i actually would have been fine with cheney if he never answered a question about it and just taunted the press about just for fun. i would have loved it if he just started making crap up to taunt the media. he could say he shot the dude because he was actin a bitch. then he could get his friend to play along from the hostpital bed and when asked about the shooting he could say : "do not **** with that nigga cheney, he WILL blast your ass". man, i would love it if cheney did that.
No charges filed, so Cheney is officially not "reckless". He can keep his finger on the big button.:lol: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185134,00.html
Rex should be happy about the Cheney accident. It brought him out of his coma. Sucks for the rest of us, though.
Your analogy fails because a shot man is not a stolen iPod. On this one I'll defer to Mr. Cheney's rather than to martin's understanding of what his obligation was under the circumstance. He implicitly concedes in his interview with Britt Hume that he had an obligation to report the shooting to the public; he defends the timing, only.
thats true, in my ipod example a crime was committed. the cheney thing was an accident. neither of them affect america one tiny bit. because i know you are dishonest, i read the entire transcript, i saw no concession, implied or otherwise that he felt had an obligation to report anything. he mentioned that he felt it was important that what did get reported was accurate. plus, you cant accuse him of attempting a coverup like you did earlier, and at the same time argue that he is announcing his story because he feels has an obligation to do so. which is it? coverup or fulfilled obligation to tell his story? it is nice of cheney to satisfy our curiousity if he wants to. but you are concocting this idea that he has a responsibilty to do so. certainly from a legal perspective what you are saying is nonsense. what our elected officials do with their recreation time is their business. show me the policy that says otherwise.
That's because you're dishonest, not me. In an interview in which he's asked to explain a delay in reporting the news he never asserts that he has no obligation to do it, and instead declares that it was important to do it accurately. That's an implicit admission of obligation, despite your denial. Furthermore, not in any White House briefing or VP communication since has any member of this Administration defended the delay with a "no obligation" defense, which is especially telling in light of the fact they've used it many times. No, that's not all he did: CHENEY: But one of the things I have learned over the years was, first reports are often wrong, and you need to really wait and nail it down. That's part of the implicit admission that was the entire interview. He said they had to wait to nail down the first report, meaning of course there WOULD be a first report, and that it would come from them, and which, of course, would stem from the obligation they felt to do it. Apparently you're operating under some notion that I'm asserting a legal obligation, thus your stupid "the Ipod is a crime" statement (which by the way broke the point you were trying to make in the first place). Nobody is saying he had a legal obligation to report the news; the obligation, which Cheney obviously recognizes because he went on national TV to explain his delay, is that the American public is entitled to know. That's a ridiculous statement. If he were drunk a delay would allow alchohol to pass. If his party were drinking a delay would give them time to clean up the site. Personally, I don't think there was much alcohol. Instead, they just waited to see if Mr. Whittington would live or die, because the spin becomes dramatically different under those two circumstances. A fallacious dichotomy. You're usually much smarter than that.
of course it isnt. if i want any story that gets out to be accurate, that IS NOT admitting i am obliged to tell it it at all. merely that i do not like misinformation. you are trying so hard to put words in cheney's mouth. there was gonna be a report, whether it was from the cheney camp or not, by virtue of the fact that the police were involved. you are making up the details. cheney knows the story is gonna come out whether he likes it or not, so he is nice enough to tell the story accurately from his point of view. he has no obligation to do so, which you are about to state: i will concede that the public is "entitled" to know in a non-legal sense. in the same sense that they are "entitled" to know the latest news on britney spears or brad pitt. which is to say that fools want to know and pretend that stories that are irrelevant to their lives matter and they "need to know". i would like to see how this story has anything to do with the me or you or anyone, or anything the vice president does as part of his job as our elected representative. ok, that makes sense, they could be covering up the fact that cheney was drunk, are you alleging that? me neither. so what is the coverup again? because all i am seeing is full disclosure. and so are you when it helps your argument that cheney feels responsible. those secretive bastards and their "coverup"! rex needs to know before anyone. they have an obligation to rex! rex wants, no needs, to know! he cant wait another second! fulfill your "obligation" to rex on rex's schedule, mr cheney! no waiting! dont concern yourselves with accuracy! dont bother contacting his family first! rex needs reporters hovering over the guy in the hospital bed 2 minutes after his arrival.
The guy got sprayed by no 8 bird shot. I have been sprayed by no 4 steel, and while it hurt alot i didn't go to the hospital. The reason Cheney took so long to respong is because it is not a big deal. People get sprayed all the time while hunting. If I spray someone I'm hunting with and they go to the hospital I will make fun of them.