# David Gregory, I Revoke My Proxy



## Charley (Feb 8, 2005)

David Gregory's recent apperance on Meet the Press has gnereated a little commentary. I saw it Sunday and was a bit struck by his assumption of doing everything in "my interest" for me.

Anyone else believe that David Gregory should have a "proxy" to represent you? Or, should it be necessary to revoke it?


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

somebody has got to question the administration. my only regret is that the press has been ridiculuously weak in actively asking questions.

i really don't have any opinion of david gregory.

i do think that the cheney's actions are "emblematic of the rather secretive style with the press by the vice president."

edit: "week" changed to weak


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NoVaguy_
> 
> somebody has got to question the administration. my only regret is that the press has been ridiculuously week in actively asking questions.
> 
> ...


The Washington, D.C. press corps itself is emblematic of the problem with the press today. David Gregory, et al, are not scribes who write down what goes on. They are, instead, a bunch of self-centered prima donnas who believe in their own self-proclaimed fame.

The Vice President is under no obligation to tell David Gregory, or anyone else stationed in the White House Press Room, of any news story, good or bad. That Vice President Cheney chose a local newspaper to tell of the accident is sufficient. There is no exclusivity with news stories.

There has always been a tense relationship between presidential administrations and the press. I, for one, am glad that President Bush and his administration don't gab so much to the press.

It is the most bald of all egotism that David Gregory would deign to be my "proxy".

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> The Washington, D.C. press corps itself is emblematic of the problem with the press today. David Gregory, et al, are not scribes who write down what goes on. They are, instead, a bunch of self-centered prima donnas who believe in their own self-proclaimed fame.


to some extent, true. also irrelevant.



> quote:
> The Vice President is under no obligation to tell David Gregory, or anyone else stationed in the White House Press Room, of any news story, good or bad.


that's fine. and the press, including david gregory, the WHPC, and onwards, is also under no obligation to change their minds about what they want to write.



> quote:
> That Vice President Cheney chose a local newspaper to tell of the accident is sufficient. There is no exclusivity with news stories.


the public gets to determine if it is sufficient. as a member of the public, my call is no. yours might differ.



> quote:
> There has always been a tense relationship between presidential administrations and the press. I, for one, am glad that President Bush and his administration don't gab so much to the press.


i disagree. in a free society, i believe the leadership should be more open. especially this administration, which is one of the more secretive administrations in 50-some years.



> quote:
> It is the most bald of all egotism that David Gregory would deign to be my "proxy".


whatever. so what if it was a weird statement. but i think the press should still ask tough questions, give tough press appearances and write tough articles if they don't like the answers. you can make your own decision as to the worth of gregory's writings and appearances.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

and i still have no idea who david gregory is. but i generally accept that the press as a whole should act as a proxy, even if they fail to do it some times.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> The Washington, D.C. press corps itself is emblematic of the problem with the press today. David Gregory, et al, are not scribes who write down what goes on. They are, instead, a bunch of self-centered prima donnas who believe in their own self-proclaimed fame.


I think the problem with the D.C. press corps is precisely that they write down what happens (or, really, what is said) almost verbatim; that they are little more than stenographers. I can't count the number of press conferences I've watched or listened to in which an administration official provided information "X", only to tune in to the news later and hear Dan Rather (or someone like him) say something to the effect of "CBS News has learned that...X," or "a senior administration official admitted under tense questioning that...X."



> quote:The Vice President is under no obligation to tell David Gregory, or anyone else stationed in the White House Press Room, of any news story, good or bad. That Vice President Cheney chose a local newspaper to tell of the accident is sufficient. There is no exclusivity with news stories.


Well, yes and no. In the case of the VP and his hunting misfortunes, I generally agree; in matters of national security or major policy, I disagree vociferously. In the words of the D.C. circuit court judge (IIRC), in reference to White House insistence on privilege for disclosures having to do with FISA Court (not the most recent spat), "Democracies die behind closed doors." Disclosure of important and relevant information via the most broad means possible is essential to maintaining the "national discussion" on what we do and do not want from our government.



> quote:It is the most bald of all egotism that David Gregory would deign to be my "proxy".


But isn't this really the function of the press and the primary reason behind the freedom and leeway constitutionally and traditionally granted it? You (I presume) and I don't generally get to ask questions directly of officials above a certain level, but the press has access to these folks. Yes, I take issue with their sense of entitlement in some cases, as well as their egotism and arrogance, but some tension with the administration is essential, as they really do represent all of us to some extent (yes, some better than others) when asking their questions.

