David (in [email protected]) said:
| This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
| next 6 months.
Fire, aim, ready! Seems to have a familiar ring to it...
Full story at 10:00 (next week, maybe).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
"WD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:45:11 -0600, "Jason Quick" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Hm. As it turns out, Cheney didn't have that stamp after all...
>>
>>"Meanwhile, Texas state wildlife officials reported Monday that while Vice
>>President Cheney had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, he
>>did
>>not obtain a required "upland game bird stamp."
>>
>>A warning citation--which carries no fine or penalty--will be issued to
>>Cheney, which state officials described as "routine." Cheney's office said
>>he would promptly send in the $7 for the stamp. However, as the Dallas
>>Morning News headlined on its Web site, he was, on Saturday, "hunting
>>illegally.""
>>
>>http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996219
>>
>>My take? The VP was drunk, is a hack hunter (most likely the case, given
>>his reliance on canned hunts), or both. Not too surprising from a career
>>politico.
>>
>>Jason
>
> Even if he were drunk, dun we all got drunk sometimes, while hunting? BTW,
> did
> you hear Harry Whittington got a minor heart attack and rumor that Cheney
> might
> resign? Anyway, the next time when Cheney calls me for hunting quills, I
> have
> good excuse to say no!
Two things I learned fairly young: keep your hands off the guns when you're
having more than one drink; stay the hell off a motorcycle when you're
having ANYTHING to drink. Parris Island brought on the first lesson. A spill
after three beers resulting in a cracked sternum brought on the second.
Only an idiot drinks and hunts.
True enough, and those labels are used in a most uncivil fashion.
Consider, though by whom. Carl Rove and associates come to mind, and
their attack on John McCain was the absolute pits.
So when one is "hoist by his own petard" the reaction of some is "too
bad."
There is a moderate wing of the Republican party, with one common
theme, if seems to me- "what were they thinking?"
J
2006.2265.261 (who won't reveal his true name) wrote: Cheney was
incompetent and derelict for not making sure his field of fire
was clear.
Man, this feels weird, but I have to agree with you.
You've got to keep your finger off the trigger 'til you're sure of your
target . There are _very_ few accidents that aren't a culmination of
two or more avoidable circumstances. Tom
Joe wrote: What exactly are you seeing or hearing that causes you to
have such a
bad opinion about him?
The fact that he's condoning (maybe even orchestrating?) this
administrations' actions should be enough. IMO, if he were an honorable
man, I think he'd have resigned a long time ago, just like Powell had
done. Tom
Joe wrote:snip >You also suggest that your dislike for those minions
might be somewhat
tempered, or possibly even turn to respect if the entire Bush
administration, from the Vice President down to the lowest ranking
temporary assistant policy advisor were to immediately resign.<snip
I knew
it was a trick question! The entire Bush administration would also
include the puppet himself, wouldn't it? Of course, you know it's a lot
more complicated than that. As important as it is to have a strong
presence in world affairs(due to our "addiction" to oil, nuclear
capabilities of "rogue" states and human rights, among other things),
those at the top of the chain of command need _unimpeachable_ morals
and agendas. If we're not pissed off, we're not paying attention. If
they'd knock off wagging the dog, and accept responsibility for their
actions, I'll relax somewhat. By the way, the key word in my original
statement so long ago was "incredible". As in "not credible". Tom
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
> >> next 6 months.
> >
> > I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
> >Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
> >"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>
> ... and yet they continue to win elections. What does that say for the
> other side?
>
What does that say for the electorate?
It is interesting to note that Kerry and Bush had essentially
the same SAT scores and ranked aournd the 85th percentile.
They attended the same college a couple of years apart and
got essentially the same grades. It is pretty reasonable to
conclude that they are pretty much equal in regards to academic
matters.
But listen to them speak to their public. It is pretty clear that
one is trying hard to sound 'eloquent' the other trying equally
hard to sound 'plainspoken'. I daresay that tells us one is
trying to impress people who respect education while the
other is trying to impress those who look down on it--NOT to
be confused with trying to impress the educated or uneducated.
It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
--
FF
Joe Barta wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > But listen to them speak to their public. It is pretty clear that
> > one is trying hard to sound 'eloquent' the other trying equally
> > hard to sound 'plainspoken'. I daresay that tells us one is
> > trying to impress people who respect education while the
> > other is trying to impress those who look down on it--NOT to
> > be confused with trying to impress the educated or uneducated.
>
> ...
>
> I think with Bush and Kerry and most other politicans, we have a range
> of personalities and styles. And sure, trying to appeal to people, and
> even trying to develop a public persona is, for some, part of the
> game. But to translate that into "Kerry tries to appeal to educated
> people and Bush tries to appeal to uneducated people" is mostly
> nonsense. -
As you will recall, I wrote:
"NOT to be confused with trying to impress the educated
or uneducated."
You missed my point entirely.
>
> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
> > the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
>
> What exactly do you mean by this?
>
"The peepel is Oll Korekt."
--
FF
Joe Barta wrote:
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees
> >> > from the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
> >>
> >> What exactly do you mean by this?
> >>
> >
> > "The peepel is Oll Korekt."
>
> Still unclear but I guess it's a poke in the right direction.
>
"The peepel is Oll Korekt." was a supposed slogan displayed in a
parade during the Presidential Campaign in which William Henry
Harrison was elected. Supposedly it was the opposition who put
it up in an effort to besmirch Harrison's supporters as ignorant.
Today we have politicians trying to NOT appear intellectual in an
effort to impress voters.
The last time I remember a Presidential candidate giving a speech
in which he actually tried to be eloquent was circa 1992-- by Jesse
Jackson, in the days of his Rainbow Coalition.
Not long thereafter he abandoned eloquence.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Joe Barta wrote:
> >> [someone] wrote:
> >>
> >> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
> >> > the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
> >>
> >> What exactly do you mean by this?
> >
> >"The peepel is Oll Korekt."
>
> That was Andrew Jackson, not W. H. Harrison.
>
I'll bet you a dollar it was William Henry Harrison.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Joe Barta wrote:
> >> >> [someone] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
> >> >> > the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
> >> >>
> >> >> What exactly do you mean by this?
> >> >
> >> >"The peepel is Oll Korekt."
> >>
> >> That was Andrew Jackson, not W. H. Harrison.
> >>
> >
> >I'll bet you a dollar it was William Henry Harrison.
> >
> I'll bet you a dollar it wasn't.
>
There is a similar story about Andrew Jackson, that he used to
mark court documents "OK'" for "oll korekt" but the story about
the sign "the peepel is oll korekt" on the log cabin float in
Marion, Ohio was directed at WH Harrison. Possibly both
were the work of Martin Van Buren Supporters, who sometimes
were referred to as "OK" for "Old Kinderhook" (korektly spelt)
the name of a place where Van Buren hung out with his cronies.
"Oll korekt", however, seems to have predated the 1840 campaign,
it was part of a mispelling fad originating in Boston a few years
earlier.
--
FF
New Wave Dave wrote:
> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > (Dan Quayle comes to mind.)
>
> *THE* Dan Quayle that couldn't spell "potato(e)." Now *there* was
> an intellectual.
Here's how they spell it in Idahoe:
http://www.idaho-potatoes.com/potatoe.html
--
FF
Mr Harmon quoted: For what ever it may be worth: "I'd rather bird hunt
with Dick Cheney than
carpool with Ted Kennedy"
(rimshot)Ba-dum, tchhh. Now, get angry, will you, ya bunch of bleating
sheep? Has "Of the people, by the people, for the people" lost all it's
meaning to you? Or is it as tired as those "druthers"? Tom
tom wrote:
> 2006.2265.261 (who won't reveal his true name) wrote: Cheney was
> incompetent and derelict for not making sure his field of fire
> was clear.
>
> Man, this feels weird, but I have to agree with you.
> You've got to keep your finger off the trigger 'til you're sure of
> your target . There are _very_ few accidents that aren't a culmination
> of two or more avoidable circumstances. Tom
>
I have to agree as well. There's only one allowable excuse for a
hunting accident - having a heart attack, stroke, epileptic fit, etc.
while pulling the trigger. Anything else - you screwed up!.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>>>next 6 months.
>
>
> Cheney made a small mistake... he thought they were hunting peasants...not
> pheasants
I expect that that statement will be repeated on the talk shows. Yuk.
boooyah,
jo4hn
Morris Dovey wrote:
> The media folks have decided that "news as entertainment" is more
> profitable than "news as information". It hasn't always been that way;
> but it will seem so to the next generation.
And that's the biggest problem of all. Politicians come and go, but
once the principles of unbiased news reports is gone, it's highly
unlikely that it'll ever come back.
And yes, I know it never really existed, but we used to be a lot closer
to it than we are now. Remember when newspapers, at least the good
ones, kept their preaching on the editorial pages?
