When drudge says something that Libs don't like, they say "Drudge is inaccurate and unfiltered.", never mind the fact that just about every thing he posts is a link to stuff from AP, and the stuff he finds, appears on the AP two days to a week later.
I could say "CNN is nothing but a bunch of Libs who are intent an bringing Bush down.", which I know is a misnomer, but CNN does have more of a lib slant, but they counter the more conservative FOX NEWS.
As for this, the VP, no matter what party wouldnt say that in a place where it would be reported, if there are no third party eye witnesses, then it is a lassic he-said-he-said.
And what does the fact that cheny used to run Halliburton have to do with this story?
seems there is a clearer and imho, better written peice here:
until now . . apparently Cheney is wearing it on his sleave and unapologetic:
Quote:
expressed myself rather forcefully. I felt better after I did it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto.
He is the Vice President, he should hold jimself to higher standards . . . and should he slip verbally, as he is bound to do . . . and as anyone should in his anxiety prone position, he should apologize . . .
Hell, Fellowship woulda MODERATED HIS ASS off these boards!! . . . . shouldn't we demand at least a semblance of concern that he is lowering the standard of public discourse . . .
I mean, we all KNOW that this guy is good at dissembling so the least we can do is hope for semblance . . .
another great thing to note. . . . doesn't this contradict completely the whole "Rage and Pessimism" campaign against the Democrats on the GOP website
[EDIT: added past tense to fellowship's moderating]
You care about Kerry cussing. You claim to not care about Cheney cussing.
Now, pointing out that you are a partisan hack is not difficult, but just accept it and move on.
One good personal insult deserves another. You blow goats. Just accept it and move on.
I gave it context. Someone overhearing you curse is not the same thing as going "on the record" in an interview. I didn't condemn Kerry either. I only characterized it as odd and interesting since we all know that all politicians carefully manage their image. Kerry going on the record means he wants that language to be part of his image. Cheney just uttered the word in everyday use. Much like you, I, John Kerry, George Bush, and yes Dick Cheney probably do. I'm sure all these guys probably wipe their ass as well. That doesn't mean they put the video of them doing it out on the public record. If one of them did, I would find it odd, interesting and probably post a link about it, just like I did before.
Yes, and you posted in this thread so I suppose you must be "outraged" as well.
I must've missed the "post only if you're outraged" part of the starting post.
And no, I'm not outraged. I couldn't fucking care less if Cheney uses the word fuck. In fact I think starting a thread because someone used the word fuck is...fucking retarded IMO.
Now the hypocrisy of some is almost as entertaining as it was predictable.
I must've missed the "post only if you're outraged" part of the starting post.
And no, I'm not outraged. I couldn't fucking care less if Cheney uses the word fuck. In fact I think starting a thread because someone used the word fuck is...fucking retarded IMO.
Now the hypocrisy of some is almost as entertaining as it was predictable.
You know, if you are going to be insulting, at least don't be cowardly about it. SOME people hiding behind SOME words are truly SOMEWHAT cowardly. SOME people should just say SOMETHING outright instead of hiding behind innuendo.
So you care when John Kerry uses profanity to describe the job performance of the President-- to a youth-oriented magazine where such language resonates, but you don't care when Dick Cheney uses it to dismiss Senator Leahy-- in person-- and in a context where that kind of language isn't acceptable-- let alone a mature way to talk to another public servant. We go way back, Nicky, but that's just loopy!
So you care when John Kerry uses profanity to describe the job performance of the President-- to a youth-oriented magazine where such language resonates, but you don't mind it when Dick Cheney uses it to dismiss Senator Leahy-- in person-- and in a context where that kind of language isn't acceptable-- let alone a mature way to talk to another public servant. We go way back, Nicky, but that's just loopy!
The interest was not in the word, but rather in the going on the record with it. I don't care/have an interest in what people do off the record because, GASP, they all probably are normal people who talk normally.
Sadly you don't seem to understand the difference. It is either that or you don't understand interview etiquette.
The interest was not in the word, but rather in the going on the record with it. I don't care/have an interest in what people do off the record because, GASP, they all probably are normal people who talk normally.
Sadly you don't seem to understand the difference. It is either that or you don't understand interview etiquette.
Nick
That sounds like a Democrat talking . . . oh, let's say four years or so ago.
You know, if you are going to be insulting, at least don't be cowardly about it. SOME people hiding behind SOME words are truly SOMEWHAT cowardly. SOME people should just say SOMETHING outright instead of hiding behind innuendo.
You're right. I was kinda vague in who I was referring to when I said "some". I was actually referring to Cheney himself and the apologists who came out to defend him.
