances.
Clinton ran the economy smoothly, and used a proven economic system that didn't rely on rich people doing what they don't do. So naturally Bush tries trickle down economics, which never has, never does, and never will work.
Clinton did something wrong, was caught, appologised for it, and fixed his family. Bush started a war on false pretenses is continually denying that he did, and isn't doing anything to fix it.
Clinton never got angry when talking with someone he dissagreed with, kept a level head, and was always cordial with even his most fierce opponents. So naturally Dick acts like a dick.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
My post wasn't a "Clinton probably did it first." We all know he did it first. Read a few books on Clinton if you think he was level headed. "All Too Human," the Woodward book on his first 100 days, Dick Morris's book.
My post was on how "It's only a big deal if conservatives do it."
Which I actually guess I should take as sort of a compliment. If actions that are commonplace for guys like Clinton and Kerry are newsworthy when done by conservatives, I guess all conservatives can take that as a compliment--even liberals expect more, and usually get, a higher standard from our guys than from theirs.
Look--facts are facts. Kerry swears, often at embarrassing and inoportune times (he, the man who gained fame for his outspoken war protesters, couldn't handle a few people protesting him whith out resorting to obscene gestures). Clinton swore. Cheney Swears. Bush has been caught on mike swearing, at embarrasing and innoportune times.
Can we just agree that politicians swear, get over it, and move on?
Or, get outraged at all the swearing they're all doing, and elect a different class of person to public office?
Pots have to be carefull.
That goes both ways, believe me. I'm not saying that just against liberals. I think a large part of the current hatred of George W. Bush is the direct result of the conservative's constant attempts to strain at gnats in their attempts to find things Clinton was doing wrong, when in reality they could have gotten over it when they took over congress and considered that mandate enough.
Now their own actions are backfiring--people are looking for the worst possible reasons and motivations in everything Bush does. People hated Reagan, but I don't recall him being subjected to the moment-by-moment scrutity Clinton seemed to be under.
Talk radio really is largely responsible for this. Talk radio does a lot of good, in that it exposes the public to things the mainstream media may not, but it also becomes a chore, trying to find some new and entertaining way to rip your enemies a new one every day.
Stuff that really shouldn't suprise anybody is treated like it has suddenly caused the world to spin off it's axis.
I'm just asking for a bit of a step back to the world of reality, where we judge actions based on the actual merits of those actions, rather than get knee-jerk defensive of "our guy," while getting Crazy-Go-Nuts in our attempts to find ways to prove the other guy is the devil.
I mean, come on, folks. We really are talking about politicians here. They're all motivated by a strange mix of desire to serve to the public and obtain power and fame and adulation. They're all a mix of saccarine and salt. They're all part Teddy Bear and part Firecracker.
Honest to goodness, there's enough legitamite issues for us to debate and ideas for us to get worked up about--there's enough wind already blowing that we really don't need to whip up our homebrewed teapot tempests just to keep the storm going.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:legitamite
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Doc:
There are degrees to this sort of behavior. What i find inherently reproachable is not the interaction itself, although i find it dramatically irresponsible of the Vice President of the USA to behave so in front of so many people. What i find so destestible is his defense for his actions.
"A lot of my colleagues felt what I said badly needed to be said."
What kind of excuse is that? I don't care -who- thinks it needed to be said. You don't justify your actions based on what other people's opinions are. So much for bringing back accountability and personal responsibility to the White House.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
docmagik,
can I use that? I'm in awe.
fallow
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I have never understood why certain words get people in such an uproar. Telling someone to go f*ck themselves is just a shorter way of saying, "I don't like you, you don't like me. So why don't we turn around and smile for the camera so I can go back to figuring out how to get you fired in '06." About the same meaning, but with one you are not out of breath. I am not going to think that you are a better person for wasting five seconds of my life rather than one.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
werd.
*nods*
right on.
legit-o-mite!
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: Telling someone to go f*ck themselves is just a shorter way of saying, "I don't like you, you don't like me.
The same way calling someone a nigger is a simplified version of saying "I don't like you man of color and if you were my slave I'd whip you at this exact moment."
Lead on Christian White Man! Lead on!
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Yes, exactly like that. Spot on!
[ June 27, 2004, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Hmm...I wonder if I could get away with saying "all my coworkers that it was well deserved" when I start telling stores to f*ck off or to learn how to do their own f*cking jobs.
The last part isn't my trying to save me breath (lord knows that it wouldn't help if I tried to speak rationally to them), it's expressing the emotions that I feel, and trying to shock them back into listening to the poor soul on the phone.
While I do acknowledge that other people swear too (and I can swear like a sailor after a few minutes of dealing with people at work), I expect a professional demeanor from people that I work with, at stores where I shop, and by the people who represent me. The way I see it is that people expect it of me while I'm at work, so I should be able to expect the same time of professionalism when people are at their jobs.
[ June 27, 2004, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: slacker ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
The way I see it, those expectations are unreasonable, and rather than foisting them upon those lucky enough to not have to deal with them, why not encourage anyone who challenges them? I honestly could care less if the guy at the restaurant tells me to have a shitty day, as long as my food is of good quality. To me, professionalism implies competence, not sugar-coating. Perhaps if the f*ckers at Hardee's cursed more they could pay attention to my order and fill it correctly after I repeat it three times. Well, that is too much to expect of Hardee's, but McDonald's.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
For Cheney to abuse his power as President of the Senate by telling a Senator in the minority party to "**** off" or whatever it was, is a shame to republicans everywhere. Republicans have a responsibility as the majority party not to abuse their power and brush off the opposition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
His powers are to recognize senators and give them the ability to speak. He has powers of protocol, security, acknowledgement, scheduling, etc. For all practical purposes he is the "supervisor" of the Senate. For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works. The Vice President can have Senators thrown out for rudeness, obscneity, etc., but Senators canNOT have the VP thrown out. How would you feel and what would you do if you were trying to work and your supervisor told you to "**** off?" Even if you deserved it, how would that help you two work together?
Lets not deny reality.
BrianM
[ June 27, 2004, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I already said it was rude.
He's not his supervisor. Who's cut loose from reality now? Most of the work happens in Committee. His position is largely ceremonial, with the only real power being associated with the counting of electoral votes. The Vice-President seldom presides, and has no say in the selection of the President pro tempore. He has no say in committee assignments. The rules of procedure give great discretion to individuals in the senate give him little power to influence anything.
The Senate Majority leader has far more power than the Vice-President.
Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If the President Pro Tem of the Senate is telling a leading Democrat to F*** Themselves, it sure proves that the Administration has no respect for the cares and views of the Democrats in Congress, their constituents, the 40%+ of US Citizens who voted Democratic in the last Congressional elections, and the 50%+ that voted Democratic in the last Presidential election.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Be fair. He's telling one Senator who publicly accused him of corruption to f*%^ off, not "Democrats" in general. And he's the President of the Senate, not the President Pro Tem.
Dagonee P.S., the deomcrats did not get 50% of the vote in the 2000 presidential election. In fact, Bush's total was closer to Gore's than Gore's was to 50%.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, the 2000 election were a statistical tie, both in florida and in the nation as a whole. The result was realistically speaking determined by the weather in different areas of florida (weather always affects voter turnout).
Bush was probably elected by a thunderstorm (Gore would probably have been elected by some sunshine in the same place, so it flows both ways).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep. Plus the fact that they announced for Gore in Florida before the panhandle polls closed may have spurred late turnout there. I've heard this conjectured but haven't seen an analysis of it.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I'm just asking for a bit of a step back to the world of reality, where we judge actions based on the actual merits of those actions, rather than get knee-jerk defensive of "our guy," while getting Crazy-Go-Nuts in our attempts to find ways to prove the other guy is the devil.
So after 8 years of doing this to Clinton, the Repubilcans are going to ask the Democrats (or any other critics) to not follow suit? I am sorry, the Republicans set the standard for harrassing the people in power by spending millions of dollars on a) scandals that MAY have happened prior to the president's time in office and b) private affairs that have nothing to do with the President's ability to perform his duties. The bar has been set (very low). Trying to reset it to a time when microscrutiny wasn't the case is pretty silly. Reap what was so well sown.
At least the biggest investigation into the actions of this administration has to do with things actually important to the running of the country. The first being the VP's Energy Task force (which so far they have successfully blocked access to) and the mishandling of the country's security before, during and after 9/11/01. Personally, I wish the worst thing the president ever had done worth investigating was oral sex with an intern. Ah, innocent times.
fil
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Telling someone to go f*ck themselves is just a shorter way of saying, "I don't like you, you don't like me.
It's more than just that. It's also saying "I do not feel that you nor the people that can hear me are deserving of the courtesy of not hearing words that many people still consider vulgar and uncouth."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Cheney said yesterday he was in no mood to exchange pleasantries with Leahy because Leahy had "challenged my integrity" by making charges of cronyism between Cheney and his former firm, Halliburton Co. Leahy on Monday had a conference call to kick off the Democratic National Committee's "Halliburton Week" focusing on Cheney, the company, "and the millions of dollars they've cost taxpayers," the party said.