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Joe Barta wrote:
>> Today we have politicians trying to NOT appear intellectual in an
>> effort to impress voters.
It's long been a given in politics that people won't vote for someone
they think is smarter than them.
Always seemed backwards to me, but the human animal is a perverse
species :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>>> next 6 months.
>>
>> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
>>Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>>"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>
> ... and yet they continue to win elections. What does that say for the
>other side?
"out-competence" ?? *snicker*
In article <[email protected]>, Al
<[email protected]> wrote:
> He had a good voting record concerning guns:
> He was one of just 21 members of Congress, in December of 1985, to vote
> against a ban on armor piercing bullets -- called cop killer bullets.
They were indeed "called" that, but they weren't.
> Three years later he was one of only four members of the House voting
> against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security
> machines undetected.
No such thing has ever existed, and is extremely unlikely to ever exist.
Kevin
In article <[email protected]>, Greg G.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin Craig said:
>
> >> Three years later he was one of only four members of the House voting
> >> against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security
> >> machines undetected.
>
> Glock? While they still possess metal barrels and slides, and are not
> invisible to metal detectors, the frame and many other parts are
> indeed plastic, or more accurately (trademark-wise), 'Polymer 2'.
When Glock created the "undetectable plastic gun" hysteria in the '80s,
the components of a disassembled Glock were clearly identifiable as gun
parts, even on the airport x-ray systems in use at the time. Modern
imaging advances have improved the odds of detection to an even greater
level. Metal detectors that alarm on fingernail clippers or the foil
wrapper on a forgotten stick of gum, will certainly detect the large
steel pieces in even the most plastic of "plastic" guns.
Kevin
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Joe Barta wrote:
>> [someone] wrote:
>>
>> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
>> > the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by this?
>
>"The peepel is Oll Korekt."
That was Andrew Jackson, not W. H. Harrison.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the next
> 6 months.
>
Funny enough, but it doesn't beat W choking on the pretzel awhile back.
Or for that matter, the Castro face plant.
> Joe Barta <[email protected]> writes:
> If a judge rules against the way I think, he is making the law.
Or in the conservative vernacular, an activist judge who legislates
from the bench!
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
"George" <George@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pFHIf.161461$WH.37836@dukeread01...
>>
>>
>> He got the job at Halliburton because he was an insider. He got a CEO
>> job
>> despite never having worked in the oil biz. Strange, eh?
>>
>
> Like AlGore sitting on the board at Apple, y'think?
Dunno. Did Al Gore (note spelling), acting in his capacity as VP, funnel
any lucrative government business to Apple? Is there some contention afield
that he's being rewarded for his past support of Apple? Does he have any
real control over the day-to-day operations of the company? I've seen no
evidence of a "revolving door" w/ Gore and Apple. And Gore has been a big
proponent of technology for quite some time, long before it became
potentially profitable for him to be so.
Cheney was SecDef under Bush I, and worked to spur the privatization of many
military functions. Then he got bounced, and got a job with - surprise! - a
company that owns a defense contractor (Halliburton, owner of Kellogg Brown
& Root), which had and continues to benefit handsomely from its work w/ the
DoD. He still benefits from his association w/ Halliburton, in fact - last
I knew, he had about $10M in unexercised Halliburton stock options. Kinda
unseemly, innit?
Surely you're aware of how the government->business->government revolving
door works. It isn't unique to Cheney, or to Republicans, but he's the one
I'm talking about.
> Betting you never had to manage tasks or motivate people.
"Manage tasks?" That's pretty broad - could cover digging a ditch, fer
chrissakes. And since when is upper management interested in "motiivating"
anyone? Doesn't that usually fall to middle and lower management types?
> If you had, you'd recognize that the mechanics of the tasks are best left
> to others to accomplish, while the manager keeps his eye on the horizon.
Horizon, eh? Sounds like some of the bullshit I heard in biz-school.
Jason
"Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pFHIf.161461$WH.37836@dukeread01...
>
>
> He got the job at Halliburton because he was an insider. He got a CEO job
> despite never having worked in the oil biz. Strange, eh?
>
Like AlGore sitting on the board at Apple, y'think?
Betting you never had to manage tasks or motivate people. If you had, you'd
recognize that the mechanics of the tasks are best left to others to
accomplish, while the manager keeps his eye on the horizon.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>> next 6 months.
>
> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
>Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
Awe, give him a break will you, stop hounding him and it's
not easy to be a VP you know?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:57:16 GMT, "2006.2265.262" <[email protected]> wrote:
>If you feel that serving your country during time of war is only for those
>who can't get deferment, I'd have to say that's pretty sad. I didn't enlist
>in the Marines because I couldn't get a college deferment, I enlisted
>because it was both my duty and honor to serve my country in time of war. I
>could have even joined the National Guard, only that I have high self esteem
>and a great deal of self respect.
>
>As for their daily jobs, with all of the errors regarding Iraq (remember
>back in July the last dying throes of the insurgency?Rose Petals? WMD's?) I
>think Katrina simply speaks for itself. You can continuously defend the
>indefensible, but then some kids constantly beat their heads against a wall
>too!
Have you forgotten we are still at wars? We should show respect for our leaders
and not making fun of them. They work very hard and need to take time off and
get the steam off. (Still remember when Bush said being a President is hard
work). Remember our enemies are watching and listening!
>"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 2006.2265.261 wrote:
>>
>>> Joey,The Defender of Mediocrity. Shit just NEVER happens any more
>>> then an act of gods do. If you didn't eat you'd never shit.
>>> Mistakes, don't always happen. Lack of attention, piss poor
>>> planning etc etc. I can see when anything goes wrong, you're just
>>> full of excuses and others to blame huh? Cheney was incompetent
>>> and derelict for not making sure his field of fire was clear. He
>>> was not aware of where all his hunting associates are You could
>>> make excuses for Cheney with his 5 deferments from military
>>> service.
>>>
>>>
>>> A "competent" hunter, is a safe hunter who brings home game, and
>>> "incompetent" hunter is an unsafe hunter who shoots either
>>> himself, a dog or in this case an old man (we can make exceptions
>>> since he was a lawyer!)
>>
>> I don't know if either man is a "competent hunter". Like competence in
>> anything, I suppose it can be measured in degrees. If you define a
>> competent hunter as one who NEVER has such an accident, then we'll
>> agree that according to that definition he can now be labeled
>> incompetent. Call it mediocrity, but I'm a big believer in the idea
>> that humans are fallible and even among the experienced and well
>> trained, mistakes do happen from time to time.
>>
>> Mostly I was disagreeing with the claim that this event supported the
>> notion that they were "incompetent" in their day jobs as well.
>> Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Calling them incompetent over
>> it is quite another. I stand by my contention that individuals in the
>> Bush administration are generally no more or no less in competent than
>> in any other administration.
>>
>> And as far as anyone's military deferments, that one ran out of gas
>> long ago. It's as much of a red herring as the whole Halibuton
>> business. I suppose I should clarify... for YOU they may be worthy
>> points... that's fine... for me they are not.
>>
>> Joe Barta
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> New Wave Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>>>>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take.
>>>> To me, it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes
>>>> happen and the business of life is full of twists and turns.
>>>> While we may disagree with actions this (or any) administration
>>>> takes, the word "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and
>>>> largely uncalled for. They are as "competent" as any other group
>>>> of people that have done those jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Barta
>>>
>>>
>>
>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:45:11 -0600, "Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hm. As it turns out, Cheney didn't have that stamp after all...
>
>"Meanwhile, Texas state wildlife officials reported Monday that while Vice
>President Cheney had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, he did
>not obtain a required "upland game bird stamp."
>
>A warning citation--which carries no fine or penalty--will be issued to
>Cheney, which state officials described as "routine." Cheney's office said
>he would promptly send in the $7 for the stamp. However, as the Dallas
>Morning News headlined on its Web site, he was, on Saturday, "hunting
>illegally.""
>
>http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996219
>
>My take? The VP was drunk, is a hack hunter (most likely the case, given
>his reliance on canned hunts), or both. Not too surprising from a career
>politico.
>
>Jason
Even if he were drunk, dun we all got drunk sometimes, while hunting? BTW, did
you hear Harry Whittington got a minor heart attack and rumor that Cheney might
resign? Anyway, the next time when Cheney calls me for hunting quills, I have
good excuse to say no!
On 15 Feb 2006 08:06:03 -0800, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Joe wrote: What exactly are you seeing or hearing that causes you to
>have such a
>bad opinion about him?
> The fact that he's condoning (maybe even orchestrating?) this
>administrations' actions should be enough. IMO, if he were an honorable
>man, I think he'd have resigned a long time ago, just like Powell had
>done. Tom
He'll never cut and run! NEVER......huh NEVER?
Yes it is hard work and certainly would be, if one applied himself instead
of spending 50% on Vacation. Bush has even made it easier for Al Qaeda to
strike.