The interest was not in the word, but rather in the going on the record with it. I don't care/have an interest in what people do off the record because, GASP, they all probably are normal people who talk normally.
Sadly you don't seem to understand the difference. It is either that or you don't understand interview etiquette.
Nick
Well, your argument is more about intent than simply being "on" or "off the record." I guess Cheney never intended to go on the record, but he certainly is. Kerry, on the other hand, intended the Rolling Stone writer to faithfully report his words. The problem with your argument is that several sources reported Cheney's comments, according to the CNN article. The Vice-President should expect the media to report any public use of profanity, especially directed to another public servant, during the photo op. It's not like the media bugged him or anything. So in short, Cheney should have fully expected the media to report his public words. In other words, he was effectively on the record.
What bugs me is not the use of the word itself, but the way Cheney used it. I didn't really mind when Kerry said it because he used it to describe the job performance of the president. To fuck up is obviously to mess up very badly. But it does bother me to hear the Vice President tell a Senator of the opposing party to "fuck off" because I don't expect public servants to interact with each other in such a hostile, immature way. My opinion would be the same regardless of who tells who to "fuck off"- you just don't treat people that way. Now if Ken Star or Rush Limbaugh ever crossed Kerry's path, I wouldn't mind it.
Well, your argument is more about intent than simply being "on" or "off the record." I guess Cheney never intended to go on the record, but he certainly is. Kerry, on the other hand, intended the Rolling Stone writer to faithfully report his words. The problem with your argument is that several sources reported Cheney's comments, according to the CNN article. The Vice-President should expect the media to report any public use of profanity, especially directed to another public servant, during the photo op. It's not like the media bugged him or anything. So in short, Cheney should have fully expected the media to report his public words. In other words, he was effectively on the record.
What bugs me is not the use of the word itself, but the way Cheney used it. I didn't really care when Kerry said it because he used it to describe the job performance of the president. To fuck up is obviously to mess up very badly. But it does bother me to hear the Vice President tell a Senator of the opposing party to "fuck off" because I don't expect public servants to interact with each other in such a hostile, immature way. My opinion would be the same regardless of who tells who to "fuck off"- you just don't treat people that way. Now if Ken Star or Rush Limbaugh ever crossed Kerry's path, I wouldn't mind it.
But also he proudly is now wearing on his sleave
and
that pride at his unwarranted outburst directly contradicts the new GOP campaign against the Dems subtitled 'Rage And Pessimism' .. . he's shooting the website in the foot
That sounds like a Democrat talking . . . oh, let's say four years or so ago.
You're right. That whole "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." That was totally off the record. Also she wasn't a public employee having doing sexual things in public places with the president.
I don't have to care what Clinton does in his bedroom. I do care what he does in the Oval Office(or the hallway next to it), and if that includes having ol'Monica blow his johnson, then he should have just gotten a room.
that pride at his unwarranted outburst directly contradicts the new GOP campaign against the Dems subtitled 'Rage And Pessimism' .. . he's shooting the website in the foot
Better add that to your list of contradictions in the other thread.
Well, your argument is more about intent than simply being "on" or "off the record." I guess Cheney never intended to go on the record, but he certainly is. Kerry, on the other hand, intended the Rolling Stone writer to faithfully report his words. The problem with your argument is that several sources reported Cheney's comments, according to the CNN article. The Vice-President should expect the media to report any public use of profanity, especially directed to another public servant, during the photo op. It's not like the media bugged him or anything. So in short, Cheney should have fully expected the media to report his public words. In other words, he was effectively on the record.
Isn't it amazing that you know my own argument better than...well me.
Quote:
It just seems odd for a presidential contender to let this roll on out in a magazine. I guess it goes with riding the motorcycle.
That is my characterization of the Kerry cursing. The "intent" is entirely about image and cultivation of it.
As for Cheney and the reporting of what he said, there is no problem. I understood the context of it and just didn't care. It would be like a reporting writing that Kerry picked his nose or Bush wiped his own ass. We all know people do these things. That doesn't mean they sit there and make it the focus of an interview.
If Kerry or Cheney appeared on a Rolling Stone cover picking their nose, it isn't as if it isn't a natural thing that everyone has done in their lives. But it would probably provoke discussion about their intent with regard to image/public persona and what they are trying to convey. That is an entirely seperate issue from whether I would care about nose picking.
Comments
When drudge says something that Libs don't like, they say "Drudge is inaccurate and unfiltered.", never mind the fact that just about every thing he posts is a link to stuff from AP, and the stuff he finds, appears on the AP two days to a week later.
I could say "CNN is nothing but a bunch of Libs who are intent an bringing Bush down.", which I know is a misnomer, but CNN does have more of a lib slant, but they counter the more conservative FOX NEWS.