I believe if someone dedicated an entire week to ripping on me, then tried to come up and be nice I would have said something similar.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I believe if someone dedicated an entire week to ripping on me, then tried to come up and be nice I would have said something similar.
If your skin was that thin, then maybe you wouldn't be in politics, either. Clinton found this out the hard way, too. Had he just said, "okay, I had an affair with an intern and I screwed up" Starr's name wouldn't be a household one. Cheney is hiding Haliburton (and Enron and others) involvement in planning US energy policy (a policy many believe is at the root of our invasion of Iraq, not terrorism or middle east stability or whatever). If he can't take the heat, step down and let someone else get in the kitchen. Telling someone to f@#$ off when there are plenty of people around to write down that you did so shows a lack of civility we KNOW exists but would rather not see in public. Not very smart. What I might do or you might do is moot...we aren't in politics. If we did this on the job, we might get written up or other such discipline. Sure, I swear all the time at work among my peers but not at collegues I don't like. But let the apologists continue...since no apology will come from this White House.
fil
[ June 27, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Dag,
I have another take on it. Like you - it's Cheney's "explanation" and non-apology that I find more objectionable than the lapse itself. (and I don't mean an apology to Leahy necessarily, more an admission that the way he expressed anger and frustration was inappropriate)
There is a power differential at work here, but its more subtle. Cheney is VP. As Americans, we're told repeatedly that when you talk about the President or the VP, you are addressing not only the individual but "the office."
That means, among other things, that Leahy can address Cheney only as "Mr. Cheney" or "Mr. Vice-President."
Turn it around - it would have been seen as an even more serious breech if it had been Leahy telling Cheney to "f___ off". And if Leahy had followed up by saying it made him feel better to say it, he'd get harshly criticized by a larger group than is criticizing Cheney - and not because Cheney is the more loved of the two. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Possibly. The case can be made that it's worse if Cheney does it because he's the Vice-President, or worse if it's done to Cheney because he's the Vice-President.
Since either case can be credibly made, and since it's predictable as to who would make which case, I still fall back on my assessment. It's rude if it's done by a plumber to an electrician - the titles don't matter. But rudeness happens, and a real man apologizes for it afterwards.
But that's just little ol' egalitarian me.
Dagonee
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
It makes me proud to be a Vermonter, both for having a senator worthy of being cussed at, and having a senator who took the insult mostly in stride. The local news basically showed him having a good laugh about it.
I find this more humerous than grave. But, then, I'm known to be a constant stream of obscenities when I'm at college, so the language that other people use doesn't really bother me.
This hasn't really changed my impression of Dick Cheney, I still think he's a absurdly rich white guy running on borrowed time. Now I can laugh at him, though.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I would like to point out the humor in the Cheney outburst and the Bush ad condeming what is alleged to be "emotional outbursts."
-Trevor
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
hehe Heart-attack Cheney said a bad word hehe
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Ceremonial?! *laugh* The VP decides who gets to talk on the Senate floor, if that isn't power then I don't know what is. I noticed you also ignored the fact that the VP can eject a Senator but not vica versa. Funny Cheney can eject people for doing the very things he is doing. "but who will guard the guardians?" apparently noone. Also, the pro tem truly *is* a ceremonial position. The VP is the one who runs the Senate, and he is also the one who allows the committees to report their findings. Controlling floor time IS control over the Senate. You might want to go and see how Congress works for yourself if you seriously doubt this or if you doubt how much Cheney presides over the Senate, which is more than most VP's have in the past.
[ June 27, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I always thought resorting to vulgarity was a way of saying "I'm wrong, I have nothing to say to defend myself, so I'm just gonna attack you verbally because the fact that you're right pisses me off."
That's always been the case. If the VP was right in the argument, he would have defended himself with evidence of his innocence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BrianM, you officially don't know what you're talking about now. Has Cheney ever ejected a Senator for vulgarity?
Face it, you're trying to make this much more than it is, which is simply one person being very rude to another and then not owning up to it.
A. A member shall not speak until recognized by the President. When any member wishes the floor to speak in debate or otherwise address the Senate in any manner, he shall seek recognition by respectfully addressing himself to "Mr. President." The President may refuse to recognize any member who is not at his desk when he seeks the floor.
B. When presenting a paper, a senator first shall state its import.
Rule 6.6. Order of recognition by President
When two or more members rise to be recognized at the same time, the President shall name the one who shall be first to speak.
Also, the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate much more often than the President. Cheney's extra involvement was being present for a lot more votes due to the close nature of the partisan split.
I know how the Senate works. If you want a lesson someday let me know.
[ June 27, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Basically what I'm getting out of a lot of this is that "Liberals don't like conservatives, and conservatives don't like liberals, and they'll always try and find reasons to discredit each other, no matter how insignificant or mundane."
Like Jon Stewart said, Yankee fans and Red Sox fans. Yankee fans and Red Sox fans, that's all it is.
EDIT: Also, Dagonee is right. I think you might be thinking of the House, where the Speaker of the House has much control over the order of bills and committe placement. The Senate is far more fragmented.
[ June 27, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I don't care if the VP curses at someone. I just think it funny that he's losing these arguments. He really is a corrupt cronyist VP.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Liberals don't like conservatives, and conservatives don't like liberals, and they'll always try and find reasons to discredit each other, no matter how insignificant or mundane."
Which is why I think this should be neither dismissed nor blown out of proportion (not that you're doing either).
Dagonee
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
What troubles me is how polar and partisan politics has become. People find uncompromisign ideals and stances attractive and "noble," but compromising is an integral part of democracy; it's a way of diluting power. Most of the legislation that gets passed through Congress usually winds up being ambiguous on a partisan level; you can't tell which party passed what. This is a sign of success. This is how government is meant to work.
But today everything's split down the middle. People basically seem to line up perfectly among party ideals simply for the reason to butt heads. For instance, on this site in many of the political threads, several people simply sign on, make a totally irrational and ridiculously partisan comment, and then sign off. It contributes nothing; all it is saying is "I don't like you and I don't plan to listen." It's frustrating to see people talk like this.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Especially ironic given that during the week of Ronald Reagan's death, the one thing pretty much everyone agreed with about him was his insistence on keeping things not only civil, but even cordial (after working hours) with members of "the other party."
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Word to that. You can disagree with what the man did, but he was a real politician.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Dagonee, in the spirit of Mr. Cheney, how about you "**** off."[note sarcasm] After all, you're being obnoxious, telling me I should take lessons from a pup like you and after all it's OK to blow off steam once in a while, right? Child, listen to me, it's not that Cheney hasn't ejected Senators, it's that he has the power to do so for behavior that HE was exhibiting. By this logic you'd think it's alright for policeman to consider himself exempt of speeding laws simply because he has never written a ticket? What a totally "****ed" analogy. See where this is going? When you need a lesson on why being civil to your underlings ALWAYS matters in government come talk to me, OK? Hopefully lectures on principle of order and civility won't always be lost on you. Your a student right now so I'll understand if this is one of those phases young upstarts go through when they think they have a handle on laws and practicality and don't see the need for convention and order.
[ June 27, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*wonders if BrianM realizes dagonee isn't all that young, and is in the final stages of acquiring a law degree, and has already been involved in a case presented before the Supreme Court*
*doubts it*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*Notes that BrianM decided not to contest any of the assertions about the dispute over the role of the President of the Senate.
*Notes that BrianM made personal attacks based on misinformation.
*Further notes that at no point has he defended Cheney's actions and, in fact has called them both rude and immature.
*Recalls that BrianM called him ignorant about Congress based on undocumented assertions, but thought he could handle vigorous debate.
*Doesn't care if BrianM tells him to F*** off, as he knows it's about rudeness and not power.
Dagonee
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Wow, not only are you totally ignorant of protocol and senatorial curtesy, but you miss dripping sarcasm that tries to prove a fairly obvious point.
*notes that you scrounged my post for personal attacks ignoring all my responses to your points showing exactly where your logic lead, why it's wrong and why it's circular and leads to government inactivity.
Even if I believed his credentials and was awed and impressed by the, which I don't and I'm not, they have nothing to do with the legislature anyway. Flaunting one's credentials is a way of sidetracking the argument when you've lost and can't respond to actual points being made -- sort of like concocting personal attacks where none exist and ignoring what I said.
[ June 27, 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Wow, not only are you totally ignorant of protocol and senatorial curtesy, but you miss dripping sarcasm that tries to prove a fairly obvious point.
The personal attack wasn’t the f*** off, it was the dismissing of what I was saying because I am young and inexperienced.
quote:*notes that you scrounged my post for personal attacks ignoring all my responses to your points showing exactly where your logic lead, why it's wrong and why it's circular and leads to government inactivity.
