The Dick Cheney Countdown - Page 2

hgc · 8th March 2007, 06:23 PM

OK, I went ahead and voted for this month. I just cruised the news shows, and they're all talking about it. On Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell just said that it won't happen. So I'm fairly sure it will.

I realized that my question has an equivocation built in. Does it refer to Cheney's resignation, or announcement of same? How much time may lapse in between, a la Cheney will leave when new VP is confirmed by the Senate.

There's some chess!

davefoc · 9th March 2007, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

I realized that my question has an equivocation built in. Does it refer to Cheney's resignation, or announcement of same? How much time may lapse in between, a la Cheney will leave when new VP is confirmed by the Senate.

If Cheney announces his resignation this month, regardless of when he actually leaves office I am prepared to give you credit for a successful prediction.

My raquetball buddies were speculating about this topic this evening. One guy's theory was that Lieberman would get picked as VP to replace Cheney. I thought it was unlikely, I doubt a Democratically controlled house would go along with that, but Lieberman as secretary of state, as suggested above, seems a tad more plausible.

Are there any signs that Bush is actually trying to Bush Cheney out? I thought that recent round the world Cheney diplomatic trip was a sign that Bush still supported Cheney. But maybe, it was just a sign Cheney wanted to be out of town when the Libby verdict was announced. But then the jury screwed him up by taking longer to reach a verdict than he predicted.

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by davefoc

Are there any signs that Bush is actually trying to Bush Cheney out?

Would it matter? Rumsfield was out days after Bush said he was in for the long haul (or something to that effect). Michael Brown was out not too long after Bush said he was "doing a heck of a job" and gave him a pat on the back.

hgc · 9th March 2007, 07:14 AM

What I'm wondering is if Cheney doesn't take himself out of the game, who's voice will penetrate Bush's thick skull to finallly get him to pull the trigger? It won't be Daddy -- Bush has already shown a disinclination to taking guff from that quarter. Will it be Rove? Will it be Laura? Jenna? Someone? Anyone?

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

What I'm wondering is if Cheney doesn't take himself out of the game, who's voice will penetrate Bush's thick skull to finallly get him to pull the trigger? It won't be Daddy -- Bush has already shown a disinclination to taking guff from that quarter. Will it be Rove? Will it be Laura? Jenna? Someone? Anyone?

The American people.

Azure · 9th March 2007, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The American people.

I thought so.

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

I thought so.

Thought what?

Azure · 9th March 2007, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Thought what?

Your arrogance towards the power the American people hold over politicians.

Well perhaps not arrogant, but you clearly do not trust that the VP, or the POTUS still answer to the American people.

Why not move to a country where they do?

Like, ah, ummmm...

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

Your arrogance towards the power the American people hold over politicians.

Well perhaps not arrogant,

No, not arrogant. When you think of what it is you are trying to say, let me know

Originally Posted by Azure

but you clearly do not trust that the VP, or the POTUS still answer to the American people.

No, I don't. The arrogance* of the Executive Branch of our government has been out of control for years now. They dictate to Congress the terms under which they will allow Congress to question them.

Personal accountability is almost entirely unheard of in this administration. Why on Earth would they listen to the American people when the American people's representatives won't stand up to them?

Originally Posted by Azure

Why not move to a country where they do?

Because I love this country and what it stands for.

* and I do mean arrogance.

Crossbow · 9th March 2007, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm sure thats the way you prefer, right?

Why would he resign? A year and a half left until his term is over...might as well ride the train out.

If you are trying to say that I want Cheney to die, then what you are saying is quite wrong.

I do not want anyone (Cheney, Bush, my mother, you, or anyone) to die.

Azure · 9th March 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

No, I don't. The arrogance* of the Executive Branch of our government has been out of control for years now. They dictate to Congress the terms under which they will allow Congress to question them.

And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new.

Quote:

Personal accountability is almost entirely unheard of in this administration. Why on Earth would they listen to the American people when the American people's representatives won't stand up to them?

Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians.

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

You're a bit bias in your theory here.

Quote:

Because I love this country and what it stands for.

* and I do mean arrogance.

If you say so.

hgc · 9th March 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new.

Maybe it's time to retire the silly fire them all and start over cliche, and talk about real ideas for improving things.

Quote:

Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians.

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

This is another cliche that ought to go the way of the dodo, as it serves to elide real issues. No, not ALL politicians are the same in regards to their relation to accountability or any other measure of job performance. Making distinctions between them in this regard is useful in choosing who to vote for.

I think that just about anyone running, with the exception of Giuliani, would be more accountable than the current presnit.

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new.

From time to time, maybe.

Originally Posted by Azure

Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians.

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

You're a bit bias in your theory here.

Pot, Kettle.

First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power)

Second, Duke Cunningham, for example, eventually owned up to what he had done and took responsibility.

Third, I have no idea what Hillary Clinton might do in the future. If you do, I know where you can grab an easy million bucks. (How does Hillary Clinton fit into this conversation?)

Fourth, your selective memory of recent history and bizarre non-sequitor in the post I quoted shows plenty of bias on your part. More, I would humbly suggest, than I have shown so far in this thread.

Originally Posted by Azure

If you say so.

I do.

Azure · 9th March 2007, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

Maybe it's time to retire the silly fire them all and start over cliche, and talk about real ideas for improving things.

And who is the best candidate for that? Obama? Has he ever answered a serious question? Hillary? Has she not shown her true colors by trying to attack Obama's personal life, rather than his ideals?

Rudy? McCain? In fact I bet the Presidential campaign, once again will be about attacking each other personally, rather than attacking the viewpoint, the idea, and the vision. Its been like that a long time, and the American people HAVE NOT done anything to change it.

And voting for John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything.

Quote:

This is another cliche that ought to go the way of the dodo, as it serves to elide real issues. No, not ALL politicians are the same in regards to their relation to accountability or any other measure of job performance. Making distinctions between them in this regard is useful in choosing who to vote for.

And those politicians running for office don't fit into that category. The only one who has shown so far any sort of vision for the country is Obama. But he is also destined to make a mistake soon, and I wonder how everyone will react to it.

Quote:

I think that just about anyone running, with the exception of Giuliani, would be more accountable than the current presnit.

Presnit?

How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

Azure · 9th March 2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power)

Lied under oath.

Great accountability.

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

Lied under oath.

Great accountability.

That's all?

shecky · 9th March 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Azure

How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

Some of his harshest criticism, even on the right, has to do with his lack of tolerance for disloyalty, dissent, and his cronyism. Do these characteristics sound familiar?

hgc · 9th March 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

And who is the best candidate for that? Obama? Has he ever answered a serious question? Hillary? Has she not shown her true colors by trying to attack Obama's personal life, rather than his ideals?

Rudy? McCain? In fact I bet the Presidential campaign, once again will be about attacking each other personally, rather than attacking the viewpoint, the idea, and the vision. Its been like that a long time, and the American people HAVE NOT done anything to change it.

And voting for John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything.

And those politicians running for office don't fit into that category. The only one who has shown so far any sort of vision for the country is Obama. But he is also destined to make a mistake soon, and I wonder how everyone will react to it.

All this is interesting opinion, but it doesn't change what I said before. "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Worse than useless actually. Their intent is to stifle discussion of comparative preferability of one or the other candidate. They're usually employed by someone when his own particular preference is being criticized.

Quote:

Presnit?

It's a colloquialism.

Quote:

How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

I lived in New York City while he was mayor for eight years. He is every bit as secretive and hostile to executive accountability as Dick Cheney. It was bad enough for New York, and would be truly awful if he were to continue that legacy at the federal level.

Regnad Kcin · 9th March 2007, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

Lied under oath.

Great accountability.

A choice that was not a black and white issue, difficult as it is for some people to admit.

In any event, please don't derail into a discussion of Mr. Clinton.

