O/T: More Political Observations

See where Cheney made an appearance on CBS', "Face The Nation" this morning which begs the question, Why?
Can't believe CBS is that hard up for guests to appear on Face The Nation.
Money maybe, especially with Sumner Redstone as owner, but even that seems to be a stretch,
Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I guess they had planned to have Dan Rather on for Old Home Week, but he was not available as he was quite busy forging documents ...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, did good old Dan get a job with ACORN?

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, Money. People Will watch. Viewers = Dollars.

  Quoted Text Here  
I loved his preference for Limbaugh as the voice of the Republican party over Colin Powell.
That kind of thinking is going to keep the Republicans in the 20% range for years and years.

On Mon, 11 May 2009 03:31:52 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You mean Limbaugh and Cheney are really two different people?

  Quoted Text Here  
Yeah, funny that, isn't it? He prefers someone who actually voted for the Republicans in the last election rather than someone who voted for the Democrat candidate. That someone who voted for the democrat by the way got exactly the candidate that he wanted for the Republican candidacy, John McCain. Yet he chose to publicly endorse and vote for the democrat. I just can't imagine why Cheney would prefer Limbaugh over someone like that. It just doesn't make any sense.
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
You mean... like... vote for Charles Manson because he's a republican? Not because he is Charles Manson, but because he's republican. Don't matter the size of the criminal, he's republican, so he's a better choice. What kind of irrational bullshit is that? Oh, wait.. it's Cheney we're talking about... nice fella..

"Robatoy" wrote
Oh, wait.. it's Cheney we're talking about... nice fella.. ============================= Did you hear the joke Obama told about Cheney at the recent journalists dinner?
Dick Cheney has just written a book. It is called, How to Shoot Friends and Influence Enemies.
It got a laugh.

On May 12, 10:53 am, "Lee Michaels"
  Quoted Text Here  
Actually, it was called : 'How to shoot friends and interrogate people'... even funnier, IMHO.... although torture is so repulsive to me that it really isn't funny.
The only torture that can be even slightly allowed, is the distribution of Celine Dijon CD's.

Robatoy wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Well the mustard came off the hot dog that time.     ;-)

Robatoy wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Water Boarding isn't torture, according to Nancy Polosi. She signed off on it and now wants to take it back. If you want to call it torture fine but it worked, you can't deny that! Your opinion doesn't convince me of anything except that you would not be willing do to anything to save one of your kids, if you knew they were in extreme danger and you had one of the persons involved in custody. I'd do everything in my power including torture and death to get them back alive. That's the difference of a realist and emotionalism. Evil exists whether you like it or not.

evodawg wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You are absolutely right! That is one of the most emotional responses I have ever read. Take that you realists.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:48:31 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
  Quoted Text Here  
Very strange. I didn't see that in "Mark & Juanita"'s post at all. Maybe that's because I read and understood the part about getting exactly the republican candidate wanted and voting democrat anyway".
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein

  Quoted Text Here  
No doubt that Mark needs help. I'm just not sure it is your help he needs.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 19:09:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
  Quoted Text Here  
Thanks for enlightening me. I wasn't aware I was trying to help Mark.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein

Tom Veatch wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yet somehow, we are the irrational ones. Go figure
  Quoted Text Here  

Robatoy wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
So, you are equating John McCain to Charles Manson? If so, why was that the person that Colin Powell was so eager to have on the Republican ballot?
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't know, you wrote the only irrational BS in this posting, why don't you explain what exactly you meant?
  Quoted Text Here  
Hmm, seems you have a bit of reading comprehension problem. 1. Cheney was asked who he thought better representative of the opinions of the Republican party, Rush or Powell 2. Rush endorsed the Republican candidate, even though Limbaugh saw in McCain a very flawed candidate 3. Powell, despite endorsing McCain as the best pick during the primaries decided to publically endorse and vote for the Democrat candidate -- a person whose background and positions are completely antithetical to Republican ideals 4. Powell has now deigned to tell the Republican party what it must do to win in the future. 5. That advice sounds amusingly like the same advice he provided during the Republican primaries -- i.e., he wants more candidates exactly like the one with whom he was presented during the last election. The candidate that he spurned in the general election 6. Cheney for some reason thinks that Powell's advice might not be given with the best of intentions 7. Given Powell's recent behavior, Cheney's position seems logical and well thought out
Yet somehow my comment was irrational?
You don't know how happy it makes me that you live in Canada and can't join the ranks of the average Obama voter

Mark & Juanita wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
At the current rate of Constitutional demolition being practices by The One (PBUH), the Canadians may yet well be able to vote in U.S. elections. After all, a good many Mexican nationals are already doing so ...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
... snip
  Quoted Text Here  
You've got a point there. ;-)