BS: Cheney in 2012

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: GUEST,seth in Olympia
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:05 AM

I've always kind of appreciated Cheney's snarling, anti-hero personality. I love the image of Cheney at the Holocaust commeration in Germany a few years ago, the rest of the world leaders in somber and appropriate dark suits and ties, and Cheney lookin' like he's been trying to clear the fuckin' blockage on his fuckin' snowblower! Too bad his politics suck, and that he seems to be a awful excuse for anyone who ever had anything to do with public policy.
And I don't begrudge him his five deferments. That is the combination that a lot of young men were trying to put together then. I wish I could have made that "five-fecta" work like he did.
I 'd like to suggest some candidates to run with Cheney in 2012:Miles Davis,Jerry Lee Lewis, Charles Bukowski,Clifton Chenier, Sonny Boy Williamson, Mississippi Big Joe Williams, Tom Waits... I don't think not being alive should prevent one from being a candidate, as long as you are born in the U.S.
from seth

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM

""Regarding the 'end of civilization', I think that sums it up. Guy can't even aim a shotgun or rifle or whateverthehellitwas, and he wants to have the Big Red Button!? Holy caust, Batman!""

He's not the screw-up who can't aim a shotgun Jeri, he's the f**king brain dead target who doesn't know enough not to stand in front of ole dead-eye Georgie W Bush, when HE has a loaded crowd killer in his hands.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 01:36 PM

Well, Ron, it's a little hard to say if it's hyperbole or not. On the one hand, what I mean by "the $ySStem" is simply "the way things work in an overall sense in the present society".

That is, I don't mean that there is a specific and perfectly organized hierarchy of controllers with specific officers in place at every level, and that has the whole thing organized right down to to every jot and tittle, and which controls everything in detail. No.

But what I do mean is that the forces of Big Money control what generally occurs in an overall sense in terms of politics, war, legislation, and marketing, and that those forces are in the hands of relatively few people...all of them very rich. They are, of course, in it for their own gain, so there is much infighting among them.

So is that hyperbole or is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 07:16 AM

Ah LH, but the question is if you are in fact using hyperbole when referring to the "$$ystem".   (It's your word--the spelling doesn't come easy for the rest of us).

If you are using hyperbole when you say "$$ystem", or however you spell it, hats off to you.

Otherwise it's just too pat an answer for economic phenomena.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:37 PM

Ron, it is you who are making the mistake of taking me literally in that post you allude to. ;-) You must get a better feel for my freewheeling sense of humour in these political discussions. The joke was meant to be shared with you and others, not debated as if it were serious commentary. Of course I knew you were using hyperbole when you said "sentient being". After all, you're not stupid, are you?

The word I use is "$ySStem". The $ part symbolizes the immense power of money that controls and manages the ruling $ySStem and allows it to manipulate both elections and legislation. The "SS" symbolizes the authoritarian, quasi-fascist methodology and intentions behind it all...a la Hitler's famous (or infamous?) SS corps.

The $ySStem is not omnipotent, because it's too stupid and unwieldy and far too unrealistic to ever become omnipotent...though it certainly desires to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:01 PM

Re: "sentient being":

LH--you really need to make it a high priority to hear Micca sing his great song:   "Hyperbole".

Ch: "I never meant to be taken literally/ I never thought (he) would/.   If (he) can't understand hyperbole/ It's damn near time he should"

There's a poster here who loves to wax lyrical on the "$ystem". The difference between me and this poster is that I know when I'm using hyperbole. The other poster in question however actually seems to be dead serious in believing in an omnipotent and oppressive "$ystem", when to quite a few readers it seems clear his depiction of the political situation is classic hyperbole.

I do like the phrase "sentient being". But not by quite a bit as much as the poster in question likes to talk about his "$ystem".

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 09:35 PM

Now you're talkin'! Want to join the Young Republicans? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 09:32 PM

'Cause Democrats aren't REAL Presidents!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 08:54 PM

Plus...he's a Democrat! Don't forget that. It's a double whammy.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 08:39 AM

What the "birthers" care about, like most of the Tea Party crowd, is that someone who isn't pink is living in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:41 AM

Excellent point! I find it quite persuasive.

