posted
I don't care if the VP curses at someone. I just think it funny that he's losing these arguments. He really is a corrupt cronyist VP.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Liberals don't like conservatives, and conservatives don't like liberals, and they'll always try and find reasons to discredit each other, no matter how insignificant or mundane."
Which is why I think this should be neither dismissed nor blown out of proportion (not that you're doing either).
posted
What troubles me is how polar and partisan politics has become. People find uncompromisign ideals and stances attractive and "noble," but compromising is an integral part of democracy; it's a way of diluting power. Most of the legislation that gets passed through Congress usually winds up being ambiguous on a partisan level; you can't tell which party passed what. This is a sign of success. This is how government is meant to work.
But today everything's split down the middle. People basically seem to line up perfectly among party ideals simply for the reason to butt heads. For instance, on this site in many of the political threads, several people simply sign on, make a totally irrational and ridiculously partisan comment, and then sign off. It contributes nothing; all it is saying is "I don't like you and I don't plan to listen." It's frustrating to see people talk like this.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially ironic given that during the week of Ronald Reagan's death, the one thing pretty much everyone agreed with about him was his insistence on keeping things not only civil, but even cordial (after working hours) with members of "the other party."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, in the spirit of Mr. Cheney, how about you "**** off."[note sarcasm] After all, you're being obnoxious, telling me I should take lessons from a pup like you and after all it's OK to blow off steam once in a while, right? Child, listen to me, it's not that Cheney hasn't ejected Senators, it's that he has the power to do so for behavior that HE was exhibiting. By this logic you'd think it's alright for policeman to consider himself exempt of speeding laws simply because he has never written a ticket? What a totally "****ed" analogy. See where this is going? When you need a lesson on why being civil to your underlings ALWAYS matters in government come talk to me, OK? Hopefully lectures on principle of order and civility won't always be lost on you. Your a student right now so I'll understand if this is one of those phases young upstarts go through when they think they have a handle on laws and practicality and don't see the need for convention and order.
posted
*wonders if BrianM realizes dagonee isn't all that young, and is in the final stages of acquiring a law degree, and has already been involved in a case presented before the Supreme Court*
posted
Wow, not only are you totally ignorant of protocol and senatorial curtesy, but you miss dripping sarcasm that tries to prove a fairly obvious point.
*notes that you scrounged my post for personal attacks ignoring all my responses to your points showing exactly where your logic lead, why it's wrong and why it's circular and leads to government inactivity.
Even if I believed his credentials and was awed and impressed by the, which I don't and I'm not, they have nothing to do with the legislature anyway. Flaunting one's credentials is a way of sidetracking the argument when you've lost and can't respond to actual points being made -- sort of like concocting personal attacks where none exist and ignoring what I said.
quote: Wow, not only are you totally ignorant of protocol and senatorial curtesy, but you miss dripping sarcasm that tries to prove a fairly obvious point.
The personal attack wasn’t the f*** off, it was the dismissing of what I was saying because I am young and inexperienced.
quote:*notes that you scrounged my post for personal attacks ignoring all my responses to your points showing exactly where your logic lead, why it's wrong and why it's circular and leads to government inactivity.
Where my logic leads? I said it was wrong. I said it was even more wrong to not admit it and apologize. My God! My logic leads to a world where people make mistakes but then do their best to correct them. What a hellhole that would be!
quote:Even if I believed his credentials and was awed and impressed by the, which I don't and I'm not, they have nothing to do with the legislature anyway. Flaunting one's credentials is a way of sidetracking the argument when you've lost and can't respond to actual points being made -- sort of like concocting personal attacks where none exist and ignoring what I said.
You’ve called me ignorant, and ignored the substance of my posts, quoting my youth and inexperience as a reason, and moreover utterly mischaracterized what I’ve said about Cheney’s use of the words and actions afterward.
I bet you Leheay did not feel intimidated or threatened for one second, which is a pretty clear response that this is about civility and not power.
I did not bring up my “credentials,” fugu did. And while I thank him for defending me from the accusation of inexperience, I would not have done so myself for the very reasons you cited. I would clarify that I’m 1/3 of the way through law school, not in the final stages. But since you’ve stated you don’t believe my credentials, which part of what fugu said do you disbelieve. Fugu is repeating what I’ve said on this board before (in threads where it was appropriate, not to bolster arguments), so you’re disbelieving me, not fugu.
Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?
posted
Even the link you provided proved my point. True, you tried to dismiss it and say this is not how it is "in practice," but it never helps your credibility to post info. that actually DETRACTS from your points. The reason I don't believe you're in law school? That you could be as ignorant as you are about basic governmental functions and that you don't seem to be able to research very well as you post information which actually goes against what you are trying to claim and helps your opponents.
posted
oops, sorry, got which year you were mixed up. Oh well, lawyerly enough for me (of course, I don't need a lawyer ).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BrianM, do you even bother to watch CSPAN? Its painfully obvious how the Senate operates to people who pay attention to it (such as myself), and dags is pretty much right on.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian, either read the whole links or just go away at this point. The links clearly say the President does not have discretion to not recognize members when it's appropriate, and also clearly states that appointing members to committees is done by the President, ABSENT overriding rules. The Senate's own page makes it clear that committee appointments are done by the party conferences and chairs are assigned by seniority.
I note you've now abandoned any pretense that I'm leading us on a dark road of incivility. Maybe you actually read my posts?
As for not believing I'm in law school, I could really care less except that now you're calling me a liar with zero proof. I've shown no ignorance of how government works, nor have I claimed any special expertise in that area.
It seems civility is something reserved for Vice Presidents, eh?
Dagonee Edit: Just wanted to add, it's pretty clear fugu wasn't saying, Dag has these credentials so you should just believe what he says (especially considering some of the discussions we've had). To me it seemed like he was chiding you on your unfounded assumptions about both my age and my inexperience and giving you a chance to respond gracefully.
posted
Oh definitely. Dag is wrong all the time. All-the-freakin-time. Just ask me .