Upchurch · 9th March 2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

"Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches.

Which isn't to say it probably isn't true. Honestly, I doubt politicians have changed much over the ages.

However, that doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. Those cliches are truisms (or at least the second one is), not an excuse.

hgc · 9th March 2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Which isn't to say it probably isn't true. Honestly, I doubt politicians have changed much over the ages.

However, that doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. Those cliches are truisms (or at least the second one is), not an excuse.

One could certainly make a case that it's true, but that doesn't make it any more useful, i.e., it's a truism, as you said. People are going into voting booths to choose actual candidates, and discussions are raging all over about this, that or the other option. "Fire them all" just isn't an option. "They're all the same" does nothing to evaluate the choices. Sure politics hasn't changed much throughout the history of civilization - in certain ways. So what? It is what it is. Do the best within that framework.

(Not to sound like I thought you were disagreeing, Upchurch. I'm just on a roll about something that pisses me off.)

Azure · 10th March 2007, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by shecky

Some of his harshest criticism, even on the right, has to do with his lack of tolerance for disloyalty, dissent, and his cronyism. Do these characteristics sound familiar?

Merely an opinion.

Your belief that he won't be accountable to the American people is simply an assumption.

People also thought Obama was educated in Muslim...oh wait, that was Hillary.

Azure · 10th March 2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

A choice that was not a black and white issue, difficult as it is for some people to admit.

In any event, please don't derail into a discussion of Mr. Clinton.

I never started it.

Upchurch did.

Azure · 10th March 2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

All this is interesting opinion, but it doesn't change what I said before. "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Worse than useless actually. Their intent is to stifle discussion of comparative preferability of one or the other candidate. They're usually employed by someone when his own particular preference is being criticized.

Lets throw another cliches around here.

Power corrupts people. Now I know there are some politicians out there who do their best to serve the American people, Democrat or Republican. But I find it that such candidates are not always in the front running to be CIC.

Now, I like Obama, I think he is a respectable candidate....but he will face a lot of opposition, especially from that bitch Hillary, so the jury is still out on him.

I hope he succeeds though.

Quote:

It's a colloquialism.

Whatever.

Quote:

I lived in New York City while he was mayor for eight years. He is every bit as secretive and hostile to executive accountability as Dick Cheney. It was bad enough for New York, and would be truly awful if he were to continue that legacy at the federal level.

Ah, a valid reason.

Interesting,

Upchurch · 10th March 2007, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

I never started it.

Upchurch did.

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

President Bush · 10th March 2007, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

Will it be Laura?

Oh, no!

geni · 10th March 2007, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

The best reason to resign would be so his replacement has time to establish a reputation before he runs for Pres.

I think that saying well away from bush is quite high on the priorities of most likely candidates.

Azure · 10th March 2007, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people.

Go back and read your freakin' post.

TragicMonkey · 10th March 2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

He weighs more than a duck, not as much as a duck.

Ni.

DR

The last time someone tried to get Cheney and a duck together to compare their weights, he got shot in the face for his efforts. I don't think anyone's too eager to attempt the experiment again.

Darth Rotor · 11th March 2007, 09:45 AM

That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event:

Quote:

QUESTION: Tell me what happened?
ANSWER: Well, basically, we were hunting quail late in the day ...
QUESTION: Describe the setting.
ANSWER: It's in south Texas, wide open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country. I've gone there, to the Armstrong ranch, for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday ...

DR

hgc · 11th March 2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event:

DR

What do you mean? An African or European quail?

Upchurch · 11th March 2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people.

And ignored everything else.

Originally Posted by Azure

Go back and read your freakin' post.

Read it yourself. You obviously didn't the first time.

Azure · 11th March 2007, 05:03 PM

I don't get it.

You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?

Tricky · 11th March 2007, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't get it.

You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?

No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.

Azure · 11th March 2007, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.

I said nothing about Bill Clinton.

Upchurch first mentioned Bill Clinton.

I know he has 11,000 plus posts and all, but this is pathetic.