Where my logic leads? I said it was wrong. I said it was even more wrong to not admit it and apologize. My God! My logic leads to a world where people make mistakes but then do their best to correct them. What a hellhole that would be!
quote:Even if I believed his credentials and was awed and impressed by the, which I don't and I'm not, they have nothing to do with the legislature anyway. Flaunting one's credentials is a way of sidetracking the argument when you've lost and can't respond to actual points being made -- sort of like concocting personal attacks where none exist and ignoring what I said.
You’ve called me ignorant, and ignored the substance of my posts, quoting my youth and inexperience as a reason, and moreover utterly mischaracterized what I’ve said about Cheney’s use of the words and actions afterward.
I bet you Leheay did not feel intimidated or threatened for one second, which is a pretty clear response that this is about civility and not power.
I did not bring up my “credentials,” fugu did. And while I thank him for defending me from the accusation of inexperience, I would not have done so myself for the very reasons you cited. I would clarify that I’m 1/3 of the way through law school, not in the final stages. But since you’ve stated you don’t believe my credentials, which part of what fugu said do you disbelieve. Fugu is repeating what I’ve said on this board before (in threads where it was appropriate, not to bolster arguments), so you’re disbelieving me, not fugu.
Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?
Dagonee
[ June 27, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Even the link you provided proved my point. True, you tried to dismiss it and say this is not how it is "in practice," but it never helps your credibility to post info. that actually DETRACTS from your points. The reason I don't believe you're in law school? That you could be as ignorant as you are about basic governmental functions and that you don't seem to be able to research very well as you post information which actually goes against what you are trying to claim and helps your opponents.
[ June 27, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
oops, sorry, got which year you were mixed up. Oh well, lawyerly enough for me (of course, I don't need a lawyer ).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BrianM, do you even bother to watch CSPAN? Its painfully obvious how the Senate operates to people who pay attention to it (such as myself), and dags is pretty much right on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Brian, either read the whole links or just go away at this point. The links clearly say the President does not have discretion to not recognize members when it's appropriate, and also clearly states that appointing members to committees is done by the President, ABSENT overriding rules. The Senate's own page makes it clear that committee appointments are done by the party conferences and chairs are assigned by seniority.
I note you've now abandoned any pretense that I'm leading us on a dark road of incivility. Maybe you actually read my posts?
As for not believing I'm in law school, I could really care less except that now you're calling me a liar with zero proof. I've shown no ignorance of how government works, nor have I claimed any special expertise in that area.
It seems civility is something reserved for Vice Presidents, eh?
Dagonee Edit: Just wanted to add, it's pretty clear fugu wasn't saying, Dag has these credentials so you should just believe what he says (especially considering some of the discussions we've had). To me it seemed like he was chiding you on your unfounded assumptions about both my age and my inexperience and giving you a chance to respond gracefully.
[ June 27, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh definitely. Dag is wrong all the time. All-the-freakin-time. Just ask me .
Actually, we do agree on a lot of things, but we hardly agree on everything. I'm an ex-liberal moderate (I eschew labels like that, but emotionally that's how I line up, even if my positions don't fit so well into the ideological handbags) and dag is an ex-conservative moderate. Its amusing finding out where we agree and where we don't.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Wow, looks like the whole point was lost on you, as I suspect it would be. I didn't mean any of the condescension I used on you, nor did I mean any of the things you construed as personal attacks. I simply noticed that on your first post of disagreeing with me you were quite rude, and this continued, so, I decided to fuel the fire to show exactly WHY what Cheney did was worse than you would let on. What I did was show you exactly what happens when someone responds to rudeness with rudeness of their own. You basically disintegrated into denials of anything worthwhile I had to say, simply stuck to focusing on anything I said that could be rude, all the while claiming that I was was actually ignoring YOUR points when this was really just the opposite. Hopefully now you understand why this behavior is just as wrong as when Cheney did it as it is here. It sucks that you didn't pick this up for yourself but this is truly something that living for a good half century will depart to you. btw, I read the whole thing, and it does nothing to show that the VP canNOT eject Senators for that. You might claim it doesn't happen but I say that because he has the power to do that it puts him on a higher standard.
[ June 27, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow, looks like the whole point was lost on you, as I suspect it would be. I didn't mean any of the condescension I used on you, nor did I mean any of the things you construed as personal attacks. I simply noticed that on your first post of disagreeing with me you were quite rude, and this continued, so, I decided to fuel the fire to show exactly WHY what Cheney did was worse than you would let on. What I did was show you exactly what happens when someone responds to rudeness with rudeness of their own. You basically disintegrated into denials of anything worthwhile I had to say, simply stuck to focusing on anything I said that could be rude, all the while claiming that I was was actually ignoring YOUR points when this was really just the opposite. Hopefully now you understand why thisd behavior is just as wrong as when Cheney did it as it is here. It sucks that you didn't ick this up for yourself but this is truly something that living for a good half century will depart to you. btw, I read the whole thing, and it does nothing to show that the VP canNOT eject Senators for that. You might claim it doesn't happen but I say that because he has the power to do that it puts him on a higher standard.
Actually, what you just did was make up a creative fictional account of the progress of this thread, but since it's there for anyone to see what was actually said, I'm done.
Dagonee Edit: although I am still amazed that you think I didn't think Cheney's behavior was wrong. Did you read what I said in the thread?
[ June 27, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
You're right, it IS there for people to see right now, and before you can go back and edit your posts I will show you exactly how you started off rude, got worse, posted info. that actually was against your own points and continued to deny this was going on.
First reply to me
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
Rude and condescending as hell. From the get-go you attempt to marginzalize my opinion with rhetoric like "oh please" and the inference that I'm just some reactionary fool blowing things out of proportion.
Next reply it only gets worse
quote:I already said it was rude.
He's not his supervisor. Who's cut loose from reality now? Most of the work happens in Committee. His position is largely ceremonial, with the only real power being associated with the counting of electoral votes. The Vice-President seldom presides, and has no say in the selection of the President pro tempore. He has no say in committee assignments. The rules of procedure give great discretion to individuals in the senate give him little power to influence anything.
The Senate Majority leader has far more power than the Vice-President.
Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.
Dagonee
Again rude and when I decided to throw a jab at you to prove my point that nastiness begets nastiness you take the bait straight away and insult me. You also continue to deny the powers Cheney has over the order of the Senate and try to temper my claims with "well, true but he never does it" while still ignoring the fact that I don't care if Cheney has never ejected a Senator, the fact that he CAN puts his comments into a light of expecting higher standards from him.
3 replies down
quote:BrianM, you officially don't know what you're talking about now. Has Cheney ever ejected a Senator for vulgarity?
Oh, now I officially don't know what I'm talking about, eh? LOL I suppose you were elected/appointed to some kind of position of "Authority on the Way the Senate Works" by someone? Please!
quote:I know how the Senate works. If you want a lesson someday let me know.
Wow, you want to give me lessons eh? You sure your certified to teach?
quote:*Notes that BrianM decided not to contest any of the assertions about the dispute over the role of the President of the Senate.
*Notes that BrianM made personal attacks based on misinformation.
*Further notes that at no point has he defended Cheney's actions and, in fact has called them both rude and immature.
*Recalls that BrianM called him ignorant about Congress based on undocumented assertions, but thought he could handle vigorous debate.
*Doesn't care if BrianM tells him to F*** off, as he knows it's about rudeness and not power.
Dagonee
This post needs no explaining.
quote:Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?
Another bit of nastiness from you.
Fictional indeed! I can go on, there are still a few more posts now, or would you just rather save yourself further embarassment and just admit that you were wrong?
As to you posting info. which hurts your case, from your own link:
quote:Rule 6.5. Recognition; rise to address
A. A member shall not speak until recognized by the President. When any member wishes the floor to speak in debate or otherwise address the Senate in any manner, he shall seek recognition by respectfully addressing himself to "Mr. President." The President may refuse to recognize any member who is not at his desk when he seeks the floor.
B. When presenting a paper, a senator first shall state its import.
Rule 6.6. Order of recognition by President
When two or more members rise to be recognized at the same time, the President shall name the one who shall be first to speak.
You try to temper that with this, but what's very funny is that nowhere at that site is ANY support for your main contention
quote:Even though the President has nominal control over committee assignments, this is only until a law, rule, or resolution supercedes him, which it always does.
My basic response to that assertion is that the VP is the person who ADMINISTERS those rules, so the enforcement is flawed from the outset. So even if that were true and listed at that site, *which it wasn't*, you would still be wrong.
[ June 27, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Against my better judgment, because of the selected quoting, here goes:
quote:You're right, it IS there for people to see right now, and before you can go back and edit your posts I will show you exactly how you started off rude, got worse, posted info. that actually was against your own points and continued to deny this was going on.
An utterly unwarranted attack on my integrity. I have never done this, nor even been accused of it.
quote:Rude and condescending as hell. From the get-go you attempt to marginzalize my opinion with rhetoric like "oh please" and the inference that I'm just some reactionary fool blowing things out of proportion.
