Most evil psychopaths come across as humorous, personable individuals. Ted Bundy, for example, was a real charmer.
If this alleged “fact” is true, then demonstrate this is so with some evidence.
You haven’t done this yet. Your speculation is not evidence. Your attempt to make askia’s single comment stand for what “many” people around here believe is stunningly stupid. And your general level of argumentation and logic is that of a retarded slug.
I’m done with you. Your dishonesty or your stupidity (not exactly sure which to give the credit) knows no bounds.
Ah well, **Miller ** let **SA ** be, he is in the same group that believes in anything, it seems he thinks Cheney is a nice alien from outer space, for tabloid followers it is the end of history too. 
Starving Artist, perhaps I’ll read the rest of your response to me after I post this, but first let me say I caught the gist of your first couple of paragraphs, and ISTM that you are saying I jumped to the conclusion that your entire thesis of who is a Cheney-hater and who belongs to the Cheney-looks-mean-so-he-must-be-mean cadre was based on the link you provided (this one).
Not so. What I concluded from you posting that link, and only that link, is that you supposed that by doing so, you had provided evidence to back up this post:
After you dismissed Miller’s debunking of that claim, I was persuaded that you really believed you had backed it up, as you promised 'luci. My post was simply intended to reiterate that you had done no such thing.
Now, if you really did observe and identify a cadre of Cheney-hatin’ gotta-be-mean-cause-he-looks-so-mean true believers elsewhere than in that thread, perhaps you’d be doing your credibility a favor if you went shopping around for them and brought them back here to regale us all. Heck, if you were to do that, even some of the most lib’rul among us would surely be big enough to let you off easy on the charge of dishonest debating, once you admitted to having mis-spoken about where you encountered the accusation. I would, anyway. 
Now, lemme go finish reading your post, et seq., and I’ll get myself caught up.
Okay. I’ve read everthing, and I’m caught up on the thread. At this point, there’s really only one thing to be said:
Fatherbreath??? 
Actually, if I know Cheney intimately, what I know of Cheney is still an opinion. Other than that, I’m really not sure what you’re saying here. This post makes almost no sense to me.
Prove it.
You lie.
You know as well as I do that I could provide 500 cites of people referring to Cheney as mean and all you’d do is ask if that’s all I could come up with out of over 1,600,000 posts to the Pit. I’m not gonna waste my time coming up with cites to prove the obvious. As I said before, I’m quite content to let the board’s history on this subject speak for itself. You, or anyone else, can believe it or not, I don’t care. You are one of a certain ‘cadre’ ( 
) around here who love to try to derail statements you don’t like but which are nonetheless true by quibbling over semantics. I’m not gonna play your game.
:rolleyes:
Merely a play on your screen name based on an old gag from the Johnny Carson show where he would tease McMahon by saying something along the line of “You are wrong, divorce-breath” or “You are wrong, panther-breath”, etc.
Surely you’re not too young to remember? 
This is true. Point given.
Well, seeing as how you’re a good guy and all, I will acknowledge that while I may not have mis-spoken in what was to me at the time simply an offhand remark intended to illustrate a point and not really intended to be part of a ‘debate’, I did mis-remember some of the finer details of the discourse in the thread I linked to. I had momentarily forgotten that there is a certain ‘cadre’ of people around here for whom my name is a red flag and who use quibbling over semantics and demands for cites as derailing tactics. I could make a simple comment about the weather being warm and these dipsticks would counter with “Prove it!”, “Define ‘warm’!”, “Cite for every single poster believing that temperature is warm!” “You lie!”, etc.
Now, having acknowledged that, my contention that Cheney’s reputation for being a mean person is wholly unsupportable remains intact, and for this reason (as per the OP) I find myself quite comfortable in the fact that I like him and think he’s a good guy.
Regards,
SA
Go for it, SA!
Don’t let this stop you:
You mean the game of evidence, of supporting one’s assertions, of providing a rational basis for discussion, of not being a lunatic?
You say that you’ll “let the board’s history on this subject speak for itself.” But that’s not how historical understanding works. History doesn’t just “speak for itself.” If we’re to arrive at an understanding of history, we need to have a basis for it, a corpus of evidence and an analysis derived from that evidence.
If i make an assertion about a historical event, it’s not enough for me to say that i could find 500 cites to back me up in the Library of Congress. It is incumbent upon me as the person making the assertion to provide some support for it, to actually marshall and present some of those LoC citations, if i want to be taken seriously.
Of course, there is a difference between an opinion and a factual assertion. If you had merely said that you believe that there are posters on the SDMB who have a visceral and illogical hatred for Cheney, there wouldn’t be such a problem. I might not agree with you, but it’s not really something amenable to a battle of factual evidence. But when you say that there are large numbers of people on the SDMB who refer to Cheney as mean, and who form their opinion of hiom based on this beleif in his meanness, then that’s something you need to porvide some support for. And that’s something you have singularly failed to do.
What you call “quibbling over semantics,” the non-insane people on this board call “asking for evidence” and “discussing the issue rationally.”
:wally
This, too, is untrue. If you could provide ten cites, from different posters, calling Cheney “mean,” I will concede that it is a common viewpoint. Just ten. Hell, you’ve already got one claim in the thread you linked to, and at least one claim in this very thread. You only need eight more! Go get 'em, tiger!
Of course, your further proposition that all such claims are without merit will take a good deal of additional work to prove.
I’m truly puzzled as to why, if this is so obvious, you have such difficulty demonstrating it.
History doesn’t speak for itself. It needs historians to go back through it and bring the important parts to light. In the context of the SDMB, this means that you need to go through the board’s history and find stuff that supports your claims. This is, generally speaking, about the easiest fucking thing to do in the world. For once in your posting career here, why don’t you actually shift your ass and back up something you’re saying?
My “game” being debating honestly, forthrightly, and with supplementary evidence that actually says what I claim it says. Which, I suppose, makes my “cadre” people who are interested in honest, informative debate.
I’m comfortable with that.
Well, you were complaining that I was using too much “verbiage,” so I thought I’d simplifiy. You made a statement which has roundly and repeatedly been shown to have no basis in fact. There is no way you can deny this, and yet you continue to make that statement. What else is that, but a lie?
Yeah, I do like him. I enjoyed the Biography story on him. He’s had an impressive life of public service. I thought he did a fine job as SoD during Bush I. We did a dog and pony for him when he came on at Halliburton and he was interested, approachable and asked intelligent, pertinent questions to help him understand how our portion fit in with the whole. He then delivered a rather amazing talk afterwards and didn’t run from some very tough questions.
Can’t say I agree with everything he’s done as VP but all in all I think he’s a decent, likable guy. And I found the venom thrown his way after the hunting accident to be little shy of shameful.
I think the problems all started when they cut his portion of The Aristocrats out. He was fucking hilarious, yet it ended on the cutting room floor. Pity, I think more people really would have dug his chili otherwise.
I always resented Carson for beating Cavett in the ratings so badly, so I never became a fan. I’m fifty years old, btw.
I’m going to confess to something that has been getting under my skin for nearly forty years: the use of the term “obvious” as support for an assertion. NOTHING IN MATH OR LOGIC IS “OBVIOUS,” as the nun drilled into my head in 1968. It has been my sense (I’m not able to provide a cite, and if you object strenuously to it, I will cheerfully withdraw the characterization) that you tend to fall back on an IT’S OBVIOUS argument to support your blanket assertions quite a lot. That said, I will not claim that I have seen you actually use the word “obvious” in this way in the past.
As to the charge of “dishonest debating” I’m going to vote to convict on the lesser charge of “not understanding what honest debating is.”
Look, I don’t know if people lick Dick Cheney. But I’m SURE people would be WILLING to lick Dick Cheney, if his skin secreted hallucinogens like that other kind of poisonous toad.
How’s about innocent due to never intending to spark a debate in the first place?
I’m gonna touch on a few things quickly, and then I’m gonna boog 'cuz I got chit to do.
In the first place, this is the Pit, not GD. Wild and/or erroneous assertions are thrown around here all the time without challenge, and most of them are far more outlandish than anything I’ve ever said. I don’t expect nor intend that any and everything I say is to be within the context of debate. Secondly, should someone choose to try to turn it into a debate, I do not feel it is incumbent upon me to play along.
Second, it has long been the practice of some of the ‘usual suspects’ (a tip of the hat to Shodan ) around here that, when hearing something the main thrust of which they don’t like, will try to derail the point by attempting to show error in some peripheral area apart from the main point and then behaving as though the main point is negated unless this peripheral issue can be proven to their satisfaction.
Third, this periferal attack usually takes the form of demands for ‘cites’, the nature of which, even if provided, would prove nothing and settle nothing. IMO, it is a perversion of the SDMB protocol for the use of cites to demand cites for issues that cannot indeed be factually proven by the use of cites. With regard to this thread, one such demand is that I show ‘many’ posters said Cheney was mean, yet Miller himself has said he would be content with far fewer posters than even I would consider to be many. Obviously (sorry, but it’s a perfectly valid word in certain instances), ‘many’ is a subjective thing and cannot be proven conclusively with any so-called cite. Cites, as I understand them, are intended to be factual and definitive, and unless I hear otherwise from a mod, this is the way I will continue to view them and I will not respond to demands for cites that prove nothing and only provide fodder for further obfuscation of the matter at hand. I have better things to do with my time than to go jumping through hoops at the demand of my adversaries who should know fully well that the information they are demanding settles nothing. Ask me for a cite as to how many floors are in the Empire State Building and I’ll try to come up with one; ask for a cite to prove that Trump Tower is not a symbol of corporate greed and I’ll refuse. One is an undeniable fact; the other is a matter of opinion and/or interpretation. Thus, I do not, and will not, attempt to provide cites that are not factually conclusive.
Forth, on occasion I find myself hoist on my own petard, as in the part of my post you bolded above. When that happens I own it and I just have to take my lumps.
And fifth, you or anyone else can consider me a dishonest debater, an ignorant debater, a liar or whatever. I consider you to be a good guy and generally consider Miller to be a good guy as well, but frankly I’m confident enough in my own mind and in my own intentions not to be bothered by erroneous or baiting insults aimed my way by others.
Regards,
SA
…asking for a cite that you have actually seen posts of a certain character here on the SDMB, in quantity, posts that presumably are still here, is somehow unfair to you.
I’ll see you around.
To the OP: I suppose I can’t rule out the possibiliy that somebody, somewhere, likes Dick Cheney. Nobody in my household or social circles, however.
Well, i’ll grant you that one.
All you wanted was for people to accept your assertions without debate. Nice try.
Sorry, but if you base your whole participation in the thread on one assertion about the alleged arguments of other Dopers, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that those alleged arguments actually exist, and are not just a product of your fevered imagination.
How was it peripheral?
Your central contention, made in your very first post to this thread, was that you had…
But your alleged evidence of this assertion is limited to a single poster’s reference to Cheney as mean.
“Many” might be somewhat subjective, but i’ve never yet met a single person who thinks that “many” and “one” are the same thing.
And your Empire State/Trump Tower analogy is laughable. Your assertion that there is a group of Dopers who believe, for no good reason, that Cheney is “mean” is perfectly amenable to citation. All you have to do is find some Dopers who have actually made such a claim. It is nothing remotely like being asked to support a belief that “Trump Tower is not a symbol of corporate greed.” That you think it is speaks volumes about your intellect.
The fact that you are willing to “own” your stupidity is both admirable and unsettling at the same time.
Well, the jury’s still out on whether you’re dishonest or just thick as two short planks. I suspect it’s a depressing combination of the two. I understand that my insults might not bother you; i’m just a little suprised that your stupidity also causes you no concern. But then, i guess obliviousness has its own benefits.
I like Dick.
Dick can be a prick.
And Dick can be a cock.
And Dick has a big head.
Sometimes, Dick can be a real mouthful.
And Sometimes Dick will shoot you in the face.
Sometimes, Dick can be hard.
But most of the time, Dick is soft.
I like Dick.