United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, February 13, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has approved a deal in which a United
Arab Emirates company would operate six major ports in the United States.
A U.S. government panel has determined that the UAE firm, DP World, would
not endanger national security.
DP World, based in Dubai, has offered $6.8 billion for the purchase of a
British firm that operates the ports of Baltimore, Miami, New York, New
Jersey, New Orleans and Philadelphia, Middle East Newsline reported.
DP World intends to acquire the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation [P&O] Co. The sale was expected to be approved on Monday.
"The P&O directors have withdrawn their recommendation of the offer by PSA,
which was announced on Jan. 26, 2006, and unanimously recommend that P&O
Stockholders vote in favor of the revised proposals at the meetings, which
are now scheduled to take place on Feb. 13," DP World said in a statement.
The company said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had
no objection." The committee includes representatives from the departments
of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
The United Arab Emirates has been described as a leading military ally of
the United States. In 2005, the UAE acquired the first 10 of 80 F-16E/F
Block 60 multi-role fighters in a $6.4 billion purchase.
But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from
the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al
Qaida and aligned groups. They said that for years Dubai served as a base
for Al Qaida operatives, including those who destroyed the World Trade
Center and a Pentagon wing in 2001.
"WD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:57:16 GMT, "2006.2265.262" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If you feel that serving your country during time of war is only for those
>>who can't get deferment, I'd have to say that's pretty sad. I didn't
>>enlist
>>in the Marines because I couldn't get a college deferment, I enlisted
>>because it was both my duty and honor to serve my country in time of war.
>>I
>>could have even joined the National Guard, only that I have high self
>>esteem
>>and a great deal of self respect.
>>
>>As for their daily jobs, with all of the errors regarding Iraq (remember
>>back in July the last dying throes of the insurgency?Rose Petals? WMD's?)
>>I
>>think Katrina simply speaks for itself. You can continuously defend the
>>indefensible, but then some kids constantly beat their heads against a
>>wall
>>too!
>
> Have you forgotten we are still at wars? We should show respect for our
> leaders
> and not making fun of them. They work very hard and need to take time off
> and
> get the steam off. (Still remember when Bush said being a President is
> hard
> work). Remember our enemies are watching and listening!
>
>>"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> 2006.2265.261 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joey,The Defender of Mediocrity. Shit just NEVER happens any more
>>>> then an act of gods do. If you didn't eat you'd never shit.
>>>> Mistakes, don't always happen. Lack of attention, piss poor
>>>> planning etc etc. I can see when anything goes wrong, you're just
>>>> full of excuses and others to blame huh? Cheney was incompetent
>>>> and derelict for not making sure his field of fire was clear. He
>>>> was not aware of where all his hunting associates are You could
>>>> make excuses for Cheney with his 5 deferments from military
>>>> service.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A "competent" hunter, is a safe hunter who brings home game, and
>>>> "incompetent" hunter is an unsafe hunter who shoots either
>>>> himself, a dog or in this case an old man (we can make exceptions
>>>> since he was a lawyer!)
>>>
>>> I don't know if either man is a "competent hunter". Like competence in
>>> anything, I suppose it can be measured in degrees. If you define a
>>> competent hunter as one who NEVER has such an accident, then we'll
>>> agree that according to that definition he can now be labeled
>>> incompetent. Call it mediocrity, but I'm a big believer in the idea
>>> that humans are fallible and even among the experienced and well
>>> trained, mistakes do happen from time to time.
>>>
>>> Mostly I was disagreeing with the claim that this event supported the
>>> notion that they were "incompetent" in their day jobs as well.
>>> Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Calling them incompetent over
>>> it is quite another. I stand by my contention that individuals in the
>>> Bush administration are generally no more or no less in competent than
>>> in any other administration.
>>>
>>> And as far as anyone's military deferments, that one ran out of gas
>>> long ago. It's as much of a red herring as the whole Halibuton
>>> business. I suppose I should clarify... for YOU they may be worthy
>>> points... that's fine... for me they are not.
>>>
>>> Joe Barta
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> New Wave Dave wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>>>>>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take.
>>>>> To me, it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes
>>>>> happen and the business of life is full of twists and turns.
>>>>> While we may disagree with actions this (or any) administration
>>>>> takes, the word "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and
>>>>> largely uncalled for. They are as "competent" as any other group
>>>>> of people that have done those jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Barta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Joe Barta (in [email protected]) said:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| I'd suggest asking more "open-ended" and fewer "leading"
|| questions.
|
| Open ended questions are for information gathering and to elicit
| opinion.
|
| Pointed and narrow questions can get to the real meat of a
| disagreement. "Leading" (to me) implies that I'm trying to elicit a
| particular response. I'm not. I'm actually looking for
| clarification.
Then you have my apology. To this (interested) bystander it seemed
that you were asking leading questions as if setting him up for a coup
de grâce without risking examination your own (contrary) view, which I
thought unworthy of the person I actually believe you to be. Thanks
for clarifying.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 4. Hunting quail in Texas requires an "Upland game bird stamp",
>> which costs $7. This is a relatively new requirement, but I'll bet
>> Cheney didn't have one.
>>
>
> Do you really have nothing better to do with your time? Why not spend it
> in the shop instead of letting the media dictate to you how to spend all
> of your free time.
Hm. As it turns out, Cheney didn't have that stamp after all...
"Meanwhile, Texas state wildlife officials reported Monday that while Vice
President Cheney had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, he did
not obtain a required "upland game bird stamp."
A warning citation--which carries no fine or penalty--will be issued to
Cheney, which state officials described as "routine." Cheney's office said
he would promptly send in the $7 for the stamp. However, as the Dallas
Morning News headlined on its Web site, he was, on Saturday, "hunting
illegally.""
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996219
My take? The VP was drunk, is a hack hunter (most likely the case, given
his reliance on canned hunts), or both. Not too surprising from a career
politico.
Jason
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>> next 6 months.
>>
>> Dave
>
> I can see the blogs gearing up for their conspiracy theories already.
> "Whittington was the only witness who heard Cheney give orders to Libby
> to bury Wilson".
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Or some shit like that.
>
> I heard he was aiming for quail...
As a general rule, it would be a good idea to be able to see the quail you
are shooting at, which you can not do if there is a person in the way.
Cheney should be disarmed. If he could be muted at the same time, that
would be good.
Steve
Joe Barta (in [email protected]) said:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| it seemed
|| that you were asking leading questions as if setting him up for a
|| coup de grbce without risking examination your own (contrary)
|| view
|
| To be truthful, sometimes I wish I had firmer views on certain
| subjects. Very often I find worthy arguments on both sides of the
| fence and find myself perched precariously on it.
For me, many of what would otherwise be quandaries can be resolved by
spending a bit of time reviewing what I think of as "First Principles"
(truth, justice, fairness, the equality of rights of all persons, the
freedom to act on - and accept responsibility for - any choice which
does not infringe on others' first principle rights, ...) and applying
them to the issues at hand.
| Fortunately, the only responsibility I have in these matters is
| exercised with my occasional vote. I don't relish the jobs that some
| of these folks have taken where they have to make such judgement
| calls day in and day out... and get regularly reamed by whichever
| side happens to disagree with them.
I don't buy that it's so simple. It's a bit like saying that a creator
of fine furniture is responsible only for choosing good wood -
without considering the quality of design, the fit of the peices, the
strength and durability of the work, the comfort factor, the
suitability of the finish to the materials and the intended use, and
the satisfaction of the owner. I would assert that there are no
unprincipled true master craftsmen. Interestingly, one need not be a
woodworker to recognize substandard work.
The role of a leader is that of choosing the path; but choosing the
destination is always in the hands of those led. The leader who says:
"Follow me!" and marches off down a road will march will march with
scant company if that's not where the people think they should be
going. Any leader worthy of the name /must/ provide assurance that
their path really does lead to the desired destination.
| Further, I'm irked when a disagreement over such decisions
| deteriorates into "group-think" accusations of dishonesty,
| incompetence or worse. It's fair to call a spade a spade, but not
| everything is a spade... if that makes any sense.
It makes perfect sense. I think what's really happening is that there
is a blossoming perception that the path doesn't lead where people
really want to go - and that the leader isn't meeting the expectations
he engendered. The whole situation appears to have been worsened by
the leader's failure to communicate adequately and by the perception
(perhaps resulting from the communication failure) that the leader may
not subscribe to the commonly held principles.
| This modern age of 24 hr news and immediate and abundant information
| is a wonderful thing, but it also breeds a culture of armchair
| politicing and a simplistic pep rally mentality over complex issues.
| Who knows... maybe it's always been that way... just a little more
| intense now.
The media folks have decided that "news as entertainment" is more
profitable than "news as information". It hasn't always been that way;
but it will seem so to the next generation.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Good point.
Not sure I would want to be near someone with the name Dick.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>>> next 6 months.