A response to a grandiose accusation that all Republicans (which probably includes me, at least this election cycle) have been besmirched by one comment from one man. I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it.
You bolded two of my sentences: “Who's cut loose from reality now?” and “Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.” Both were direct responses to comments in your posts:
quote: His powers are to recognize senators and give them the ability to speak. He has powers of protocol, security, acknowledgement, scheduling, etc. For all practical purposes he is the "supervisor" of the Senate. For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works. The Vice President can have Senators thrown out for rudeness, obscneity, etc., but Senators canNOT have the VP thrown out. How would you feel and what would you do if you were trying to work and your supervisor told you to "**** off?" Even if you deserved it, how would that help you two work together?
Lets not deny reality.
So at worst, my remarks were as rude as yours. But mine were responses direct responses to you.
quote: You also continue to deny the powers Cheney has over the order of the Senate and try to temper my claims with "well, true but he never does it" while still ignoring the fact that I don't care if Cheney has never ejected a Senator, the fact that he CAN puts his comments into a light of expecting higher standards from him.
Particularly strange argument when you consider you also said, “For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works.” Note you didn’t say what the rules say about how Congress works, but how it actually works.
quote: The VP is the one who runs the Senate, and he is also the one who allows the committees to report their findings. Controlling floor time IS control over the Senate. You might want to go and see how Congress works for yourself if you seriously doubt this or if you doubt how much Cheney presides over the Senate, which is more than most VP's have in the past.
Right, since it’s obviously a fairly restrained response to an insulting piece of drivel from you, which totally mischaracterizes my position:
quote: Dagonee, in the spirit of Mr. Cheney, how about you "**** off."[note sarcasm] After all, you're being obnoxious, telling me I should take lessons from a pup like you and after all it's OK to blow off steam once in a while, right? Child, listen to me, it's not that Cheney hasn't ejected Senators, it's that he has the power to do so for behavior that HE was exhibiting. By this logic you'd think it's alright for policeman to consider himself exempt of speeding laws simply because he has never written a ticket? What a totally "****ed" analogy. See where this is going? When you need a lesson on why being civil to your underlings ALWAYS matters in government come talk to me, OK? Hopefully lectures on principle of order and civility won't always be lost on you. Your a student right now so I'll understand if this is one of those phases young upstarts go through when they think they have a handle on laws and practicality and don't see the need for convention and order.
How is “Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?” a piece of nastiness when you’ve called me a liar and neither backed it up nor apologized.
quote:Fictional indeed! I can go on, there are still a few more posts now, or would you just rather save yourself further embarassment and just admit that you were wrong?
Since you’ve shown nothing of the sort, I think I’ll stick around for a while.
As to the link you say doesn’t support my case, it gives the Presiding officer two reasons for failure to recognize: Because the member is not at his desk, or because two members wish to speak at once. Neither one can silence a member indefinitely.
quote: My basic response to that assertion is that the VP is the person who ADMINISTERS those rules, so the enforcement is flawed from the outset. So even if that were true and listed at that site, *which it wasn't*, you would still be wrong.
But your basic assertion is wrong – he doesn’t. Most of the important work happens in committee, where he has no presiding authority. The work that doesn’t cannot be successfully impeded by the President of the Senate. And the fact is, it’s not done. You started this questioning my knowledge of the way Congress works, not the way the rules as interpreted on first blush say it works. The two are very different.
Dagonee P.S.: I could care less about the about the argument at this point, but you’ve impugned my integrity twice now. Are you more of a man than Cheney? Will you own up to it and either apologize or provide some basis for your assertions about my truthfulness?
Just for completeness, let's not forget, "Ceremonial?! *laugh*" The only proof provided shows it is ceremonial.
[ June 27, 2004, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Against my better judgment, because of the selected quoting, here goes(this works for me even better than it worked for you):
quote:An utterly unwarranted attack on my integrity. I have never done this, nor even been accused of it.
I didn't say you had done it, I was just saying that in case you would, I had those bases covered.
quote:A response to a grandiose accusation that all Republicans (which probably includes me, at least this election cycle) have been besmirched by one comment from one man. I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it.
You bolded two of my sentences: “Who's cut loose from reality now?” and “Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.” Both were direct responses to comments in your posts:
First, boy/girl, I have been a registered Republican since before you were born, so let me tell you, it IS shameful when one of the party heads in a station and role of authority acts this way with regards to his underlings.
quote:So at worst, my remarks were as rude as yours. But mine were responses direct responses to you.
BINGO, GIVE THE BOY A PRIZE, HE FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT. It doesn't matter that I was being nasty back to you, [b]I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait.
quote:Particularly strange argument when you consider you also said, “For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works.” Note you didn’t say what the rules say about how Congress works, but how it actually works.
Don't play semantical games with me, partly because you'll lose, but mostly because the way Congress works is influenced by the standards and rules it is supposed to follow. If you are going to try and pick this one word and say that is not what I or you meant with regards to this, then you are guilty of far more equivocation than even Clinton himself. You were the one trying to play games with the difference between rules and how Congress "actually" works, so don't try turning this around on me again or this discussion is over, that's not a threat, that's a promise.
quote:You still have provided no source for any of this. Not one thing to show that you’re just not flat out making this up
Hey the sky is blue, do I need a source? You know, for someone who claims they are a 1st year law student you sure don't act like you ever passed American government back in high school. The information I posted is pretty much common knowledge. If you need a source, drop by your local school district and ask for some government class text books.
Vice Presidents preside over testimonies from the executve ALL the time, they preside over roll call votes, they preside over quorum calls, they preside over debates more than 50% of the time. I'm sorry you missed this basic facet of knowledge but I am so shocked by your lack of it that I am convinced you would just deny it even if you went back to your high school and asked your professor or actually read your text book this time.
quote:Right, since it’s obviously a fairly restrained response to an insulting piece of drivel from you, which totally mischaracterizes my position:
My post did need no explaining. The post it was responding to was one big nasty, vicious sarcastic big middile finger in my face.
quote:How is “Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?” a piece of nastiness when you’ve called me a liar and neither backed it up nor apologized.
It was asrcibing me motives and other aspects which I did not exhibit. But my main reasons for thinking you are bullshitting nearly all your info. is your complete lack of basic knowledge of how the government works. Noone who believes the things you've said could have made it into law school college or much less passed American government back in high school.
quote:As to the link you say doesn’t support my case, it gives the Presiding officer two reasons for failure to recognize: Because the member is not at his desk, or because two members wish to speak at once. Neither one can silence a member indefinitely.
Right, and we all know execution of this rule will be perfect and fair right? If you continue this way you'll be like those law students that believe because laws are there that they actually stop crime by themselves. I'm not going to repeat my point about how because Cheney is the one administering rules that he freely breaks he is not good enough to be the one who should do that.
quote:But your basic assertion is wrong – he doesn’t. Most of the important work happens in committee, where he has no presiding authority. The work that doesn’t cannot be successfully impeded by the President of the Senate. And the fact is, it’s not done. You started this questioning my knowledge of the way Congress works, not the way the rules as interpreted on first blush say it works. The two are very different.
Committees are worthless if they can't report their findings to the larger body of Congress, and espcially worthless of the Committees chair decides to omit something a minority member of the committee had a concern over, the minority member tries to say it during the findings portion and the VP doesn't recognize him.
quote:P.S.: I could care less about the about the argument at this point, but you’ve impugned my integrity twice now. Are you more of a man than Cheney? Will you own up to it and either apologize or provide some basis for your assertions about my truthfulness?
You've "impugned my integrity" more than double that amount and I have a general sense that you are worse of a man than Cheney: you seek to rationalize something he would probably regret having done after a while. Will you give up before you make yourself look EVEN worse or will you continue to deny that you have been proven wrong over and over, mostly by your own statements.
[ June 27, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I think kids should be allowed to say f*** in the 6th grade, but not in 5th grade or under, that would be way too young.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
So when Kerry uses the f word, or flips someone off, that's hardly mentioned in the news but Cheney does it and it's front page? And people try to ignore the liberal bias in the media. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I searched on Google for both those instances concerning Kerry, and both basically emanated from one source: newsmax.com, which in my opinion, seems very biased. Even if Kerry did do both those things exactly as those news reports say, that doesn't make it okay that Cheney did it too. And Kerry did neither of those things ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
Please don't spout the "liberal bias" BS. It just makes me think you're a troll.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I do not support either Cheney or Kerry and their use of the f word. However, how can you deny Kerry's use of profanity?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I can't. But a Rolling Stone interview is a lot different than the Senate floor.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Wow, Kerry used it to describe a policy and Cheney used it straight to someone's face as a directly personal insult. I wonder which is worse. michaele8, please stop trolling here, almost every post you make is some indictment against the horrors of liberalism, and it gets really old, especially to a real conservative who respects the other side enough to realize you constantly misrepresent them.
[ June 28, 2004, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Oh no! Here I finally knew who to vote for, and now the other side has done it too! Back to flipping a coin, I suppose.
No seriously, why does this matter?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: First, boy/girl, I have been a registered Republican since before you were born, so let me tell you, it IS shameful when one of the party heads in a station and role of authority acts this way with regards to his underlings.
Then you have too much invested in your group memberships.
quote: BINGO, GIVE THE BOY A PRIZE, HE FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT. It doesn't matter that I was being nasty back to you, I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait.
Have you at all read any of the numerous posts where I thought it was rude and that he should admit he was wrong or apologize. You started out saying he was abusing power, the only part of your initial post THAT I EVER CONTRADICTED.
I didn’t consider what you wrote there nastiness, nor my response. Are you really that thin-skinned?
quote: Don't play semantical games with me, partly because you'll lose, but mostly because the way Congress works is influenced by the standards and rules it is supposed to follow. If you are going to try and pick this one word and say that is not what I or you meant with regards to this, then you are guilty of far more equivocation than even Clinton himself. You were the one trying to play games with the difference between rules and how Congress "actually" works, so don't try turning this around on me again or this discussion is over, that's not a threat, that's a promise.
A.) Don’t flatter yourself. B.) This isn’t a case of picking one word. It’s a case where you said Cheney abused power, and asked how I would feel if a supervisor did it to me. Given that Cheney’s power in the Senate is largely ceremonial (still uncontradicted by you with ANY PROOF), and given you’ve never refuted my contention that Leahey probably did not feel intimidated for a second, your contention that this was an abuse of power rather than rudeness doesn’t meet the laugh test.
quote: You know, for someone who claims they are a 1st year law student you sure don't act like you ever passed American government back in high school. The information I posted is pretty much common knowledge.
So I provide sources from the Senate itself, and you rely on common knowledge that probably wasn’t rue even when you were in high school civics, and you use that to question something about me that I never even introduced into this debate? Not to mention at least one other person in this thread has acknowledge that my view of the congressional world is closer to reality than yours.
quote: My post did need no explaining. The post it was responding to was one big nasty, vicious sarcastic big middile finger in my face.
Apparently you’re too sensitive for political discussions. You’ve been nasty and vicious throughout this thread and you’re complaining about my response to you CALLING ME A LIAR?
quote: It was asrcibing me motives and other aspects which I did not exhibit. But my main reasons for thinking you are bullshitting nearly all your info. is your complete lack of basic knowledge of how the government works. Noone who believes the things you've said could have made it into law school college or much less passed American government back in high school.
You have called me a liar, by saying you disbelieve certain aspects of my biography that I’ve posted. Back it up or apologize and admit you were wrong. Stop thinking any perceived sarcasm from me justifies you calling someone a liar based on your own knowledge of government you refuse to provide any proof for. As for the last line, I’ll let Hatrack judge.
The difference between our behavior in this thread is that I’ve questioned aspects of your posts. You’ve questioned aspects of me and started throwing attacks around as soon as I refuse to bow to what you see as a rhetorical masterpiece.
quote: Right, and we all know execution of this rule will be perfect and fair right? If you continue this way you'll be like those law students that believe because laws are there that they actually stop crime by themselves. I'm not going to repeat my point about how because Cheney is the one administering rules that he freely breaks he is not good enough to be the one who should do that.
Cheney didn’t feel free to break them – he likely didn’t think about his position before saying the word. And he does not enforce those rules. Seriously, find me one instance of any Senator claiming he or she was denied the right to speak.
quote: Committees are worthless if they can't report their findings to the larger body of Congress, and espcially worthless of the Committees chair decides to omit something a minority member of the committee had a concern over, the minority member tries to say it during the findings portion and the VP doesn't recognize him.
Again, point to one instance where this has happened. The VP is not the final arbiter of senate rules – his decisions can be reviewed. Did you miss that part of the links? The work of the Senate is done largely in Committees, and the reports are accompanied by minority reports. This is basic stuff.
quote: You've "impugned my integrity" more than double that amount and I have a general sense that you are worse of a man than Cheney: you seek to rationalize something he would probably regret having done after a while. Will you give up before you make yourself look EVEN worse or will you continue to deny that you have been proven wrong over and over, mostly by your own statements.
A) You called me a liar. I posted a differing interpretation of how the Senate works. How did I do “double the amount.” B) I’d almost like to take a general survey on me being worse than Cheney, but it’s such a ludicrous statement I’ll let it go. C) How have I tried to rationalize what Cheney has done. It was rude. I simply acknowledge that people are sometimes rude (which doesn’t excuse it) and that the proper course is to admit wrongdoing and apologize. D) No backup for your assertions, refusal to document or withdraw your accusation that I’m a liar, and the fact that you’ve basically ignored every one of my points, and I’m looking worse?
Apologize or withdraw the accusation.
Dagonee
[ June 28, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Wow, looks like the whole point was lost on you, as I suspect it would be. I didn't mean any of the condescension I used on you..."
I hope you were smiling when you wrote that.
Seriously, Brian, let's assume that you've shown that nastiness begets nastiness. Now prove to us that you can have a conversation without being nasty -- something that's considerably harder, I believe.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Just in case anyone is interested, I came across something from the Christian Science Monitor, which reaffirms my at Cheney's response to questions about his expletive:
Check the quote at the end of the second paragraph:
quote:Certainly Washington politics has seen worse, including brawls on the Senate floor. In 1856, a Massachusetts senator was actually beaten unconscious for his antislavery remarks. The Senate, known for its supposed decorum, has advanced since then, but one need only think back to the Clinton years and the vituperative exchanges on both sides to be reminded that personal rancor and insult are alive and kicking.
It's just that behavior, which obfuscates meaning and undermines faith in government, that the Bush administration vowed to change. "We take seriously the responsibility to be honest and civil," Cheney said in 2001.
Good thing Cheney takes civility seriously. Who knows what would come out of his mouth if he didn't. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is why a simple apology, to Leahey and the Senators present, is called for. Besides being the right thing to do, it would definitely help him politically.
To be totally cynical, he'd get all the points with the boorish people who cheered his use of profanity, and points with rational people who have gotten mad themselves and had to apologize for rudeness.
Dagonee
[ June 28, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: To be totally cynical, he'd get all the points with the boorish people who cheered his use of profanity, and points with rational people who have gotten mad themselves and had to apologize for rudeness.
Cynical? Maybe. But it's also a pretty realistic analysis in my opionion. Because I view Cheney as a competent political animal, I can only guess this was a deliberate decision to appeal to the lowest common denominator in his base.
It looks like both sides may be heading down that mudhill - and it's only the end of June!
If they keep it up, John McCain could manage a third-party run on a shoestring budget in October and win by a landslide. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm campaigning in the primaries for McCain in 2008, even if I do hate his campaign finance bill. He's one of the most conservative members, and he managed to work with Feinstein on a very controversial bill. Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Tom, I don't consider this part as being nasty, I consider this pointing out the obvious to someone who's trying to deny it in some childish fashion to save face after he has shamed his own.
quote:Then you have too much invested in your group memberships.
You like playing games? Maybe you shouldn't moan and bleat about my comments stretching to the whole GOP and then when I make you realize what a newbie you are to the party you try to back off and act apathetic. Which is it going to be? Flip-flopping to try to win arguments is a shameful tactic.
quote:Have you at all read any of the numerous posts where I thought it was rude and that he should admit he was wrong or apologize. You started out saying he was abusing power, the only part of your initial post THAT I EVER CONTRADICTED.
I didn’t consider what you wrote there nastiness, nor my response. Are you really that thin-skinned?
Do I really have to go back AGAIN and show you the nastiness in your first post, your second post and other posts? Funny, the first time I did this you admitted to it, now you seem to deny it. I guess I better scroll up and see if you edited it.
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
Nope, it wasn't edited, so I can't see why you're flip-flopping on admitting your initial post was condescending and offensive, and now saying it's not. Just remember that this is the pattern you began on this thread-- and that I am trying to end and make you wake up and realize you need to stop treating people this way and sometimes just admit you are wrong.
quote:A.) Don’t flatter yourself. B.) This isn’t a case of picking one word. It’s a case where you said Cheney abused power, and asked how I would feel if a supervisor did it to me. Given that Cheney’s power in the Senate is largely ceremonial (still uncontradicted by you with ANY PROOF), and given you’ve never refuted my contention that Leahey probably did not feel intimidated for a second, your contention that this was an abuse of power rather than rudeness doesn’t meet the laugh test.
A. I'm not, it's a matter of cold, hard fact. B. Boy, if you are truly in law school then stop acting like you never got beyond 10th grade. This is really starting to bother me. Hey, did you know the President has to pick judges, and that they have to be confirmed by the Senate? But then, you do concede other points almost automatically on this thread so I guess you're pretty selective as to what you think common knowledge is: basically your criteria for common knowledge is anything that will help you win an argument, how pathetic. You know, I truly consider this a basic bit of knowledge, and you even conceded it, so what do you resort to "we'll sure he can do that but he never DOES," which is missing my point completely for the 6th time! Take a deep breath and listen closely, ok?
