Support NeoGAF

[APF]

...No, it does differ. Calling out the victim for not "following safety procedure" is pretty obviously sharing the burden of responsibility.

It wasn't my intention to "call someone out." My intention was to show the many factors that may have combined to create this tragedy, other than being due, in part or entirely, to recklessness or negligence. Again you shift my argument from asking whether there was proof of recklessness or negligence on the part of the VP--I was never imposing any "responsibility" upon the unfortunate victim here, and you can nowhere point to where I have. So instead you have to impute and imply and manipulate what I've been saying all along.

 

[Shinobi]

LAWL. I don't disagree with the message .. but the messenger

makes this a bit ironic.

Heh, yep...Hilary Clinton should really shut the fuck up.

:lol

:lol

1. Cheney attacked secular Iraq, mistaking it for an ally of Usamah Bin Laden. Cheney attacked Harry Whittington, mistaking him for a small bird.

2. Iraq has been peppered with Cheney's munitions. Whittington has been peppered with Cheney's munitions.

3. Cheney did not have a legal license to hunt quail on the trip that saw Whittingon wounded. Cheney did not have a United Nations license to invade Iraq or reduce it to rubble.

4. Cheney tried to blame Iraq for getting itself invaded by not signalling hard enough that it really did not have weapons of mass destruction. Cheney tried to blame Whittington for getting himself shot by not signalling hard enough that he was not a small bird.

5. Cheney thought Iraq's insurgency was in its last throes nearly a year ago. Cheney was deathly afraid that Whittington might be in his last throes.

6. Whittington thought Cheney as hunting partner would keep him secure. Iraqis thought that after the fall of Saddam, Cheney would make them secure.

7. Cheney gave Whittington a heart attack by shooting him in the heart. Cheney gave Iraqis a heart attack by having them bombed relentlessly.

8. Cheney tried to cover up how bad Whittington's condition was after he shot him. Cheney tried to cover up how bad Iraq's situation is after he had it invaded.

9. Cheney thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Cheney thought Whittington was a small bird.

10. Cheney shot Whittington while hunting in the dark. Cheney invaded Iraq while being in the dark.


:lol :lol :lol

:lol They stretched a bit for some of those, but it was a decent effort.

Meanwhile I'm waiting to see who's gonna accidently pepper their ranting partner, as this thread explodes into seething fury and unparralled bitterness. Or something.

 

[iapetus]

How about an apology?

Accepted, though you probably owe one to some other folks as well.

Or at least some sort of acknowledgement that you were attacking a straw man, rather than what I was actually saying?

It's not like I didn't quote you in the first place. If you don't see how your claim that the incident occurred because the victim didn't follow proper safety procedure can be seen as attempting to shift blame then I've got a barrel of monkeys here that would like to take you on in a battle of wits.

 

[APF]

It's not like I didn't quote you in the first place.

You quoted one line of an argument where I said Cheney was responsible. But fine, you win--I'm not going to jeapordize my account here by arguing with admins or whatever.

 

[iapetus]

But fine, you win--I'm not going to jeapordize my account here by arguing with admins or whatever.

I've never yet banned anyone for arguing against me, even when I think they've gone over the line that would deserve a ban against anyone else. Getting me to violently disagree with you actually pretty much buys you ban immunity from one admin. (First person to try and abuse this information gets to be the exception that proves the rule, of course...)

 

[Shinobi]

(First person to try and abuse this information gets to be the exception that proves the rule, of course...)

Damnit...

 

[APF]

I've never yet banned anyone for arguing against me, even when I think they've gone over the line that would deserve a ban against anyone else. Getting me to violently disagree with you actually pretty much buys you ban immunity from one admin. (First person to try and abuse this information gets to be the exception that proves the rule, of course...)

Fine. You're being a complete jackass then with this, as is everyone else in this thread. I don't necessarily expect to be treated as fairly as possible, but I also don't appreciate the fact that you seem to want to join the pile-on w/o actually coming up with anything interesting or compelling to add. You are just reasserting the same BS, which is a juvenile, punk-ass tactic that I expect from some of the jerkoff choads who constantly snipe and nip at my heels, but I admit I'm a little incensed that you feel the need to pop in out of the blue to do the same, for no reason other than I didn't immediately convict the man, and instead suggested an accident could actually be--SHOCK--an /accident./ So what the fuck?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Fine. You're being a complete jackass then with this, as is everyone else in this thread. I don't necessarily expect to be treated as fairly as possible, but I also don't appreciate the fact that you seem to want to join the pile-on w/o actually coming up with anything interesting or compelling to add. You are just reasserting the same BS, which is a juvenile, punk-ass tactic that I expect from some of the jerkoff choads who constantly snipe and nip at my heels, but I admit I'm a little incensed that you feel the need to pop in out of the blue to do the same, for no reason other than I didn't immediately convict the man, and instead suggested an accident could actually be--SHOCK--an /accident./ So what the fuck?

:lol

 

[Phoenix]

I wish I had never even brought it up. Can everyone just agree to disagree for whatever reasons and lets just hug and move on to other things.

Nobody needs to get banned over this. Everybody just let it go. Let it go...

 

[WedgeX]

You know...why the hell didn't the secret service inform the VP of where the victim was?

I mean, they ought to be keeping track of where men with guns are located around the VP.

I smell cover up!

 

[iapetus]

I'm a little incensed that you feel the need to pop in out of the blue to do the same, for no reason other than I didn't immediately convict the man, and instead suggested an accident could actually be--SHOCK--an /accident./ So what the fuck?

And you have the temerity to accuse other people of straw man arguments? I 'popped in out of the blue' (sorry I can't be on GAF 24/7 but I've got other commitments from time to time) to point out the disparity between what you were saying - which despite your protestations to the contrary looks like an attempt to shuffle the blame for the incident - and what Cheney said, which is that ultimately it's his fault and that he accepts responsibility for it. Do I want you to 'convict the man'? You'll be real hard pressed to make a case for that one.

And you think you're being mocked because you suggest this was an accident? What the fuck do you think everyone else thinks it was? Does the Great GAF Librul Conspiracy whole-heartedly believe that this was a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt by Cheney on the life of one of his friends? Or does everyone think that this accident was --SHOCK-- an /accident/? The difference of opinion seems to be whether in this accident Cheney could and should have done more to avoid shooting anyone, and whether there's any blame to be handed out. Seems like the majority view (shared by myself and Dick Cheney) is that he should have done more to avoid shooting anyone, and there is blame attached. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

Put your persecution complex to one side for a moment and maybe you'll see the gaping holes between what you think you said and what you actually did say. And then come join the side of truth and justice, and agree with Dick Cheney. You know you want to.

 

[maynerd]

And you have the temerity to accuse other people of straw man arguments? I 'popped in out of the blue' (sorry I can't be on GAF 24/7 but I've got other commitments from time to time) to point out the disparity between what you were saying - which despite your protestations to the contrary looks like an attempt to shuffle the blame for the incident - and what Cheney said, which is that ultimately it's his fault and that he accepts responsibility for it. Do I want you to 'convict the man'? You'll be real hard pressed to make a case for that one.

And you think you're being mocked because you suggest this was an accident? What the fuck do you think everyone else thinks it was? Does the Great GAF Librul Conspiracy whole-heartedly believe that this was a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt by Cheney on the life of one of his friends? Or does everyone think that this accident was --SHOCK-- an /accident/? The difference of opinion seems to be whether in this accident Cheney could and should have done more to avoid shooting anyone, and whether there's any blame to be handed out. Seems like the majority view (shared by myself and Dick Cheney) is that he should have done more to avoid shooting anyone, and there is blame attached. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

Put your persecution complex to one side for a moment and maybe you'll see the gaping holes between what you think you said and what you actually did say. And then come join the side of truth and justice, and agree with Dick Cheney. You know you want to.

/argument

 

[APF]

And you have the temerity to accuse other people of straw man arguments?

Sure. You don't even know what I was responding to or why, apparently. Hence your not knowing why I'm talking about "convicting" him. You don't even know what "the difference of opinion seems to be," hence your passive pussy phrasing in what should be your fucking deathblow to the moron APF's stupid rantings. But ignorance doesn't stop you--why should it? You have a whole fucking cheering squad behind you!

I never said what you've suggested--or at least not the way you're desperately trying to cast it--and in fact said much the opposite, and in fact was arguing against an inane "point" that was likely being put forward more in jest than in good faith, but that won't stop you from being a jackass of course! Because THERE'S A POINT TO BE MADE somewhere in all this. And of COURSE that point has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I'm the only person here who isn't rhetorically stringing the guy up, no no no! It HAS to be because what I said was just so objectively inaccurate and WRONG!!!! Like when I suggested the responsibility ultimately fell on him as the shooter--THAT WAS SO WRONG! And when I suggested that this was possibly just an accident, and not necessarily a case of recklessness or negligence, although that could very well be determined to be the case--THAT'S SO WRONG TOO! IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO JUMP IN THE FRAY IN THAT CASE!

Only you agree with me, on all those points. Which makes you my bitch. So STFU and and make me a sandwich.

 

[way more]

True but, how are you going to PROOVE that he had more than one beer today? I mean I'd like to see the VP exit stage left more than anyone but, the facts have to support that. It is not going to do it here. If he would have killed the man then we would have a different discussion.

Cheney looks like a drinker. Not like frat boy Bush, but a serious pre-war scotch at "It's 9pm somewhere," everyday. But we'll never know how much he had because of that 14 hour period. If the guy does die it seems like they could use his character and drinking habits as evidence.

 

[thefit]

He claims he only had 1 beer however just one will impare your judgment and what the media has failed to connect is that Cheney has a bum ticker so he's on prescription medications that cause side efects possibly including slowed sences this mixed with alcohol and guns is an accident whaiting to happen.