Actually, we do agree on a lot of things, but we hardly agree on everything. I'm an ex-liberal moderate (I eschew labels like that, but emotionally that's how I line up, even if my positions don't fit so well into the ideological handbags) and dag is an ex-conservative moderate. Its amusing finding out where we agree and where we don't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, looks like the whole point was lost on you, as I suspect it would be. I didn't mean any of the condescension I used on you, nor did I mean any of the things you construed as personal attacks. I simply noticed that on your first post of disagreeing with me you were quite rude, and this continued, so, I decided to fuel the fire to show exactly WHY what Cheney did was worse than you would let on. What I did was show you exactly what happens when someone responds to rudeness with rudeness of their own. You basically disintegrated into denials of anything worthwhile I had to say, simply stuck to focusing on anything I said that could be rude, all the while claiming that I was was actually ignoring YOUR points when this was really just the opposite. Hopefully now you understand why this behavior is just as wrong as when Cheney did it as it is here. It sucks that you didn't pick this up for yourself but this is truly something that living for a good half century will depart to you. btw, I read the whole thing, and it does nothing to show that the VP canNOT eject Senators for that. You might claim it doesn't happen but I say that because he has the power to do that it puts him on a higher standard.
quote:Wow, looks like the whole point was lost on you, as I suspect it would be. I didn't mean any of the condescension I used on you, nor did I mean any of the things you construed as personal attacks. I simply noticed that on your first post of disagreeing with me you were quite rude, and this continued, so, I decided to fuel the fire to show exactly WHY what Cheney did was worse than you would let on. What I did was show you exactly what happens when someone responds to rudeness with rudeness of their own. You basically disintegrated into denials of anything worthwhile I had to say, simply stuck to focusing on anything I said that could be rude, all the while claiming that I was was actually ignoring YOUR points when this was really just the opposite. Hopefully now you understand why thisd behavior is just as wrong as when Cheney did it as it is here. It sucks that you didn't ick this up for yourself but this is truly something that living for a good half century will depart to you. btw, I read the whole thing, and it does nothing to show that the VP canNOT eject Senators for that. You might claim it doesn't happen but I say that because he has the power to do that it puts him on a higher standard.
Actually, what you just did was make up a creative fictional account of the progress of this thread, but since it's there for anyone to see what was actually said, I'm done.
Dagonee Edit: although I am still amazed that you think I didn't think Cheney's behavior was wrong. Did you read what I said in the thread?
posted
You're right, it IS there for people to see right now, and before you can go back and edit your posts I will show you exactly how you started off rude, got worse, posted info. that actually was against your own points and continued to deny this was going on.
First reply to me
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
Rude and condescending as hell. From the get-go you attempt to marginzalize my opinion with rhetoric like "oh please" and the inference that I'm just some reactionary fool blowing things out of proportion.
Next reply it only gets worse
quote:I already said it was rude.
He's not his supervisor. Who's cut loose from reality now? Most of the work happens in Committee. His position is largely ceremonial, with the only real power being associated with the counting of electoral votes. The Vice-President seldom presides, and has no say in the selection of the President pro tempore. He has no say in committee assignments. The rules of procedure give great discretion to individuals in the senate give him little power to influence anything.
The Senate Majority leader has far more power than the Vice-President.
Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.
Dagonee
Again rude and when I decided to throw a jab at you to prove my point that nastiness begets nastiness you take the bait straight away and insult me. You also continue to deny the powers Cheney has over the order of the Senate and try to temper my claims with "well, true but he never does it" while still ignoring the fact that I don't care if Cheney has never ejected a Senator, the fact that he CAN puts his comments into a light of expecting higher standards from him.
3 replies down
quote:BrianM, you officially don't know what you're talking about now. Has Cheney ever ejected a Senator for vulgarity?
Oh, now I officially don't know what I'm talking about, eh? LOL I suppose you were elected/appointed to some kind of position of "Authority on the Way the Senate Works" by someone? Please!
quote:I know how the Senate works. If you want a lesson someday let me know.
Wow, you want to give me lessons eh? You sure your certified to teach?
quote:*Notes that BrianM decided not to contest any of the assertions about the dispute over the role of the President of the Senate.
*Notes that BrianM made personal attacks based on misinformation.
*Further notes that at no point has he defended Cheney's actions and, in fact has called them both rude and immature.
*Recalls that BrianM called him ignorant about Congress based on undocumented assertions, but thought he could handle vigorous debate.
*Doesn't care if BrianM tells him to F*** off, as he knows it's about rudeness and not power.
Dagonee
This post needs no explaining.
quote:Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?
Another bit of nastiness from you.
Fictional indeed! I can go on, there are still a few more posts now, or would you just rather save yourself further embarassment and just admit that you were wrong?
As to you posting info. which hurts your case, from your own link:
quote:Rule 6.5. Recognition; rise to address
A. A member shall not speak until recognized by the President. When any member wishes the floor to speak in debate or otherwise address the Senate in any manner, he shall seek recognition by respectfully addressing himself to "Mr. President." The President may refuse to recognize any member who is not at his desk when he seeks the floor.
B. When presenting a paper, a senator first shall state its import.
Rule 6.6. Order of recognition by President
When two or more members rise to be recognized at the same time, the President shall name the one who shall be first to speak.
You try to temper that with this, but what's very funny is that nowhere at that site is ANY support for your main contention
quote:Even though the President has nominal control over committee assignments, this is only until a law, rule, or resolution supercedes him, which it always does.
My basic response to that assertion is that the VP is the person who ADMINISTERS those rules, so the enforcement is flawed from the outset. So even if that were true and listed at that site, *which it wasn't*, you would still be wrong.
posted
Against my better judgment, because of the selected quoting, here goes:
quote:You're right, it IS there for people to see right now, and before you can go back and edit your posts I will show you exactly how you started off rude, got worse, posted info. that actually was against your own points and continued to deny this was going on.
An utterly unwarranted attack on my integrity. I have never done this, nor even been accused of it.
quote:Rude and condescending as hell. From the get-go you attempt to marginzalize my opinion with rhetoric like "oh please" and the inference that I'm just some reactionary fool blowing things out of proportion.