Even if Cheney's power was largely ceremonial, the fact that he has the power to censure and eject senators for what HE did makes it more wrong than the minor flub you make it out to be.
But hey, if you need proof go read the constitution, the only limitation placed on the VP as Pres. of the Senate is that he doesn't have an initial vote, and if you go watch the thing as I have many times you will see him presiding over and administering protocol. But I guess experience will always be trumped by vanity, bravado and overzealous studentia.
quote:So I provide sources from the Senate itself, and you rely on common knowledge that probably wasn’t rue even when you were in high school civics, and you use that to question something about me that I never even introduced into this debate? Not to mention at least one other person in this thread has acknowledge that my view of the congressional world is closer to reality than yours.
Word games come easy to you? You provided a source to info. I'm sure more than 3/4 of the people on this board knew -- I'd bet my life on that. You can deny it all you want and spin vague rhetoric at me about how my points are unrelated but this thread is here for all to see and and unbiased eye will truly see how far off the path you are going with this. I have been talking about the VP's powers as Pres. of the Senate, and you seem to be too busy attacking me with your barbed rhetoric to notice.
quote:Apparently you’re too sensitive for political discussions. You’ve been nasty and vicious throughout this thread and you’re complaining about my response to you CALLING ME A LIAR?
*Until* you own up and just admit that you are wrong, yeah, you're a liar in my eyes and it's not an insult, it's a statement of probable fact. I will not for one second believe that someone like you who has said the things he has in this thread is beyond the 9th grade. I have the guts to have a serious discussion, and I don't get upset when you attack me, I just like to point out that is detracts from your points and you yet again hurt your own credibility and any possible strength of the argument you were trying to make.
quote:You have called me a liar, by saying you disbelieve certain aspects of my biography that I’ve posted. Back it up or apologize and admit you were wrong. Stop thinking any perceived sarcasm from me justifies you calling someone a liar based on your own knowledge of government you refuse to provide any proof for. As for the last line, I’ll let Hatrack judge.
The difference between our behavior in this thread is that I’ve questioned aspects of your posts. You’ve questioned aspects of me and started throwing attacks around as soon as I refuse to bow to what you see as a rhetorical masterpiece
I think you are the one who needs to appologize for wasting my time with YOUR attacks that have tried to divert away from your losing arguments. I didn't call you a liar because I felt justified about some petty insult you made, I believe you're lying because it's either that or the education system is crashing down. No, the difference between is that your first post was nasty, condescending and you began spewing your mud balls of joy from the get-go unwarranted and unsoliticed from me. Maybe you should click back to the first page, scroll up and just admit this before I post it AGAIN after this, ok? Here is your first post, AGAIN:
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
quote:Cheney didn’t feel free to break them – he likely didn’t think about his position before saying the word. And he does not enforce those rules. Seriously, find me one instance of any Senator claiming he or she was denied the right to speak.
My goodness, denial and skewing in every possible way. Listen to me, I'm going to say this one last time, if you ignore it this time, don't bother looking for a response. It doesn't matter if Cheney hasn't abused it yet, or even if that wasn't his intention.
The reason its a problem is that Cheney represents authority in the Senate, he administers the rules, andeven if nothing results from this Cheney might as well have said "**** off" to the rules as easily as he said it to that Senator. It is basically the VP rising above standards and not even bothering to appologize for it, much less realize how he damages his station.
quote:Again, point to one instance where this has happened. The VP is not the final arbiter of senate rules – his decisions can be reviewed. Did you miss that part of the links? The work of the Senate is done largely in Committees, and the reports are accompanied by minority reports. This is basic stuff.
Again, non-related point. All it takes is once to disenfranchise a Senator and their work and concerns. The risk of this happening once is too great when compared to the cost of allowing the VP to enjoy his office with fickle actions and interactions: it's a needless trade. btw: I love your "basic stuff" quotation here, thanks for proving my point about how selective you are when admitting something is common knowledge. You truly demonstrate what an utter hypocrite you are being in this thread with those three little words
quote:A) You called me a liar. I posted a differing interpretation of how the Senate works. How did I do “double the amount.” B) I’d almost like to take a general survey on me being worse than Cheney, but it’s such a ludicrous statement I’ll let it go. C) How have I tried to rationalize what Cheney has done. It was rude. I simply acknowledge that people are sometimes rude (which doesn’t excuse it) and that the proper course is to admit wrongdoing and apologize. D) No backup for your assertions, refusal to document or withdraw your accusation that I’m a liar, and the fact that you’ve basically ignored every one of my points, and I’m looking worse?
A. I call a spade a spade, until you grow up, stop acting ignorant of basic knowledge that someone with your supposed credentials should have, and grow up, you will be perceieved as a liar. You also need to stop being a hypocrite and be more consistent. You chastised me for using the common knowledge approach and then not a few lines down you say "this is basic stuff." The reason you impuged me double was not only denying everything I said, but you assaulted my integrity twice as much by saying things like "you are OFFICIALLY wrong" "you have no idea what you're talking about" AND then accusing me of calling you a liar well before you even deserved it. B. Feel free to take yuour survey, it would be sad if selective popularity contests is what you use to boost your self esteem though, but since "it's such a ludicrous statement I'll let it go." Amazing how much of your erroneous rhetoric fits you perfectly. You tried to rationalize it by saying "oh it was bad but lets keep this in proportion." Then the backpeddling and skewing begins. Funny, if you admit that people can be wrong and should applogized then I hold you to your standards. Maybe if you appologize for starting the wagon of nastiness on this thread and admit you were wrong and I will appologize for thinking you're lying, until then good luck with the hypocrisy. I have plenty of "backup" for my assertions, at least you seemed to think it was good enough on selective parts of the thread, but I guess only YOU are allowed to cite common knowledge, right? I documented extensively exactly how you are lying, hypocritical, rude and flat out insutling. I guess you wouldn't know that if your denial is so deep that you believe it yourself. Maybe you should ask someone to read the computer screen to you. You don't seem to be able to understand anything you disagree with on this thread. It is YOU who has ignored my points, I went to great lengths at first to try and understand yours, until I realized you were speaking completely out of your cuff, and when you started denying basic facets of government. With every post you make you dig yourself deeper. A simple, "I'm wrong, I understand the larger point you were trying to make, I understand how I'm wrong even under my own viewpoint and that I have missed your point several times," will suffice to redeem yourself in the image of anyone intelligent reading this thread.
quote:Apologize or withdraw the accusation.
Indeed, I am waiting for your appology and admission.
[ June 28, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're saying that you're so obviously right that anyone who disagrees with you on how the Senate works must not have graduated High School. In this thread you have called me a newbie, a pup, questioned my level of education, and used the fact that I'm still in school in an attempt to bolster your own arguments.
If that doesn't win the hubris award nothing does.
As to the basic stuff and common knowledge, the things I cited I provided links to. Basic stuff does not mean common knowledge. Nor is common knowledge unacceptable for use in a discussion. But once it's challenged, especially with evidence, it loses any presumption of validity it possessed. The fact that you say something is common knowledge does not make it so. You have not provided any evidence of your "common knowledge" once it was questioned. Nor have you questioned the validity of my links. Nor have you responded with any evidence that Leahey felt threatened in the same way you or I would if told to f%$# off by a supervisor.
quote:Funny, if you admit that people can be wrong and should applogized then I hold you to your standards. Maybe if you appologize for starting the wagon of nastiness on this thread and admit you were wrong and I will appologize for thinking you're lying, until then good luck with the hypocrisy.
First, I'm not wrong. Second, I didn't start any nastiness in this thread, nor did I admit to it. I said, "I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it." Basically, this was meant to convey that I'm not going to drop down to your level of sensitivity to rhetoric. Finally, you've admitted to deliberate nastiness to provoke a reaction: "I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait."
At this point, the evidence is out there for anyone who cares to evaluate it. I think I can safely say that anyone whose opinion I care about on Hatrack believes the things fugu said about me in the post that set you off. In fact, it's likely that you're the only one who disbelieves it.
Just take comfort in the fact that your lies about me are objectively refutable, while the lies you've accused me of making are based on my disagreement with you over issues that have wide and varying interpretations.
Dagonee Edit: Just because I so look forward to reading you're posts:
quote:. Listen to me, I'm going to say this one last time, if you ignore it this time, don't bother looking for a response. It doesn't matter if Cheney hasn't abused it yet, or even if that wasn't his intention.
You don't get to set the parameters of the debate. I obviously disagree with you about whether or not it matters if it's happened before. It seemed easy enough to pick up on that from any of my other posts.
