Dick Cheney The Living Embodiment Of Eisenhower's Greatest Fear

Cenk Uygur rips apart Dick Cheney's latest comments. According to Cheney America's number 1 concern should be the US military, before roads, food stamps, or anything else. We must do this because we need to serve and defend the Constitution. Ironic that those words came out of his mouth isn't it? Patriot Act. TSA. Prism.

Of course Cheney also talks smack about Obama accusing him of being the worst president ever.

Both Bush and Obama are terrible.

Then Cenk will read us a great quote from Eisnhower's great speech warning the USA of the military industrial complex.

a reply to: Swills

The good die young, Dick on the other hand, will live forever.

Love your thread heading.

YOU are accurate,I think HE was BUSH'S presidency.

a reply to: Swills

I almost stood up in front of my computer and yelled Bravo! That was a most powerful clip and the polar opposite comparison between the two Republicans is remarkable. Cenk nails it, IMO. Cheney's last name ought to officially be changed to Head.

According to Cheney America's number 1 concern should be the US military..

....some people might question ,that concern for constitution rights is the factor that drives that statement...

According to Cheney America's number 1 concern should be the US military, before roads, food stamps, or anything else.

Feel free to ignore this if it's off-topic, but as always, I'm curious. Let's accept that "provide for the general welfare" is in there, but let's also accept that it's meaning is not quite clear.

Given that, what does the Constitution tell the government to do? Is the US military mentioned? Is food stamps? Is roads?

a reply to: charles1952

Cheney is stating what his number 1 priority is, which makes sense given his background. You could argue why pay for people on welfare but the problem is he doesn't have a solution to get them off of welfare. He would rather just cut them off and send that money to the military. He's no concerned for the American people, he's concerned with funds being allocated to the military.

Cheney's not a teach a man to fish kind of guy. He's a ignore the man who can't fish and march to war and spend that money kind guy.

The real point you're missing is the comparison between Cheney and Eisenhower. Cheney is ready to spend American tax dollars on war without question while Eisenhower realized the cost of war.

I wish to GOD people would stop MISREPRESENTING Eisenhowers Speech.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

www.ourdocuments.gov...

Why do people WILLFULLY IGNORE that part of the speech ?

WHY ?

As to the GD Patriot Act ?

I guess pay no attention to the FISA Act of the 70s

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attack

en.wikipedia.org...

And pay no attention to Omnibus CounterTerrorism Act of 1995:

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, US Senate bills S.390 and S.761.[1] Senator Joe Biden introduced the bill on behalf of the Clinton Administration on Feb. 10, 1995.[2][3] The bill was co sponsored by Senators Alfonse D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Robert J. Kerrey, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Barbara A. Mikulski and Arlen Specter.[4] Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives.[3] Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress".[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Back to demagoguing GW and Cheney.

a reply to: neo96

I knew you'd come running in to defend Cheney. Oh so baited!

Seriously though, why you defend Cheney is beyond me. I guess you're just an old school Republican through and through.

Totally free to continue picking apart this thread and video but you'll never take away the meaning of the message.

originally posted by: neo96
I wish to GOD people would stop MISREPRESENTING Eisenhowers Speech.


[Why do people WILLFULLY IGNORE that part of the speech ?

WHY ?

As to the GD Patriot Act ?

I guess pay no attention to the FISA Act of the 70s

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attack

en.wikipedia.org...

And pay no attention to Omnibus CounterTerrorism Act of 1995:

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, US Senate bills S.390 and S.761.[1] Senator Joe Biden introduced the bill on behalf of the Clinton Administration on Feb. 10, 1995.[2][3] The bill was co sponsored by Senators Alfonse D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Robert J. Kerrey, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Barbara A. Mikulski and Arlen Specter.[4] Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives.[3] Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress".[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Back to demagoguing GW and Cheney.

a reply to: trumpet
no entry

a reply to: Swills

Yo just stating the GD facts that someone is STILL clearly IGNORING just because they didn't jump on the bandwagon.

Answer this:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

How the hell is that accomplished eh ?

HOW ?

Sure the EFF not paying walmart prices for weapons systems when the rest of the world is making better stuff than we are right now.

More so where do you think most of the current modern must have technology came from?

The 'internets'

In dash navigation that use GPS.

Nightvision driving for autos.

Flir thermal cameras that firefighter now use to save lives.

Hell nuclear medicine that is now used to cure cancer.

Satellite and microwave communication that everyone uses in it's latest incarnation the cell phone.

And the epitome of military spending was putting men on the moon.

WHAT THE HELL has the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX done ?

WHAT ?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: neo96

I knew you'd come running in to defend Cheney. Oh so baited!

Seriously though, why you defend Cheney is beyond me. I guess you're just an old school Republican through and through.

Totally free to continue picking apart this thread and video but you'll never take away the meaning of the message.

Not that I would defend Cheney, clearly he can defend himself, but I kind of look at this like the second amendment. Without # 2 the rest are kind of undefendable and unguaranteed. Social programs would certainly be pointless if we had no military to protect the US. I don't think the concept is debatable but the balance is.

When you consider the extent of the Muslim Extremist all over the world creating terror and death, the US would be an interesting place if we didn't have a powerful military. Right now if appropriations are any indication, social programs are a much higher priority than military spending.

You certainly couldn't teach another man to fish when someone else had control of the lake through violence. Just my 2¢

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Without a military you are of course open to attack. No argument there. Not only do we have a top notch military but we also have allies. We're no sitting ducks nor are we defenseless so lets not paint a picture as though we are. We spend way too much on the military and one blunder was the Iraq War of 2003, and that's just one of many. I was in the USN and I'm all for a miltary but I'm not all for continuing feeding the military industrial complex.

And with the 2nd amendment we are able to protect ourselves, that's the whole point. So again, Americans are never defenseless.

Muslim terrorists. Yes they are a threat but Cheney was the bigger threat.

If Only Dick Cheney Had Listened To This Iraq War Critic...

a reply to: neo96

You're so angry. I get it and I'm not even gonna argue with you about topics such as these so completely agree to completely disagree.

a reply to: Swills

I'd take him over Obama.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Both are terrible choices. The excuse would be, as always, choosing the lesser of 2 evils. What a cop out.

Same coin, two sides.

a reply to: Swills

You probably say that about any politician. But I'd still pick him over Barack Hussein Obama. The rest of the world may have hated us back then, but at least we weren't a laughing stock. Big difference.

a reply to: Swills

"Muslim terrorists. Yes they are a threat but Cheney was the bigger threat. "

What do you feel Cheney is a bigger threat to?


"Same coin, two sides.

I prefer cheeks of the same ass.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes of course I say that about most politicians and that's because it's 100% the reality of the situation. Pick who you want, at the end of the day the same agenda continues, the only difference is the avenues it takes.