__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## tarheel (Feb 14, 2006)

Whether or not you agree with it, people in 50 years will look back on this as a time of dramatic change. Our nation has the power to do, and it doing, things that will have lasting consequences long into the future.

It is a shame that most of the press is about six months behind in reacting to major stories. Whether it's political pressure, lack of public interest, or just lack of backbone, the landmark stories are NOT being covered - by ANYONE - in enough depth or with enough intelligent analysis and historical perspective to be of much use.

At a time when our nation is so powerful and has so much influence, why do I need to check British and other international sources to try and get a story that attempts to objectively present the facts of a situation rather than merely repeating the talking points (from the left OR right) from a P.R. firm or political machine?

Why has it become frustrating to try and be a politically-aware citizen? It's almost like that's the goal - just have people sit back and let "wise" politicians make the decisions for us... [)]


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I heard Gregory say that on Sunday morning, too, and was amazed (okay, sadly not really) at the arrogance. If anyone has a right to claim to be proxies for the people one would imagine that it would be those for whom the people actually cast votes.

That said, I recognize that our political system is such that elected officials aren't really tied to the people, either, but I suspect they are at least a little bit more responsive than someone like Gregory who works for General Electric.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

The problem is that the "old media" is beside themselves because they are losing their monopoly. They are continually losing prestige and it drives them nuts. They thought they would always be able to control the message and then the internet and talk radio appeared on the scene. Now they actually have to report on what people are saying on the internet.

They have done a worse and worse job for the last 30-40 years. Not only are they very biased, they have gotten just plain sloppy and unprofessional. I base my opinion on having been personally involved in historic events and then reading and watching patently inaccurate accounts of the facts. It seems that just about every month there is an account of some reporter making up his stories.

The latest surveys put them at the bottom of institutions that the American people trust.

The White House Press Room is a courtesy granted by the government--it is not a right. Reporters have no more rights than other citizens; most of them would do well to realize they are not some royal caste.

Iâ€™m all for a robust and free press. But it must be remembered that no one can hold the press accountable except for the pressâ€”and they have done a miserable job cleaning their own house.

From my observation, they are often the biggest clown show in town--all they need is the little car.

Some of them are quite good butâ€¦wth a twist on the old lawyer joke: Itâ€™s the 90% that gives the other 10% a bad name. 


Regards,


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I seem to recall the press once described as the fourth branch of our government. The pornography of nightly car chases, amputated thumbs, chicken heads, needles in food containers, Brad and Jolie for the masses and outright self censorship and buckling to special interests merit no less an impeachment or prosecution for abusing a public resource than a crooked poltician or judge.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Perhaps this is better on a different thread but I think it is relevant to the shooting. Why is it that shooting a man in a hunting accident is "private" but oral sex is "public"? It seems to me that there are some things the public does not have a "right to know". 

If the bar had not been set so low and this administration did not have such a penchant for secrecy this would not be a story.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> Perhaps this is better on a different thread but I think it is relevant to the shooting. Why is it that shooting a man in a hunting accident is "private" but oral sex is "public"? It seems to me that there are some things the public does not have a "right to know".
> 
> ...


Location and timing have a lot to do with the definition of "private" and "public".

The Vice President was on someone else's private property at their invitation when the accident happened. He was also not acting in his official duties as Vice President. President Clinton was at the White House, using publicly owned property for his tryst.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Tyto,

"Well, yes and no. In the case of the VP and his hunting misfortunes, I generally agree; in matters of national security or major policy, I disagree vociferously. In the words of the D.C. circuit court judge (IIRC), in reference to White House insistence on privilege for disclosures having to do with FISA Court (not the most recent spat), "Democracies die behind closed doors." Disclosure of important and relevant information via the most broad means possible is essential to maintaining the "national discussion" on what we do and do not want from our government."

While I agree that the public's business should be carried out in the open, there are matters of national security which must remain secret and secure. This has been, and always will be, a part of the ongoing national debate.

My biggest problem with the FISA Court, or judicial intervention of many kinds, is that the Federal Judiciary is not responsible to the electorate, other than indirectly by appointment of the President.

Of course, a part of the problem we have today, is that political leaders on both sides lack real courage, and they only live for re-election.


Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Well, certainly the press are our proxies in a sense, unelected though they may be. Nevermind arrogant, childish and ineffectual in varying degrees -- but after all, at times, so are our elected representatives. At least the press has only the power we choose to give them at any particular moment. David Gregory may or may not be an idiot, but he doesn't decide how my money is spent!


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_


In Mufti pretty much said everything I think.