[ June 28, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
quote:Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're saying that you're so obviously right that anyone who disagrees with you on how the Senate works must not have graduated High School. In this thread you have called me a newbie, a pup, questioned my level of education, and used the fact that I'm still in school in an attempt to bolster your own arguments.
A. That is not what I'm saying. B. Don't flatter yourself, you drew every bit of criticism on yourself with your statements and continue to deserve them with this little jewel
quote:If that doesn't win the hubris award nothing does.
quote: As to the basic stuff and common knowledge, the things I cited I provided links to. Basic stuff does not mean common knowledge. Nor is common knowledge unacceptable for use in a discussion. But once it's challenged, especially with evidence, it loses any presumption of validity it possessed. The fact that you say something is common knowledge does not make it so. You have not provided any evidence of your "common knowledge" once it was questioned. Nor have you questioned the validity of my links. Nor have you responded with any evidence that Leahey felt threatened in the same way you or I would if told to f%$# off by a supervisor.
No, I'm sorry simply because you challenge common knowledge/basic stuff does not mean it goes away, maybe in your dream world it does, but in reality if a man stands around denying the color of the sky eventually he is completely ignored. Is this what you want to happen to you? Ok, I question your assertion that the the VP DOESN'T have the power to do all the things I said, now, go try to find sources saying he doens't, is that what you want to turn this into? And before you start of with some ridiculous burden of proof argument, remember, you are the one making proactive assertions and I am merely trying to remind you of the way tghe government operates. Your links were to irrelevant info.! You might as well have posted gumbo recipees! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF LEAHY FELT THREATENED, IT MATTERS THAT CHENEY WENT ABOVE THE STANDARDS AND RULES HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE TO ENFORCE.
quote:First, I'm not wrong. Second, I didn't start any nastiness in this thread, nor did I admit to it. I said, "I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it." Basically, this was meant to convey that I'm not going to drop down to your level of sensitivity to rhetoric. Finally, you've admitted to deliberate nastiness to provoke a reaction: "I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait."
First off, you are wrong, even for the simple matter of understanding what I'm trying to say. You really seem to miss the point that even if I grant 2/3 of what you're saying, I'M STILL RIGHT. I am talking about the principle of this matter and you want to sit down and argue technicalities with me. You bore me. Yeah, though I doubt you are in law school I have no doubt you'd make a great lawyer, you don't even admit the obvious, instead you wheedle on about "well, however you want to interpret it." You really make me sick with your manipulation and evasion. Let me get this straight: YOUR not going to drop down to MY level of rhetoric??! My goodness, besides providing me with the best laugh I'm sure I will have all day you really made yourself look foolish to anyone reading this thread. Here's a hint: you already have. That quote is priceless.
quote:At this point, the evidence is out there for anyone who cares to evaluate it. I think I can safely say that anyone whose opinion I care about on Hatrack believes the things fugu said about me in the post that set you off. In fact, it's likely that you're the only one who disbelieves it.
Just take comfort in the fact that your lies about me are objectively refutable, while the lies you've accused me of making are based on my disagreement with you over issues that have wide and varying interpretations.
Ok kid, why don't you do your little popularity poll, if you really need to do something that immature. This is exactly what I am talking about. It's statements like those that make me think you are just some 12 year old playing grown up on the internet. Maybe you aren't but you are sure acting like it.
Take comfort? How can I take comfort in the fact that someone who's claiming to be a lawyer and claims to have a college and high school education is sladering the hell out me and the educational system. But like I said, with your didgy and evsaive attitude you are exactly the type for a lawyer, you accuse others of lying when you do it, and then you try and say that anything they accuse you of has a "varying interpretation." *laugh* Grow up and just appologize for making pretenses about what you know, allowing yourself to fall into nastiness when my point was clearly and absolutely inductive, and for being a condescending smart-alec while claiming not to be and accusing others of doing it when it was really you. You will look much better for it, and maybe your future popularity polls will improve for it too.
btw: I am not setting any extra parameters of this debate by making that point, that point is well within the scope of the original subject, so cut your vague denying rhetoric.
[ June 28, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ok, I think this is fast becoming less of a "debate" or more of a "how far can you pee?"
If you're arguing for the benefit of other Hatrackers I think we've probably all managed to form our own opinions. Thanks.
If, however, you're arguing to establish who can pee the farthest, I think I've almost managed a meter. Beat that.
Suckas.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ok kid, why don't you do your little popularity poll, if you really need to do something that immature. This is exactly what I am talking about. It's statements like those that make me think you are just some 12 year old playing grown up on the internet. Maybe you aren't but you are sure acting like it.
I'm wondering why you think this would be a popularity poll. I've presented myself in a certain way on this board, and created relationships based on the fact that the way I've presented myself is accurate. You've called me a liar and called into question who I am, which is very important on an essentially anonymous board.
People on this board with whom I've formed relationships know me as a law student, a former programmer, a Roman Catholic, and a former programmer. That's who I am. This isn't a disagreement about who said what when all the posts are right there for anyone to read. This is you taking a stand that is absolutely unsupportable and digging your heals in deeper about it each time.
Please point to anywhere I've slandered you - realizing that one of the elements of slander is an untruthful statement about another person. Please show me where I've lied once? And don't do that by saying, "You said this, and I know that's wrong." Show me a statement I made, and then show proof it's not true.
Dagonee BtL, this part of it's not going away.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
No way am I reading all this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Maybe you shouldn't moan and bleat...."
Brian, I will do you the favor of assuming that no one has ever pointed this out to you: your word choice is blatantly offensive, which is why you are offending people.
I have reported your posts, and I sincerely hope you learn to be civil.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Dags, I'm in no way, shape or form asking you to delete anything. I'm just saying that you two are pretty clearly not going to resolve this issue and there's probably nowhere for it to go but down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Probably. But like I said, my reputation here is actually surprisingly important to me. I don't mind people forming opinions of me based on my posts, but a direct accusation that I'm making up a persona is hard to swallow.
Dagonee *I would be one precocious 12-year old, wouldn't I?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Well, that's one count for Dagonee's popularity poll, Tom, if you're going to play net-nanny why be selective? I guess you don't really see anything wrong with Dagonee's posts or else you would have reported them too, fancy how *that* works. Also, he was moaning and bleating about my use of common knowledge when he was perfectly happy to use it himself selectively to bolster his own points, if those word choices are offensive, why don't you try whining and bitching? Or are those worse? Either way he is acting hypocritical with his denunciation of my methods while he employs those very same methods throughout his posts. If you really believe for a second that anything I posted is truly worse than what he has written, maybe you should go back, reread the thread, realize every time I used rudeness it was dripping with sarcasm related back to the original point of me mimicking Leahy and Cheney to prove a point, and it seems it fell right past you.
Tom, I hope you grow up and learn to recognize, sarcasm and inductive logic some day.
[ June 28, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
As President and founding member of the Retarded Monkeys Club, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the admission of this thread into our august fellowship.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hahahaha!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks - glad to be here. Of course, I couldn't have made it this far without...nah, too easy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you really believe for a second that anything I posted is truly worse than what he has written, maybe you should go back, reread the thread, realize every time I used rudeness it was dripping with sarcasm related back to the original point of me mimicking Leahy and Cheney to prove a point...."
Yes. And when I asked you to stop, you said you were NOT trying to prove a point anymore. *points back up*
You have been consistently insulting, patronizing, and offensive. You do not seem to recognize that words like "whining," "bitching," or "bleating" are in fact purely optional and emotionally-loaded descriptors, as evidenced by your suggestion of alternatives (as opposed to, say, the more neutral "complaining.") If this has been done to prove a point -- that lowering the tone of discourse drags everyone down -- you can consider it proved. I sincerely hope that is the case, as I would hate to think that you are incapable of civil discussion.
Why not attempt, from this moment forward, to be as civil as possible -- and see if, as a consequence, the thread cleans itself up?
[ June 28, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Tom, yet again you ignore my point, I did stop, but he restarted it so I continued to try and prove my point. I figured he couldn't possibly not get it the 2nd time, I guess I was wrong. If you think shaming me or threatening me with having reported my posts is going to make me care about your selective censuring, forget it, it's obvious you're selective in who you choose to censure, you must be Dagonee's private net nanny, pray tell me, when did you assign me to be his whipping boy?
[ June 28, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Power down, space cowboy.
I'll put it bluntly: this is not a pissing contest you want to get into. But since it's a pissing contest that I don't want to get into, either, and I'm smart enough to know it, let me just suggest again -- politely -- that you be civil.
Try leaving it at that, Brian. It's exactly that simple.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Let me just suggest politely that you stop with your conscending, selective censuring. I tried to be civil from the outset of this thread and was provoked, if you really want to play technocrat games about "who started it" like the 12 year old that I said Dagonee was acting like, I can play that game too. I was wronged first, you are out of line to censure me, especially since I did not strike the first insult or rude remark. But since you seem to hide behind snide remarks like calling me a Space Cowboy and telling me what I want and do not want to to do, I doubt you will listen to me as I yet again tell you you are being inconsistent, hypocritical, and overall missing the point of everyone one of my responses to Dagonee.
