kapkomet Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) I doubt there is something in Texas hunting code, but he's the vice president of the United States. Its not Joe Schmo from around the corner. Anytime something like this happens, its his responsibility to report it right away to the national presses. If he wanted to talk to Whittington's wife and kids first, then thats fine, and he did that. But that doesn't take 18 hours (or however long it was) to do, and it should have been reported to the national press, not just some small newspaper. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:16 PM) Why? Because he's the vice president of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) I doubt there is something in Texas hunting code, but he's the vice president of the United States. Its not Joe Schmo from around the corner. Anytime something like this happens, its his responsibility to report it right away to the national presses. If he wanted to talk to Whittington's wife and kids first, then thats fine, and he did that. But that doesn't take 18 hours (or however long it was) to do, and it should have been reported to the national press, not just some small newspaper. His responsibility? Really? I don't seem to recall it being national news when a Van Hillary Clinton was traveling in, disregarded a police officers orders to stop, and then proceeded to drag the man 300 feet. Was there a responsibility to hold a nearly immediate press confrence then as well? I'll tell you what I sure don't remember it happening... Also out of curiousity, what is the proper amount of time and where does contacting the national media rank for a hunting accident. Should they have called the media immediately, or waited to get him to the hospital, or waited until the police investigated, or waited until the family knew about it, or made sure that the family was ready for the swarm of media sure to ensue, or made sure that the guy was going to be OK, or gotten even gotten off of the ranch where they were hunting? Where does specifically contacting the national media rank there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach61 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) His responsibility? Really? I don't seem to recall it being national news when a Van Hillary Clinton was traveling in, disregarded a police officers orders to stop, and then proceeded to drag the man 300 feet. Was there a responsibility to hold a nearly immediate press confrence then as well? I'll tell you what I sure don't remember it happening... Also out of curiousity, what is the proper amount of time and where does contacting the national media rank for a hunting accident. Should they have called the media immediately, or waited to get him to the hospital, or waited until the police investigated, or waited until the family knew about it, or made sure that the family was ready for the swarm of media sure to ensue, or made sure that the guy was going to be OK, or gotten even gotten off of the ranch where they were hunting? Where does specifically contacting the national media rank there? I think at the very least, Cheney should have talked to the local police immediately and not waited until the next day to do that. Didn't the report from the police say they tried to interview Cheney that nite and the police were told that Cheney would setup a meeting with them the next day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Straight form the "Bush Haters Guide to Bringing Down a White House"... speculate, conspire, keep throwing crap up until something sticks, and then run like hell with it to prove what an evil bunch this White House clan is. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 That book is just a sequel to "Bringing Down the Clintons: A Guide to delegitimize a Democratic Presidency." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) His responsibility? Really? I don't seem to recall it being national news when a Van Hillary Clinton was traveling in, disregarded a police officers orders to stop, and then proceeded to drag the man 300 feet. Was there a responsibility to hold a nearly immediate press confrence then as well? I'll tell you what I sure don't remember it happening... Also out of curiousity, what is the proper amount of time and where does contacting the national media rank for a hunting accident. Should they have called the media immediately, or waited to get him to the hospital, or waited until the police investigated, or waited until the family knew about it, or made sure that the family was ready for the swarm of media sure to ensue, or made sure that the guy was going to be OK, or gotten even gotten off of the ranch where they were hunting? Where does specifically contacting the national media rank there? Stop it. Seriously. Whenever someone criticizes something anyone anywhere in the current administration does, the GOP'ers here immediately come up with something about a Clinton. It's childish and makes no sense. Are we capable of sticking to an issue here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) Stop it. Seriously. Whenever someone criticizes something anyone anywhere in the current administration does, the GOP'ers here immediately come up with something about a Clinton. It's childish and makes no sense. Are we capable of sticking to an issue here? You know why that happens? Because it was ok for that asshole to do the EXACT same s*** GWB is doing, and it's an OUTRAGE when GWB does something, but the Clintons were "different". It's