However, I think you underestimate the sheer mental determination of people who want to believe something. What they will do is say, "I don't believe that story about the 40-year old newspapers. I think the news people who are spreading that story have been paid off by the Obama campaign to falsify the information, and I think the pictures they've shown on the media are faked, digitally altered. I won't believe it until I HOLD one of those old newspapers in my very own hands."

And they just go on listening to whoever says what they already want to hear.

Isn't that what most people do most of the time? They read what they agree with, seek out information that helps their case, listen to whoever says what they want to hear, and ignore or discount the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:52 PM

It wouldn't take diddly for someone with substantial resources to forge a birth certificate, "short form" or "long form"; but let's see you do a credible job of inserting a forged birth announcement into the 40 year old archives of two newspapers.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:43 PM

Ah, yes...but they are still quite sure where they were born! Regardless of evidence. ;-) Why? Well, because because people whom they feel they can trust (meaning their parents) told them where they were born, and that's what they go on, regardless of the presence (or not) of some apparently relevant official document saying where they were born.

An official document can be filled out in error. It can be a lie. It can be forged. Nothing else will convince a person of where they were born more than hearing about it from someone they personally trust...such as their Mom or Dad.

Since the birthers never knew Obama's Mom or Dad, all they really have to go on is various opinions that they hear from other people, and a birth certificate they've heard about also from other people. If they don't trust the people they've hear about it from, then they won't believe it. If they do believe the people they hear about it from who say that Obama wasn't born in America, then that's what they'll believe.

You see?

People believe what they wish to believe. This is true of almost all people almost all the time. Only when confronted with massive and irrefutable evidence to the contrary will they alter their favored set of beliefs.

Within their chosen set of beliefs, they are sentient and rational. But their sentience or at least their rationality stops dead at the barrier beyond which they are unwilling to go, and that barrier is the outer boundary of what they want to believe.

Watch a movie "The Downfall" about the last days in Hitler's bunker for a chilling demonstration of those dynamics at work in some highly intelligent people....but people hemmed in by strong political beliefs. Some of them eventually broke past the barriers of their own chosen beliefs and saw the reality of the situation. Others could not do so, and they chose death instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:29 PM

L.H., I seriously doubt that more than a small minority of the "birthers" could come up with as much hard evidence of their place of birth as there is for Obama's. To me, that puts most of them outside the realm of "sentient" thinking/defensible opinion, at least as to the point in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:24 PM

Oh, I quite agree with you, Ref. Yes, they are delusional. I sure as hell would not vote for Condoleeza Rice, let me tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 10:15 PM

Little Hawk, those people who'd vote for Condoleeza Rice are as delusional as any who'd vote for Caribou Barbie. Rice had clearly reached her level of incompetence as National Security Adviser. Remember "Nobody thought they'd fly jets into buildings" as her excuse for how flat-footed they were about 9/11? In documented reality, MANY security experts had predicted exactly that. She's another one who won't last under the hot lights of actual candidacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 07:39 PM

Obama's birth certificate, and his family's friends , testify to his Hawaiian birth. This question was much circulated in emails and blogs in the election. It should have died out by now.
In interviews, Palin tends to talk from the top of her head. She must learn to control herself or she will not be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:25 PM

"or face the scorn of every sentient being"

Say what???? Are you suggesting, Ron, that anyone who thinks Obama may not have been born in the USA is not sentient???

(I'm obviously asking that question tongue-in-cheek. ;-) But isn't it going a bit far to insist that people who hold some opinion that differs from yours are incapable of even thinking?)

I bet there are sentient beings out there who think Obama was born outside the USA.

I'm not one of them, though I have no way of being absolutely certain where he was born... I frankly don't even care where he was born! I don't think it matters. But I do realize it's a burning issue for some Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

The name of the "host" is Rusty Humphries.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 05:28 PM

Flash:   Sarah is cozying up to the crackpots. She said on a (conservative) radio interview--I believe the name is Andrews-- just recently that President Obama's birth certificate is a "fair question.   I don't have a problem with that."

