southsider2k5 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) Well they acted like they had something to hide. Yeah I know when I have something to hide I call the police to the scene of the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) And if you are basing your wide ranging generalized responses off of what Nuke has to say, I'd say you need to do more research. That's for sure. I think we all know if it was someone with a foreign name who had done the shooting there would be a convoy from AZ to where the shooter lived and there'd be another "accident" to report.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:23 AM) Well, unless you have evidence he was wasted or evidence he acted with malice you should give the man the benefit of the doubt. That's funny, Nuke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:33 AM) That's funny, Nuke. Yeah, I know. Theres some people out there who would whine to the press about a White House conspirasy if they slipped on a bananna peel in their own kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 07:02 AM) Could you please point out where in the Texas hunting code it saids that you have to report hunting accidents to the press, and how long is proper to wait for a news confrence afterwards? The government is under no obligation to report this. That is true. If that is how you believe the government should operate, in secrecy, that is certainly a valid method. In the US we have a long history of not allowing the government to hide stuff and operate in secrecy. I don't think it would be a step forward when the Veep can shoot someone and be able to hide that information. I also believe it would be state law to report a shooting, but I may be wrong. Maybe the victim has to report the shooting. Is a hunting accident less of a story than a blow job? Than a petty breaking and entering at an office (Watergate). An accident is not much of a story, a drunk VP shooting someone is a story. How will the American public know the difference? We could just accept the White House explaination, and for many that is reasonable. But of course that would be the GOP fans. Same as the Dem fans felt a blow job was a non story. But so far Clinton brought up? check Vince Foster? check Al Gore? check media blamed? check Sounds like a GOP victory. Who needs a free press when you have news releases from the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:36 AM) Yeah, I know. Theres some people out there who would whine to the press about a White House conspirasy if they slipped on a bananna peel in their own kitchen. And some would complain when a White House conspiracy was found, that it was a liberal biased media conspiracy . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) The government is under no obligation to report this. That is true. If that is how you believe the government should operate, in secrecy, that is certainly a valid method. In the US we have a long history of not allowing the government to hide stuff and operate in secrecy. I don't think it would be a step forward when the Veep can shoot someone and be able to hide that information. I also believe it would be state law to report a shooting, but I may be wrong. Maybe the victim has to report the shooting. Is a hunting accident less of a story than a blow job? Than a petty breaking and entering at an office (Watergate). An accident is not much of a story, a drunk VP shooting someone is a story. How will the American public know the difference? We could just accept the White House explaination, and for many that is reasonable. But of course that would be the GOP fans. Same as the Dem fans felt a blow job was a non story. But so far Clinton brought up? check Vince Foster? check Al Gore? check media blamed? check Sounds like a GOP victory. Who needs a free press when you have news releases from the government? Right on, Tex. GOP marketing machine running smoothly. Dem complaint machine running smoothly. And yeah, its a pretty damn important story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Where did they hide ANY information. Its s*** like that, that pisses me off about this board. NO ONE HID ANYTHING. There has been zero proof of that. Not dialing up Peter Jennings on your cell phone after you just pumped a round of birdshot into someones face, doesn't mean you are "hiding" something. -They contacted the proper authorities -The victim was taken to the hospital -The victims family was contacted. -The White House TOLD the family to contact the press about the situation. -The White House held a press confrence the next day about the situation. The whole basis for a cover is that a specific group of the press wasn't contacted. The rest of the conspiracy is just inflamatory bulls*** because the White House press corps got their feelings hurt because they weren't first. There is no doubt this is a legitimate story, for no other reason than for the people involved. If this was two guys hunting in Wisconson during Deer Season, it would be a local story MAYBE. Because it involves the VP, it IS front page news. What there is zero evidence of is some great right wing conspiracy to bury something. If they were REALLY trying to hide something, do you think they would have let the guy live? Do you really think they would have let the VP take the fall? If it was some grand conspiracy, why would they have left so many holes and witnesses out there? Why would they have contacted the authorities so quickly? Why would they have told the family to contact the media? Wouldn't they have wanted complete silence? I mean if you are going to hide something, why would