Author Topic: Vicious assault on Cheney (Read 2030 times)

JB88 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 12, 2006, 03:35:21 PM »

i would like to see your "ending the story" credentials laser.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 12, 2006, 03:37:05 PM »

This is a case of selective reading 88. Everyone here is only reading the parts they want to read.

For example, the democrats here want to believe that he was arrested for saying something to the VP. Because of their selective reading abilities, they missed the part where someone thought he touched the VP and was arrested because of this.

The republicans can't get past the thought that maybe he didn't say anything vicious or scream at the VP.

JB88 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2006, 03:37:33 PM »

i know.

Chairboy · « **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2006, 03:58:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
For example, the democrats here want to believe that he was arrested for saying something to the VP. Because of their selective reading abilities, they missed the part where someone thought he touched the VP and was arrested because of this.

Then why didn't they arrest him when he did it instead of 5+ minutes later? Did they need to schedule a phone conference first?

THEN, why did they change the charge to harassment?

nirvana · « **Reply #34 on:** October 12, 2006, 04:38:49 PM »

Wasn't long ago that the fellow in Texas was carted off for telling Cheney to go f*** himself. I would have thought Cheney had grown a thicker skin by now, guess not.

lukster · « **Reply #35 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:08:18 PM »

Assault by definition does not have to be physical but for it to warrant an arrest I would think it should. If the guy touched Cheney in an offensive manner he definitely should have been arrested. Who would not agree with this?

Seems the anti-Bush/Cheney zealots are out in force.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:31:10 PM »

Since the man was not convicted of anything, he didn’t commit a crime.

When he is charged and convicted then assault can be claimed, until then, this man is innocent tell proven guilty.

Maybe it’s you Bash fans are the ones who are desperate.

I guess I am going to be called a LibruLE again..

lukster · « **Reply #37 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:34:56 PM »

Since the man wasn't charged and therefore isn't guilty what is Cheney's offense?

Chairboy · « **Reply #38 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:39:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Since the man wasn't charged and therefore isn't guilty what is Cheney's offense?

Seriously? You don't have a problem with people being arrested and held for hours for speech?

Your homework:
1. Declaration of Independence.
2. Constitution (If you're in a hurry, just read the preamble)
3. The Bill of Rights.

If you have time, throw in some Thomas Paine, then tell me why it's ok for politicians to intimidate and imprison (while under arrest, that's essentially what it is) citizens because they say things he disagrees with.

Finally, if you STILL don't see a problem, I offer you this opportunity to make one final attempt to prove that you have a shred of intellectual honesty: Ask yourself, would you be as sanguine about this if the politician in question had been Ted Kennedy and someone had been arrested for saying "You are a disgrace to the government"?

DadRabit · « **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:42:28 PM »

you can be assaulted by words or you can be assaulted by force. you can be "arrested" for both. one will get you a ticket, the other jail.

my 2 cents

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #40 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:43:29 PM »

This REALLY is hilarious. What a panicky bunch.

lukster · « **Reply #41 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:46:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Seriously? You don't have a problem with people being arrested and held for hours for speech?

Your homework:
1. Declaration of Independence.
2. Constitution (If you're in a hurry, just read the preamble)
3. The Bill of Rights.

If you have time, throw in some Thomas Paine, then tell me why it's ok for politicians to intimidate and imprison (while under arrest, that's essentially what it is) citizens because they say things he disagrees with.

Finally, if you STILL don't see a problem, I offer you this opportunity to make one final attempt to prove that you have a shred of intellectual honesty: Ask yourself, would you be as sanguine about this if the politician in question had been Ted Kennedy and someone had been arrested for saying "You are a disgrace to the government"?

Uh, did you ignore the part of a witness claiming the man touched Cheney? Offensive physical contact is most definitely assault and grounds for arrest. I don't think the man was interested in shaking Cheney's hand or that the touch was affectionate in any way. The Secret Service acted and probably decided the guy was not a serious threat to the VP and let him off the hook. This is nothing more than a malcontent's whining and deserves no one's further attention.

Eagler · « **Reply #42 on:** October 12, 2006, 06:33:20 PM »

I heard Cheney appologized and offered to take him hunting ...

lukster · « **Reply #43 on:** October 12, 2006, 06:33:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
I heard Cheney appologized and offered to take him hunting ...

nirvana · « **Reply #44 on:** October 12, 2006, 07:09:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
I heard Cheney appologized and offered to take him hunting ...

PAHAHAHAHA:aok