A response to a grandiose accusation that all Republicans (which probably includes me, at least this election cycle) have been besmirched by one comment from one man. I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it.
You bolded two of my sentences: “Who's cut loose from reality now?” and “Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.” Both were direct responses to comments in your posts:
quote: His powers are to recognize senators and give them the ability to speak. He has powers of protocol, security, acknowledgement, scheduling, etc. For all practical purposes he is the "supervisor" of the Senate. For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works. The Vice President can have Senators thrown out for rudeness, obscneity, etc., but Senators canNOT have the VP thrown out. How would you feel and what would you do if you were trying to work and your supervisor told you to "**** off?" Even if you deserved it, how would that help you two work together?
Lets not deny reality.
So at worst, my remarks were as rude as yours. But mine were responses direct responses to you.
quote: You also continue to deny the powers Cheney has over the order of the Senate and try to temper my claims with "well, true but he never does it" while still ignoring the fact that I don't care if Cheney has never ejected a Senator, the fact that he CAN puts his comments into a light of expecting higher standards from him.
Particularly strange argument when you consider you also said, “For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works.” Note you didn’t say what the rules say about how Congress works, but how it actually works.
quote: The VP is the one who runs the Senate, and he is also the one who allows the committees to report their findings. Controlling floor time IS control over the Senate. You might want to go and see how Congress works for yourself if you seriously doubt this or if you doubt how much Cheney presides over the Senate, which is more than most VP's have in the past.
Right, since it’s obviously a fairly restrained response to an insulting piece of drivel from you, which totally mischaracterizes my position:
quote: Dagonee, in the spirit of Mr. Cheney, how about you "**** off."[note sarcasm] After all, you're being obnoxious, telling me I should take lessons from a pup like you and after all it's OK to blow off steam once in a while, right? Child, listen to me, it's not that Cheney hasn't ejected Senators, it's that he has the power to do so for behavior that HE was exhibiting. By this logic you'd think it's alright for policeman to consider himself exempt of speeding laws simply because he has never written a ticket? What a totally "****ed" analogy. See where this is going? When you need a lesson on why being civil to your underlings ALWAYS matters in government come talk to me, OK? Hopefully lectures on principle of order and civility won't always be lost on you. Your a student right now so I'll understand if this is one of those phases young upstarts go through when they think they have a handle on laws and practicality and don't see the need for convention and order.
How is “Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?” a piece of nastiness when you’ve called me a liar and neither backed it up nor apologized.
quote:Fictional indeed! I can go on, there are still a few more posts now, or would you just rather save yourself further embarassment and just admit that you were wrong?
Since you’ve shown nothing of the sort, I think I’ll stick around for a while.
As to the link you say doesn’t support my case, it gives the Presiding officer two reasons for failure to recognize: Because the member is not at his desk, or because two members wish to speak at once. Neither one can silence a member indefinitely.
quote: My basic response to that assertion is that the VP is the person who ADMINISTERS those rules, so the enforcement is flawed from the outset. So even if that were true and listed at that site, *which it wasn't*, you would still be wrong.
But your basic assertion is wrong – he doesn’t. Most of the important work happens in committee, where he has no presiding authority. The work that doesn’t cannot be successfully impeded by the President of the Senate. And the fact is, it’s not done. You started this questioning my knowledge of the way Congress works, not the way the rules as interpreted on first blush say it works. The two are very different.
Dagonee P.S.: I could care less about the about the argument at this point, but you’ve impugned my integrity twice now. Are you more of a man than Cheney? Will you own up to it and either apologize or provide some basis for your assertions about my truthfulness?
Just for completeness, let's not forget, "Ceremonial?! *laugh*" The only proof provided shows it is ceremonial.
posted
Against my better judgment, because of the selected quoting, here goes(this works for me even better than it worked for you):
quote:An utterly unwarranted attack on my integrity. I have never done this, nor even been accused of it.
I didn't say you had done it, I was just saying that in case you would, I had those bases covered.
quote:A response to a grandiose accusation that all Republicans (which probably includes me, at least this election cycle) have been besmirched by one comment from one man. I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it.
You bolded two of my sentences: “Who's cut loose from reality now?” and “Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.” Both were direct responses to comments in your posts:
First, boy/girl, I have been a registered Republican since before you were born, so let me tell you, it IS shameful when one of the party heads in a station and role of authority acts this way with regards to his underlings.
quote:So at worst, my remarks were as rude as yours. But mine were responses direct responses to you.
BINGO, GIVE THE BOY A PRIZE, HE FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT. It doesn't matter that I was being nasty back to you, [b]I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait.
quote:Particularly strange argument when you consider you also said, “For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works.” Note you didn’t say what the rules say about how Congress works, but how it actually works.
Don't play semantical games with me, partly because you'll lose, but mostly because the way Congress works is influenced by the standards and rules it is supposed to follow. If you are going to try and pick this one word and say that is not what I or you meant with regards to this, then you are guilty of far more equivocation than even Clinton himself. You were the one trying to play games with the difference between rules and how Congress "actually" works, so don't try turning this around on me again or this discussion is over, that's not a threat, that's a promise.
quote:You still have provided no source for any of this. Not one thing to show that you’re just not flat out making this up
Hey the sky is blue, do I need a source? You know, for someone who claims they are a 1st year law student you sure don't act like you ever passed American government back in high school. The information I posted is pretty much common knowledge. If you need a source, drop by your local school district and ask for some government class text books.
Vice Presidents preside over testimonies from the executve ALL the time, they preside over roll call votes, they preside over quorum calls, they preside over debates more than 50% of the time. I'm sorry you missed this basic facet of knowledge but I am so shocked by your lack of it that I am convinced you would just deny it even if you went back to your high school and asked your professor or actually read your text book this time.
quote:Right, since it’s obviously a fairly restrained response to an insulting piece of drivel from you, which totally mischaracterizes my position:
My post did need no explaining. The post it was responding to was one big nasty, vicious sarcastic big middile finger in my face.
quote:How is “Care to elaborate on why you think I’m a liar? Or is this another assertion for which you have no proof?” a piece of nastiness when you’ve called me a liar and neither backed it up nor apologized.
It was asrcibing me motives and other aspects which I did not exhibit. But my main reasons for thinking you are bullshitting nearly all your info. is your complete lack of basic knowledge of how the government works. Noone who believes the things you've said could have made it into law school college or much less passed American government back in high school.
quote:As to the link you say doesn’t support my case, it gives the Presiding officer two reasons for failure to recognize: Because the member is not at his desk, or because two members wish to speak at once. Neither one can silence a member indefinitely.
Right, and we all know execution of this rule will be perfect and fair right? If you continue this way you'll be like those law students that believe because laws are there that they actually stop crime by themselves. I'm not going to repeat my point about how because Cheney is the one administering rules that he freely breaks he is not good enough to be the one who should do that.
quote:But your basic assertion is wrong – he doesn’t. Most of the important work happens in committee, where he has no presiding authority. The work that doesn’t cannot be successfully impeded by the President of the Senate. And the fact is, it’s not done. You started this questioning my knowledge of the way Congress works, not the way the rules as interpreted on first blush say it works. The two are very different.
Committees are worthless if they can't report their findings to the larger body of Congress, and espcially worthless of the Committees chair decides to omit something a minority member of the committee had a concern over, the minority member tries to say it during the findings portion and the VP doesn't recognize him.
quote:P.S.: I could care less about the about the argument at this point, but you’ve impugned my integrity twice now. Are you more of a man than Cheney? Will you own up to it and either apologize or provide some basis for your assertions about my truthfulness?
You've "impugned my integrity" more than double that amount and I have a general sense that you are worse of a man than Cheney: you seek to rationalize something he would probably regret having done after a while. Will you give up before you make yourself look EVEN worse or will you continue to deny that you have been proven wrong over and over, mostly by your own statements.
posted
I think kids should be allowed to say f*** in the 6th grade, but not in 5th grade or under, that would be way too young.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when Kerry uses the f word, or flips someone off, that's hardly mentioned in the news but Cheney does it and it's front page? And people try to ignore the liberal bias in the media. Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I searched on Google for both those instances concerning Kerry, and both basically emanated from one source: newsmax.com, which in my opinion, seems very biased. Even if Kerry did do both those things exactly as those news reports say, that doesn't make it okay that Cheney did it too. And Kerry did neither of those things ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
Please don't spout the "liberal bias" BS. It just makes me think you're a troll.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do not support either Cheney or Kerry and their use of the f word. However, how can you deny Kerry's use of profanity?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Kerry used it to describe a policy and Cheney used it straight to someone's face as a directly personal insult. I wonder which is worse. michaele8, please stop trolling here, almost every post you make is some indictment against the horrors of liberalism, and it gets really old, especially to a real conservative who respects the other side enough to realize you constantly misrepresent them.
quote: First, boy/girl, I have been a registered Republican since before you were born, so let me tell you, it IS shameful when one of the party heads in a station and role of authority acts this way with regards to his underlings.
Then you have too much invested in your group memberships.
quote: BINGO, GIVE THE BOY A PRIZE, HE FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT. It doesn't matter that I was being nasty back to you, I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait.
Have you at all read any of the numerous posts where I thought it was rude and that he should admit he was wrong or apologize. You started out saying he was abusing power, the only part of your initial post THAT I EVER CONTRADICTED.
I didn’t consider what you wrote there nastiness, nor my response. Are you really that thin-skinned?
quote: Don't play semantical games with me, partly because you'll lose, but mostly because the way Congress works is influenced by the standards and rules it is supposed to follow. If you are going to try and pick this one word and say that is not what I or you meant with regards to this, then you are guilty of far more equivocation than even Clinton himself. You were the one trying to play games with the difference between rules and how Congress "actually" works, so don't try turning this around on me again or this discussion is over, that's not a threat, that's a promise.
A.) Don’t flatter yourself. B.) This isn’t a case of picking one word. It’s a case where you said Cheney abused power, and asked how I would feel if a supervisor did it to me. Given that Cheney’s power in the Senate is largely ceremonial (still uncontradicted by you with ANY PROOF), and given you’ve never refuted my contention that Leahey probably did not feel intimidated for a second, your contention that this was an abuse of power rather than rudeness doesn’t meet the laugh test.
quote: You know, for someone who claims they are a 1st year law student you sure don't act like you ever passed American government back in high school. The information I posted is pretty much common knowledge.
So I provide sources from the Senate itself, and you rely on common knowledge that probably wasn’t rue even when you were in high school civics, and you use that to question something about me that I never even introduced into this debate? Not to mention at least one other person in this thread has acknowledge that my view of the congressional world is closer to reality than yours.
quote: My post did need no explaining. The post it was responding to was one big nasty, vicious sarcastic big middile finger in my face.
Apparently you’re too sensitive for political discussions. You’ve been nasty and vicious throughout this thread and you’re complaining about my response to you CALLING ME A LIAR?
quote: It was asrcibing me motives and other aspects which I did not exhibit. But my main reasons for thinking you are bullshitting nearly all your info. is your complete lack of basic knowledge of how the government works. Noone who believes the things you've said could have made it into law school college or much less passed American government back in high school.
You have called me a liar, by saying you disbelieve certain aspects of my biography that I’ve posted. Back it up or apologize and admit you were wrong. Stop thinking any perceived sarcasm from me justifies you calling someone a liar based on your own knowledge of government you refuse to provide any proof for. As for the last line, I’ll let Hatrack judge.
The difference between our behavior in this thread is that I’ve questioned aspects of your posts. You’ve questioned aspects of me and started throwing attacks around as soon as I refuse to bow to what you see as a rhetorical masterpiece.
quote: Right, and we all know execution of this rule will be perfect and fair right? If you continue this way you'll be like those law students that believe because laws are there that they actually stop crime by themselves. I'm not going to repeat my point about how because Cheney is the one administering rules that he freely breaks he is not good enough to be the one who should do that.