it be something so little in political capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) An accident is not much of a story, a drunk VP shooting someone is a story. How will the American public know the difference? We could just accept the White House explaination, and for many that is reasonable. But of course that would be the GOP fans. Same as the Dem fans felt a blow job was a non story. But so far Clinton brought up? check Vince Foster? check Al Gore? check media blamed? check Sounds like a GOP victory. Who needs a free press when you have news releases from the government? First of all as I said earlier, without any evidence assertions the Veep was drunk are just that. The media are trying to blow this story out of any proportion and they totally deserve to be called out on it. Secondly, I think its totally fair and appropriate to call out Hillary Clinton when she runs off at the mouth about something that she herself is guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) Where did they hide ANY information. Its s*** like that, that pisses me off about this board. NO ONE HID ANYTHING. There has been zero proof of that. Not dialing up Peter Jennings on your cell phone after you just pumped a round of birdshot into someones face, doesn't mean you are "hiding" something. -They contacted the proper authorities -The victim was taken to the hospital -The victims family was contacted. -The White House TOLD the family to contact the press about the situation. -The White House held a press confrence the next day about the situation. The whole basis for a cover is that a specific group of the press wasn't contacted. The rest of the conspiracy is just inflamatory bulls*** because the White House press corps got their feelings hurt because they weren't first. There is no doubt this is a legitimate story, for no other reason than for the people involved. If this was two guys hunting in Wisconson during Deer Season, it would be a local story MAYBE. Because it involves the VP, it IS front page news. What there is zero evidence of is some great right wing conspiracy to bury something. If they were REALLY trying to hide something, do you think they would have let the guy live? Do you really think they would have let the VP take the fall? If it was some grand conspiracy, why would they have left so many holes and witnesses out there? Why would they have contacted the authorities so quickly? Why would they have told the family to contact the media? Wouldn't they have wanted complete silence? I mean if you are going to hide something, why would it be something so little in political capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) Not dialing up Peter Jennings on your cell phone after you just pumped a round of birdshot into someones face, doesn't mean you are "hiding" something. Yeah, but if you really wanted to come clean you might try dialing up a reporter who is actually alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Yeah, but if you really wanted to come clean you might try dialing up a reporter who is actually alive. Details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Man, this comes from the mouth of Bowtie Republican himself, Tucker Carlson. CARLSON: So was it irresponsible for the Vice President to fire a weapon after having a beer? After all, the man does take heart medication that, combined with alcohol, could make him a bit woozy. We bring in now former deputy assistant to the President, Brad Blakeman. He joins us live tonight from Washington. Brad, thanks for coming on. BLAKEMAN: Pleasure Tucker. CARLSON: I suspect you think a lot of this controversy over how the Vice President handled his press operations is overblown and silly. BLAKEMAN: Absolutely. CARLSON: Yeah, I completely agree with you. I think it’s been an embarrassment to the press corps and I’m embarrassed to be a journalist when I see it. However, the question of whether the Vice President was drinking before he shot, even one beer, I think is significant because you’re not supposed to do that. BLAKEMAN: Well, that’s not so. It’s a situation where the Vice President admitted he had one beer at lunch, five hours prior to the incident. And as a matter of law, and as a matter of science, that one beer could not have had any impact on the Vice President one way or the other. CARLSON: Well, I don’t know we know it was five hours before the incident. I don’t think in his interview today – unless you’ve spoken to him separately – I don’t think he was that specific. But we don’t – and of course because we don’t have a blood alcohol reading from the Vice President, we don’t know what exactly was in his blood – But we do know, that it is considered totally unacceptable, and I’m sure you know this and I can tell you if you don’t, to drink before shooting. People just don’t do it and they don’t do it because it’s a very dangerous sport and it gets more dangerous if you drink. BLAKEMAN: It depends on when you ingested the drink. And if you ingested the drink five hours or four hours even before shooting – one beer. It cannot have a deteriorous effect on you as a matter of science. It’s completely out of your science. CARLSON: Huh, that’s interesting. I don’t think that’s settled science. And I — BLAKEMAN: I have it right here with me – CARLSON: Let me just finish my sentence. I don’t think that we know what medications the Vice President is on. I think we know that he is on some medications to respond to the coronary problems that he’s had. And it’s not clear what effect the mixture of beer with those medicines has, and I guess my question to you Brad, is why take the chance? The