You'll never see a President or Vice-President in jail. They hold too much political power. There's just some unspoken and spoken-but-never-admitted rules. This FBI thing is them going through the motions, but they already know that Cheney can outright lie to them and there's really nothing that can be done about it. People lower on the political food chain will simply fall in line to take the fall instead.
And though I don't care for our former Vice-President, it would be no different if it was Presidents Bush or Clinton or VP Gore. President Obama will have the very same power once he leaves office. We might say that nobody is above the law, but for the rest of their lives, they'll be able to point and people will jump to make things happen for them...
ixxxix wrote: You'll never see a President or Vice-President in jail. They hold too much political power. There's just some unspoken and spoken-but-never-admitted rules. This FBI thing is them going through the motions, but they already know that Cheney can outright lie to them and there's really nothing that can be done about it. People lower on the political food chain will simply fall in line to take the fall instead.
And though I don't care for our former Vice-President, it would be no different if it was Presidents Bush or Clinton or VP Gore. President Obama will have the very same power once he leaves office. We might say that nobody is above the law, but for the rest of their lives, they'll be able to point and people will jump to make things happen for them...
Translation from the Nixon play book. ."When the president does it, that means it's not illegal". Bush and Cheney should have never been allowed any where near the white house .And we're going to be paying for their fuck ups, out right lies, and treasonous acts for the rest of our lives
I thin people need to look up the definition of "lie"
To claim Executive privilige on conversations with the President is not a lie, it is the Constitutionally responsible duty of a Vice President or presidential advisor.
To not recall is not a lie and since telling a lie here is a criminal offense is smarter than guessing and having someone have a different memory of the events.
BTW how can one person state with specificity when another gained first knowledge of something?
Alright I get it some here somehow manage to like the former VP even less than they liked his boss and thats OK as we are all entitled to our OPINIONS but lets not start redefining the language to suite our needs. Did Clinton lie about having "sex" with that woman? I think so but he prefers to use a narrower definition of "Sex" than most Americans do. Did he Lie? The only one that knows what was in his mind was him.
WRONG. If you know damn well what the answer is but say "don't recall" that is a LIE. Hello. Cheney was the VP and previously ran one of the world's major companies. He's not stupid and recalls everything, but instead he LIES to the FBI. JAIL the fool!
Robert Helm wrote: I thin people need to look up the definition of "lie"
To claim Executive privilige on conversations with the President is not a lie, it is the Constitutionally responsible duty of a Vice President or presidential advisor.
To not recall is not a lie and since telling a lie here is a criminal offense is smarter than guessing and having someone have a different memory of the events.
BTW how can one person state with specificity when another gained first knowledge of something?
Alright I get it some here somehow manage to like the former VP even less than they liked his boss and thats OK as we are all entitled to our OPINIONS but lets not start redefining the language to suite our needs. Did Clinton lie about having "sex" with that woman? I think so but he prefers to use a narrower definition of "Sex" than most Americans do. Did he Lie? The only one that knows what was in his mind was him.
Bobby Mozumder wrote: Are all conservatives America's enemies?
No they are not. But, Dick Cheney is the enemy of conservatives. The Evil Right dogma of Bush/Cheney/Rove was a mockery of the true conservative agenda.
von francklau wrote: The reason Dick is not in jail is many in the House and Senate (of both political parties) fear the day Dick Cheney tells the truth.
And that would include many on both sides of the aisle.
Robert Helm wrote: I thin people need to look up the definition of "lie"
To claim Executive privilige on conversations with the President is not a lie, it is the Constitutionally responsible duty of a Vice President or presidential advisor.
To not recall is not a lie and since telling a lie here is a criminal offense is smarter than guessing and having someone have a different memory of the events.
BTW how can one person state with specificity when another gained first knowledge of something?
Alright I get it some here somehow manage to like the former VP even less than they liked his boss and thats OK as we are all entitled to our OPINIONS but lets not start redefining the language to suite our needs. Did Clinton lie about having "sex" with that woman? I think so but he prefers to use a narrower definition of "Sex" than most Americans do. Did he Lie? The only one that knows what was in his mind was him.
There's some doubt about that. In a JAMA survey, 60% of college students said they don't consider oral sex to be sexual relations. Maybe older people do, on average. There may be a generational gap on that.