The more she does that sort of thing, the less likely anybody who thinks will vote for her. And that includes a fair number of Republicans. She should be pressed on this point in every interview she gives from now on. She did back away later after the interview--but she should be forced to totally disassociate herself from the "birther" movement--or face the scorn of every sentient being. The main goal actually being to get her to refuse to sever ties with this group--and therefore brand herself as close to a crackpot.   Guilt by association works in politics--the Right certainly uses it.

Maybe this runaway train can be stopped after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: ToeRag
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 02:11 PM

Hush,there goes the promter's bell. Now the curtain rises.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 02:07 PM

No kidding?

Well, good for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 02:01 PM

She can play some real mean Chopin on the piano, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:50 PM

Well, I was being a bit flippant, but Condoleeza Rice might actually be a pretty strong candidate for the Republicans. It would be amusing to see them "out-liberal" the Democrats by running the first Black AND female candidate for president. Yikes! What a conundrum it would be for both extreme liberal activists and extreme redneck Republican voters. If Condoleeza could also "come out" and announce that she is a lesbian (or a bisexual?) before she runs for president, that would just add the icing to the cake! Traditional voting blocs for both sides would get turned on their heads.

LOL! And what grist for the media. I have to write a letter to Ms. Rice and the Republican National Committee suggesting that they give it a go.

Speaking more seriously about it, though, I remember talking to a longtime Republican back during the later years of the Bush administration. He admitted that George Bush had become a real disappointment, but he said he'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in an instant, and that she'd make a great president. I think a fair number of other people in the USA might feel the same as he did. She is seen as smart, tough-minded, and capable by a great many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM

A lot can happen between now and, say, 2011, but at this point Palin has the Republican nomination for 2012--and nobody else comes remotely close. Just because of the way the primary system is set up---to reward passion.

I used to think Jindal was a live possibility--but his profile is so low these days you can't even see him.   That could change--who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:40 PM

Haven't heard of Rice for awhile.
Professor of Political Science at Stanford, where she had been Provost; Also with the Hoover Institute, according to Wikipedia.
Not a bad choice, but perhaps too low key to stir up sufficient support.
She did stir up some pretty nasty attacks from the far lefties.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

If you did away with those 2 goddamn f*cking parties and had people run as independent people with their own ideas rather than representatives of some f*cking political party, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Do you get that I don't like political parties? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:31 PM

"Should Colin Powell move into the ring?"

As a Demcrat?

He endorsed Obama and turned his back on McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:24 PM

How about Condoleeza Rice? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM

Should Colin Powell move into the ring? Who would be a creditable candidate in 2012 other than Sarah Palin?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 10:35 PM

Wow, he sure looks older than that, and his cardiovascular system must be 106 years of age, probably because of what he refers to as a "free market economy." It produces a lot of cheeseburgers, because that's all people can afford to eat anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:38 PM

Someone remarked that Cheney is an "old man"- did you realize that his birthdate is January 30, 1941?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:09 PM

"no indication that she had asked for the money"

That's why I asked for a source on this.

It's a bit discouraging how blithely some of my fellow liberals accept rumors as long as they are unfavorable to opponents.

Insisting on sources and facts is an aspect of dealing with reality--which some, it seems, prefer not to do. In the long run, you have to do it--or you lose.

Wishful thinking doesn't win many elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 04:46 PM

Ref is incorrect about Sarah Palin requesting $100,000 to speak in Iowa.
The "Iowa Family Policy Center" planned to raise that sum to bring her to the state. No indication that she had asked for the money. Newsweek and other reports; but all sorts of bullshit blogs trying to make a story out of it.

Groups supporting Palin are beginning to raise money to support a 2012 bid; nothing different from any other projected campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:56 PM

Well, what then?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:28 PM

"...not the press?"

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:27 PM

Re: Palin's "tin ear" for politics. This is dubious.   I wish you were correct but I suspect there's an element of wishful thinking.

1)   source please for $100,000 fees and veto power over media. NB:   this must be requested by the Palin group, not, for instance the Mall of America

2) Did she in fact give the planned speech?

3) If so, what was the reaction of the audience--attendees, not the press

What you need is proof that the Palin fever is ebbing. I have seen none.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:37 PM

Palin has also proven to have a remarkably "tin" ear for politics. She's been invited to speak to groups in Iowa and New Hampshire recently. In both cases, she demanded $100,000 fees and veto power over the presence of any media. This is NOT how you build support i those places.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM

Thanks, Donuel, for your unbiased observation. If you read carefully you might find that I said "gravitas" to those who might vote for Sarah.   Interesting that you put yourself in that category. You learn something new every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:59 AM

right on Bee dubya ell


Many of you have forgotten that this man has had 6 heart attacks.
I have thought if he had a pig or a baboon heart transplant he might become more human.

Gravitas my ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:20 AM

Logic and politics have never been Mates.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:24 AM

Sorry.   The parallel between Reagan and Sarah is far stronger than between Sarah and Joe McCarthy, for instance.

There are all sorts of people, not just the great unwashed, who are ready to vote for Sarah.   And she, not Cheney, would be at the head of the ticket (in the dystopia I envision). Though he would make a classically typical VP--in the campaign at least.   Question of course as to whether she would let herself be steered while in office as much as the faux cowboy we just had for 8 years.

I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine at work here in the DC area (who's also in the same choral group). He's a tenor--but I don't hold that against him.

I asked him if he could imagine voting for Sarah.   He's intelligent, articulate, a computer expert, and a good-natured guy. And very conservative politically, though not musically.   Voting for Sarah?. He immediately said:   "Absolutely."

Watch out, people.   Sarah is a big threat. Far bigger than anybody else on the Republican side at this point.   And for the reasons I cited: The passionate support she has. And the chance to make inroads among women.

The broken record yet again: it all hinges on the war and the economy.   Both have to improve drastically between now and 2012, or President Obama has big trouble.   From any Republican.   And Sarah is the strongest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:45 AM

I would like to see Dick head Cheney and Caribou Barbie run for the big office. It would be a one way trip to the dustbin of history where they would join the likes of Father Coughlin (sp), Westbrook Pegler and Joe McCarty.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:48 AM

You're right, Ron, and that's exactly what Schwarzennegger is counting on. Mark my words. ;-) You vill be living in ze Fourth Reich by 2013, und you vill luff it! Or else.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:00 PM

I misspoke.   She's already a millionaire.   Now she builds up debts among fellow politicians by speaking (for conservatives, of course).   Then in 2011 she collects on those debts.   Sound familiar? Check Reagan's trajectory.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM

I didn't however say that the war and economy issues will continue to be negative for President Obama.

What I said is that IF that is the case, he will have serious problems--from any Republican.

And she is in a very good position to win the lion's share of primaries. At this point--it's still much too far in the future to predict anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:48 PM

"Palin is nothing but an opportunist".   And how was, for instance, Reagan, not an opportunist?

It goes with the territory.

How many politicians have been disqualified by being "an opportunist"?

That's a weak reed to disqualify Palin.

It's time for Mudcatters to stop underestimating the opposition.   Liberals have been doing it for quite a while--and paying the price.   And I consider myself a liberal--though trying to be one who recognizes reality, and tries to deal with it.

By 2011 she'll be a millionaire easily.   Then it's on to the next challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:45 PM

Palin is nothing but an opportunist. Bill D has her pegged. I'm intrigued by Little Hawk's theory, though. Maybe those Republicans and her admirers in the MSM want to be disciplined by her?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:34 PM

No problem if I want to return to the states, but I have no wish to.
I could order the Cheney mask that amazon.com is selling for $14.+ and not even bother with going to the consulate for the paper work.

Ron, Canadian politics are so dull that many Canadians know more about U. S. politics than they do about Canadian; they see and hear the same stuff, including polls, that Americans do.

As you say, the war/economic issues will continue to be negative for Obama. There will be a shift in Congress in 2010; small, but sufficient to put his objectives on hold.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:41 PM

Oh, pooh, Ron! *grin*...Sarah is not gonna run! It would require WORK...win or lose! She is in this for $$$$$$. People are (sadly) paying her big bucks to show up and be a celebrity and pretend she has clout! Many Republican are begging her to stay away!

What Democrats there are who take her even halfway seriously are hoping she WILL run for something and make an even bigger travesty of their (the Republican's) situation.