Cheney didn’t feel free to break them – he likely didn’t think about his position before saying the word. And he does not enforce those rules. Seriously, find me one instance of any Senator claiming he or she was denied the right to speak.
quote: Committees are worthless if they can't report their findings to the larger body of Congress, and espcially worthless of the Committees chair decides to omit something a minority member of the committee had a concern over, the minority member tries to say it during the findings portion and the VP doesn't recognize him.
Again, point to one instance where this has happened. The VP is not the final arbiter of senate rules – his decisions can be reviewed. Did you miss that part of the links? The work of the Senate is done largely in Committees, and the reports are accompanied by minority reports. This is basic stuff.
quote: You've "impugned my integrity" more than double that amount and I have a general sense that you are worse of a man than Cheney: you seek to rationalize something he would probably regret having done after a while. Will you give up before you make yourself look EVEN worse or will you continue to deny that you have been proven wrong over and over, mostly by your own statements.
A) You called me a liar. I posted a differing interpretation of how the Senate works. How did I do “double the amount.” B) I’d almost like to take a general survey on me being worse than Cheney, but it’s such a ludicrous statement I’ll let it go. C) How have I tried to rationalize what Cheney has done. It was rude. I simply acknowledge that people are sometimes rude (which doesn’t excuse it) and that the proper course is to admit wrongdoing and apologize. D) No backup for your assertions, refusal to document or withdraw your accusation that I’m a liar, and the fact that you’ve basically ignored every one of my points, and I’m looking worse?
posted
"Wow, looks like the whole point was lost on you, as I suspect it would be. I didn't mean any of the condescension I used on you..."
I hope you were smiling when you wrote that.
Seriously, Brian, let's assume that you've shown that nastiness begets nastiness. Now prove to us that you can have a conversation without being nasty -- something that's considerably harder, I believe.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just in case anyone is interested, I came across something from the Christian Science Monitor, which reaffirms my at Cheney's response to questions about his expletive:
Check the quote at the end of the second paragraph:
quote:Certainly Washington politics has seen worse, including brawls on the Senate floor. In 1856, a Massachusetts senator was actually beaten unconscious for his antislavery remarks. The Senate, known for its supposed decorum, has advanced since then, but one need only think back to the Clinton years and the vituperative exchanges on both sides to be reminded that personal rancor and insult are alive and kicking.
It's just that behavior, which obfuscates meaning and undermines faith in government, that the Bush administration vowed to change. "We take seriously the responsibility to be honest and civil," Cheney said in 2001.
Good thing Cheney takes civility seriously. Who knows what would come out of his mouth if he didn't. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why a simple apology, to Leahey and the Senators present, is called for. Besides being the right thing to do, it would definitely help him politically.
To be totally cynical, he'd get all the points with the boorish people who cheered his use of profanity, and points with rational people who have gotten mad themselves and had to apologize for rudeness.
quote: To be totally cynical, he'd get all the points with the boorish people who cheered his use of profanity, and points with rational people who have gotten mad themselves and had to apologize for rudeness.
Cynical? Maybe. But it's also a pretty realistic analysis in my opionion. Because I view Cheney as a competent political animal, I can only guess this was a deliberate decision to appeal to the lowest common denominator in his base.
It looks like both sides may be heading down that mudhill - and it's only the end of June!
If they keep it up, John McCain could manage a third-party run on a shoestring budget in October and win by a landslide. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm campaigning in the primaries for McCain in 2008, even if I do hate his campaign finance bill. He's one of the most conservative members, and he managed to work with Feinstein on a very controversial bill. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I don't consider this part as being nasty, I consider this pointing out the obvious to someone who's trying to deny it in some childish fashion to save face after he has shamed his own.
quote:Then you have too much invested in your group memberships.
You like playing games? Maybe you shouldn't moan and bleat about my comments stretching to the whole GOP and then when I make you realize what a newbie you are to the party you try to back off and act apathetic. Which is it going to be? Flip-flopping to try to win arguments is a shameful tactic.
quote:Have you at all read any of the numerous posts where I thought it was rude and that he should admit he was wrong or apologize. You started out saying he was abusing power, the only part of your initial post THAT I EVER CONTRADICTED.
I didn’t consider what you wrote there nastiness, nor my response. Are you really that thin-skinned?
Do I really have to go back AGAIN and show you the nastiness in your first post, your second post and other posts? Funny, the first time I did this you admitted to it, now you seem to deny it. I guess I better scroll up and see if you edited it.
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
Nope, it wasn't edited, so I can't see why you're flip-flopping on admitting your initial post was condescending and offensive, and now saying it's not. Just remember that this is the pattern you began on this thread-- and that I am trying to end and make you wake up and realize you need to stop treating people this way and sometimes just admit you are wrong.
quote:A.) Don’t flatter yourself. B.) This isn’t a case of picking one word. It’s a case where you said Cheney abused power, and asked how I would feel if a supervisor did it to me. Given that Cheney’s power in the Senate is largely ceremonial (still uncontradicted by you with ANY PROOF), and given you’ve never refuted my contention that Leahey probably did not feel intimidated for a second, your contention that this was an abuse of power rather than rudeness doesn’t meet the laugh test.
A. I'm not, it's a matter of cold, hard fact. B. Boy, if you are truly in law school then stop acting like you never got beyond 10th grade. This is really starting to bother me. Hey, did you know the President has to pick judges, and that they have to be confirmed by the Senate? But then, you do concede other points almost automatically on this thread so I guess you're pretty selective as to what you think common knowledge is: basically your criteria for common knowledge is anything that will help you win an argument, how pathetic. You know, I truly consider this a basic bit of knowledge, and you even conceded it, so what do you resort to "we'll sure he can do that but he never DOES," which is missing my point completely for the 6th time! Take a deep breath and listen closely, ok?
Even if Cheney's power was largely ceremonial, the fact that he has the power to censure and eject senators for what HE did makes it more wrong than the minor flub you make it out to be.
