Jump to content

Cheney cancels speech in Canada due to safety concerns ‎


Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

Shows how much of a wuss he really is. He can handle going to Iraq and Afhanistan, but cannot handle us Canadians? Laughable.

He brings his own security when he goes to Iraq, and he doesn't announce it to the masses ahead of time. In other words, it's not a publicized event, open to the public.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 570
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

Yup pretty ironic that he'll send other people's kids into a warzone, but he won't send himself to Canada out of personal safety concerns. :lol:

You're really sitting on both sides of the fence here, aren't you? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He brings his own security when he goes to Iraq, and he doesn't announce it to the masses ahead of time.

I don't think one gets to be VP and SOD (etc) by being a 'wuss'.

As well, at 71, he might not want to have fist fights with or dodge thrown objects from hard-done-by Canadian protesters/anarchists/pitchfork carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I don't think one gets to be VP and SOD (etc) by being a 'wuss'.

As well, at 71, he might not want to have fist fights with or dodge thrown objects from hard-done-by Canadian protesters/anarchists/pitchfork carriers.

71 with a heart condition. Even the organizer of the event referred to the protesters in Vancouver - who required police in riot gear to get them under control - as "thugs." I don't get where the "this is Canada!" - as if nothing violent/bad ever happens in Canada - mindset is coming from.

As I said, I'm not fan of Cheney, but I can see the situation for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

71 with a heart condition. Even the organizer of the event referred to the protesters in Vancouver - who required police in riot gear to get them under control - as "thugs." I don't get where the "this is Canada!" - as if nothing violent/bad ever happens in Canada - mindset is coming from.

As I said, I'm not fan of Cheney, but I can see the situation for what it is.

Vancouver has a reputation for being a hot-bed of Anarchists and other types of carrer protesters thanks to the welfare/social system they wish to destroy and the convienient location of the DTES to most venues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Vancouver has a reputation for being a hot-bed of Anarchists and other types of carrer protesters thanks to the welfare/social system they wish to destroy and the convienient location of the DTES to most venues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside

Interesting. I seem to recall reading that Vancouver has one of the highest crime rates in North America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I seem to recall reading that Vancouver has one of the highest crime rates in North America.

It's sordid and splendid at the same time, the DTES. Lots of meth and heroin use. But also one of the oldest parts of the city...includes Chinatown and Gastown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I seem to recall reading that Vancouver has one of the highest crime rates in North America.

Property crime. Vancouver's violent crime rate is not the best, but it's certainly not the worst. Overall, violent crime is much less of a problem in Canada than the country that Cheney lives in, and so he shouldn't be concerned. It isn't like the US hasn't had violent protests recently...see Oakland.

Again, this is obviously a very dangerous country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Peaceful protesting is fine, but blocking people's right to speak is just wrong. Although, some speaking engagements have been cancelled in Canada seemingly just have from the shher (probably mean "sheer") size of the peacefully protesting (though loud and vocal & seemingly not happy lol) crowds being a safety concern in themselves even though they posed no imminent threat, which is understandable. I think that's what happened at one Ann Coulter event if I recall. But still, there have been more than enough other not-so-pleasant incidents.

The problem is that drowning out a speaker is on the very borders of peaceful protest. There is no debate on ideas if one side drowns the other out and prevents them from speaking.

Even if violence were not an issue, why would a speaker come to speak if it's predictable that no one will get to hear him or her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Property crime. Vancouver's violent crime rate is not the best, but it's certainly not the worst. Overall, violent crime is much less of a problem in Canada than the country that Cheney lives in, and so he shouldn't be concerned. It isn't like the US hasn't had violent protests recently...see Oakland.

Again, this is obviously a very dangerous country.

"Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
American Woman, on 22 March 2012 - 07:19 PM, said: You're really sitting on both sides of the fence here, aren't you?

What do you mean?