>>
>> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for Mr.
>> Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>> "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>
> Here is my take on this.
>
> It was reported that medical assistance was rendered immediately because
> Dick Cheney travels with a full medical entourage because of his health
> problems. So they jumped in and took care of Cheney's victim immediately.
> Which is a rarity. When is the last time you heard of somebody getting
> shot with doctors standing by?
>
> Any way, I could not help but have this thought. If Dick Cheney's health
> is so sensitive that he must travel with his own personal medical team,
> why are they letting him play with guns?
>
>
>
>
>> David <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I heard he was aiming for Quayle...
... whom he never liked since he was VP in the first Bush
administration.
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the next
> 6 months.
>
> Dave
Old Deadeye Dick.
When your country calls.......and you don't listen? That is weak! In a
pratical sense you make up shit faster then Scott McClellen.
In a practical sense
> however, such a discussion gets muddied up pretty quick because
> everyone has an advantage over another person in some way shape or
> form. Not to mention that relative advantage in all it's
> manifestations is a very real part of ANY society.
How stupid is that? Makes as much sense as the War on Error..........
How does your father fix the dents in the wall.
See like unlike you I keep a very open mind. You simply are entertained by
arguements sake. You poo poo the fuck ups offer nothing in defense then
attack my logic as if it's at fault. Now that is weak.
"And you continuously see things in simplistic and unbalanced terms."
Do you Work for the Whitehouse?
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 2006.2265.262 wrote:
>
>> If you feel that serving your country during time of war is only
>> for those who can't get deferment, I'd have to say that's pretty
>> sad. I didn't enlist in the Marines because I couldn't get a
>> college deferment, I enlisted because it was both my duty and
>> honor to serve my country in time of war. I could have even joined
>> the National Guard, only that I have high self esteem and a great
>> deal of self respect.
>
> I don't know what the laws were regarding deferments or the draft, but
> to argue that person A is somehow less honorable because he chose a
> different lawful route than person B is pretty weak. That said,
> gaining an advantage because you come from more fortunate
> circumstances is another discussion entirely. In a practical sense
> however, such a discussion gets muddied up pretty quick because
> everyone has an advantage over another person in some way shape or
> form. Not to mention that relative advantage in all it's
> manifestations is a very real part of ANY society.
>
>> As for their daily jobs, with all of the errors regarding Iraq
>> (remember back in July the last dying throes of the
>> insurgency?Rose Petals? WMD's?)
>
> Yeah yeah yeah.
>
>> I think Katrina simply speaks for
>> itself.
>
> I understand what you mean, but I don't see "Katrina" in the way that
> you do.
>
>> You can continuously defend the indefensible,
>
> And you continuously see things in simplistic and unbalanced terms.
>
> Joe Barta
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (Dan Quayle comes to mind.)
*THE* Dan Quayle that couldn't spell "potato(e)." Now *there* was
an intellectual.
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 4. Hunting quail in Texas requires an "Upland game bird stamp",
> which costs $7. This is a relatively new requirement, but I'll bet
> Cheney didn't have one.
>
Do you really have nothing better to do with your time? Why not spend it in
the shop instead of letting the media dictate to you how to spend all of
your free time.
At least the victim was a lawyer.
We were wondering if he was a Rep or a Dem. Turns out he was a
Republican. Shooting a Democrat could have improved the talk show
host mileage.
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
[email protected]
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for
> the next 6 months.
>
> Dave
Joey,The Defender of Mediocrity. Shit just NEVER happens any more then an
act of gods do. If you didn't eat you'd never shit. Mistakes, don't always
happen. Lack of attention, piss poor planning etc etc. I can see when
anything goes wrong, you're just full of excuses and others to blame huh?
Cheney was incompetent and derelict for not making sure his field of fire
was clear. He was not aware of where all his hunting associates are You
could make excuses for Cheney with his 5 deferments from military service.
A "competent" hunter, is a safe hunter who brings home game, and
"incompetent" hunter is an unsafe hunter who shoots either himself, a dog or
in this case an old man (we can make exceptions since he was a lawyer!)
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> New Wave Dave wrote:
>
>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>
> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take. To me,
> it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes happen and
> the business of life is full of twists and turns. While we may
> disagree with actions this (or any) administration takes, the word
> "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and largely uncalled for.
> They are as "competent" as any other group of people that have done
> those jobs.
>
> Joe Barta
New Wave Dave wrote:
> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take. To me,
it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes happen and
the business of life is full of twists and turns. While we may
disagree with actions this (or any) administration takes, the word
"incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and largely uncalled for.
They are as "competent" as any other group of people that have done
those jobs.
Joe Barta
DanG wrote:
> At least the victim was a lawyer.
>
> We were wondering if he was a Rep or a Dem. Turns out he was a
> Republican. Shooting a Democrat could have improved the talk show
> host mileage.
We are a culture of labels. You're a this, he's a that... or he might
be one of those and we all know what those are like, right?
Joe Barta
Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> "Joe Barta" wrote
>
>> New Wave Dave wrote:
>>
>>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>
>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take.
>> To me, it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes
>> happen and the business of life is full of twists and turns.
>> While we may disagree with actions this (or any) administration
>> takes, the word "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and
>> largely uncalled for. They are as "competent" as any other group
>> of people that have done those jobs.
>>
> OK Joe,
>
> How about this.
>
> A couple old farts could use a hunter safety refresher course.
That could very well be ;-)
Joe Barta
2006.2265.261 wrote:
> Joey,The Defender of Mediocrity. Shit just NEVER happens any more
> then an act of gods do. If you didn't eat you'd never shit.
> Mistakes, don't always happen. Lack of attention, piss poor
> planning etc etc. I can see when anything goes wrong, you're just
> full of excuses and others to blame huh? Cheney was incompetent
> and derelict for not making sure his field of fire was clear. He
> was not aware of where all his hunting associates are You could
> make excuses for Cheney with his 5 deferments from military
> service.
>
>
> A "competent" hunter, is a safe hunter who brings home game, and
> "incompetent" hunter is an unsafe hunter who shoots either
> himself, a dog or in this case an old man (we can make exceptions
> since he was a lawyer!)
I don't know if either man is a "competent hunter". Like competence in
anything, I suppose it can be measured in degrees. If you define a
competent hunter as one who NEVER has such an accident, then we'll
agree that according to that definition he can now be labeled
incompetent. Call it mediocrity, but I'm a big believer in the idea
that humans are fallible and even among the experienced and well
trained, mistakes do happen from time to time.
Mostly I was disagreeing with the claim that this event supported the
notion that they were "incompetent" in their day jobs as well.
Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Calling them incompetent over
it is quite another. I stand by my contention that individuals in the
Bush administration are generally no more or no less in competent than
in any other administration.
And as far as anyone's military deferments, that one ran out of gas
long ago. It's as much of a red herring as the whole Halibuton
business. I suppose I should clarify... for YOU they may be worthy
points... that's fine... for me they are not.
Joe Barta
> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> New Wave Dave wrote:
>>
>>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>
>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take.
>> To me, it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes
>> happen and the business of life is full of twists and turns.
>> While we may disagree with actions this (or any) administration
>> takes, the word "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and
>> largely uncalled for. They are as "competent" as any other group
>> of people that have done those jobs.
>>
>> Joe Barta
>
>
2006.2265.262 wrote:
> If you feel that serving your country during time of war is only
> for those who can't get deferment, I'd have to say that's pretty
> sad. I didn't enlist in the Marines because I couldn't get a
> college deferment, I enlisted because it was both my duty and
> honor to serve my country in time of war. I could have even joined
> the National Guard, only that I have high self esteem and a great
> deal of self respect.
I don't know what the laws were regarding deferments or the draft, but
to argue that person A is somehow less honorable because he chose a
different lawful route than person B is pretty weak. That said,
gaining an advantage because you come from more fortunate
circumstances is another discussion entirely. In a practical sense
however, such a discussion gets muddied up pretty quick because
everyone has an advantage over another person in some way shape or
form. Not to mention that relative advantage in all it's
manifestations is a very real part of ANY society.
> As for their daily jobs, with all of the errors regarding Iraq
> (remember back in July the last dying throes of the
> insurgency?Rose Petals? WMD's?)
Yeah yeah yeah.
> I think Katrina simply speaks for
> itself.
I understand what you mean, but I don't see "Katrina" in the way that
you do.
> You can continuously defend the indefensible,
And you continuously see things in simplistic and unbalanced terms.
Joe Barta
2006.2265.266 wrote:
> Yes it is hard work and certainly would be, if one applied himself
> instead of spending 50% on Vacation. Bush has even made it easier
> for Al Qaeda to strike.