But hey, if you need proof go read the constitution, the only limitation placed on the VP as Pres. of the Senate is that he doesn't have an initial vote, and if you go watch the thing as I have many times you will see him presiding over and administering protocol. But I guess experience will always be trumped by vanity, bravado and overzealous studentia.
quote:So I provide sources from the Senate itself, and you rely on common knowledge that probably wasn’t rue even when you were in high school civics, and you use that to question something about me that I never even introduced into this debate? Not to mention at least one other person in this thread has acknowledge that my view of the congressional world is closer to reality than yours.
Word games come easy to you? You provided a source to info. I'm sure more than 3/4 of the people on this board knew -- I'd bet my life on that. You can deny it all you want and spin vague rhetoric at me about how my points are unrelated but this thread is here for all to see and and unbiased eye will truly see how far off the path you are going with this. I have been talking about the VP's powers as Pres. of the Senate, and you seem to be too busy attacking me with your barbed rhetoric to notice.
quote:Apparently you’re too sensitive for political discussions. You’ve been nasty and vicious throughout this thread and you’re complaining about my response to you CALLING ME A LIAR?
*Until* you own up and just admit that you are wrong, yeah, you're a liar in my eyes and it's not an insult, it's a statement of probable fact. I will not for one second believe that someone like you who has said the things he has in this thread is beyond the 9th grade. I have the guts to have a serious discussion, and I don't get upset when you attack me, I just like to point out that is detracts from your points and you yet again hurt your own credibility and any possible strength of the argument you were trying to make.
quote:You have called me a liar, by saying you disbelieve certain aspects of my biography that I’ve posted. Back it up or apologize and admit you were wrong. Stop thinking any perceived sarcasm from me justifies you calling someone a liar based on your own knowledge of government you refuse to provide any proof for. As for the last line, I’ll let Hatrack judge.
The difference between our behavior in this thread is that I’ve questioned aspects of your posts. You’ve questioned aspects of me and started throwing attacks around as soon as I refuse to bow to what you see as a rhetorical masterpiece
I think you are the one who needs to appologize for wasting my time with YOUR attacks that have tried to divert away from your losing arguments. I didn't call you a liar because I felt justified about some petty insult you made, I believe you're lying because it's either that or the education system is crashing down. No, the difference between is that your first post was nasty, condescending and you began spewing your mud balls of joy from the get-go unwarranted and unsoliticed from me. Maybe you should click back to the first page, scroll up and just admit this before I post it AGAIN after this, ok? Here is your first post, AGAIN:
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
Let's not blow this out of proportion.
Dagonee
quote:Cheney didn’t feel free to break them – he likely didn’t think about his position before saying the word. And he does not enforce those rules. Seriously, find me one instance of any Senator claiming he or she was denied the right to speak.
My goodness, denial and skewing in every possible way. Listen to me, I'm going to say this one last time, if you ignore it this time, don't bother looking for a response. It doesn't matter if Cheney hasn't abused it yet, or even if that wasn't his intention.
The reason its a problem is that Cheney represents authority in the Senate, he administers the rules, andeven if nothing results from this Cheney might as well have said "**** off" to the rules as easily as he said it to that Senator. It is basically the VP rising above standards and not even bothering to appologize for it, much less realize how he damages his station.
quote:Again, point to one instance where this has happened. The VP is not the final arbiter of senate rules – his decisions can be reviewed. Did you miss that part of the links? The work of the Senate is done largely in Committees, and the reports are accompanied by minority reports. This is basic stuff.
Again, non-related point. All it takes is once to disenfranchise a Senator and their work and concerns. The risk of this happening once is too great when compared to the cost of allowing the VP to enjoy his office with fickle actions and interactions: it's a needless trade. btw: I love your "basic stuff" quotation here, thanks for proving my point about how selective you are when admitting something is common knowledge. You truly demonstrate what an utter hypocrite you are being in this thread with those three little words
quote:A) You called me a liar. I posted a differing interpretation of how the Senate works. How did I do “double the amount.” B) I’d almost like to take a general survey on me being worse than Cheney, but it’s such a ludicrous statement I’ll let it go. C) How have I tried to rationalize what Cheney has done. It was rude. I simply acknowledge that people are sometimes rude (which doesn’t excuse it) and that the proper course is to admit wrongdoing and apologize. D) No backup for your assertions, refusal to document or withdraw your accusation that I’m a liar, and the fact that you’ve basically ignored every one of my points, and I’m looking worse?
A. I call a spade a spade, until you grow up, stop acting ignorant of basic knowledge that someone with your supposed credentials should have, and grow up, you will be perceieved as a liar. You also need to stop being a hypocrite and be more consistent. You chastised me for using the common knowledge approach and then not a few lines down you say "this is basic stuff." The reason you impuged me double was not only denying everything I said, but you assaulted my integrity twice as much by saying things like "you are OFFICIALLY wrong" "you have no idea what you're talking about" AND then accusing me of calling you a liar well before you even deserved it. B. Feel free to take yuour survey, it would be sad if selective popularity contests is what you use to boost your self esteem though, but since "it's such a ludicrous statement I'll let it go." Amazing how much of your erroneous rhetoric fits you perfectly. You tried to rationalize it by saying "oh it was bad but lets keep this in proportion." Then the backpeddling and skewing begins. Funny, if you admit that people can be wrong and should applogized then I hold you to your standards. Maybe if you appologize for starting the wagon of nastiness on this thread and admit you were wrong and I will appologize for thinking you're lying, until then good luck with the hypocrisy. I have plenty of "backup" for my assertions, at least you seemed to think it was good enough on selective parts of the thread, but I guess only YOU are allowed to cite common knowledge, right? I documented extensively exactly how you are lying, hypocritical, rude and flat out insutling. I guess you wouldn't know that if your denial is so deep that you believe it yourself. Maybe you should ask someone to read the computer screen to you. You don't seem to be able to understand anything you disagree with on this thread. It is YOU who has ignored my points, I went to great lengths at first to try and understand yours, until I realized you were speaking completely out of your cuff, and when you started denying basic facets of government. With every post you make you dig yourself deeper. A simple, "I'm wrong, I understand the larger point you were trying to make, I understand how I'm wrong even under my own viewpoint and that I have missed your point several times," will suffice to redeem yourself in the image of anyone intelligent reading this thread.
quote:Apologize or withdraw the accusation.
Indeed, I am waiting for your appology and admission.
posted
Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're saying that you're so obviously right that anyone who disagrees with you on how the Senate works must not have graduated High School. In this thread you have called me a newbie, a pup, questioned my level of education, and used the fact that I'm still in school in an attempt to bolster your own arguments.
If that doesn't win the hubris award nothing does.
As to the basic stuff and common knowledge, the things I cited I provided links to. Basic stuff does not mean common knowledge. Nor is common knowledge unacceptable for use in a discussion. But once it's challenged, especially with evidence, it loses any presumption of validity it possessed. The fact that you say something is common knowledge does not make it so. You have not provided any evidence of your "common knowledge" once it was questioned. Nor have you questioned the validity of my links. Nor have you responded with any evidence that Leahey felt threatened in the same way you or I would if told to f%$# off by a supervisor.
quote:Funny, if you admit that people can be wrong and should applogized then I hold you to your standards. Maybe if you appologize for starting the wagon of nastiness on this thread and admit you were wrong and I will appologize for thinking you're lying, until then good luck with the hypocrisy.
First, I'm not wrong. Second, I didn't start any nastiness in this thread, nor did I admit to it. I said, "I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it." Basically, this was meant to convey that I'm not going to drop down to your level of sensitivity to rhetoric. Finally, you've admitted to deliberate nastiness to provoke a reaction: "I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait."
At this point, the evidence is out there for anyone who cares to evaluate it. I think I can safely say that anyone whose opinion I care about on Hatrack believes the things fugu said about me in the post that set you off. In fact, it's likely that you're the only one who disbelieves it.
Just take comfort in the fact that your lies about me are objectively refutable, while the lies you've accused me of making are based on my disagreement with you over issues that have wide and varying interpretations.
Dagonee Edit: Just because I so look forward to reading you're posts:
quote:. Listen to me, I'm going to say this one last time, if you ignore it this time, don't bother looking for a response. It doesn't matter if Cheney hasn't abused it yet, or even if that wasn't his intention.
You don't get to set the parameters of the debate. I obviously disagree with you about whether or not it matters if it's happened before. It seemed easy enough to pick up on that from any of my other posts.
quote:Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're saying that you're so obviously right that anyone who disagrees with you on how the Senate works must not have graduated High School. In this thread you have called me a newbie, a pup, questioned my level of education, and used the fact that I'm still in school in an attempt to bolster your own arguments.
A. That is not what I'm saying. B. Don't flatter yourself, you drew every bit of criticism on yourself with your statements and continue to deserve them with this little jewel
quote:If that doesn't win the hubris award nothing does.
quote: As to the basic stuff and common knowledge, the things I cited I provided links to. Basic stuff does not mean common knowledge. Nor is common knowledge unacceptable for use in a discussion. But once it's challenged, especially with evidence, it loses any presumption of validity it possessed. The fact that you say something is common knowledge does not make it so. You have not provided any evidence of your "common knowledge" once it was questioned. Nor have you questioned the validity of my links. Nor have you responded with any evidence that Leahey felt threatened in the same way you or I would if told to f%$# off by a supervisor.
No, I'm sorry simply because you challenge common knowledge/basic stuff does not mean it goes away, maybe in your dream world it does, but in reality if a man stands around denying the color of the sky eventually he is completely ignored. Is this what you want to happen to you? Ok, I question your assertion that the the VP DOESN'T have the power to do all the things I said, now, go try to find sources saying he doens't, is that what you want to turn this into? And before you start of with some ridiculous burden of proof argument, remember, you are the one making proactive assertions and I am merely trying to remind you of the way tghe government operates. Your links were to irrelevant info.! You might as well have posted gumbo recipees! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF LEAHY FELT THREATENED, IT MATTERS THAT CHENEY WENT ABOVE THE STANDARDS AND RULES HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE TO ENFORCE.
quote:First, I'm not wrong. Second, I didn't start any nastiness in this thread, nor did I admit to it. I said, "I’d hesitate to call it condescending as hell, but however you want to interpret it." Basically, this was meant to convey that I'm not going to drop down to your level of sensitivity to rhetoric. Finally, you've admitted to deliberate nastiness to provoke a reaction: "I told you my whole point with this had been to demonstrate firsthand how nastiness begets nastiness and you fell right into the trap and took the bait."
First off, you are wrong, even for the simple matter of understanding what I'm trying to say. You really seem to miss the point that even if I grant 2/3 of what you're saying, I'M STILL RIGHT. I am talking about the principle of this matter and you want to sit down and argue technicalities with me. You bore me. Yeah, though I doubt you are in law school I have no doubt you'd make a great lawyer, you don't even admit the obvious, instead you wheedle on about "well, however you want to interpret it." You really make me sick with your manipulation and evasion. Let me get this straight: YOUR not going to drop down to MY level of rhetoric??! My goodness, besides providing me with the best laugh I'm sure I will have all day you really made yourself look foolish to anyone reading this thread. Here's a hint: you already have. That quote is priceless.
quote:At this point, the evidence is out there for anyone who cares to evaluate it. I think I can safely say that anyone whose opinion I care about on Hatrack believes the things fugu said about me in the post that set you off. In fact, it's likely that you're the only one who disbelieves it.
Just take comfort in the fact that your lies about me are objectively refutable, while the lies you've accused me of making are based on my disagreement with you over issues that have wide and varying interpretations.
Ok kid, why don't you do your little popularity poll, if you really need to do something that immature. This is exactly what I am talking about. It's statements like those that make me think you are just some 12 year old playing grown up on the internet. Maybe you aren't but you are sure acting like it.
Take comfort? How can I take comfort in the fact that someone who's claiming to be a lawyer and claims to have a college and high school education is sladering the hell out me and the educational system. But like I said, with your didgy and evsaive attitude you are exactly the type for a lawyer, you accuse others of lying when you do it, and then you try and say that anything they accuse you of has a "varying interpretation." *laugh* Grow up and just appologize for making pretenses about what you know, allowing yourself to fall into nastiness when my point was clearly and absolutely inductive, and for being a condescending smart-alec while claiming not to be and accusing others of doing it when it was really you. You will look much better for it, and maybe your future popularity polls will improve for it too.
btw: I am not setting any extra parameters of this debate by making that point, that point is well within the scope of the original subject, so cut your vague denying rhetoric.
quote:Ok kid, why don't you do your little popularity poll, if you really need to do something that immature. This is exactly what I am talking about. It's statements like those that make me think you are just some 12 year old playing grown up on the internet. Maybe you aren't but you are sure acting like it.
I'm wondering why you think this would be a popularity poll. I've presented myself in a certain way on this board, and created relationships based on the fact that the way I've presented myself is accurate. You've called me a liar and called into question who I am, which is very important on an essentially anonymous board.
People on this board with whom I've formed relationships know me as a law student, a former programmer, a Roman Catholic, and a former programmer. That's who I am. This isn't a disagreement about who said what when all the posts are right there for anyone to read. This is you taking a stand that is absolutely unsupportable and digging your heals in deeper about it each time.
Please point to anywhere I've slandered you - realizing that one of the elements of slander is an untruthful statement about another person. Please show me where I've lied once? And don't do that by saying, "You said this, and I know that's wrong." Show me a statement I made, and then show proof it's not true.
Dagonee BtL, this part of it's not going away.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Brian, I will do you the favor of assuming that no one has ever pointed this out to you: your word choice is blatantly offensive, which is why you are offending people.
I have reported your posts, and I sincerely hope you learn to be civil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, I'm in no way, shape or form asking you to delete anything. I'm just saying that you two are pretty clearly not going to resolve this issue and there's probably nowhere for it to go but down.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably. But like I said, my reputation here is actually surprisingly important to me. I don't mind people forming opinions of me based on my posts, but a direct accusation that I'm making up a persona is hard to swallow.
Dagonee *I would be one precocious 12-year old, wouldn't I?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's one count for Dagonee's popularity poll, Tom, if you're going to play net-nanny why be selective? I guess you don't really see anything wrong with Dagonee's posts or else you would have reported them too, fancy how *that* works. Also, he was moaning and bleating about my use of common knowledge when he was perfectly happy to use it himself selectively to bolster his own points, if those word choices are offensive, why don't you try whining and bitching? Or are those worse? Either way he is acting hypocritical with his denunciation of my methods while he employs those very same methods throughout his posts. If you really believe for a second that anything I posted is truly worse than what he has written, maybe you should go back, reread the thread, realize every time I used rudeness it was dripping with sarcasm related back to the original point of me mimicking Leahy and Cheney to prove a point, and it seems it fell right past you.
Tom, I hope you grow up and learn to recognize, sarcasm and inductive logic some day.
posted
As President and founding member of the Retarded Monkeys Club, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the admission of this thread into our august fellowship.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks - glad to be here. Of course, I couldn't have made it this far without...nah, too easy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you really believe for a second that anything I posted is truly worse than what he has written, maybe you should go back, reread the thread, realize every time I used rudeness it was dripping with sarcasm related back to the original point of me mimicking Leahy and Cheney to prove a point...."
Yes. And when I asked you to stop, you said you were NOT trying to prove a point anymore. *points back up*
You have been consistently insulting, patronizing, and offensive. You do not seem to recognize that words like "whining," "bitching," or "bleating" are in fact purely optional and emotionally-loaded descriptors, as evidenced by your suggestion of alternatives (as opposed to, say, the more neutral "complaining.") If this has been done to prove a point -- that lowering the tone of discourse drags everyone down -- you can consider it proved. I sincerely hope that is the case, as I would hate to think that you are incapable of civil discussion.
Why not attempt, from this moment forward, to be as civil as possible -- and see if, as a consequence, the thread cleans itself up?
posted
Tom, yet again you ignore my point, I did stop, but he restarted it so I continued to try and prove my point. I figured he couldn't possibly not get it the 2nd time, I guess I was wrong. If you think shaming me or threatening me with having reported my posts is going to make me care about your selective censuring, forget it, it's obvious you're selective in who you choose to censure, you must be Dagonee's private net nanny, pray tell me, when did you assign me to be his whipping boy?
I'll put it bluntly: this is not a pissing contest you want to get into. But since it's a pissing contest that I don't want to get into, either, and I'm smart enough to know it, let me just suggest again -- politely -- that you be civil.
Try leaving it at that, Brian. It's exactly that simple.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me just suggest politely that you stop with your conscending, selective censuring. I tried to be civil from the outset of this thread and was provoked, if you really want to play technocrat games about "who started it" like the 12 year old that I said Dagonee was acting like, I can play that game too. I was wronged first, you are out of line to censure me, especially since I did not strike the first insult or rude remark. But since you seem to hide behind snide remarks like calling me a Space Cowboy and telling me what I want and do not want to to do, I doubt you will listen to me as I yet again tell you you are being inconsistent, hypocritical, and overall missing the point of everyone one of my responses to Dagonee.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Child, listen to me, it's not that Cheney hasn't ejected Senators, it's that he has the power to do so for behavior that HE was exhibiting. By this logic you'd think it's alright for policeman to consider himself exempt of speeding laws simply because he has never written a ticket? What a totally "****ed" analogy. See where this is going? When you need a lesson on why being civil to your underlings ALWAYS matters in government come talk to me, OK? Hopefully lectures on principle of order and civility won't always be lost on you. Your a student right now so I'll understand if this is one of those phases young upstarts go through when they think they have a handle on laws and practicality and don't see the need for convention and order.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
