18
   

CIA head: Cheney almost wishing US be attacked

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 11:51 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
Are you jealous that the British that came to the U.S., in the prior centuries, have a better standard of living for their descendants, than those that stayed in mother England? What is with the lousy dentistry in England?


A foofieism if ever there was one.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 11:58 am
@H2O MAN,
From the evil that you constantly defend, it's clear you don't have the foggiest notion of what constitutes immoral.

You are a living breathing pustule of immorality.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:01 pm
@JTT,




You are the immoral and evil that I defend.

I defend your right to spew your hate speech.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:52 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Are you jealous that the British that came to the U.S., in the prior centuries, have a better standard of living for their descendants, than those that stayed in mother England? What is with the lousy dentistry in England?


A foofieism if ever there was one.


A new word for irrelevant insult!

"He foofed again"....."A classic foof."

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 04:24 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:

I'll bet you won't tell us how you'd like it if I posted an article quoting someone who accused you of something truly evil and horrible, knowing that it was wild speculation based on nothing.


An illegal invasion of a sovereign country, something that was truly evil and horrible, based on a pack of lies perpetrated by that piece of scum and you think it wild speculation. God you're a tool.

No, for God's sake, the thread topic - "almost wants us to be attacked." Reading someone's mind and then blaming him for what you claim you read there is wild speculation based on nothing. I'm discussing that specific accusation and nothing else. Get it now?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 06:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

So, you're denying that to do this is immoral?

You're the one claiming that it is immoral. It is incumbent upon you to either prove your assertion, or retract the accusation.

You stated in Post 3,678,627:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Oh, it's perfectly legal, just immoral.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:17 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, you're denying that to do this is immoral?

You're the one claiming that it is immoral. It is incumbent upon you to either prove your assertion, or retract the accusation.

You stated in Post 3,678,627:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Oh, it's perfectly legal, just immoral.


It is impossible to prove that something is immoral, since it's only a matter of opinion. However, it's my opinion that repeating serious accusations against a person pased on nothing but a wild guess is immoral. Do you disagree?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:37 am
@Brandon9000,
I do not disagree that it is your opinion.

I do disagree that it is immoral, or even irresponsible.

It's no more immoral for the CIA director to have an opinion, and to express that opinion, than it is for you to have your feeling that you've expressed here.

And I don't see you going around telling the holocaust deniers how immoral they are for having an opinion.

Your moral outrage seems a little stretched.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:46 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I do not disagree that it is your opinion.

I do disagree that it is immoral, or even irresponsible.

It's no more immoral for the CIA director to have an opinion, and to express that opinion, than it is for you to have your feeling that you've expressed here.

And I don't see you going around telling the holocaust deniers how immoral they are for having an opinion.

Your moral outrage seems a little stretched.

Alright, let me just be positive that I understand your opinion. You think it's just fine to say publicly that someone seems to want his own country to be attacked, with no actual evidence of any sort that it's true? If so, then we simply disagree. I think that public, malicious, unsubstantiated gossip is immoral, and that before you publicly accuse someone of something very foul, you should have some evidence.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 08:12 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
No, for God's sake, the thread topic - "almost wants us to be attacked." Reading someone's mind and then blaming him for what you claim you read there is wild speculation based on nothing. I'm discussing that specific accusation and nothing else. Get it now?


How very convenient for you to feign moral outrage and defend this piece of scum, you know, one of a large group of scum responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, the destruction of a sovereign nation, numerous war crimes, and you're attempting to safeguard, what, his character.

What a pathetic excuse for a human being.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 09:25 am
@Brandon9000,
There's a vast gulf between saying "I think x" and "x is true". Think about how rapidly you backpedaled from "it's immoral" to "it's my opinion that it's immoral."

It's perfectly fine to say what your belief is, such as "I think Dick Cheney would be happy to see the US attacked because he would then feel vindicated" or "I think Dick Cheney is a murderous scumbag and the world would be better off if he were put up against a wall and shot".
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 05:41 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I am not surprised that you need to have this explained to you. I've always seen you as someone whose brain shuts down whenever partisan ideology enters into a discussion.


Still not interested in trading insults
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 06:57 pm
@DrewDad,
I think immoral may be too strong a word, but I certainly understand brandon's point of view.

Unfortunately people do what Panetta did all the time, and while I don't think it rises to libel or slander it certainly isn't appealing.

I do, however, believe it was irresponsible for the Director of the CIA to make this comment while he was being interviewed a Director Panetta, not private citizen Panetta, or even political hack Panetta.

The comment was, at best, a cheap political attack, but I suppose he can be given some slack since it was made to a New Yorker reporter, and who reads anything but the cartoons in that magazine?

Reuters and other irresponsible media ran the "story" under the headline

"CIA Head: Cheney..."
"CIA Director: Cheney..."

I see from one of Walter's posts that the New London Daily and the Washington Times ran it under

"Panetta: Cheney"

Good for them, but better still if their papers pointed out the irresponsibility of the CIA Director.

It doesn't matter which political party holds the White House, blatant partisanship by the CIA Director, FBI Director, or the Attorney General is dangerous and highly inappropriate.

Before anyone goes there I don't think the partisanship of Atty General Gonzales was appropriate either.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Gay marriage - Dick Cheney's take - Discussion by nimh
Unfair and unbalanced - Discussion by snood
Cheney's already lost his "heart" - Discussion by cicerone imposter
PLAME INVESTIGATION GOES ON - Discussion by Advocate
Cheney Snippy Over Powell Remarks - Discussion by edgarblythe
Cheney Furious With Bush - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Cheney Wheeled Out of Office - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 10:02:52