Not duels, the real danger for a guy who ran off his mouth is that he might catch one between the ribs. It made for more genteel speech.
The point of course is that the Vice-President’s outburst was juvenile. In a different place and a different time might have resulted in a search for a new VP. Of course, it is best that sort of thing is no longer accepted but some people take advantage of the liberty to be insulting. boorish and crude without fear of immediate physical reprisal. There is nothing praise worthy about making comments like this to a man who cannot respond physically and will not respond in kind. It is the behavior of the smart ass, the bully and the fool. Which category the VP falls in is your decision.
As someone who 1) will someday pit Liberal when he pisses me off enough and I’m in the mood; and 2) voting record is Carter, Carter (damn near Anderson), Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Nader, (future Kerry); I must say, I agree with him 100% on that post.
Get your shit together, will you Reeder? For all of us? You’re headed down that old December road.
That’s a tad harsh, don’t you think? Clearly, she used the word “think” to illustrate that she *thought *this was the case and was not stating it as an absolute.
And besides, isn’t what people think much of what this board is about?
You’re confusing duels with gunfights. A gunfight in the 19th century was pretty much the same as one now; an attempt to shoot someone. They rarely, if ever, were held in the middle of a public street with two men facing each other and waiting to “draw”. Then as now, shooters pulled out their guns as quickly as possible and started firing while scrambling for cover.
The purpose of a duel, on the other hand, was to satisfy a point of honor. Actually shooting your opponent was a side-issue. In fact, the real point was to allow yourself to be shot at. A gentleman in a duel was essentially saying that he was steadfast enough in what he said that he was literally willing to risk death over it. But it only took being shot at once to prove the point - rarely were subsequent volleys fired.
So there was something to be said for dueling. It ensured people considered their words and stayed aware of the consequences. How many people on this board, for example, would be willing to risk death for some of the things they’ve posted?
Well, I sure as fucking hell wouldn’t risk death over “go fuck yourself”. Are you saying we’d be a better society if people had to fear death for telling someone to fuck off? I mean, if it’s fighting injustice, ignorance, and disease, OK. But if I want to tell somebody to kiss my ass, fearing death by projectile as a motivator of civility does not strike me as something I for which anything could be said except that it’s idiotic.
Well, since we’re all about how wrong it is to be uncivil and to create more hatred, I don’t suppose anyone has even bothered to consider that the reason Cheney said that in the first place is because Leahy repeated a conspiracy theory about Halliburton and actually called Cheney a ‘war profiteer’. When Cheney confronted him about it, Leahy then claimed that Cheney personally called him a ‘bad Catholic’, which I don’t believe ever happened.
That’d get a big ‘fuck you’ from me, too. I mean, I can understand the kiddies over at MoveOn.org buying into this Halliburton bullshit, but to get that crap from a fellow Senator is really obnoxious.
Leahy is the one here who was being uncivil, and Cheney told him exactly what he should have. What an ass.
I’m saying that Cheney didn’t push for war so that his buddies at Halliburton could make big money.
An accusation of war profiteering is very serious. It’s on a level with accusing Hillary Clinton of having Vince Foster killed. I can understand partisans on message boards and at parties whispering these theories to each other. But when a U.S. Senator stands up and accuses a sitting vice president of fomenting war so he could make money, he deserves a serious verbal smackdown. Cheney obliged. And I would have too.
How is that a conspiracy theory? Halliburton is indeed profitting quite handsomely from the war. No bid contracts tend to do that. If the Cheney-Haliburton war profiteering was investigated and reported half as much as Clinton’s Whitewater investments, Cheney would be worried about more than being civil to a Senator. Lucky that Cheney only actually sits in the Senate about once every two years. The next time, he’ll be declaring Kerry the winner of the election.
But this problem of “war profiteering” can be so easily resolved! All that is required is a committment on the part of our noble and patriotic corporate entities, such as Haliburton, to commit to providing the requirements of our military on a non-profit basis! Surely the men who wrap themselves in Old Glory will find such noble self-sacrifice appealing, and will rush to concur!
This is not to suggest, of course, that such a committment to eschew profit-taking would have any noticeable effect on the enthusiasm of CorpAmerica for military adventures. One does not suggest any doubt as to the sincerity of their patriotism.
But surely such a public committment will hold them secure from the scurillous and slanderous charges of “profiteering”, and display for all the noble and selfless motives which lie at the very heart of corporate America!
I cannot stand Dick Cheney. I believe him to be a vile, selfish, fundamentally nasty human being. The fact that he spoke this way doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, I’d be surprised if he didn’t.
However, I only find it noteworthy because of what I believe it says about his current state of mind and how beseiged he and Charlie are feeling these days.