Tricky · 11th March 2007, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

I said nothing about Bill Clinton.

Upchurch first mentioned Bill Clinton.

Nevertheless, in post 51, you first brought in Hillary Clinton for no apparent reason other than what appeared to be an attempt at a tu quoque. It was at that point that the derailing began. (Just for accounting purposes.)

Azure · 11th March 2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Nevertheless, in post 51, you first brought in Hillary Clinton for no apparent reason other than what appeared to be an attempt at a tu quoque. It was at that point that the derailing began. (Just for accounting purposes.)

Or not. I brought up Hillary because we were talking about possible future Presidential candidates, which she is, and how accountable they will be to the American people.

I never said a word about Bill, was never talking about him, and never even thought about mentioning him until Upchurch did. Frankly, I have no idea why he even brought his name up. Last time I checked, Bill had served his 8 years.

I guess you must have missed that too.

Azure · 11th March 2007, 08:54 PM

Since you guys have such a short memory span, and go anal blaming me for derailing the thread, and simply can't read for yourself, I'll give you a hint.

I said this...

Quote:

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

Now where exactly did I mention Bill? And why the hell did Upchurch post this?

Originally Posted by Upchurch

First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power)

Thanks.

I would ask for an apology, but I imagine the pride of having 10,000 plus posts goes straight to the head.

Tricky · 11th March 2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

Or not. I brought up Hillary because we were talking about possible future Presidential candidates, which she is, and how accountable they will be to the American people.

I don't believe anyone else was discussing that topic before that point.

Originally Posted by Azure

I never said a word about Bill, was never talking about him, and never even thought about mentioning him until Upchurch did. Frankly, I have no idea why he even brought his name up. Last time I checked, Bill had served his 8 years.

Nevertheless, this thread wasn't about the Clintons. Perhaps he derailed it in a different direction than your derail, but if it is really that important to you to know who derailed first, I'm just pointing that out.

My own personal feeling is that there is no sense in worrying about not derailing threads. It happens. Unless it starts to get ugly, people can happily meander all over the place.

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess you must have missed that too.

I don't have a dog in this race.

Originally Posted by Azure

I would ask for an apology, but I imagine the pride of having 10,000 plus posts goes straight to the head.

You see, I think this sort of personal attack is what causes threads to get ugly. Some of my favorite posters here are newbies. Some of my least favorite are members of the "10,000 plus club", neither is my respect for them based on whether they are "left" or "right".

But you needn't apologize. These are politics forums. If I were thin-skinned, I wouldn't come here.

Upchurch · 12th March 2007, 06:33 AM

Anyway, getting back to my original point.

Duke Cunningham owned up to his many indiscretions.
Bill Clinton owned up to his misleading the American public.

The point is that personal accountability is not unheard of in politics, nor is the executive branch heeding the power of the legislative branch.

On or before March 31, 2007	1	1.82%
Between April Fools Day and New Years Eve 2007	3	5.45%
Between New Years Day 2008 and Jan 20, 2009	3	5.45%
Never	48	87.27%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

8th March 2007, 06:23 PM	#41
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,007	OK, I went ahead and voted for this month. I just cruised the news shows, and they're all talking about it. On Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell just said that it won't happen. So I'm fairly sure it will. I realized that my question has an equivocation built in. Does it refer to Cheney's resignation, or announcement of same? How much time may lapse in between, a la Cheney will leave when new VP is confirmed by the Senate. There's some chess!
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert Last edited by hgc; 8th March 2007 at 06:26 PM.