BTW, I once passed a lie detector test in which I was asked if I had ever used narcotics. I had answered no, even though I had smoked marijuana. I honestly did not consider mj to be a narcotic. However, I'm reasonably sure the testers would have considered that a prevarication. Did I lie? A cynic or suspicious person might say yes. But the reason I passed the lie detector test is that I honestly did not consider my "no" a lie. That being the case, I was not lying, which requires intent. Looked at that way, Clinton may not have been lying either, if he genuinely did not consider oral sex to be "sexual relations." Evidently, millions of Americans, whether a minority or a majority, feel as he did. In Clinton's situation, they would all be liars. One who considers that many Americans "liars" should probably re-define his terms, imo.
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: Looked at that way, Clinton may not have been lying either, if he genuinely did not consider oral sex to be "sexual relations."
I wonder what would be the response if we asked every married woman in the country how they would feel about their husbands getting a blowjob from the office floozie on his lunch break? Do you think they would consider it "sexual relations?"
I wonder what would be the response if we asked every married woman in the country how they would feel about their husbands getting a blowjob from the office floozie on his lunch break? Do you think they would consider it "sexual relations?"
I'll bet a large percentage of married women would consider anything their hubbies got from another woman, from a neck rub to a hand job, as "sexual relations."
ixxxix wrote: You'll never see a President or Vice-President in jail. They hold too much political power. There's just some unspoken and spoken-but-never-admitted rules. This FBI thing is them going through the motions, but they already know that Cheney can outright lie to them and there's really nothing that can be done about it. People lower on the political food chain will simply fall in line to take the fall instead.
And though I don't care for our former Vice-President, it would be no different if it was Presidents Bush or Clinton or VP Gore. President Obama will have the very same power once he leaves office. We might say that nobody is above the law, but for the rest of their lives, they'll be able to point and people will jump to make things happen for them...
Stavrophotography wrote: Translation from the Nixon play book. ."When the president does it, that means it's not illegal". Bush and Cheney should have never been allowed any where near the white house .And we're going to be paying for their fuck ups, out right lies, and treasonous acts for the rest of our lives
Let us do all we can to bury their legacy in the ash heap of history.
There is lying, there is being deceptive, there is being avoidant, there is quibbling, and there is being mistaken............at the very least.
A person can believe a situation, tell the truth on it, and yet, still be wrong or inaccurate. For example, TWA 800. An eyewitness could be telling the truth that they saw it was a missile incident.......and yet still be wrong because they have misinterpreted the physical situations. Yet..........they are still telling the truth because they are telling what they believe in.
Such is the reason why I am irked when Obama says he will have a science policy based on truth. Truth is not science, truth is a belief. Fact is science. I would be more comfortable if an articulate man would use the correct word.
There is quibbling which appears to be what a lot of politicians do. They sub divide the question till they are at a point where it can be truthfully answered.........without answering the original question. Ie, "Did you or Did you not?" is answered by subdividing what is meant and what is interpreted by "you".
Technically, such may not be a lie but at the very least, it is seen in my circles as an unhonorable way of life.
There is being avoidant which is refusing to answer the question. That's not a lie though it is not necessarily a safe position to take either. It may get one tossed into jail in the gray area of such being possible without much of a trial or the 14th amendment.
In between being avoidant and deceptive may be the area of requiring the question to be precise and if it isn't, then the answer given may be the opposite of what was thought was asked............but it is still the truth. This falls into the area of "never volunteer information". Say someone has trained anti-terrorism troops in hand to hand. Say that person is asked "Have you ever trained counter-terrorism troops in hand to hand?"
Truthfully, the person can answer no because they have not. The questioner wrongly used one word and alter the meaning of the question. Unless the person is tasked to provide clarifying information (or in fear), they are not lying even though many people may not know the difference between the words.
Then we come to deceptive which may be lying......or may not be but in either case, the speaker is putting out information which they hope will lead listener down the wrong path or, at the very least, not to the correct path. "My name is Janos Skorzeny" when it is not is a lie. "What possibly makes you think I'm not Janos Skorzeny" is not a lie but could be deceptive. The curious thing about deception is that it is used by both sides; it is not wrong on its own.
To which we come to lying. Lying is saying something else when one knows or believes it is not that.
How one sees it in their mind, however, can have a vast impact to what they say. "From a certain point of view," as they said in Star Wars' RoTJ is very often true.
I wonder what would be the response if we asked every married woman in the country how they would feel about their husbands getting a blowjob from the office floozie on his lunch break? Do you think they would consider it "sexual relations?"
But isn't this thread about Dick Cheney's frog faced lying ass?
Dick Cheney should be sentenced to life in prison with nothing but poison oak and poison ivy for toilet paper for all the pain, destruction and death he has brought to the World!
