Asked about Two-Thirds of Americans Opposition to War, Cheney says 'So?', page 10
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times


reply posted on 2-4-2008 @ 09:48 AM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by TheColdDragon


The only claim I made was that Cheney has directly profited from the war. While I haven't supplied any evidence in support of that claim, there is quite a bit of circumstantial involvement of Cheney with those who have something to gain from warfare, a history of working for defense contractors and subcontractors, as well as the remaining fact that Iraq doesn't benefit the United States, which again nobody has commented upon.

Someone has to benefit from a war, and if the American People are not that person, then someone has to be. Wars are never fought for no reason whatsoever.

As for why nobody targets Cheney, Cheney wasn't elected to office; he was appointed by his running mate.

Nobody has to depose Cheney. As an appointed official, nobody is running opposite him. That, and I don't think most politicians begrudge someone else getting rich, even if it is off the dead. Everything is up for exploitation, irregardless of party affiliation and most exploitation deals with making a politician filthy rich in some way, shape, or form.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by TheColdDragon]



The problem of trying to establish that Cheney has benefitted directly from warfare, is that there just isn't evidence showing cause/effect.
All the naysayers want to demonize Cheney, Bush, etc... but they never provide anything more than hunches, circumstantial evidence, guilt by association(i.e. so and so's cousin's step brother twice removed worked for the nephew of the brother of so and so's father in law, so therefore tehy must be directly involved in.....), etc...



reply posted on 2-4-2008 @ 02:54 PM by goosdawg
reply to post by BlueRaja



Originally posted by BlueRaja
The problem of trying to establish that Cheney has benefitted directly from warfare, is that there just isn't evidence showing cause/effect.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

Originally posted by BlueRaja
All the naysayers want to demonize Cheney, Bush, etc...


Actually, "Cheney, Bush, etc." have done a pretty good job, through their actions, of demonizing themselves.

And to disparage those who would strive to expose the self-serving evil that these "public servants" commit as "naysayers" is a nice O'Riley type "no-spin" spin, isn't it?

Surely, just because one jumps to their defense at every turn, hanging by their coat-tails as-it were, wiping their ass, spinning their lies, doesn't mean in the end they won't be crapped on just the same.

Do you really think they're saving you a seat at the table if you stick up for them?

I mean, what's your motivation here?

I suppose the good American people deserve the leaders they have, no?

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)




reply to post by TheColdDragon



Those who use the "ignore" feature embrace defeat and ignorance.

Their steadfast devotion to their morally bankrupt leaders is reprehensible and deserving of naught but censure and pity.

Millionaires, stooges and suckers; the only ones who continue to defend such obvious evil.





[edit on 2-4-2008 by goosdawg]


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 03:56 AM by TheColdDragon
Originally posted by BlueRaja
The problem of trying to establish that Cheney has benefitted directly from warfare, is that there just isn't evidence showing cause/effect.


Well, here is what I know to be true and verifiable;

Cheney worked for Halliburton, was a major investor and stockholder.

Halliburton stock has greatly increased since the beginning of the Iraq War.

Irrespective of if Cheney himself benefited from the war monetarily, his old-boys club (Halliburton) has.

Cheney has verbally, and through actions, demonstrated that he feels the American people are beneath the decision makers, and that their swaying opinion holds no water to the decisions of policy. The topic of this thread is indication of where he relegates the opinion of the Statesian people's.



All the naysayers want to demonize Cheney, Bush, etc... but they never provide anything more than hunches, circumstantial evidence, guilt by association(i.e. so and so's cousin's step brother twice removed worked for the nephew of the brother of so and so's father in law, so therefore tehy must be directly involved in.....), etc...


You're right, none of us have provided a "This dot is connected to that dot" comparison and examination of Cheney's actions and his opinions, but the general way in which Cheney conducts himself verbally and intellectually speaks loudly about a poorly concealed sense of Id and elitism above the common man.

It is not that he outright says he disprespects the working class or the working poor, it is that he visibly shows a lack of concern or compassion concerning those outside his circle. You don't need to say you despise a person in order to demonstrate that it is true.

And I'm not putting forward that Cheney despises people, only that he conducts himself in a way that shows a brazen callousness and detachment towards those that question his views.

It's all well and good for an every day joe to be as cavalier, but we are talking about a public representative. The Veep of the USA, who has historically been considered the more diplomatic face of the States, whereas the Prez is often viewed as figurehead abroad.

Frankly, I don't like the man which Cheney presents himself as. There's a- sense of coldness about him, which is hard to pin down to any one thing he has said and done. One could call it a lack of remedial humanity, in a sense.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 07:03 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by ianr5741



Ask 50 people if they want this war to continue. The great majority would say no.

Ask the same people if they think it is wise for the coalition to leave Iraq tomorrow. You'll get quite a different answer.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:19 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by TheColdDragon



My point is that if you're gonna criticize someone, or accuse them of wrongdoing, it's a good idea to have PROOF. Otherwise it's just an opinion, and that's perfectly fine, so long as one admits that. If you want to criticize Halliburton, that is more tangible. The fact that Cheney used to work for Halliburton isn't evidence that he's a terrible person, profitting off of blood and oil.

As for the remark about Cheney's view of the public- policy decisions are not based upon opinion polls, under our system. Him saying "so" is being taken in a different context here, than when he uttered it. I don't take his remark as him giving me the finger, so much as pointing out what I already mentioned about the use of polls to make decisions. Leadership means making tough decisions, that may be unpopular, and sticking with it.
We elect people to be leaders, not followers. If you don't like them, then vote them out(or in Cheney's case, wait till his term is up) and vote for someone who's views are closer to yours.
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^




ATS Live North America is broadcasting in 17 minutes.
Today's Show: ATS Live: 111: Timothy Good Interview, Hip Hop, Martial Law, Net woes, Civil War, Turbo's.....