9th March 2007, 07:14 AM	#44
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,007	What I'm wondering is if Cheney doesn't take himself out of the game, who's voice will penetrate Bush's thick skull to finallly get him to pull the trigger? It won't be Daddy -- Bush has already shown a disinclination to taking guff from that quarter. Will it be Rove? Will it be Laura? Jenna? Someone? Anyone?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

9th March 2007, 09:38 AM	#50
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,293	Originally Posted by Azure I'm sure thats the way you prefer, right? Why would he resign? A year and a half left until his term is over...might as well ride the train out. If you are trying to say that I want Cheney to die, then what you are saying is quite wrong. I do not want anyone (Cheney, Bush, my mother, you, or anyone) to die.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

9th March 2007, 10:09 AM	#52
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,007	Originally Posted by Azure And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new. Maybe it's time to retire the silly fire them all and start over cliche, and talk about real ideas for improving things. Quote: Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians. You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people? This is another cliche that ought to go the way of the dodo, as it serves to elide real issues. No, not ALL politicians are the same in regards to their relation to accountability or any other measure of job performance. Making distinctions between them in this regard is useful in choosing who to vote for. I think that just about anyone running, with the exception of Giuliani, would be more accountable than the current presnit.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

9th March 2007, 12:20 AM	#42
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,254	Originally Posted by hgc I realized that my question has an equivocation built in. Does it refer to Cheney's resignation, or announcement of same? How much time may lapse in between, a la Cheney will leave when new VP is confirmed by the Senate. If Cheney announces his resignation this month, regardless of when he actually leaves office I am prepared to give you credit for a successful prediction. My raquetball buddies were speculating about this topic this evening. One guy's theory was that Lieberman would get picked as VP to replace Cheney. I thought it was unlikely, I doubt a Democratically controlled house would go along with that, but Lieberman as secretary of state, as suggested above, seems a tad more plausible. Are there any signs that Bush is actually trying to Bush Cheney out? I thought that recent round the world Cheney diplomatic trip was a sign that Bush still supported Cheney. But maybe, it was just a sign Cheney wanted to be out of town when the Libby verdict was announced. But then the jury screwed him up by taking longer to reach a verdict than he predicted.

9th March 2007, 06:39 AM	#43
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by davefoc Are there any signs that Bush is actually trying to Bush Cheney out? Would it matter? Rumsfield was out days after Bush said he was in for the long haul (or something to that effect). Michael Brown was out not too long after Bush said he was "doing a heck of a job" and gave him a pat on the back.

9th March 2007, 07:20 AM	#45
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by hgc What I'm wondering is if Cheney doesn't take himself out of the game, who's voice will penetrate Bush's thick skull to finallly get him to pull the trigger? It won't be Daddy -- Bush has already shown a disinclination to taking guff from that quarter. Will it be Rove? Will it be Laura? Jenna? Someone? Anyone? The American people.

9th March 2007, 08:26 AM	#46
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Upchurch The American people. I thought so.

9th March 2007, 08:34 AM	#47
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Azure I thought so. Thought what?

9th March 2007, 08:40 AM	#48
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Upchurch Thought what? Your arrogance towards the power the American people hold over politicians. Well perhaps not arrogant, but you clearly do not trust that the VP, or the POTUS still answer to the American people. Why not move to a country where they do? Like, ah, ummmm...

9th March 2007, 09:18 AM	#49
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Azure Your arrogance towards the power the American people hold over politicians. Well perhaps not arrogant, No, not arrogant. When you think of what it is you are trying to say, let me know Originally Posted by Azure but you clearly do not trust that the VP, or the POTUS still answer to the American people. No, I don't. The arrogance* of the Executive Branch of our government has been out of control for years now. They dictate to Congress the terms under which they will allow Congress to question them. Personal accountability is almost entirely unheard of in this administration. Why on Earth would they listen to the American people when the American people's representatives won't stand up to them? Originally Posted by Azure Why not move to a country where they do? Because I love this country and what it stands for. * and I do mean arrogance.

9th March 2007, 09:54 AM	#51
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Upchurch No, I don't. The arrogance* of the Executive Branch of our government has been out of control for years now. They dictate to Congress the terms under which they will allow Congress to question them. And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new. Quote: Personal accountability is almost entirely unheard of in this administration. Why on Earth would they listen to the American people when the American people's representatives won't stand up to them? Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians. You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people? You're a bit bias in your theory here. Quote: Because I love this country and what it stands for. * and I do mean arrogance. If you say so.