The White House Press Corps are a rather spoiled group and prefer to sit at thier desk untill the phone rings rather than go out and do actual reporting.

The VP didn't hide it from the press, he merely told the 'wrong' press. I mean, we all know that anyone who doesn't work for the NYT, Post, LA Times, etc is just a 2-bit hack pretending to be a real journalist like David Gregory.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:
> Location and timing have a lot to do with the definition of "private" and "public".
> 
> The Vice President was on someone else's private property at their invitation when the accident happened. He was also not acting in his official duties as Vice President. President Clinton was at the White House, using publicly owned property for his tryst.
> ...


So the right wing attack dogs and their pals in the media wouldn't have been interested in Clinton's sexual activities in any way, shape or form had he taken Ms Lewinsky to a motel room?

You believe that, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

Cheney shoots a man in the face - _shoots a man in the face!_ - and feels he doesn't have any obligation to the public to say anything about it? But Clinton's BJ is matter of national importance?

You may wish to try turning off Fox News at some point.

------------------


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

The Vice President hasn't lied under oath about it.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:and feels he doesn't have any obligation to the public to say anything about it?


I guess reporting the story to local Texas media doesn't count? Should the White House have David Gregory on speed dial? Gregory is (or should be) an embarassment to journalism (left or right).


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Here, here. Absurd lot.

And not to mention grown men running around killing poor birds. Well, at least the fools got a taste of their own medicine in the errant shot.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> The Vice President hasn't lied under oath about it.


No, I guess he didn't go under oath during his Fox News love-in. But he lied, not much doubt about that.

------------------


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

[/quote]

So the right wing attack dogs and their pals in the media wouldn't have been interested in Clinton's sexual activities in any way, shape or form had he taken Ms Lewinsky to a motel room?

You believe that, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

[/quote]

The VP's deal was an accident. Monica Lewinski was not. One showed a lack of hunting skill, the other showed a lack of moral character. You can not compare a split second hunting mistake with sexually abusing an employee for more than a year.

Regards,


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, you are right, it doesn't.

I'm certain the Corpus Christi-whatever-you-call-it is a fine newspaper.

But perhaps not the _ideal _outlet for a story of obvious national significance. And why did it take 20 odd hours for them to get that far - and why a private citizen to report it?

And please don't tell me Cheney was "concerned for his friend". Too busy eating dinner and sleeping off the booze more like.

Thank god that David Gregory and the rest of the Whitehouse press corps have woken from their 5 year slumber and starting asking a few real questions - if only they had been so alert three years ago......

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> The VP's deal was an accident. Monica Lewinski was not. One showed a lack of hunting skill, the other showed a lack of moral character. You can not compare a split second hunting mistake with sexually abusing an employee for more than a year.
> 
> Regards,


One was actually a consensual indescretion (sexually abusing? ha!), the other almost cost a man his life.

As for moral fibre, Mr Cheney has frequently and comprehensively exhibited his utter lack of it. How many military service deferments did he take during the Vietnam war? How much does he love torturing prisoners? How much has he personally profited from the Iraq war?

------------------


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> One was actually a consensual indescretion (sexually abusing? ha!), the other almost cost a man his life.


Actually having sex with a subordinate was a serious crime in the federal government--at the some time a twenty-something army sergeant at Aberdeen went to prison for three years for having sex with a woman who was a couple of pay-grades below him. In fact, in his trial, some activists claimed that because of his senior billet, he posed a threat to her livelihood and therefore it was actually a form of rape.

My point is that, within the world of the Federal workforce, Bill CLinton committed a serious offense.

Regards,


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was plenty of interest in the details. I don't recall that it was the "right wing attack dogs and their pals in the media" exclusively reporting President Clinton's affair.

As a matter of fact, the original investigation had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky. It had to do with President and Senator Clinton's financial dealings in Arkansas when he was governor. As with any investigation, a lot of facts come to life, relevant and not relevant to any case. You are incredibly naive to believe that incidental facts and information would not come to the surface.

President Clinton made his own bed, based on his past indiscretions. As many times as he was unfaithful to his wife, did he really expect that everyone would remain silent? These things don't happen in a vacuum.

Vice President Cheney's aides reported the incident to the appropriate authorities. I don't believe there is anything in Texas, or any other law requiring a report to the local newspaper; much less the White House press corps. Also, at no time has the Vice President lied to anyone about this matter.

President Clinton lied to a Federal grand jury. I don't believe Vice President Cheney lied to anyone.

The majority of the media, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN refused to run with the original stories about President Clinton, until forced to do so by subscribers who had read or heard about the story on Fox News, and other forms of information.

Now as to naivety, anyone who believes that Vince Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park, is one who would purchase your bridge. Vince Foster may well have committed suicide, but it wasn't in the park, and Hillary Clinton was hip-deep in the cover-up.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you know he lied, under oath or not? That's a huge stretch, and would border on libel, were Vice President Cheney not a public figure.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your obvious hatred of the present administration shows through. Nothing that would have been done by the Vice President would satisfy you, short of ritual Hara Kiri.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, the Vice President's accounting of the accident is the truth. As others have mentioned, the White House press corps does not have an exclusive franchise on news coverage in the United States.

There is no evidence that Vice President Cheney, or anyone else in the hunting party was intoxicated, or had consumed anything else other than one beer.

And yes, the news can wait to be reported after everyone was sure that Mr. Whittington would survive and recover.

Like the rest of the anti-Bush, anti-Republican press - Get over it! George W. Bush is the President of the United States; Richard Cheney is the Vice President of the United States; and nothing you or anyone else can wish is going to change these facts.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The indiscretion is called sexual harassment, and it is a violation of Federal law, no matter who does it; and if you believe that it's about sex and not power, you are sadly mistaken. If President Clinton committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" then he should have been impeached, tried, and removed from office.

You are deluded if you believe that Vice President Cheney is a psychopath, who would enjoy torturing anyone.

How can he profit? Please be specific. That he worked for Halliburton at some time, does not provide specific evidence that he profits from anything happening in Iraq. That any company involve in Iraq would make a profit is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wow!

An entire regurgitation of the Fox News talking points of the last few years, including two of the old classics, Clinton's consensual relationship with Monica was in some way a form of rape, and that Hillary killed Vince Foster and dumped his body.

Yawn. 

Don't you guys have anything better to defend your idiot president and creepy veep with than "at least he didn't shag Monica in the Oval Office"?



------------------


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Wow!
> 
> ...


Had Monica Lewinsky not worked in the White House, this could have been called a consensual relationship, but since she was in his chain of command, the term is sexual harassment; and *it is* about power and not sex.

Secondly, I did not say, imply, or in any manner, suggest that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster. I said that Vince Foster may have committed suicide, but it was *not* in Fort Marcy Park.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

I am very, very proud of the soldier who wrote this letter to the Stars and Stripes, published Tuesday. This is as good a place to post it as any.



> quote:I would like to present some famous quotations. I believe they are complete and correct as stated and believe that they are as appropriate today as they were when they were made.
> 
> â€œTo announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and a disservice, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.â€ â€" Teddy Roosevelt, 1918
> 
> ...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

_"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946_

That is the money quote right there - straight from the Nazis to Dick Cheney and Bill O'Reilly.

------------------


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

gmac, I envoke Godwin's Law, you lose.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Tiger, I'm confused. What exactly is your point as it relates to this discussion? Criticism can be and should be an open discussion, no one is hauling dissenters off to jail or putting restrictions on the media, they both are more free to voice their opinions than any other time in history.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> gmac, I envoke Godwin's Law, you lose.


As I am sure you know, it is considered poor form to _in_voke Godwin's Law arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin will be unsuccessful.

My positivist reference to the Nazis, derived from the earlier reference to Hermann Goering, in no way meets the Godwin standard.

Goering said it, he was a Nazi, the Republicans live it today. QED.

------------------


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

ROFL, good response. Have a good weekend.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Using Goering's quote to support your argument seems to be an invocation of Godwin's law.

To cite - "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Godwin's law does not end a discussion. It only reinforces the likelihood that one will include the Nazis in a discussion. You and tiger02 have certainly done that.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> Using Goering's quote to support your argument seems to be an invocation of Godwin's law.


See my previous post.

------------------


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

I love it when the folks on the left start to invoke the Nazis.

The only difference between the Nazis and the Stalinists were the numbers of people they had killed -

Nazis - +/- 12,000,000
Stalin - + 20,000,000

Two sides of the same coin.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> I love it when the folks on the left start to invoke the Nazis.
> 
> ...


And what exactly does this have to do with anything?


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Oh, everyone cut it out with the lazy demonizations, will you? It's more than a little ridiculous.
[}]


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> Oh, everyone cut it out with the lazy demonizations, will you? It's more than a little ridiculous.
> [}]


"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Come on, this doesn't sound exactly the MO of the Republicans and right in America today?

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> I love it when the folks on the left start to invoke the Nazis.
> 
> ...


Rush Limbaugh called, he wants his phoney facts back.