As for this, the VP, no matter what party wouldnt say that in a place where it would be reported, if there are no third party eye witnesses, then it is a lassic he-said-he-said.
And what does the fact that cheny used to run Halliburton have to do with this story?
seems there is a clearer and imho, better written peice here:
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id...0|reuters.html
Originally posted by a_greer
And what does the fact that cheny used to run Halliburton have to do with this story?
Who's Cheny? Is he a friend of "Sadom Husain"?
You cared enough when Kerry cursed that you started a thread about it.
Ding ding ding ding ding. Ugly.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Ding ding ding ding ding. Ugly.
Yes, and you posted in this thread so I suppose you must be "outraged" as well.
Nick
until now . . apparently Cheney is wearing it on his sleave and unapologetic:
expressed myself rather forcefully. I felt better after I did it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto.
He is the Vice President, he should hold jimself to higher standards . . . and should he slip verbally, as he is bound to do . . . and as anyone should in his anxiety prone position, he should apologize . . .
Hell, Fellowship woulda MODERATED HIS ASS off these boards!! . . . . shouldn't we demand at least a semblance of concern that he is lowering the standard of public discourse . . .
I mean, we all KNOW that this guy is good at dissembling so the least we can do is hope for semblance . . .
another great thing to note. . . . doesn't this contradict completely the whole "Rage and Pessimism" campaign against the Democrats on the GOP website
[EDIT: added past tense to fellowship's moderating]
You care about Kerry cussing. You claim to not care about Cheney cussing.
Now, pointing out that you are a partisan hack is not difficult, but just accept it and move on.
"As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate passed legislation described as the 'Defense of Decency Act' by 99 to 1.
Who was that one dessenting vote?
Originally posted by groverat
"Outrage" is not the only facet of caring.
You care about Kerry cussing. You claim to not care about Cheney cussing.
Now, pointing out that you are a partisan hack is not difficult, but just accept it and move on.
One good personal insult deserves another. You blow goats. Just accept it and move on.
I gave it context. Someone overhearing you curse is not the same thing as going "on the record" in an interview. I didn't condemn Kerry either. I only characterized it as odd and interesting since we all know that all politicians carefully manage their image. Kerry going on the record means he wants that language to be part of his image. Cheney just uttered the word in everyday use. Much like you, I, John Kerry, George Bush, and yes Dick Cheney probably do. I'm sure all these guys probably wipe their ass as well. That doesn't mean they put the video of them doing it out on the public record. If one of them did, I would find it odd, interesting and probably post a link about it, just like I did before.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes, and you posted in this thread so I suppose you must be "outraged" as well.
I must've missed the "post only if you're outraged" part of the starting post.
And no, I'm not outraged. I couldn't fucking care less if Cheney uses the word fuck. In fact I think starting a thread because someone used the word fuck is...fucking retarded IMO.
Now the hypocrisy of some is almost as entertaining as it was predictable.
Originally posted by Gilsch
I must've missed the "post only if you're outraged" part of the starting post.
And no, I'm not outraged. I couldn't fucking care less if Cheney uses the word fuck. In fact I think starting a thread because someone used the word fuck is...fucking retarded IMO.
Now the hypocrisy of some is almost as entertaining as it was predictable.
You know, if you are going to be insulting, at least don't be cowardly about it. SOME people hiding behind SOME words are truly SOMEWHAT cowardly. SOME people should just say SOMETHING outright instead of hiding behind innuendo.
Nick
Edit: Clarity.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So you care when John Kerry uses profanity to describe the job performance of the President-- to a youth-oriented magazine where such language resonates, but you don't mind it when Dick Cheney uses it to dismiss Senator Leahy-- in person-- and in a context where that kind of language isn't acceptable-- let alone a mature way to talk to another public servant. We go way back, Nicky, but that's just loopy!
The interest was not in the word, but rather in the going on the record with it. I don't care/have an interest in what people do off the record because, GASP, they all probably are normal people who talk normally.
Sadly you don't seem to understand the difference. It is either that or you don't understand interview etiquette.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The interest was not in the word, but rather in the going on the record with it. I don't care/have an interest in what people do off the record because, GASP, they all probably are normal people who talk normally.
Sadly you don't seem to understand the difference. It is either that or you don't understand interview etiquette.
Nick
That sounds like a Democrat talking . . . oh, let's say four years or so ago.
Originally posted by trumptman
You know, if you are going to be insulting, at least don't be cowardly about it. SOME people hiding behind SOME words are truly SOMEWHAT cowardly. SOME people should just say SOMETHING outright instead of hiding behind innuendo.