Seems to me you agreed that the concern for Cheney was security issues, not that Canada was "too dangerous" as they are two different things (the latter being the media's words, not Cheney's), and that taking past history into consideration, his concerns are legitimate - yet you agree with "Shows how much of a wuss he really is. He can handle going to Iraq and Afhanistan, but cannot handle us Canadians? Laughable." Either he has legitimate concerns - or he's a wuss and it's laughable that he "cannot handle [you] Canadians". To agree with both appears to be "sitting on both sides of the fence." Furthermore, it took police in riot gear several hours to "handle [you] Canadians." It wasn't a real "laughable" situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I know you are but what am I? :blink:

Do you deny that the US had a higher violent crime rate? Do you deny that the Us has had protests that were less than peaceful, even recently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that drowning out a speaker is on the very borders of peaceful protest. There is no debate on ideas if one side drowns the other out and prevents them from speaking.

Even if violence were not an issue, why would a speaker come to speak if it's predictable that no one will get to hear him or her?

The problem is youre ignoring human nature. People that are extremely unpopular and divisive, are going to have a hard time at public appearances. They will get booed, jeered, and shouted down. If I do something thats incredibly offensive to the community at large, then thats what going to happen. You can complain about it all you want, but thats how the "community" works. Actions have consequences, and Mr Cheney is learning that first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is youre ignoring human nature. People that are extremely unpopular and divisive, are going to have a hard time at public appearances. They will get booed, jeered, and shouted down. If I do something thats incredibly offensive to the community at large, then thats what going to happen. You can complain about it all you want, but thats how the "community" works. Actions have consequences, and Mr Cheney is learning that first hand.

Oh really? How was the average Vancouver anarchist hurt by Dick Cheney? Tell them to get jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me you agreed that the concern for Cheney was security issues, not that Canada was "too dangerous" as they are two different things (the latter being the media's words, not Cheney's), and that taking past history into consideration, his concerns are legitimate - yet you agree with "Shows how much of a wuss he really is. He can handle going to Iraq and Afhanistan, but cannot handle us Canadians? Laughable." Either he has legitimate concerns - or he's a wuss and it's laughable that he "cannot handle [you] Canadians". To agree with both appears to be "sitting on both sides of the fence." Furthermore, it took police in riot gear several hours to "handle [you] Canadians." It wasn't a real "laughable" situation.

He also applied for and was granted 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War. He is a wuss. There are legit security concerns, but I wouldn't think that would bother such a wannabe hardass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Actions have consequences, and Mr Cheney is learning that first hand.

Mr. Cheney doesn't appear to be the one who's "incredibly disappointed" by his cancellation; the organizers and the people who held tickets are the ones being deprived.

Furthermore, I doubt whether someone gets to be VP without knowing that actions have consequences. "Actions have consequences" is why we went to war - and by "we," I include Canada.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also applied for and was granted 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War.

Granted 5 times. Perhaps he was against the war in Indochina like the noble Draft Dodgers.

;)

He is a wuss. There are legit security concerns, but I wouldn't think that would bother such a wannabe hardass.

Ever been in a violent riot?

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

He also applied for and was granted 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War. He is a wuss. There are legit security concerns, but I wouldn't think that would bother such a wannabe hardass.

So ignoring legitimate security concerns = wuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? How was the average Vancouver anarchist hurt by Dick Cheney? Tell them to get jobs?

No people around the world just generally hate his guts because he helped disseminate lies and propoganda that got a whole lot of people killed.

Like I said... you can whine about it all you want, but people who are extremely unpopular have a hard time in public. Its human nature.

No different than Nickleback getting booed off stage, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No people around the world just generally hate his guts because he helped disseminate lies and propoganda that got a whole lot of people killed.

Like I said... you can whine about it all you want, but people who are extremely unpopular have a hard time in public. Its human nature.

No different than Nickleback getting booed off stage, really.

Those idiots would 'protest' if their welfare cheques were late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...