simply noted to point out the hypocracy of jumping on every negative bandwagon possible about this president. It gets old, and the defense, at least for me, is to point out your own damn party does the same s***. IMO, they're all assholes, current president included. I hate our government as it exists today. I love our country but I hate the political hackery and bulls*** we are subjected to on a daily basis from both sides of the fence. Pick and pick and pick and pick against the current administration, and turn a blind eye to the same bulls*** that was pulled 8-10 years ago, and it's hypocracy at its best. We're just here to remind you that the same crap was pulled - and you all want to change history or forget that any of that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) You know why that happens? Because it was ok for that asshole to do the EXACT same s*** GWB is doing, and it's an OUTRAGE when GWB does something, but the Clintons were "different". It's simply noted to point out the hypocracy of jumping on every negative bandwagon possible about this president. It gets old, and the defense, at least for me, is to point out your own damn party does the same s***. IMO, they're all assholes, current president included. I hate our government as it exists today. I love our country but I hate the political hackery and bulls*** we are subjected to on a daily basis from both sides of the fence. Pick and pick and pick and pick against the current administration, and turn a blind eye to the same bulls*** that was pulled 8-10 years ago, and it's hypocracy at its best. We're just here to remind you that the same crap was pulled - and you all want to change history or forget that any of that happened. Remind ME? I have stated all along in this forum, very clearly, that Bush and Clinton were both wrong. Carter may have been too, though I know very little about his situation. Don't lump me in with people trying to make one OK and not the other. And I still think that what Clinton did is irrelevant when discussing current politics. The "other people did it" argument has never flown with me. Edited February 16, 2006 by NorthSideSox72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) You know why that happens? Because it was ok for that asshole to do the EXACT same s*** GWB is doing, and it's an OUTRAGE when GWB does something, but the Clintons were "different". It's simply noted to point out the hypocracy of jumping on every negative bandwagon possible about this president. It gets old, and the defense, at least for me, is to point out your own damn party does the same s***. IMO, they're all assholes, current president included. I hate our government as it exists today. I love our country but I hate the political hackery and bulls*** we are subjected to on a daily basis from both sides of the fence. Pick and pick and pick and pick against the current administration, and turn a blind eye to the same bulls*** that was pulled 8-10 years ago, and it's hypocracy at its best. We're just here to remind you that the same crap was pulled - and you all want to change history or forget that any of that happened. 10 years ago, I was 18 and more concerned with the latest Britpop CD or catching the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion. Sorry, I wasn't paying more attention - I'll try that the next time a Clinton is in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) You know why that happens? Because it was ok for that asshole to do the EXACT same s*** GWB is doing, and it's an OUTRAGE when GWB does something, but the Clintons were "different". It's simply noted to point out the hypocracy of jumping on every negative bandwagon possible about this president. It gets old, and the defense, at least for me, is to point out your own damn party does the same s***. IMO, they're all assholes, current president included. I hate our government as it exists today. I love our country but I hate the political hackery and bulls*** we are subjected to on a daily basis from both sides of the fence. Pick and pick and pick and pick against the current administration, and turn a blind eye to the same bulls*** that was pulled 8-10 years ago, and it's hypocracy at its best. We're just here to remind you that the same crap was pulled - and you all want to change history or forget that any of that happened. No sense in living in the past...? I agree it's all bulls*** and they are all cream of the crop bulls*** dishers.. but 2 wrongs don't make a right Kap. In order to make changes to make the future better we have to correct things as they happen. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) No sense in living in the past...? I agree it's all bulls*** and they are all cream of the crop bulls*** dishers.. but 2 wrongs don't make a right Kap. In order to make changes to make the future better we have to correct things as they happen. No? So you're saying we should ban guns so that Cheney doesn't get his hand on one again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) You know why that happens? Because it was ok for that asshole to do the EXACT same s*** GWB is doing, and it's an OUTRAGE when GWB does something, but the Clintons were "different". It's simply noted to point out the hypocracy of jumping on every negative bandwagon possible about this president. It gets old, and the defense, at least for me, is to point out your own damn party does the same s***. IMO, they're all assholes, current president included. I hate our government as it exists today. I love our