Well, he’s got great taste in parkas. And even if he doesn’t charm folks, he must have something–not many people can get others to apologize for being shot by him…
And for all the talk about liberals automatically thinking him evil, there is also no evidence that he is the Mr Rogers of the GOP or even his family. It cannot be said that he is evil or mean (well, shooting someone etc is pretty definitive), but it also cannot be said that he is warm, open or tenderhearted–there is no evidence (at least in mainstream media) for this. There is evidence, however paltry it is considered by partisan folk, that he is a tough cookie and pulls no punches. Overall, he is an enigma, and that suits his purpose, IMO.
The alternative, though, is spending 10 dollars (plus another $10 for popcorn and soda…think about that, $10 for sugar water and inside out corn kernals) for a 90 minute movie, the first 10 minutes of which are commercials and previews.
Nah. I’m rarely mean spirited, but I’ll hold him down, while you guys steal his lunch money. “Rush” better be prepared to mix it up, babee…
Witch King of Angmar describes the Penguin (love Jon Stuart’s impression of him!) to a T. But, I could see doing Witchy King(what a way with a mace!)–but not Cheyney…
Am I to understand that you were asking Boyo Jim, John Carter of Mars, roger thornhill, fishbicycle, RickJay, ageless6, Maureen, Larry Borgia, tentacle monster, Askia, smartini, danceswithcats, furt, Ranchoth, pepperlandgirl, and Sampiro to provide cites that backed up the comment made by Askia alone?
As I read the thread, the first response, from Israfel, is the only one that suggested that people [in general that is, it looks like; not specifically in that thread] might get an impression of Cheney as mean based upon his physical appearance alone. After HPL and Pochacco made contributions that didn’t address the name of Cheney, you responded as follows to Israfel:
That appears to have been your challenge to, as you put it yesterday, the people who had posted in the thread prior to post #20. From one person who mentioned Cheney’s name, you assigned every other poster membership in a cadre that hated Cheney for being mean. Some of those posters, if I’m any judge of political inclinations based on what I read of their posts, are staunch Republican.
I just don’t see how you can use that thread as a demonstration that “[you] asked several of the Cheney-haters around here just what specific thing it was that made them think of him as being so mean,” that “[his meanness] was the overwhelming accusation toward him in that thread at the time,” or that there was any response to your challenge that could rise to the level of a consensus at all, let alone that “the overall consensus was pretty much ‘Uh, well, nothing really…but just look at him, he’s got to be evil! And besides, he’s a Republican…there’s your proof right there!’”
An alternate interpretation of the activity in the thread is that only three people thought your post merited any response at all. As Miller points out, Maureen specifically refused to endorse meanness as a reason for her disdain (didn’t adress your challenge), and Tracy Lord added to Maureen’s post with a remark about Cheney’s potty mouth (also not addressing your challenge). Mariemarie opined that Cheney would make a worse president than GWB without bothering to identify herself as a Cheney-hater (and didn’t address your challenge, or even your post). Finally, Askia returned, ridiculed your challenge as pertaining to the most trivial part of his reasons for believing Cheney would be a worse president than Bush, and gave a single example of behaviour that could legitimately be called mean (and rude and churlish).
Not a single person said that the evidence for Cheney’s meanness was his mean looks. I daresay not a single person took your challenge seriously enough to be bothered about it (N.B. although Askiadid respond, he did so in a manner that leaves no doubt he did not take it seriously).
Pretty weak, Starving Artist. I wouldn’t feel too bad about it, though. I once tried to start a game where people assigned flavors to the different-colored shells in m&m’s, and it didn’t get many more responses than your challenge.
We rise above our disappointment. We blink back the tears of frustration over our own insignificance, straighten our shoulders, and stride out to meet the cruel and pitiless world anew.
Well, Kaylaspop, I’m afraid you should have let it go, as I fear you are laboring under several false assumptions. The first seems to be that upon seeing one poster in the thread comment on Cheney’s being mean that I lept to the conclusion that every other poster in the thread was saying the same; secondly, that my question as to Cheney’s reputation for being mean was spurred comments made in that thread only; and third, that the “cadre” of people I spoke of was limited to the participants of that thread; and forth (and you are far from the only one making this mistake), you interpreted my reference earlier in this thread to a ‘consensus’ to mean that among the posters to that thread, most had agreed with me that Cheney’s reputation for meanness was false.
Not so, Fatherbreath! You see, for months and months leading up to that thread (and perhaps for as long as I’ve been reading these boards) I’ve been reading comments characterizing Cheney as being ‘mean’. When I saw this assessment levelled at him again in that thread – and given that the thread was populated largely by the types of posters from whom I’d heard this accusation so many times before – I felt it would be a good opportunity to put the lie to the false notion of Cheney’s meanness.