>
>
> United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports
>
I heard about that. On the surface I'm sure it would cause eyebrows to
be raised. But that's mostly just a knee-jerk reaction. Apparently
this company operates ports all over the world. Sure, it should be
looked at. Sure it might not be a good idea for a number of different
reasons for ANY foreign company to operate US ports. I don't know. But
to put forth the news as "Bush has made it even easier for Al Qaeda to
strike" is just plain silly. If you complain about half-cocked
rhetoric from a side you disagree with, then it's diminishing to
present your own. If you want me to take you seriously then you'll
have to better than that. If you don't care if I, or anyone else for
that matter, takes you seriously then I guess that's OK too.
Joe Barta
David wrote:
> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
> next 6 months.
I watched the interview with the witness (Ms Armstrong I believe) and
stumbled upon the following post in a Google Groups search. Very
interesting...
****************************************************
From: Rent This Space
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 2:19 pm
Email: "Rent This Space" <[email protected]>
Groups: mn.politics
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VEEP WHO COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT: WHAT REALLY
HAPPENED IN DICK CHENEY'S HUNTING "ACCIDENT"? (Updated) February 13,
2006
A smart mid-western friend who has a lot of quail-hunting experience
writes:
The entire Cheney hunting accident story stinks. The delay in
announcing it is suspicious, obviously. I'll bet Cheney had a few
beers in him, but I'm not sure that is illegal in Texas (drinking and
hunting is illegal in most states, but I couldn't find out if that
includes Texas).
But a few other points that may be worth noting:
1. The news reports say the accident happened "around 5:30 pm" on
Saturday. In Texas, quail can be hunted until 30 minutes after
sunset. Sunset on Saturday, in Corpus Christi, was at 6:18, which
means they were legal until 6:48. The "around" is suspicious.
2. The news reports say that after Whittington (left) had gotten
off his shot and went looking for his bird, Cheney and the other
hunter went to another spot where they saw a covey of quail. Texas
quail might be different from Iowa quail, but in Iowa when a shotgun
goes off, every quail within earshot flutters away. The story doesn't
make sense.
3. None of the stories have commented on the fact that they were
"road hunting", or hunting from a car. That is just about the lowest
kind of low-rent, dishonorable kind of hunting there is (the phrase
"road hunting" is often used synonymously with "poaching"). When I
was growing up in Iowa, I went pheasant or quail hunting on scores of
occasions with my Dad and others. We never would have hunted from a
vehicle and it was an insult to even suggest that someone might. It
was considered dangerous and declasse, as it was too great an
advantage for the hunter to be "fair". It most states, including
Texas, it is also illegal:
"It is unlawful to hunt from or by means of motor-driven vehicles
and land conveyances or aircraft of any kind except paraplegics and
single or double amputees of legs may hunt from stationary motor-
driven vehicles or land conveyances."
However, Texas exempts private property owners from the prohibition
when they are on their own land and Cheney was with the property owner
on his ranch. But it is still really tacky.
4. Hunting quail in Texas requires an "Upland game bird stamp",
which costs $7. This is a relatively new requirement, but I'll bet
Cheney didn't have one.
5. The spin is that Whittington "came up from behind the Vice
President", implying that he snuck up on him or was somehow partially
responsible because Cheney didn't know he was there. When hunting, it
is bad form to walk in front of someone's gun. When given a choice,
one would always approach another hunter from behind.
Cheney has gotten negative press in the past for participating in
"canned hunts" and a couple of years ago he got really negative press
for going on a canned pheasant hunt in Pennsylvania where he got
between 70 and 95 birds (depending on which report is to be believed).
The typical daily limit in places like Iowa and South Dakota, where we
have many more pheasants than Pennsylvania, is 3 or 5 per day and a
possession limit of 15 or 20.
To many of our milieu, hunting is hunting is hunting and the
distinctions noted above aren't that big of a deal. To hunters, these
are important distinctions. Hunting regulations are strictly enforced
in most states and every sixpack Joe knows he better abide by them or
he'll get in trouble. Most hunters aren't affluent suede vest guys,
they are working class guys within a couple of generations of
agriculatural roots. The gluttony of shooting 70 pheasant in a day is
almost impossible for them to comprehend.
Focusing on the kill rather than the hunt is frowned upon. Killing
more than you can eat is frowned upon. Canned hunts and that kind of
over-indulgence is for the Rambo hunters, who are not thought highly
of by the old-fashioned Izaak Walton league type of guys, like my Dad.
Someone should be asking if Cheney was drinking, if he was properly
licensed with his Upland Game Bird Stamp, when (and if) the hunting
accident was actually reported to the authorities and if anyone has
investigated why the quail in Texas seem to have gone deaf.
Ms. Armstrong claims to have been in the car, but to have witnessed
the shooting. If so, that would mean the hunters were fairly close,
within eyeshot, which makes it even less likely that Whittington had
gotten off a shot at a quail and then there were other quail still
waiting around for Cheney to find them. It just does not make sense!
UPDATE AT 1:50 PM: At White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's
late morning press conference, he said that Cheney had a valid hunting
license -- but no one asked whether the Veep had the required Upland
Game Bird Stamp. And my quail-hunting friend updates his comments
above with the following:
"I spoke to my younger brother today who did not know anything about
the hunting accident. He kind of lives off the grid, doesn't pay
attention to news, I'm not sure he has a wallet, checking account or
even pays taxes. What he does is hunt and fish. And generally vote
Republican I am sorry to report.
I read him the story and when I got to the part about Cheney and the
other guy going to flush a second covey of quail, he interrupted me
"You NEVER break your hunting party when hunting quail. NEVER NEVER
NEVER." He explained that game birds flight patterns vary when they
are taking flight or flushed. Quail flush in a starburst or "blizzard
pattern" and fly all around, often between the hunters themselves.
Pheasant go up in a linear fashion, away from the hunters.
My brother said that it also depended on what kind of quail they were
hunting and whether or not they were stocked quail or wild quail. He
said if they were "blues" (one of the two main species in Texas), they
typically first run on the ground, in a single file, to the nearest
cover. It might be a piece of sagebrush, but the entire covey will
hover underneath it. Then, when one of them sees better cover and
takes off for it, they'll all follow single file.
He thinks it may be possible that some of them were flushed--and
Whittington took his shot--and the other birds ran a few yards to
better cover, and Cheney and the other hunter followed those birds.
At this point he repeated his comment about "never breaking your party
when hunting quail". That is, apparently, one of the most common
reasons for hunting accidents (that and alcohol). Bobwhite quail don't
run and they'll sit tight until they are flushed.
Whether the initial shot would have caused the other nearby birds to
flush or not may depend on whether or not they were stocked birds. He
said that wild birds usually would flush upon hearing a shot, but
stocked birds may be less likely to and could just sit tight.
"They'll watch the hunters and if the hunters don't see them, they'll
sit tight until they figure out they've been detected and then they'll
flush".
In any case, when I read to him the part about Whittington approaching
the Veep from behind, without announcing himself, he said "that's
bullshit, it is his fault. It is always the shooters' fault". That
reminded me of "the pause" which was what our Dad taught us to do
right before squeezing the trigger. We were taught to build in a
moment, even if a fraction of a second, right before firing the gun to
look at precisely what you were shooting at. This was true whether
hunting birds or shooting skeet (clay pigeons). You never fired your
gun as part of a swinging motion or in excitement; you maintained
safety and control by always having that fractional pause. He said
Cheney is "a weekend warrior who really just wants to do his blasting"
and is "more interested in the kill than in the hunt". He called that
type of hunter "overzealous and lazy" and said they "don't enjoy the
hunt for what it is".
My brother and our Dad have won all sorts of awards for hunting, as
have their dogs. They travel all over the continent to shoot various
fowl (no mammals), including some of the most respected bird hunts,
like the []deleted] and the [deleted] Championship.
I asked him if he could be quoted on the record and he said "you gotta
be kidding, these people will track you down". That prompted me to
ask him if the election were held today, would he vote for Bush or
Kerry and he stunned me by saying he thought he'd go for Kerry now.
That was the best news of the day. I then asked Bush or Hillary and
he said "I won't for her". I asked Bush or Vilsack and he said,
without hesitation, Vilsack."
****************************************************
Frank Ketchum wrote:
>> 4. Hunting quail in Texas requires an "Upland game bird
>> stamp", which costs $7. This is a relatively new requirement,
>> but I'll bet Cheney didn't have one.
>>
>
> Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?
Apparently not.
> Why not
> spend it in the shop
I do from time to time.
> instead of letting the media dictate to you
That was just a copy of a post in another group. I found it
interesting. Considering the topic of the off-topic discussion, I
thought maybe others would as well. Nothing dictated here. No
conspiracy, no wool over my eyes last time I checked.
> how to spend all of your free time.
I spend my time as I wish. It would seem you do as well.
No hard feelings.
Joe Barta
>
>>> Joe wrote: What exactly are you seeing or hearing that causes you
>>> to have such a
>>> bad opinion about him?
>>
He had a good voting record concerning guns:
He was one of just 21 members of Congress, in December of 1985, to vote
against a ban on armor piercing bullets -- called cop killer bullets.
Three years later he was one of only four members of the House voting
against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security
machines undetected.
tom wrote:
>> Joe wrote: What exactly are you seeing or hearing that causes you
>> to have such a
>> bad opinion about him?
>
> The fact that he's condoning (maybe even orchestrating?) this
> administrations' actions should be enough. IMO, if he were an
> honorable man, I think he'd have resigned a long time ago, just
> like Powell had done. Tom
So, is it fair to say that the basis for your despising him is that he
is either responsible for, or in approval of, the Bush
administration's decisions and actions?
If that's a fair assessment of your point of view, is it also fair to
extrapolate that into saying that you would despise ANYONE that is
responsible for, or in approval of the Bush administration's actions?
Understanding that this would encompass probably many millions of
people from the top levels of the administration, to the local party
worker that help get him into office, to the people that support at
least much of what he's doing and voted for him?
Joe Barta
tom wrote:
> While_ I_ never said "despise", yes, I think all you've written is
> a fair assessment of my take on the situation. Again, "despise" is
> a bit much, but "have a bad opinion of" certainly fits the bill.
> Tom
>
Fair enough, but the more important points were:
1) that the basis for your "dislike" is due to policy rather than
personality,
and 2) that you would not save your dislike for just Cheney or other
well known public figures, but would enthusiastically extend that
dislike to the many minions that either make up the Bush
administration or support it.
You also suggest that your dislike for those minions might be somewhat
tempered, or possibly even turn to respect if the entire Bush
administration, from the Vice President down to the lowest ranking
temporary assistant policy advisor were to immediately resign. As far
as the the huge numbers that don't directly work for the
administration, they, at the very least, would have to cease and
desist their support and find something/someone else to support.
Is that a fair assesment of your position?
Joe Barta
Morris Dovey wrote:
> | and 2) that you would not save your dislike for just Cheney or
> | other well known public figures, but would enthusiastically
> | extend that dislike to the many minions that either make up the
> | Bush administration or support it.
>
> Careful! There are many who support the administration without any
> particular liking for at least some of the more important choices
> it has made.
I absolutely agree with you there. I am one of those people.
To me, a reasonable statement would be: "I disagree with
some/many/most decisions that the Bush administration has made" and
maybe even add "Dick Cheney just grates on my nerves".
The poster however originally stated that he "despised" Dick Cheney. I
sought to get that fleshed out a little and see if he had a problem
with the man or his actions. I believe he said it was the actions.
(you pointed out that the two are not completely separated... I'm not
entirely sure I understand your point, but that's a discussion for
another time)
I think it's reasonable to suggest that even a good and decent man can
make decisions that one strongly disagrees with.
> | You also suggest that your dislike for those minions might be
> | somewhat tempered, or possibly even turn to respect if the
> | entire Bush administration, from the Vice President down to the
> | lowest ranking temporary assistant policy advisor were to
> | immediately resign. As far as the the huge numbers that don't
> | directly work for the administration, they, at the very least,
> | would have to cease and desist their support and find
> | something/someone else to support.
>
> I'd suggest asking more "open-ended" and fewer "leading"
> questions.
Open ended questions are for information gathering and to elicit
opinion.
Pointed and narrow questions can get to the real meat of a
disagreement. "Leading" (to me) implies that I'm trying to elicit a
particular response. I'm not. I'm actually looking for clarification.
If you said you hate fish... and I asked why... and you said because
it comes from the ocean... I would be reasonable in asking if you also
hate fish that comes from a freshwater lake or if you also hate shrimp
and lobster. I might also ask if you hated fish that is normally found
in the ocean but happens to have been raised on an inland farm. These
are not leading questions to me.
These are questions that seek clarification for one of two reasons...
1) to increase my own understanding of the assertion, or 2) to
challenge that assertion as it was made.
> If you have a contrary view to present, present it and
> lit it sink or swim on its own merits.
Presenting ones views can be useful activity in a discussion forum.
Having those views challenged, or challenging the views of others can
also be useful in my opinion. If I have an opinion on a matter I
usually present it. What better way to clarify and solidify your
thinking than to have it withstand scrutiny?
> Politics /need/ not be a
> zero-sum game.
Again we are in agreement.
Joe Barta
Morris Dovey wrote:
> it seemed
> that you were asking leading questions as if setting him up for a
> coup de grâce without risking examination your own (contrary)
> view
To be truthful, sometimes I wish I had firmer views on certain
subjects. Very often I find worthy arguments on both sides of the
fence and find myself perched precariously on it.
Fortunately, the only responsibility I have in these matters is
exercised with my occasional vote. I don't relish the jobs that some
of these folks have taken where they have to make such judgement calls
day in and day out... and get regularly reamed by whichever side
happens to disagree with them.
Further, I'm irked when a disagreement over such decisions
deteriorates into "group-think" accusations of dishonesty,
incompetence or worse. It's fair to call a spade a spade, but not
everything is a spade... if that makes any sense.
This modern age of 24 hr news and immediate and abundant information
is a wonderful thing, but it also breeds a culture of armchair
politicing and a simplistic pep rally mentality over complex issues.
Who knows... maybe it's always been that way... just a little more
intense now.
Joe Barta
Al wrote:
>>
>>>> Joe wrote: What exactly are you seeing or hearing that causes
>>>> you to have such a
>>>> bad opinion about him?
>>>
> He had a good voting record concerning guns:
> He was one of just 21 members of Congress, in December of 1985, to
> vote against a ban on armor piercing bullets -- called cop killer
> bullets.
>
> Three years later he was one of only four members of the House
> voting against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through
> airport security machines undetected.
>
It's interesting when you think about it...
If a congressman is one of a handful that votes AGAINST my view, he is
a rogue and out of touch with the mainstream.
If a congressman is one of a handful that votes FOR my view, he is a
maverick and a man of principle.
If a congressman is one of the majority that votes AGAINST my view, he
is in the pocket of the political machine.
And if a congressman is one of the majority that votes FOR my view, he
is a good guy that understands what needs to be done.
It's a messy business to be sure.
Joe Barta
wrote:
> But listen to them speak to their public. It is pretty clear that
> one is trying hard to sound 'eloquent' the other trying equally
> hard to sound 'plainspoken'. I daresay that tells us one is
> trying to impress people who respect education while the
> other is trying to impress those who look down on it--NOT to
> be confused with trying to impress the educated or uneducated.
I think you're jumping to an erroneous conclusion. In some respects I
think you're doing what the Bush folks did with pre-war intelligence.
You have an agenda, and you spin your observations somewhat to further
that agenda.
I think with Bush and Kerry and most other politicans, we have a range
of personalities and styles. And sure, trying to appeal to people, and
even trying to develop a public persona is, for some, part of the
game. But to translate that into "Kerry tries to appeal to educated
people and Bush tries to appeal to uneducated people" is mostly
nonsense. Matter of fact, I think a similar argument equal to yours
could be made the other way around... that Kerry appeals to the
ignorant.
Besides, I thought the standard battle cry was "Democrats are for the
workin man and Republicans are for the rich man." According to you,
either that has changed, or the workin man is a whole lot more
edumacated these days.
If you want to talk about appealing to one group or another, I'm
reminded of a Kerry speech in Cleveland, in a poor, all black district
where he was uncomfortably the only cracker on a crowded stage. To me
it was comical, but he did manage to get them pretty whipped up with
talk about how he understands them and is with them. Some things truly
never change.
> It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
> the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
What exactly do you mean by this?
Joe Barta
wrote:
> You missed my point entirely.
Re-reading it seems I did miss something. I'm a little unclear about
the distinction you draw and why you draw it, but I suppose we'll
chalk that up to me being a little thick... plus I've had a busy
morning.
Note to self... read a little slower and try for a little better
comprehension before opening piehole.
>> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees
>> > from the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by this?
>>
>
> "The peepel is Oll Korekt."
Still unclear but I guess it's a poke in the right direction.
People have told me that sometimes I *overexplain* things. That's
because when I say something to someone I want them to understand what
I was trying to tell them. That sometimes leaves one us impressed.
If that other person walks away still confused, then again, only one
of us is impressed.
Joe Barta
wrote:
> "The peepel is Oll Korekt." was a supposed slogan displayed in a
> parade during the Presidential Campaign in which William Henry
> Harrison was elected. Supposedly it was the opposition who put
> it up in an effort to besmirch Harrison's supporters as ignorant.
>
> Today we have politicians trying to NOT appear intellectual in an
> effort to impress voters.
>
> The last time I remember a Presidential candidate giving a speech
> in which he actually tried to be eloquent was circa 1992-- by Jesse
> Jackson, in the days of his Rainbow Coalition.
>
> Not long thereafter he abandoned eloquence.
>
Very interesting. Now I understand what you were trying to say.
One of us is impressed ;-) Thank-you.
Joe Barta
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> It's long been a given in politics that people won't vote for
> someone they think is smarter than them.
It might be a given, but it's news to me.
I think there's great value however in a politician that can "connect"
with people. I'd say it probably has more to do with charisma than
anything else.
I think most elections are, to a great degree, popularity contests.
Show me an ethical, intelligent, knowlegable dweeb and I'll show you a
man who has almost no chance in national politics. (Dan Quayle comes
to mind.)
> Always seemed backwards to me, but the human animal is a perverse
> species :-).
There's that implied notion again that people are (insert negative
characteristic here), but I'm not one of them. *I* have a good bead on
things but so many others don't.
I suppose I'm as guilty of that as the next guy. Maybe that makes me
perverse ;-)
Joe Barta
New Wave Dave wrote:
> *THE* Dan Quayle that couldn't spell "potato(e)." Now *there*
> was an intellectual.
I'm a pretty good speller and I think about how often I misspell the
words "excercise" and "recieve". I might as well misspell "potatoe"
too! But I have an excuse... I'm no intellectual and I'm having a hell
of time trying to be intelligent. I'm also not running for office...
yet ;-)
Joe Barta
"New Wave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the next
>> 6 months.
>
> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for Mr.
> Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
> "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
Here is my take on this.
It was reported that medical assistance was rendered immediately because
Dick Cheney travels with a full medical entourage because of his health
problems. So they jumped in and took care of Cheney's victim immediately.
Which is a rarity. When is the last time you heard of somebody getting shot
with doctors standing by?
Any way, I could not help but have this thought. If Dick Cheney's health is
so sensitive that he must travel with his own personal medical team, why are
they letting him play with guns?
For what ever it may be worth: "I'd rather bird hunt with Dick Cheney than
carpool with Ted Kennedy"
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:43:05 -0000, [email protected] (Robert
> Bonomi)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>>>>> next 6 months.
>>>>
>>>> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
>>>>Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>>>>"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>>
>>> ... and yet they continue to win elections. What does that say for the
>>>other side?
>>
>>"out-competence" ?? *snicker*
>
> Clinton to Cheney: "A $7 fine? The last time I shot someone in the face,
> they
> impeached me!"
>
> Mac
>
> https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
> https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's interesting when you think about it...
>
> If a congressman is one of a handful that votes AGAINST my view, he is
> a rogue and out of touch with the mainstream.
>
> If a congressman is one of a handful that votes FOR my view, he is a
> maverick and a man of principle.
>
> If a congressman is one of the majority that votes AGAINST my view, he
> is in the pocket of the political machine.
>
> And if a congressman is one of the majority that votes FOR my view, he
> is a good guy that understands what needs to be done.
>
> It's a messy business to be sure.
>
> Joe Barta
Sort of goes along with the George Carlin routine about anyone who drives
slower than you is an asshole and anyone driving faster than you is a
maniac.
todd
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Joe Barta wrote:
>
>>> Today we have politicians trying to NOT appear intellectual in an
>>> effort to impress voters.
>
>It's long been a given in politics that people won't vote for someone
>they think is smarter than them.
That explains how the dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks Congresscritter in my district
keeps getting re-elected, year after year after year... :-(
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ChrIf.160983$WH.42841@dukeread01...
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> 4. Hunting quail in Texas requires an "Upland game bird stamp",
>>> which costs $7. This is a relatively new requirement, but I'll bet
>>> Cheney didn't have one.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really have nothing better to do with your time? Why not spend it
>> in the shop instead of letting the media dictate to you how to spend all
>> of your free time.
>
> Hm. As it turns out, Cheney didn't have that stamp after all...
>
> "Meanwhile, Texas state wildlife officials reported Monday that while Vice
> President Cheney had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, he
> did not obtain a required "upland game bird stamp."
>
> A warning citation--which carries no fine or penalty--will be issued to
> Cheney, which state officials described as "routine." Cheney's office said
> he would promptly send in the $7 for the stamp. However, as the Dallas
> Morning News headlined on its Web site, he was, on Saturday, "hunting
> illegally.""
>
> http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996219
>
> My take? The VP was drunk, is a hack hunter (most likely the case, given
> his reliance on canned hunts), or both. Not too surprising from a career
> politico.
>
Uh, as much as I despise Cheney, I don't think he's a career politician.
Seems to me he ran a business, which we might recall is doing rather well
these days in spite of screwing up nearly every contract the Feds give it.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>> next 6 months.
>
> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
>Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
This Just in.....
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issued a statement today saying Vice
President Cheney broke no law by shooting a lawyer instead of a quail. A TPWD
spokesman noted that, in Texas, lawyers are not considered game creatures, and
are thus not subject to seasonal limitations or bag limits. It was further
noted that lawyer hunting was encouraged as the state is overrun with the pesky
creatures. A local food critic said that, contrary to rumor, lawyers do not
taste like chicken, but rather like bovine dung which is a major component of
their composition.
In article <[email protected]>,
David <[email protected]> wrote:
> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
> next 6 months.
>
> Dave
I can see the blogs gearing up for their conspiracy theories already.
"Whittington was the only witness who heard Cheney give orders to Libby
to bury Wilson".
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or some shit like that.
I heard he was aiming for quail...
In article <[email protected]>,
Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> > This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
> > next 6 months.
Cheney made a small mistake... he thought they were hunting peasants...not
pheasants
"New Wave Dave" <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
> Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration.
As in "Shoot first. Ask qustions later"? I'm watching Letterman tonight.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from
the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al
Qaida and aligned groups.
But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from
the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al
Qaida and aligned groups.
But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from
the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al
Qaida and aligned groups.
But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from
the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al
Qaida and aligned groups.
But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from
the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al
Qaida and aligned groups.
Funny How Bush couldn't find any American Firms to do it. So where will you
stand when they start letting in Car bombs. IED's and dirty bombs?
or in the least maken' money for Al Qaeda.............................
Sorry kid I don't think I need you to take me anyway. Like I said you say
nothing but bullshit!
I had you pegged from day one!
Joey,The Defender of Mediocrity and Ruler of Incompetence!
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 2006.2265.266 wrote:
>
>> Yes it is hard work and certainly would be, if one applied himself
>> instead of spending 50% on Vacation. Bush has even made it easier
>> for Al Qaeda to strike.
>>
>>
>> United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports
>>
>
> I heard about that. On the surface I'm sure it would cause eyebrows to
> be raised. But that's mostly just a knee-jerk reaction. Apparently
> this company operates ports all over the world. Sure, it should be
> looked at. Sure it might not be a good idea for a number of different
> reasons for ANY foreign company to operate US ports. I don't know. But
> to put forth the news as "Bush has made it even easier for Al Qaeda to
> strike" is just plain silly. If you complain about half-cocked
> rhetoric from a side you disagree with, then it's diminishing to
> present your own. If you want me to take you seriously then you'll
> have to better than that. If you don't care if I, or anyone else for
> that matter, takes you seriously then I guess that's OK too.
>
> Joe Barta
>
"Joe Barta" wrote
> New Wave Dave wrote:
>
>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>
> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take. To me,
> it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes happen and
> the business of life is full of twists and turns. While we may
> disagree with actions this (or any) administration takes, the word
> "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and largely uncalled for.
> They are as "competent" as any other group of people that have done
> those jobs.
>
OK Joe,
How about this.
A couple old farts could use a hunter safety refresher course.
[email protected] wrote:
> New Wave Dave wrote:
>
>>"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> (Dan Quayle comes to mind.)
>>
>> *THE* Dan Quayle that couldn't spell "potato(e)." Now *there* was
>>an intellectual.
>
>
> Here's how they spell it in Idahoe:
>
> http://www.idaho-potatoes.com/potatoe.html
>
Yep site probably designed by some nincompoop from
New York.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >Joe Barta wrote:
>> >> [someone] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It seems that as a society we have turned around 180 degrees from
>> >> > the days of WIlliam Henry Harrison.
>> >>
>> >> What exactly do you mean by this?
>> >
>> >"The peepel is Oll Korekt."
>>
>> That was Andrew Jackson, not W. H. Harrison.
>>
>
>I'll bet you a dollar it was William Henry Harrison.
>
I'll bet you a dollar it wasn't.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Joe Barta <[email protected]> writes:
>It's interesting when you think about it...
>
>If a congressman is one of a handful that votes AGAINST my view, he is
>a rogue and out of touch with the mainstream.
>
>If a congressman is one of a handful that votes FOR my view, he is a
>maverick and a man of principle.
>
>If a congressman is one of the majority that votes AGAINST my view, he
>is in the pocket of the political machine.
>
>And if a congressman is one of the majority that votes FOR my view, he
>is a good guy that understands what needs to be done.
>
>It's a messy business to be sure.
Same thing applies to judges:
If a judge rules the way I think he should, he is applying the law.
If a judge rules against the way I think, he is making the law.
Indeed messy.
scott
>
>Joe Barta
Do you think Dick eats Quail???
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joe Barta" wrote
>>
>>> New Wave Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>>>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>>
>>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take.
>>> To me, it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes
>>> happen and the business of life is full of twists and turns.
>>> While we may disagree with actions this (or any) administration
>>> takes, the word "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and
>>> largely uncalled for. They are as "competent" as any other group
>>> of people that have done those jobs.
>>>
>> OK Joe,
>>
>> How about this.
>>
>> A couple old farts could use a hunter safety refresher course.
>
>
> That could very well be ;-)
>
> Joe Barta
>
WD <[email protected]> writes:
>
>Have you forgotten we are still at wars? We should show respect for our leaders
We are currently fighting three different wars on various nouns:
Johnson's War On Poverty
Reagan's War on Drugs
Bush's War on Terror
>and not making fun of them. They work very hard and need to take time off and
>get the steam off. (Still remember when Bush said being a President is hard
>work). Remember our enemies are watching and listening!
Good for them. Maybe they'll learn something about a free press and
democracy.
scott
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote :
> Uh, as much as I despise Cheney, I don't think he's a career politician.
Actually, he is. To wit:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/bush/stories/cheney/
"Cheney came to Washington in 1968, where he was a congressional fellow
and became a protege of Illinois Republican Rep. Donald Rumsfeld, a close
friend of Gerald Ford, who was then House minority leader.
When Ford tapped Rumsfeld to be his chief of staff in 1974, Rumsfeld made
Cheney his deputy. In 1975, Rumsfeld moved over to the Pentagon to serve
as defense secretary and Cheney succeeded his boss, becoming at age 35
the youngest chief of staff in White House history.
Cheney held the post for 14 months and managed Ford's 1976 presidential
election bid against Jimmy Carter. After Ford's defeat, Cheney returned
to
Wyoming, where he ran for the state's sole congressional seat in 1978.
He won the seat easily and his experience in the Ford White House proved
helpful. At the start of his second term, he became chairman of the
Republican
Policy Committee by beating out a fellow Republican with more seniority.
He quickly rose within the GOP power chain as one of President Reagan's
most ardent supporters, backing him up on military issues like the "Star
Wars"
missile defense system. He was elected House Minority Whip in 1988."
If 38 years in government jobs doesn't qualify a man as a "career"
politician, I dunno
what would.
> Seems to me he ran a business, which we might recall is doing rather well
> these days in spite of screwing up nearly every contract the Feds give it.
He got the job at Halliburton because he was an insider. He got a CEO job
despite never having worked in the oil biz. Strange, eh?
Jason
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
> next 6 months.
I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:46:58 -0800, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>next 6 months.
>
>Dave
He mistook him for Scooter Libby
Kevin Craig said:
>> Three years later he was one of only four members of the House voting
>> against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security
>> machines undetected.
Glock? While they still possess metal barrels and slides, and are not
invisible to metal detectors, the frame and many other parts are
indeed plastic, or more accurately (trademark-wise), 'Polymer 2'.
>
>No such thing has ever existed, and is extremely unlikely to ever exist.
A plastic zip gun is workable. Still doesn't explain how you're going
to get a box of brass shells through security, however. Low grain cnt
or not.
In this modern age of polymers, kevlar, and carbon fibre, I'm glad to
see that the use of the word 'impossible' was rightly avoided...
But you can still blow a hand off with a paper tube and powder. :-\
FWIW,
Greg G.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:46:58 -0800, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>next 6 months.
Shooting a lawyer because your poll numbers are low seems to be a
cheap shot, if ya ask me.
- Matt
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:43:05 -0000, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>>>> next 6 months.
>>>
>>> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
>>>Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>>>"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>
>> ... and yet they continue to win elections. What does that say for the
>>other side?
>
>"out-competence" ?? *snicker*
Clinton to Cheney: "A $7 fine? The last time I shot someone in the face, they
impeached me!"
Mac
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> New Wave Dave wrote:
>
>> *THE* Dan Quayle that couldn't spell "potato(e)." Now *there*
>> was an intellectual.
>
> I'm a pretty good speller and I think about how often I misspell the
> words "excercise" and "recieve". I might as well misspell "potatoe"
> too! But I have an excuse... I'm no intellectual and I'm having a hell
> of time trying to be intelligent. I'm also not running for office...
> yet ;-)
Yeah, Joe. And I've had brain surgery.
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:55:33 GMT, "New Wave Dave" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> This story will keep the late night talk show hosts in jokes for the
>> next 6 months.
>
> I'm already ROFLMAO! Though I'm sure it's no laughing matter for
>Mr. Armstrong. It's so symbolic of this administration. The word
>"incompetence" continues to describe these people.
... and yet they continue to win elections. What does that say for the
other side?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Joe Barta (in [email protected]) said:
| tom wrote:
|
|| While_ I_ never said "despise", yes, I think all you've written is
|| a fair assessment of my take on the situation. Again, "despise" is
|| a bit much, but "have a bad opinion of" certainly fits the bill.
|| Tom
||
|
| Fair enough, but the more important points were:
|
| 1) that the basis for your "dislike" is due to policy rather than
| personality,
Policy and personality may not be completely disjoint at the top
level.
| and 2) that you would not save your dislike for just Cheney or other
| well known public figures, but would enthusiastically extend that
| dislike to the many minions that either make up the Bush
| administration or support it.
Careful! There are many who support the administration without any
particular liking for at least some of the more important choices it
has made.
| You also suggest that your dislike for those minions might be
| somewhat tempered, or possibly even turn to respect if the entire
| Bush administration, from the Vice President down to the lowest
| ranking temporary assistant policy advisor were to immediately
| resign. As far as the the huge numbers that don't directly work for
| the administration, they, at the very least, would have to cease and
| desist their support and find something/someone else to support.
I'd suggest asking more "open-ended" and fewer "leading" questions. If
you have a contrary view to present, present it and lit it sink or
swim on its own merits. Politics /need/ not be a zero-sum game.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
If you feel that serving your country during time of war is only for those
who can't get deferment, I'd have to say that's pretty sad. I didn't enlist
in the Marines because I couldn't get a college deferment, I enlisted
because it was both my duty and honor to serve my country in time of war. I
could have even joined the National Guard, only that I have high self esteem
and a great deal of self respect.
As for their daily jobs, with all of the errors regarding Iraq (remember
back in July the last dying throes of the insurgency?Rose Petals? WMD's?) I
think Katrina simply speaks for itself. You can continuously defend the
indefensible, but then some kids constantly beat their heads against a wall
too!
"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 2006.2265.261 wrote:
>
>> Joey,The Defender of Mediocrity. Shit just NEVER happens any more
>> then an act of gods do. If you didn't eat you'd never shit.
>> Mistakes, don't always happen. Lack of attention, piss poor
>> planning etc etc. I can see when anything goes wrong, you're just
>> full of excuses and others to blame huh? Cheney was incompetent
>> and derelict for not making sure his field of fire was clear. He
>> was not aware of where all his hunting associates are You could
>> make excuses for Cheney with his 5 deferments from military
>> service.
>>
>>
>> A "competent" hunter, is a safe hunter who brings home game, and
>> "incompetent" hunter is an unsafe hunter who shoots either
>> himself, a dog or in this case an old man (we can make exceptions
>> since he was a lawyer!)
>
> I don't know if either man is a "competent hunter". Like competence in
> anything, I suppose it can be measured in degrees. If you define a
> competent hunter as one who NEVER has such an accident, then we'll
> agree that according to that definition he can now be labeled
> incompetent. Call it mediocrity, but I'm a big believer in the idea
> that humans are fallible and even among the experienced and well
> trained, mistakes do happen from time to time.
>
> Mostly I was disagreeing with the claim that this event supported the
> notion that they were "incompetent" in their day jobs as well.
> Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Calling them incompetent over
> it is quite another. I stand by my contention that individuals in the
> Bush administration are generally no more or no less in competent than
> in any other administration.
>
> And as far as anyone's military deferments, that one ran out of gas
> long ago. It's as much of a red herring as the whole Halibuton
> business. I suppose I should clarify... for YOU they may be worthy
> points... that's fine... for me they are not.
>
> Joe Barta
>
>
>> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> New Wave Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's so symbolic of this administration. The
>>>> word "incompetence" continues to describe these people.
>>>
>>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I disagree on your take.
>>> To me, it's symbolic of nothing more than shit happens, mistakes
>>> happen and the business of life is full of twists and turns.
>>> While we may disagree with actions this (or any) administration
>>> takes, the word "incompetence" is, I believe, WAY over used and
>>> largely uncalled for. They are as "competent" as any other group
>>> of people that have done those jobs.
>>>
>>> Joe Barta
>>
>>
>