9th March 2007, 10:11 AM	#53
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Azure And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new. From time to time, maybe. Originally Posted by Azure Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians. You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people? You're a bit bias in your theory here. Pot, Kettle. First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power) Second, Duke Cunningham, for example, eventually owned up to what he had done and took responsibility. Third, I have no idea what Hillary Clinton might do in the future. If you do, I know where you can grab an easy million bucks. (How does Hillary Clinton fit into this conversation?) Fourth, your selective memory of recent history and bizarre non-sequitor in the post I quoted shows plenty of bias on your part. More, I would humbly suggest, than I have shown so far in this thread. Originally Posted by Azure If you say so. I do.

9th March 2007, 10:29 AM	#54
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by hgc Maybe it's time to retire the silly fire them all and start over cliche, and talk about real ideas for improving things. And who is the best candidate for that? Obama? Has he ever answered a serious question? Hillary? Has she not shown her true colors by trying to attack Obama's personal life, rather than his ideals? Rudy? McCain? In fact I bet the Presidential campaign, once again will be about attacking each other personally, rather than attacking the viewpoint, the idea, and the vision. Its been like that a long time, and the American people HAVE NOT done anything to change it. And voting for John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything. Quote: This is another cliche that ought to go the way of the dodo, as it serves to elide real issues. No, not ALL politicians are the same in regards to their relation to accountability or any other measure of job performance. Making distinctions between them in this regard is useful in choosing who to vote for. And those politicians running for office don't fit into that category. The only one who has shown so far any sort of vision for the country is Obama. But he is also destined to make a mistake soon, and I wonder how everyone will react to it. Quote: I think that just about anyone running, with the exception of Giuliani, would be more accountable than the current presnit. Presnit? How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

9th March 2007, 10:31 AM	#55
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Upchurch First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power) Lied under oath. Great accountability.

9th March 2007, 11:01 AM	#56
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Azure Lied under oath. Great accountability. That's all?

9th March 2007, 11:31 AM	#57
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Originally Posted by Azure How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people? Some of his harshest criticism, even on the right, has to do with his lack of tolerance for disloyalty, dissent, and his cronyism. Do these characteristics sound familiar?
	__________________ "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." - Investors Business Daily

9th March 2007, 12:10 PM	#58
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,007	Originally Posted by Azure And who is the best candidate for that? Obama? Has he ever answered a serious question? Hillary? Has she not shown her true colors by trying to attack Obama's personal life, rather than his ideals? Rudy? McCain? In fact I bet the Presidential campaign, once again will be about attacking each other personally, rather than attacking the viewpoint, the idea, and the vision. Its been like that a long time, and the American people HAVE NOT done anything to change it. And voting for John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything. And those politicians running for office don't fit into that category. The only one who has shown so far any sort of vision for the country is Obama. But he is also destined to make a mistake soon, and I wonder how everyone will react to it. All this is interesting opinion, but it doesn't change what I said before. "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Worse than useless actually. Their intent is to stifle discussion of comparative preferability of one or the other candidate. They're usually employed by someone when his own particular preference is being criticized. Quote: Presnit? It's a colloquialism. Quote: How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people? I lived in New York City while he was mayor for eight years. He is every bit as secretive and hostile to executive accountability as Dick Cheney. It was bad enough for New York, and would be truly awful if he were to continue that legacy at the federal level.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert Last edited by hgc; 9th March 2007 at 12:13 PM.

9th March 2007, 12:16 PM	#59
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,210	Originally Posted by Azure Lied under oath. Great accountability. A choice that was not a black and white issue, difficult as it is for some people to admit. In any event, please don't derail into a discussion of Mr. Clinton.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

9th March 2007, 12:17 PM	#60
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by hgc "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Which isn't to say it probably isn't true. Honestly, I doubt politicians have changed much over the ages. However, that doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. Those cliches are truisms (or at least the second one is), not an excuse.

9th March 2007, 12:23 PM	#61
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,007	Originally Posted by Upchurch Which isn't to say it probably isn't true. Honestly, I doubt politicians have changed much over the ages. However, that doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. Those cliches are truisms (or at least the second one is), not an excuse. One could certainly make a case that it's true, but that doesn't make it any more useful, i.e., it's a truism, as you said. People are going into voting booths to choose actual candidates, and discussions are raging all over about this, that or the other option. "Fire them all" just isn't an option. "They're all the same" does nothing to evaluate the choices. Sure politics hasn't changed much throughout the history of civilization - in certain ways. So what? It is what it is. Do the best within that framework. (Not to sound like I thought you were disagreeing, Upchurch. I'm just on a roll about something that pisses me off.)
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

10th March 2007, 11:54 AM	#62
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by shecky Some of his harshest criticism, even on the right, has to do with his lack of tolerance for disloyalty, dissent, and his cronyism. Do these characteristics sound familiar? Merely an opinion. Your belief that he won't be accountable to the American people is simply an assumption. People also thought Obama was educated in Muslim...oh wait, that was Hillary.

10th March 2007, 11:56 AM	#63
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin A choice that was not a black and white issue, difficult as it is for some people to admit. In any event, please don't derail into a discussion of Mr. Clinton. I never started it. Upchurch did.

10th March 2007, 12:00 PM	#64
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by hgc All this is interesting opinion, but it doesn't change what I said before. "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Worse than useless actually. Their intent is to stifle discussion of comparative preferability of one or the other candidate. They're usually employed by someone when his own particular preference is being criticized. Lets throw another cliches around here. Power corrupts people. Now I know there are some politicians out there who do their best to serve the American people, Democrat or Republican. But I find it that such candidates are not always in the front running to be CIC. Now, I like Obama, I think he is a respectable candidate....but he will face a lot of opposition, especially from that bitch Hillary, so the jury is still out on him. I hope he succeeds though. Quote: It's a colloquialism. Whatever. Quote: I lived in New York City while he was mayor for eight years. He is every bit as secretive and hostile to executive accountability as Dick Cheney. It was bad enough for New York, and would be truly awful if he were to continue that legacy at the federal level. Ah, a valid reason. Interesting,

10th March 2007, 06:59 PM	#65
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Azure I never started it. Upchurch did. I beg your pardon? Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

10th March 2007, 07:23 PM	#66
President Bush Banned Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Islets of Langerhans Posts: 1,506	Originally Posted by hgc Will it be Laura? Oh, no!

10th March 2007, 07:31 PM	#67
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by casebro The best reason to resign would be so his replacement has time to establish a reputation before he runs for Pres. I think that saying well away from bush is quite high on the priorities of most likely candidates.

10th March 2007, 07:50 PM	#68
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Upchurch I beg your pardon? Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing". You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people. Go back and read your freakin' post.

10th March 2007, 09:34 PM	#69
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,070	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor He weighs more than a duck, not as much as a duck. Ni. DR The last time someone tried to get Cheney and a duck together to compare their weights, he got shot in the face for his efforts. I don't think anyone's too eager to attempt the experiment again.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

11th March 2007, 09:45 AM	#70
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event: Quote: QUESTION: Tell me what happened? ANSWER: Well, basically, we were hunting quail late in the day ... QUESTION: Describe the setting. ANSWER: It's in south Texas, wide open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country. I've gone there, to the Armstrong ranch, for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday ... DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

11th March 2007, 10:26 AM	#71
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,007	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event: DR What do you mean? An African or European quail?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

11th March 2007, 12:54 PM	#72
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Azure You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people. And ignored everything else. Originally Posted by Azure Go back and read your freakin' post. Read it yourself. You obviously didn't the first time.

11th March 2007, 05:03 PM	#73
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	I don't get it. You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?

11th March 2007, 07:44 PM	#74
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Azure I don't get it. You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton? No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.