So I said (and I’m paraphrasing here for all you parse-happy hair-splitters), “Okay, folks, pony up! Just what has Cheney done to deserve this widely held reputation for meanness?” One poster said Cheney told Leahy to get fucked, and then it was pretty much crickets chirping!
This is what I based my ‘consensus’ on: the fact that in a thread (largely) full of Cheney-bashers (many of whom I felt at the time had at one time or another accused him of being mean), no one could come up with any concrete instances to illustrate this so-called meanness. It was a sort of ‘silent’ or ‘back-door’ consensus don’t you see, based on the fact that no one in the thread could support the contention of Cheney’s alleged meanness. Sort of like if you had a roomful of people and asked them “What is the purpose of life?” and no one could come up with an answer. In that case I would say that the consensus among those in the room was that the question was unanswerable.
Now, given that I’ve taken the time to respond and to try to clear up some of the misconceptions regarding my initial post here, let me say that my point still rings true, despite attempts by you and several other of my esteemed adversaries, to obfuscate it by splitting hairs over what I said, meant, implied, etc. There is no question that many people on this board have long held that Cheney is a mean person, and there is no question that no one can come up with much at all in the way of incontrovertible evidence to support this allegation (Maureen’s diatribe notwithstanding). Therefore, it is my opinon that the overwhelming consensus among posters to this board has to be that Cheney’s reputation for meanness is erroneous, unsupported, and undeserved.
Starving Artist you have only show that Chenney is nice only on a "do not even the **publicans ** are nice to their children?” level.
Otherwise, from telling the American people that Iraqis would receive us with flowers or that the insurgency is in their last throes, from seeking torture exceptions to the current law, from hiding secrets that benefit his cronies, form likely releasing secrets to quiet dissent, for expletives not deleted, the meanness is directed not only to political enemies, but to the rest of the American people that are not his cronies or family.
In any case, since this is a mater of opinion, it is pertinent to mention that recent surveys showed that Cheney polls two points below adultery in popularity:
But you have yet to demoinstrate the prevalence of the generic accusation of being “mean.”
And i’m afraid that your record of disingenuous debate on these issues means that you’ll have to pony up some evidence of this alleged rash of “meanie” accusations before people take you seriously. Your assertions that you’ve constantly seen such comments over a period of “months and months” just doesn’t cut the mustard.
No, you pony up first.
You find the people whose sole criticism of Cheney has been his meanness, and ask them why they arrived at that conclusion. Otherwise, you’re simply asking folks to defend assertions they never made, and then claiming victory when they don’t.
Again, you haven’t demonstrated that these people ever did, in fact, accuse Cheney of being mean.
But the contention about Cheney’s meanness was made by one person. The fact that you wanted every other liberal on the board to defend it does not constitute some obligation upon those people, especially if they never made such an assertion in the first place.
Firstly, there is, in fact, some “question that many people on this board have long held that Cheney is a mean person.” If you make the assertion that many people hold this view, it’s up to you to demonstrate that it is, in fact, the case. So far, you’ve shown bupkus.
Secondly, your whole argument (if it can be dignified with such a name) completely elides the fact that many people on these message boards have clear and logically thought out reasons for disliking Cheney, based on his political actions and the actions of the Administration of which he is a key member. Your continued focus on your own fantasy of the meanness issue neatly serves to sidestep important questions of politics. That is, of course, understandable, given your inability to engage with such issues on anything above a fifth grade level.
As i’ve said, my own dislike for Cheney is explicitly based on his politics. I think some of the political positions that he and the Administration hold constitute mean policies, and to that extent i’m willing to label him mean. But this is a direct reflection of his politics, not some generic notion of “mean” that is completely disconnected from actual issues, which is what you seem to be focused on.
Your first three points are not supported by anything said by kaylasdad or myself. That last point was not an assumption. That was your direct claim, made in this thread, multiple times. First in post 17, again in post 26, a third time in post 29, and a fourth time in post 36. For fuck’s sake, you said:
And when asked to substantiate the claim of consensus, you link to that thread. Where the fuck are we supposed to think you saw this consensus, but in the thread you linked to when directly asked to establish some evidence of this consensus?
Yes, that was your original claim in this thread. When asked to substantiate that claim, you linked to the other thread, and repeatedly insisted that it proved your point. It has not. There is not one post in that thread that supports your contention that the only reason people think Cheney is mean is because he “looks evil and is Republican.” Not. One.
No, it was pretty much people ignoring you because you made a claim that had no basis in observable fact. “People say Cheney is mean,” is your claim. In that thread, only one person called him mean: Askia. And his reasons for calling him mean had nothing to do with him being “evil looking and Republican.” Why did no one else explain why they thought he was mean? Possibly because nobody else reading or responding to that thread held that opinion of Cheney. In fact, we have yet to see any evidence from you that “meaness” is at all a common detraction leveled at Cheney. It may very well be, but I’m not going to take your word for it. You are not a reliable reporter of such things, as this thread has amply demonstrated. You tend to “paraphrase” things in ways that drastically alter what was actually said. Hence, the prescence of us “parse-happy hair-splitters,” which is a handy (and, for you, customary) way of ignoring the fact that every single claim you have made has been roundly debunked by directly reading the source material you have provided.
Because no one in that thread, Askia excepted, had made any claims about his meanness. If you feel differently, provide a direct quote. Otherwise, the obvious conclusion is that you are making shit up to defend an indefensible claim.
Or, that nobody who read that thread felt that “mean” was an adequate descriptor of the vice president. Or, that nobody cared enough about you or your question to bother answering. Or, that anyone who felt that way about him who was going to answer didn’t get the chance before
This is really revolting. The only obfuscation in this thread has come from you, where you have repeatedly lied, misled, and mis-reported the statements of others. When people point out that what actually was said bears absolutely no resemblence to what you claimed, you call them “hair splitters?” Maybe it’s just me, but the difference between “the truth” and “a lie” is a hell of a lot thicker than a hair.
Your first claim in this section is arguably true. The second half is demonstrably false.
Your opinion is wholly unsupported by anything resembling fact, reason, or logic. You are free to hold it if you wish, but do not expect anyone to ever take it - or you - seriously.
Now, Miller, irregardless of any and every quote you may be able to come up with, an opinion is just that. An opinion. Unless you personaly know Cheney, whatever you think of Cheney is opinion. Until you can cite your opinion as fact, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Take note, I’m talking about opinions of a person. Which is what this thread title would indicate is the intent. Not an opportunity to debate the shortcomings os a person. Though the OP may have had ulterior motives in starting the thread. Not my place to say.
I wonder what would happen if I started a thread on if people like Ted Kennedy, Hillary, or Bill. We’d get the same sort of posts, but I would dare to say the general tone of the thread would be a bit different.
The OP was asking if people like the VP. If you don’t, say so. If you can pull yourself away from the “Post du Jour” that is.
But don’t debate people that fall for the SDMB trap of stating they like someone in a situation that only sets them up for a pile-on.
Intellectuals such as yourself should know better. Practice some of that acceptance of opposing opinion. Very few here have any real influence in our world. That’s why we post and complain to a message board.
You continue to accuse me of failing to provide proofs of things I’ve never been asked to prove.
Frankly, I don’t care whether you think it cuts the mustard or not. It’s plainly there for anyone to see, and any honest long-time poster or lurker knows that it’s so anyway.
“Sole criticism?” Where did that come from? When did I ever contend any such thing in the first place, and what difference would it make in the second place?
Again with putting words in my mouth! I never asked anyone to defend anything! I asked for specific instances that would support the notion that Cheney was ‘mean’.
So what? I demonstrated what was said in the thread, I explained the background information that I had in mind when reading the thread, and I explained why I asked and what I got in return. Is it actually your contention that I’m in error in stating that the impression of Cheney around here – and especially during the run-up to the election – is that he’s a mean person?
In that thread! See my post above (again) for information as to what I had in mind and why when I issued the challenge.
Again with the erroneous, and frankly, ridiculous, assertions as to my words and intentions. Cite for wanting “every other liberal on the board” to “defend” the notion of Cheney’s meanness.
You can’t possibly be serious!
This is rich! You appear to be saying here "Of course people think he’s mean…they don’t like him! So in other words, it’s perfectly acceptable to you to assign just any old character flaw and/or personal failing to someone based on whether you happen to like them, and/or their politics, and not necessarily their actual behavior?
Thank you for giving a flesh-and-blood example to the type of thinking I alluded to earlier: "Of course he’s mean…he’s a Republican (or Bushie, or oilman, ect., etc.)
I’m not focused on it at all. I simply made a remark earlier in this thread as to how Cheney’s image as being a mean person is erroneous, and how, when challenged, posters to another thread were unable to show that he was. This thread is, after all, a question as to whether anyone actually likes Cheney, and it is certainly an appropriate thread in which to raise the point of Cheney’s supposed mean nature and to point out that it’s completely baseless.
Since that initial post I’ve merely been addressing comments made to me in regard to that post. It’s most amusing how you and your cohorts around here keep challenging me on this or that aspect of what I said (all the while scarcely denying the accuracy of its main point, btw), and then claim I’m fantasizing about it and/or focused on it when I’m only answering you.
Look, Miller, this shit can go on all night and we can still be at it when the sun comes up. The fact remains that Cheney has long been thought of by many around here as being ‘mean’. The fact also remains that no one seems to be able to offer proof that this is so. The rest is just verbiage. End of story.
And now I must bid you all a very cheery and heartfelt (for I am a ‘nice’ Republican) goodnight.