[ June 28, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Probably. But like I said, my reputation here is actually surprisingly important to me. I don't mind people forming opinions of me based on my posts, but a direct accusation that I'm making up a persona is hard to swallow.
Dag,
I already have a firm impression of you and hold you in high regard. I think that's true of a lot - probably most - of the people you've connected with here.
Perhaps the best response to determined snarkiness is a bunch of , , and .
I could be completely off base of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I was wronged first...."
Were you "wronged" before or after you were deliberately offensive -- by your own admission -- in order to prove a point? Which comment, specifically, do you believe "wronged" you and justified your later insults?
Examining your first exchange with Dagonee, it appears that his tone was dismissive but not hostile; you escalated by calling him ignorant; and he responded in kind. Things, as I see them, went steadily and consistently downhill from there -- but I would say, looking at the thread, that your hostility escalated much more rapidly than did his, and your tone degenerated faster.
Again, how much of this is part of your deliberate intention, to prove a point, and how much of it is because you were "wronged?" Moreover, if you have deliberately kicked a hornet's nest, are you justified in nuking the farm from orbit because you were stung?
Brian, just walk away from this one. Your sense of self-worth should not be so heavily invested here.
[ June 28, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
quote:Examining your first exchange with Dagonee, it appears that his tone was dismissive but not hostile
Equivocation and mitigation seems to be big with you.
Tom, I would say just walk away from this one because the extent of what I purposefully said to make my point and when I did not do so was painfully obvious, but the biggest reason I have for you to walk away is in the spirit of immaturity that you entered into this thread I reported the post in which you referred to me as some aging astronaut extremist shooting his mouth off so try to walk and ane be civil. "[Just let the conversation end here and you'll be amazed at how quickly it cleans up]." Also, my sense of worth doesn't rely on a forum where people play popularity games and gang up on others trying to prove a point, if it did I would be a lonely man.
[ June 28, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Steve, Tom: Thanks.
BtL: I didn't think you were suggesting deleting anything, and you were right about the substantive part of the conversation.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Aging astronaut extremist?
Brian, seriously, are you feeling really sensitive about your age? No one else here has mentioned it as an issue, although you've repeatedly called other people young or inexperienced. For that matter, I've never called you an extremist OR an astronaut.
I think, perhaps, you are projecting your own concerns about your self-worth into posts that contain nothing of the kind.
That said, my primary concern has been to persuade you to moderate your tone. If your intention is indeed to do so immediately, I will gladly drop out of this conversation, per your request; may it return to its original topic far better than when we found it, eh?
[ June 28, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Well, I opened this thread wanting to learn more about politics....
space opera
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
There was a movie a few years ago called Space Cowboys, starring Tommy Lee Jones, Clint Eastwood, James Garner, and Donald Sutherland. Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel for a while when I was a kid (I grew up in a small town just outside of Carmel, which is, itself, a reasonably small town). He's no longer the mayor there, but you'd be surprised at how many people think he still is. Or maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you think he still is the mayor. But he's not. Actually, the last time he was particularly prominent in local politics that I can recall was about 7 years ago when a local ballot measure (I think it was M, but I can't really remember) came up for a new subdivision in the Rancho San Carlos area of Carmel Valley. The developers wanted to put in a new golf club along with a whole lot of new housing, which was in violation of the existing Carmel Valley Master Plan and the Greater Monterey County Master Plan, so they needed a ballot measure to amend the plans and draft a new one for the new subdivision. Carmel Valley, being a fairly undeveloped area, has a lot of relatively untouched nature, and, of course, lots of environmentalists. You can imagine how controversial the measure was. Clint was one of the investors in the new development, I think a pretty big one, so he caught a lot of flak from the anti-development campaign. As I recall, he was pretty upset about getting dragged through the mud about it.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Originally posted by Tom Davidson
quote:Ah. Power down, space cowboy.
Tom you sre such a hypocrite, you remind me of the ACLU. It is not your intention to make this discussion more civil, it is your intention to put me down, treat me inferiorly and then try to come out of it morally superior. You are only fooling yourself.
[ June 28, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Interestingly enough, Clint Eastwood decided to hold the premiere of his film Absolute Power (he both directed and starred in that one) at the Galaxy 6 Theater, which is located in the Del Monte Shopping Center in Monterey. Monterey is about 10 miles or so north of Carmel. I remember thinking how strange it was to have a red carpet event at our mall. Not that it was a particularly huge movie or anything. The theater has a bus stop in front of it, but of course, that was completely blocked off for the event. I suppose that might have inconvenienced some of the mall-goers, but then, I don't know that there were many of them that day anyway. And, besides, there aren't that many busses through there anyway. The public transportation through Monterey isn't exactly the New York MTA.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
You know, Mr. Opera is a big Eastwood fan. I've actually watched "The Outlaw Josie Wales" and it was pretty good.
space opera
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
What about Paint Your Wagon? If he likes that one, we'll know he's a true fan. Of course, we'll also know he's not quite right in the head. Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
lol...I've never heard him mention it. I got him "Pale Rider" for our anniversary and he was very excited.
space opera
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Well, in case you're not familiar with it, Paint Your Wagon is a musical.
Clint Eastwood does not belong in musicals.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Does he spit on a dog during it? He doesn't sing, does he?
space opera
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Space Opera and Saxon75
*will remember this the next time someone complains about thread derailment being a BAD thing*
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I wouldn't call it singing, but I'm afraid that Clint would.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
But you didn't answer the most important question! Does he spit on a dog at any time? Now I'm thinking of renting this musical if only to dash Mr. Opera's perception of Eastwood.
space opera
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
You know, it's been a long time since I've seen it, so I don't remember whether or not he ever spits on a dog.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I remember there's a lot of spitting in the movie, but I'm a little fuzzy on who spits on what.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I love Tom Toles...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is even better than when BrianM was ranting about the Iliad
Dag, you da man. I can't recollect if I was ever a schmuck to you (but knowing me, I probably was, sorry), but just wanted to say I enjoy reading your posts, and I think your original point-that Cheney's half-assed apology was the real meat-was good. And I agree with you that the VP's actual power in the Legislative branch is slight, greatly eclipsed by other members.
I've never much liked Cheney-too many of the things I've heard and know about him make me uneasy-and this is just another reason.
[ June 29, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It just occurred to me, this fight between Dagonee and BrianM is sort of reminescent of the fight between Leahy and Cheney.
I mean, if Cheney had REALLY apologized or handled it differently, the story would be different. Leahy's behavior prior to the confrontation would be mentioned. Now the story is Cheney's profanity and half-baked non-apology.
Like this thread, wherein the original argument about Cheney has become overshadowed by how much or whether or not BrianM is out of line.
Edit: I think I need to work on my skills at not responding to what people mean, but rather what they say, because replying to what is meant and in the same language rather than what is said gets one in trouble.
[ June 29, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Rakeesh. You've never been a schmuck to me, at least that I can recall. But really, almost no one at Hatrack ever has. Your take on things is interesting, not least because we often arrive at similar conclusions for very different reasons.
Dagonee
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:There was a movie a few years ago called Space Cowboys . . .
*has flashback of saggy old-man butts*
Gaaaaahh!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:There was a movie a few years ago called Space Cowboys, starring Tommy Lee Jones, Clint Eastwood, James Garner, and Donald Sutherland.
How many people besides me thought Steve Miller should have been given a part in the movie?
(waiting...)
OK - Just me, then. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To Jon Boy: At least it should get a certain other picture out of your head.
[ June 29, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I'm fairly certain that nothing will get that picture out of my head.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:wonders if JB really prefers toned young man butts:
So, I don't know if this is a rehash, since I kind of skipped the 2nd page, but could Cheney be deliberately sabotaging himself so Bush can justify jetisonning him?
Also, as far as Clint eastwood goes, I think in his youth he rather resembled Hugh Jackman, who is quite the darling of the Broadway musical scene right now.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
o_O
No, I just think that of all the butts in the world, saggy, wrinkly, old-man butts are among the worst.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
you forgot "hairy."
Was that really in that movie?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yes. They're getting their physicals, so they're standing in the doctor's office, naked, and the camera pans past all four butts in a row.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Child, listen to me, it's not that Cheney hasn't ejected Senators, it's that he has the power to do so for behavior that HE was exhibiting. By this logic you'd think it's alright for policeman to consider himself exempt of speeding laws simply because he has never written a ticket? What a totally "****ed" analogy. See where this is going? When you need a lesson on why being civil to your underlings ALWAYS matters in government come talk to me, OK? Hopefully lectures on principle of order and civility won't always be lost on you. Your a student right now so I'll understand if this is one of those phases young upstarts go through when they think they have a handle on laws and practicality and don't see the need for convention and order.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
, and ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Space Opera and Saxon75![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)