You're right. I was kinda vague in who I was referring to when I said "some". I was actually referring to Cheney himself and the apologists who came out to defend him.
Did it touch a nerve or something?
Originally posted by trumptman
The interest was not in the word, but rather in the going on the record with it. I don't care/have an interest in what people do off the record because, GASP, they all probably are normal people who talk normally.
Sadly you don't seem to understand the difference. It is either that or you don't understand interview etiquette.
Nick
Well, your argument is more about intent than simply being "on" or "off the record." I guess Cheney never intended to go on the record, but he certainly is. Kerry, on the other hand, intended the Rolling Stone writer to faithfully report his words. The problem with your argument is that several sources reported Cheney's comments, according to the CNN article. The Vice-President should expect the media to report any public use of profanity, especially directed to another public servant, during the photo op. It's not like the media bugged him or anything. So in short, Cheney should have fully expected the media to report his public words. In other words, he was effectively on the record.
What bugs me is not the use of the word itself, but the way Cheney used it. I didn't really mind when Kerry said it because he used it to describe the job performance of the president. To fuck up is obviously to mess up very badly. But it does bother me to hear the Vice President tell a Senator of the opposing party to "fuck off" because I don't expect public servants to interact with each other in such a hostile, immature way. My opinion would be the same regardless of who tells who to "fuck off"- you just don't treat people that way. Now if Ken Star or Rush Limbaugh ever crossed Kerry's path, I wouldn't mind it.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, your argument is more about intent than simply being "on" or "off the record." I guess Cheney never intended to go on the record, but he certainly is. Kerry, on the other hand, intended the Rolling Stone writer to faithfully report his words. The problem with your argument is that several sources reported Cheney's comments, according to the CNN article. The Vice-President should expect the media to report any public use of profanity, especially directed to another public servant, during the photo op. It's not like the media bugged him or anything. So in short, Cheney should have fully expected the media to report his public words. In other words, he was effectively on the record.
What bugs me is not the use of the word itself, but the way Cheney used it. I didn't really care when Kerry said it because he used it to describe the job performance of the president. To fuck up is obviously to mess up very badly. But it does bother me to hear the Vice President tell a Senator of the opposing party to "fuck off" because I don't expect public servants to interact with each other in such a hostile, immature way. My opinion would be the same regardless of who tells who to "fuck off"- you just don't treat people that way. Now if Ken Star or Rush Limbaugh ever crossed Kerry's path, I wouldn't mind it.
But also he proudly is now wearing on his sleave
and
that pride at his unwarranted outburst directly contradicts the new GOP campaign against the Dems subtitled 'Rage And Pessimism' .. . he's shooting the website in the foot
Originally posted by pfflam
That sounds like a Democrat talking . . . oh, let's say four years or so ago.
You're right. That whole "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." That was totally off the record. Also she wasn't a public employee having doing sexual things in public places with the president.
I don't have to care what Clinton does in his bedroom. I do care what he does in the Oval Office(or the hallway next to it), and if that includes having ol'Monica blow his johnson, then he should have just gotten a room.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
But also he proudly is now wearing on his sleave
and
that pride at his unwarranted outburst directly contradicts the new GOP campaign against the Dems subtitled 'Rage And Pessimism' .. . he's shooting the website in the foot
Better add that to your list of contradictions in the other thread.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, your argument is more about intent than simply being "on" or "off the record." I guess Cheney never intended to go on the record, but he certainly is. Kerry, on the other hand, intended the Rolling Stone writer to faithfully report his words. The problem with your argument is that several sources reported Cheney's comments, according to the CNN article. The Vice-President should expect the media to report any public use of profanity, especially directed to another public servant, during the photo op. It's not like the media bugged him or anything. So in short, Cheney should have fully expected the media to report his public words. In other words, he was effectively on the record.
Isn't it amazing that you know my own argument better than...well me.
It just seems odd for a presidential contender to let this roll on out in a magazine. I guess it goes with riding the motorcycle.
That is my characterization of the Kerry cursing. The "intent" is entirely about image and cultivation of it.
As for Cheney and the reporting of what he said, there is no problem. I understood the context of it and just didn't care. It would be like a reporting writing that Kerry picked his nose or Bush wiped his own ass. We all know people do these things. That doesn't mean they sit there and make it the focus of an interview.
If Kerry or Cheney appeared on a Rolling Stone cover picking their nose, it isn't as if it isn't a natural thing that everyone has done in their lives. But it would probably provoke discussion about their intent with regard to image/public persona and what they are trying to convey. That is an entirely seperate issue from whether I would care about nose picking.
If you can't seperate the two, too bad for you.
Nick