reason people don’t drink before they hunt – and they’re really uptight about it in most hunts. I mean they say, you can’t drink, period, until you put the gun down for the rest of the day. And the reason they do that is why take the chance? Why did he take the chance? Why do this? BLAKEMAN: There is no chance. One beer, cannot – and I have the figures right here with me, the blood alcohol charts – that a man of his size, his age, and one beer ingested, which he admitted to – he said I drank one beer with lunch, four to five hours before the incident – it cannot, as a matter of science, have any effect, whatsoever, on a human being. Now, you talk about medication. The Vice President travels with a doctor. Do you think the doctor would have allowed him to have one beer if it would have had a deterious effect on his health? I think not. CARLSON: I think Cheney gets to do pretty much whatever he wants, which is why he got to have a beer at lunch on a hunt. I’ve been on dozens of hunts, there’s no beer served as lunch. You can’t drink a beer if you shoot, period. Doesn’t matter if you’re shooting five hours after, you’re not allowed to do it. This is the only time I’ve ever heard of it, and I think he gets to do it because he’s the Vice President. So no, I don’t think his doctor’s going to tell him to not have a beer. I wonder if there are other hunters or responsible gun owners out there who are this angry at Cheney today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:26 AM) Well they acted like they had something to hide. If they were acting like they had something to hide, why would they tell the correct authorities and send this to the local press. Seriously, if they were trying to do a coverup, they were doing an incredibly poor job at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I don't understand how anyone can think that this was handled very poory. The only thing that was very poor was Cheney's aim, everything afterwards hasn't been perfect, but it's been handled well. They have nothing to hide as stated before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) If they were acting like they had something to hide, why would they tell the correct authorities and send this to the local press. Seriously, if they were trying to do a coverup, they were doing an incredibly poor job at it. But maybe they knew that by doing such a poor job, they'd get all their Republicans to say things like that and none of them would believe it was a cover up! Don't you see? They planned all of this!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) But maybe they knew that by doing such a poor job, they'd get all their Republicans to say things like that and none of them would believe it was a cover up! Don't you see? They planned all of this!!!! And they drew straws to see who was going to get shot in the face aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 They'd literally filet Cheny if that was an option. :headshake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) They'd literally filet Cheny if that was an option. :headshake As oposed to the wingnuts who fellate Cheney at every opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 07:44 PM) Does that include not telling the press that you shot someone in the face until 18 hours after the event? And then not accepting blame for the event until today? Is there a lie in your post somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 07:29 AM) Curious to see some people's reactions in here if it were the exact same circumstances but it happened to Al Gore while he was Veep. We might not see as many 'who gives a s***' responses from certain people. Is it legal to hunt camels in Saudi Arabia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:23 AM) Well, unless you have evidence he was wasted or evidence he acted with malice you should give the man the benefit of the doubt. Then what would they talk about on the Huffington Post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) The government is under no obligation to report this. That is true. If that is how you believe the government should operate, in secrecy, that is certainly a valid method. In the US we have a long history of not allowing the government to hide stuff and operate in secrecy. I don't think it would be a step forward when the Veep can shoot someone and be able to hide that information. I also believe it would be state law to report a shooting, but I may be wrong. Maybe the victim has to report the shooting. Is a hunting accident less of a story than a blow job? Than a petty breaking and entering at an office (Watergate). An accident is not much of a story, a drunk VP shooting someone is a story. How will the American public know the difference? We could just accept the White House explaination, and for many that is reasonable. But of course that would be the GOP fans. Same as the Dem fans felt a blow job was a non story. But so far Clinton brought up? check Vince Foster? check Al Gore? check media blamed? check Sounds like a GOP victory. Who needs a free press when you have news releases from the government? You guys love Larry O'Donnell don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:02 AM) Could you please point out where in the Texas hunting code it saids that you have to report hunting accidents to the press, and how long is proper to wait for a news confrence afterwards? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Yeah, but if you really wanted to come clean you might try dialing up a reporter who is actually alive. Does Helen Thomas count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts