You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #19: Part of the problem lies in your very post..."Cheney apologists?" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
19. Part of the problem lies in your very post..."Cheney apologists?"
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 09:51 AM by Atman
The man is vile pond scum. But using your terminology, I guess I am one of the "Cheney apologists" you rail on against. I've been beaten silly here for the past two days because I refuse to sign on to the wild speculation that Cheney was "obviously" drunk, and that those of us who don't think so are somehow, suddenly, unintelligent morans.

What is this about? Revenge? Or TRUTH?

Much of what we do here at DU is point out the inherent flaws in the BushCo operating system...ie: their penchent for dragging people out of their homes and locking them up for mere SUPPOSITION of wrong-doing, without real proof. Stopping people from boarding airplanes just because of their name. In short, eschewing the basic principles of THE LAW in favor of convenient, easily voiced rallying cries like "HE WAS OBVIOUSLY DRUNK AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SEE THAT IS A STUPID IDIOT!"

I have nothing but disdain for Dick "dick" Cheney. But I have also seen nothing which elevates the "obviously drunk" meme to anything more than popular drum-beating. There are, in my opinion (which is so obviously worthless on DU unless I'm willing to be a sheep) several equally "obvious" explanations as to what happened. All of them STILL lead to a terrible shooting, and inexcusable behavior on the part of the VP and his staff, and the WH in general. But since we don't actually know anything about the actual incident other than the limited stories dribbling out, I do not see how it jibes with being the intelligent, curious, open-minded Democrats we all fancy ourselves, when we make declarations such as "MY THEORY IS OBVIOUS, SO YOU'RE STUPID!"

I am very, very disheartened at the three days worth of threads on this subject. I've seen some of the worst of my fellow DUers. Reasonable discussion flew out the window on this one...no open-minded posts are allowed, no speculation that doesn't include "he was obviously drunk" will be tolerated. Perhaps we really are no better than they are, and now that we have our chance, we'll prove it to the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC