[QUOTE=Weirddave]
ahem
[/QUOTE]
I heard ya the first time! 
Seriously, I probably overlooked quite a few; on reflection, you, Tuba, CKDex, and prolly a few others, as well.
Damn few of us left. I haven’t been over to FFF in a long time, there may be a few of 'em over there, too.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
:dubious: yerself, young’un.
Yes, the SDMB did exist then, and it was hosted by AOL. Of the old AOL crew left, the only I can think of offhand are myself, Opal (hi, Opal!), Ed, Lynn, and The Master (Hisself Hisself!). I was new, and don’t claim to accurately remember everyone from the AOL board, but UncleBeer and tomndeb may very well have been there, too.
And yes, I do recall plenty of threads criticizing Pres. C back when.
[/QUOTE]
ExTank is correct (though he doesn’t remember that I was there.) I don’t think the BBQ Pit had been started yet, and there were snarling discussions, lasting weeks, about damn near everything. A firebreather could call another a puma-humping, prognathous, pusillanimous, pussyfooting, prune-snapping pederast :eek: and nobody would tell him to “take it to the Pit, bub!”
We had coal-fed, steam-powered computers back then, and it was the custom to wear onions on our belts. I knew, even then, that nobody would remember me, but I stuck it out, by Wodin, because it was the right thing to do. Consarn it.
personally, I’d have lined up to shake his hand, and while I had the personal audience, THEN quietly whispered it, but that’s just me.
I’m usually on the side of LE, but this, WTF. The “threat” if ever there was one, was long gone, 8 year old in tow. Cheney obviously ordered the bloke arrested (the PC SS guys I worked with always worked a tiered system, and were tightly managed, no freelancing like this guy).
Nope, I hope we pay, and pay big.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
Were I a major public figure, I’d feel that’s dangerously close for a stranger to come up to me.
[/QUOTE]
‘Government afraid of its citizens’. Step One ACCOMPLISHED.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
‘Government afraid of its citizens’. Step One ACCOMPLISHED.
[/QUOTE]
“Citizens afraid of their government”. Step Two: IN PROGRESS.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Okay, everybody take a deep breath and calm down.
There ain’t no Nazis. There ain’t no collapse of civilization. There ain’t no onslaught on the Constitution. Chill, people.
What you have here is a perfect example that our system is working very nicely. A Secret Service agent screwed up. The legal system showed that and the victim was released. He is now seeking redress in the courts and I’m quite sure that he will get a nice chunk of money, and that there will be a Secret Service agent in very deep kimchee.
[/QUOTE]
This cracks me up. You wingnuts with your “the system works” bullshit every time one of your heros gets caught with his pants down. I actually skimmed this thread for a “the system works” post. Thanks, 'hump. The blame-the-footsoldier-not-the-brass touch, à la Abu Ghraib, is an added bonus. Nice.
So, do we have to actually wait for them to gas a bunch of Jews to mention that the United States Government is trying hard to be the Nazis of the new Century?
Tris
For this SS Agent to come up to the guy and ask that question ten minutes later - that implies, to me, that the “honorable” Mr. Cheney told the Secret Service that the man assaulted him.
If the Agent in question had seen the exchange, he’d have known the answer to be No. So one assumes he was relying on someone else’s account - presumably the VP’s.
Is there any comment from the Secret Service?
I notice that the vast majority of posts in this thread assume that the man’s story is a completely accurate account of what happened. If it is, then there appears to be no probable cause for arrest, and the criticism levelled above is perfectly justified.
But I am a bit surprised at the lack of any skepticism, or even qualifiers, about the accuracy of his story, especially in light of the fact that we only have his side of the story. Considering that assault does not require touching at all, I wonder why almost every poster has dismissed, without even comment, the possibility that the elements for the crime of assault happened?
[QUOTE=CandidGamera]
For this SS Agent to come up to the guy and ask that question ten minutes later - that implies, to me, that the “honorable” Mr. Cheney told the Secret Service that the man assaulted him.
If the Agent in question had seen the exchange, he’d have known the answer to be No. So one assumes he was relying on someone else’s account - presumably the VP’s.
[/QUOTE]
How would seeing the exchange ensured that he could determine if an assault happened?
Maybe missing something here, but how did anyone get close enough for this to happen? Sure wouldn’t want this sort of thing to happen to Vice President Fonda!
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But I am a bit surprised at the lack of any skepticism, or even qualifiers, about the accuracy of his story, especially in light of the fact that we only have his side of the story.
[/QUOTE]
Like that, you mean? (I agree that there hasn’t been a lot of qualifying in the thread, but then the judge did dismiss the charges. I too would be curious to hear the other side of the story.)
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
I too would be curious to hear the other side of the story.
[/QUOTE]
Heh. They don’t call them the “Secret Service” for nothing.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
How would seeing the exchange ensured that he could determine if an assault happened?
[/QUOTE]
Well, he would have seen whether there was a threat of attack, and he could have judged by the circumstances whether Cheney was reasonably alarmed by any such threat.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Like that, you mean? (I agree that there hasn’t been a lot of qualifying in the thread, but then the judge did dismiss the charges. I too would be curious to hear the other side of the story.)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, like those qualifiers you mention. They appear alarmingly infrequently.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yes, like those qualifiers you mention. They appear alarmingly infrequently.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but your statement about lack of qualifiers was itself unqualified. And hence false.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
How would seeing the exchange ensured that he could determine if an assault happened?
[/QUOTE]
Let me use, instead, the word ‘observe’ to include those definitions of assault that include verbal offenses. If he’d seen/heard the conversation himself, he’d have known for certain whether assault was committed, and gone after the man immediately or not at all.
Ergo, he’s still relying on a second-hand source.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well, he would have seen whether there was a threat of attack, and he could have judged by the circumstances whether Cheney was reasonably alarmed by any such threat.
[/QUOTE]
But if he couldn’t hear what the man was saying, and if the man was physically close enough to strike Cheney, then an assault could have occurred. For example, the man could have said, “Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible. I should shock-and-awe your ass right here.” That statement, without more, and without any particular threatening gesture, would be enough to sustain probable cause for assault.
Of course, that is mere supposition – there’s no evidence he said any such thing. The point I’m making is that merely seeing the encounter, and not hearing it, doesn’t give you enough information to rule out assault.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Ah, but your statement about lack of qualifiers was itself unqualified. And hence false.
[/QUOTE]
Touché.
Substitute for my original complaint the “alarmingly infrequently” comment.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Is there any comment from the Secret Service?
[/quote]
IIRC the link indicated that the SS and the specific agent refused comment to two different news organizations, with the SS saying that they do not comment on pending litigation.
First, since no one ever seems to include me, I’ll note
from my own post here.
Second, in light of previous instances of demonstrator being herded into holding areas, people with non-Bush-worshipping shirts ejected from events with varying degrees of vigor and so forth, why isn’t it reasonable to believe that the SS would arrest someone for telling the Veep they find his policies reprehensible? I believe in your bailiwick that’s what’s known as pattern evidence.