Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter/Five Deferments Chickenhawk/Disastrous Warmonger/Torture Authorizer” Cheney calls Obama an “unmitigated disaster”.
The man has chutzpah.
He was also a supporter of stem cell research and didn’t oppose the availability of RU486. But I note there was no outcry when he was guest of honor at Notre Dame.
Right message, but holy crap wrong messenger.
His understanding of marriage, too, is lacking, IIRC.
Sounds like you’re treading close to Donatism, Mark. None of us is perfect.
“I believe, O Lord, and confess, that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.” I truly wish that this prayer was incorporated into the Latin liturgy as it is in the Easter liturgy, as it tends to put things in perspective when we judge the message by the messenger.
No chance there Emma. This man is as far from perfect as one can get. Cheney was and is a vicious, scheming evil man. This arrogant & hypocritical jackass confesses nothing and seeks no forgiveness. He seems to prove only the good die young. He has no qualms, however, about sacrifice other young men & women to his imperial & commercial goals.
The American elite class is poisoned by far to many men of his ilk.
Donatism? I was unaware that the Vice Presidency was a species of Holy Orders. Or that mortal sin is excusable for Republicans.
Sorry, I think there has been more than enough “cut and paste” done to the poor Latin Liturgy. Indeed, there really is no longer “Latin Rite” to speak of, an an identifiable sense.
How does the old saying go, “Even a blind pig finds a nut every now and then.”
Cheney was wrong on many things, including waterboarding and probably Iraq, but the accusations of sacrificing young men and women for commercial or imperial goals is just nonsense. Our objectives in Iraq were never imperial and the accusations of Cheney’s commercial motivations were always fabricated crap. There is no evidence of his being particularly arrogant, hypocritical, vicious or scheming. That said, Cheney was wrong on some very important things, seriously wrong, and many conservatives have and continue to ignore that uncomfortable reality.
If Dick Cheney is not arrogant, hypocritical, vicious and scheming then words and deeds no longer mean anything or no such men ever existed.
Please explain what Dick Cheney’s motives were for sending our young men & women into Iraq and who the winners and losers were? Probably wrong on Iraq?? You truly are a man of a most generous nature. Lloyd Blankenfeld’s minions “doing God’s work” at Goldman Saks who sold garbage mortgage backed securities to unwary investors while at the time betting the house that they would implode were “probably” wrong as well. I guess mistakes were made but nobody is really guilty of anything. Guilt is for 3 strike losers in Calif who go to jail for stealing beef jerky or golf clubs.
Sean, you have much in common with Mark. Your masturbatory self-righteousness hijacks any validity embedded in your postitions by robbing them of all measure. Regrettably, I must decline your kind invitation to supply you with public information which you would simply dismiss because it collides with your self-indulgent sense of moral outrage. But you are right in one respect: I am indeed a man of a most generous nature. Have a nice evening.
And with that, you are done here. Bye.
OK, Mark, so I guess we’ll go ahead and ignore the message if we find the messenger flawed. That makes a WHOLE LOT of sense.
And while being a Republican certainly does not excuse one from mortal sin, it seems that NOT being a Republican excuses certain people from “judge not, lest you be judged.” Or perhaps you have some special insight into the hearts of others that you haven’t shared with us yet.
Your point, as near as I can tell, is “Go ahead and accept Cheney’s hypocritical condemnation of Obama, because Obama is Not of the Tribe. But don’t you dare criticize Cheney for his hypocrisy because that is judging and I will faint if you do that.”
Whatever. I think them both unmitigated disasters.
As all parasites have throughout nature as one of their defining traits, Cheney has chutzpah, I’ll give him that.
He’s right with regard to unmitigated. Afterall, isn’t the brilliance of giving way the checks and balances of protecting HabeCorpus one avenue to surrenduring liberty in one nutshell? The fact, which is being declared for convenience, is pleasantly pleasing to announce when it can be used to garnish votes.
The opponent takes the place of overstepping bounds and acts as a bully. Whereas, the opposition plays up a provocative discourse in trying to persaude his audience to jeer his opponent of all his wrongs. So, a popularity survey is taken and the winner is the hero.
The victory is quite a sad story. Because, the hero only won by a dilemma presented by his opponent. Where had the circumstance (had the dilemma never existed) been different, the hero wouldn’t had a victory should his opponent refused to do any of the popular wrongs.
Kind of a romanesque-colliseum theme. Comparitive to lions, people are being savagely brought before ad-hominems, cruel attitudes of hatred from there own kind, and find their own kind can be crueler than any other creature.
In the end, the hero finds his home had been taken over and all the provisions of security had been undone. The moral of the story is: principles are more important to safeguard society than a popularity contest.
Not at all, Mark. But criticizing a very valid message (Obama is a disaster) by associating it with justifiably-criticized attributes of the messenger rather than separating the two (even through left-handed compliments such as “even a broken clock is right twice a day”) does no one a service, and makes you look vindictive and petty rather than wise and objective.
But criticizing a very valid message (Obama is a disaster)
Who’s doing that? Obama is a disaster and I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise. But hearing Cheney harp about executive disaster would be like hearing Clinton harping about marital fidelity.
I didn’t criticize the message. I criticized the messenger. Your assumption simply reveals something about you, not about what I said.
Read again what I said, Mark.
“…criticizing a very valid message (Obama is a disaster) by associating it with justifiably-criticized attributes of the messenger…”
…which you certainly did.
No. I didn’t. I did not criticize the message at all. I *only* criticized the messenger. That *you* choose to read it as a defense of Obama simply reveals your tribal priorities. I think both Bush/Cheney *and* Obama/Biden are unmitigated disasters. And as a previous reader says, Cheney talking about the unmitigated disaster of the Obama Administration is like Clinton lecturing on chastity.
Sen. Hatch opposed tapping under B/C. So, there was some mitigating of power and authority. Oddity of it all is how those who did mitigate in the past are not doing it now.