------------------


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> Tiger, I'm confused. What exactly is your point as it relates to this discussion? Criticism can be and should be an open discussion, no one is hauling dissenters off to jail or putting restrictions on the media, they both are more free to voice their opinions than any other time in history.
> 
> ...


Well, my point definitely wasn't for the thread to degenerate that quickly. It really didn't have much to do with the thread, other than tangentially. This board doesn't get as inflammatory-political as the SF current events board, so there was no obvious place to inject the letter.

There's no question that the MSM is currently engaged in widespread fear-mongering. Some of it comes from the administration and some of it comes from the far left but most of it serves to sell papers. Bill, I'm sure you're getting news from Iraq that doesn't quite match up to what makes USA Today.

Dennis, you're going to have trouble proving to anyone that I'm on the left. Or the right, for that matter.

Tom


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not the Republicans I know -- but then again, the ones I know are intelligent, educated people with real jobs, not cushy network gigs as screaming heads. Same goes for the Democrats I know.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Oh come on! Spoil a good argument by inserting real world people? Real world people with jobs, families, normal interests and pursuits?

What fun is that?

Point taken though. [8D]

------------------


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Oh come on! Spoil a good argument by inserting real world people? Real world people with jobs, families, normal interests and pursuits?


Though some of them do wear pleated black chinos. And refer to them as 'khakis'. So they must be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The question remains,

Would you rather go hunting with Dick Cheney in Texas or have Ted Kennedy drive you home in Chappaquiddick?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> The question remains,
> 
> Would you rather go hunting with Dick Cheney in Texas or have Ted Kennedy drive you home in Chappaquiddick?


Well, neither to be honest.

But at least you acknowldge that Cheney's accident is on if not the same page as Chappaquiddick, at least the same chapter. As such I don't understand how anyone can brush this off as simply a private matter and that Cheney had no reason to think the press and the nation might be interested.

------------------


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do my own research, thank you; and these are not "phoney" facts. Six million jews were only half the number that Hitler had murdered.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And your source is....?


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is absolutely no comparison with Vice President Cheney's accident, and Senator Kennedy's incident.

1 - Vice President Cheney did not kill anyone. Ted Kennedy, by action alone, committed manslaughter.

2 - Vice President Cheney, did not run off and leave his friend to die. Ted Kennedy fled the scene, and hid out until the next day, so there was no way a blood test could determine how much alcohol that he had consumed.

3 - The local law enforcement covered up Kennedy's involvement in the manslaughter, and the prosecutor declined to charge Kennedy with anything of consequence, even though the facts showed that he committed at least two felonies. In Vice President Cheney's case, local law enforcement investigated completely and determined that there was no negligence or culpability involved.

4 - Ask Mr. Whittington how he's doing these days. Ask Miss Kopeckne - OOPS!! That's right, she's dead!

PS - I was in the Navy at the time of the Kennedy incident, and stationed near Boston. The papers there gave a complete pass to Kennedy, as did the radio and television stations.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Check any civilian or military history book.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your quote from Goering only works when there is no independent media on either side of the issue. Whether you're on the left of right in the U.S. you can get a voice with which you can agree or disagree. There were very few dissenting voices that survived Nazi tyranny.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> Check any civilian or military history book.


So what you're saying is you can't think of your source. As you probably know, there are different estimates.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Try these links:

No, I don't have my history books at my elbow. However, the foregoing links do provide *generally accepted* numbers for the number of deaths. Hitler's count includes Jews, military prisoners taken on the Eastern front, and many other "minorities". Stalin also killed outright, or starved millions of Jews, German military prisoners, and non-Russian civilians (Ukrainians, etc.).

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> Try these links:
> 
> No, I don't have my history books at my elbow. However, the foregoing links do provide *generally accepted* numbers for the number of deaths. Hitler's count includes Jews, military prisoners taken on the Eastern front, and many other "minorities". Stalin also killed outright, or starved millions of Jews, German military prisoners, and non-Russian civilians (Ukrainians, etc.).


Thank you. Your statement that "Six million jews were only half the number that Hitler had murdered" made me think that you were claiming twelve million Jews were killed, given that six million is more or less the generally accepted figure.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

So, was David Gregory drunk, high, or just really flaky when he called in to the Imus show?


----------



## Charley (Feb 8, 2005)

Imus and his boys in the broadcast studio with him concluded that Gregory was drunk. Of course they don't know what he was drunk from. My guess is that he will not try to get any of it through a customs check. 

I don't believe that I'm surprised that he may use something. I really am surprised that he would go on the air in that condition though. That will be hard to recover from.


----------