country but I hate the political hackery and bulls*** we are subjected to on a daily basis from both sides of the fence. Pick and pick and pick and pick against the current administration, and turn a blind eye to the same bulls*** that was pulled 8-10 years ago, and it's hypocracy at its best. We're just here to remind you that the same crap was pulled - and you all want to change history or forget that any of that happened. Exactly, it doesn't matter what party you're from, there's going to be some good things, and some bad things, it's just that the opposite party thinks they have to point out every single. I've never seen so much constant picking before and it only gets worse and worse. I'm also very sick of the every day occurances posted. Oh no, a 5th cousin of Bush is in jail, that means Bush is a criminal, oh no a kleenex fell out of Bush's pocket and he didn't pick it up because he didn't notice, give him a fine for that one. Who knows, if there's a democrat in office in 3 years, maybe I'll be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) So you're saying we should ban guns so that Cheney doesn't get his hand on one again? LMAO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:46 PM) 10 years ago, I was 18 and more concerned with the latest Britpop CD or catching the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion. Sorry, I wasn't paying more attention - I'll try that the next time a Clinton is in office. Look Rex, it's a mindset. It's a mindset that GWB's s*** HAS to stink worse then Bill Clinton's EVER did - and now, by extention Hillary because of THEIR (yes, THEIR) White House dreams again. At least when BJ Clinton was in office, it was usually a battle of ideas, until the blowjob came along. I've said this a lot on here, that was crap, what the Republicans tried to get him on was baloney and a disgrace. All they had to do was wait and dig a little deeper, as there was refutable proof of some worse doings then Monica (and she was bad), but by then they had burnt so many bridges it didn't matter. Perjury (lying while under oath) is a law that's broken. That's ok. What GWB is doing is saying a mighty "F You" to the Constitution! GET HIM! It's terrible. Partisan bickering is worse and worse and worse, and a lot of it has to do with this thing right here, the (Algore) internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:42 AM) And yeah, its a pretty damn important story. not really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 06:48 PM) not really For maybe you and 10% of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) For maybe you and 10% of the population. 98% of which votes Republican. 73% of which is secretly interested just based on the fact that, well, the Vice President shot a 78 year old man in the face, but doesn't want it covered because they're worried about how headlines that say "The Vice President Shot a 78 year old man in the face" will hurt their President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 07:22 PM) 98% of which votes Republican. 73% of which is secretly interested just based on the fact that, well, the Vice President shot a 78 year old man in the face, but doesn't want it covered because they're worried about how headlines that say "The Vice President Shot a 78 year old man in the face" will hurt their President. haha, suuuure yes, Dick Cheney accidentally shot some guy with a small calibur gun during a hunting trip, the guy is fine. that should be news for about 1 day, not a frickin week. get over it dudes, no one cares about this except the "bush is hitler" crowd. this is such a non-story and all this coverage is comical to me, just more of the lame conservative media vs liberal media battle. Edited February 17, 2006 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Are shotguns seriously considered small caliber? I never knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 07:40 PM) Are shotguns seriously considered small caliber? I never knew that. shotguns can definatly be small caliber, aka a .22 rifle. if you are hunting for a quayle or other small animals you want to eat, you would not use a high calibur gun (because the animal would be totally destroyed and splattered all over). Edited February 17, 2006 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jesus F Christ... Yes, it was totally an accident, and there was no coverup. As I understand it, there is no requirement in Texas to report any nonfatal hunting accident. Personally, I don't give a f*** if Cheney had a beer hours before, it's not gonna make a difference unless he's a petite blonde. Tucker Carlson is just as much a nitwit when criticizing Republicans. And yes, it is a big story, b/c it's SO f***ING FUNNY. Not just that the veep shot someone, but that THIS veep, this oh so outdoorsy, guns-are-safe veep committed the #1 cardinal sin of hunting, is just f***ing hilarious. A story for a day? Lord, no. When in doubt, follow Jon Stewart. Stop being such goddam buzzkills, all of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 no one said the story isn't hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 06:48 PM) not really How many times has the vice president shot someone while in office? For that reason alone, its a rather important news story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:40 PM) Are shotguns seriously considered small caliber? I never knew that. The shotgun he was using was relatively small guage (26 or something odd). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts