Will Cheney get indicted for manslaughter....
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
I see you are in troll mode. As a matter of logic, this incident proves nothing about anything except this incident.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are.
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage. When you shoot a man instead of a bird, you look like an idiot. Politicians who do things that make them look like idiots invariably get ridiculed. At least that is what happens on the planet that I live on; I don't know about the one where you live. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
I see you are in troll mode
I disagree, looks pretty much like standard mode to me :)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The media gave Kerry exactly what he wanted - while obviously fakeing a duck hunt. No question were asked until it could no longer be avoided. Kerry could not possible have shot anyone, since he didn't shoot at all. It was clearly a lie which the main stream media did everything possible to cover up for him.
The hunt was ridiculed from day one and your claim that "he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. The hunt was undoubtedly a publicity stunt and was treated as such by the media. No special favours were given to Kerry. Of course if you work from the premise that the Democrats are always wrong and the Republicans always right, then I guess the media will seem to you to have a pro-Democrat bias. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
The media doesn't have a 'pro-democrat' bias - it is a wing of the democratic party. And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 7:52 Wednesday 15th February, 2006
-
The media doesn't have a 'pro-democrat' bias - it is a wing of the democratic party. And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 7:52 Wednesday 15th February, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out.
I think this clearly reveals where the bias lies. You make an unsupported allegation and then the fact that there is no evidence to support it is proof of a cover up!!:laugh::laugh: John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
if this guy dies? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_whittington[^]
No. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out.
I think this clearly reveals where the bias lies. You make an unsupported allegation and then the fact that there is no evidence to support it is proof of a cover up!!:laugh::laugh: John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
You make an unsupported allegation and then the fact that there is no evidence to support it is proof of a cover up!!
What the hell are you talking about? Your previous post clearly indicates that there is information we don't have. I'm saying the lack of such information is proof of the media's bias. And obviously so. If we don't know - why not? I mean, this is important stuff - did Kerry shoot the bird or not? I demand to know! Why won't the press get to the bottom of it? This guy has a good take... http://www.newswithviews.com/fredinburg/fredinburg11.htm[^] "You get that which you tolerate"
-
digital man wrote:
It was, from what I've read, an accident. Please enlighten me.
If I have an accident in my car and I kill someone, or even just hospitalise them, then there is a very real change I would be charged with that. If the person dies I'd more than likely be imprisoned for killing the person even although it was an accident. If it could be proved that the accident was a fault of the vehicle, for example if the brakes failed, then I'd get off. I'd suggest as the injuries were sustained while the gun was functioning normally then the "accident" is the fault of the user.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
That's not true at all (at least in America). Unless you were drinking, doing something intentional or breaking the law (as in hit and run), you're not going to face manslaughter charges. However, if you're a Kennedy, you're free to drink, drive and drown a young lady, get away with it and then become a senator and darling of the Democratic Party.
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
So that whole botched invasion of Iraq thing is proved wrong by a hunting accident.
It isn't a matter of proof, but of perception. "You get that which you tolerate"
:confused: Not quite sure what you mean by that. But the invasion of Iraq was botched by any reasonable standards. It didn't even meet the aims of the Bush administration.
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
So that whole botched invasion of Iraq thing is proved wrong by a hunting accident.
It isn't a matter of proof, but of perception. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't a matter of proof, but of perception.
So if I perceive you as being a psychotic, delusional, asshat.... you must be a psychotic, delusional, asshat. :rolleyes: ;P I might have an idea of what you meant, but that sentence just doesn't hold water very well. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't a matter of proof, but of perception.
So if I perceive you as being a psychotic, delusional, asshat.... you must be a psychotic, delusional, asshat. :rolleyes: ;P I might have an idea of what you meant, but that sentence just doesn't hold water very well. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote:
but that sentence just doesn't hold water very well.
Then I shall elaborate. If the media makes such a big deal out of what virtually every American (at least red-staters) knows to be absolute bullshit then all the media reports on Bush begin to smell more like bullshit then they already did - regardless of how true they might otherwise be. The media only shoots itself in the foot by pushing these kinds of non-stories just to give aide and assistance to the democrats. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
I see you are in troll mode. As a matter of logic, this incident proves nothing about anything except this incident.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are.
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage. When you shoot a man instead of a bird, you look like an idiot. Politicians who do things that make them look like idiots invariably get ridiculed. At least that is what happens on the planet that I live on; I don't know about the one where you live. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage.
Actually, Hillary's van did hit someone. VanGate My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
:confused: Not quite sure what you mean by that. But the invasion of Iraq was botched by any reasonable standards. It didn't even meet the aims of the Bush administration.
I never mentioned Iraq one way or another. But the immediate linkage of a silly hunting incident in Texas to the invasion of Iraq kind of says it all. Anything, regardless of how silly and insignificant that might in even the most remote way deligitimize the Bush administration is related to Iraq. By doing so, you deligitimize whatever small amount of legitimate criticism might exist. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
John Carson wrote:
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage.
Actually, Hillary's van did hit someone. VanGate My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Gee, I wonder why so few of us knew about that? Fucking lefties, you just gotta love the little Orwellian bastards. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
jasontg wrote:
but that sentence just doesn't hold water very well.
Then I shall elaborate. If the media makes such a big deal out of what virtually every American (at least red-staters) knows to be absolute bullshit then all the media reports on Bush begin to smell more like bullshit then they already did - regardless of how true they might otherwise be. The media only shoots itself in the foot by pushing these kinds of non-stories just to give aide and assistance to the democrats. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The media only shoots itself in the foot
I don't agree with this point. The media, just like any other politician, tries to make their "base" happy. Considering that the polls show that considerably more people dislike Cheney than like him, the media is simply feeding on that. I don't see it as shooting themselves in the foot, I see it as playing to the majority. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The media only shoots itself in the foot
I don't agree with this point. The media, just like any other politician, tries to make their "base" happy. Considering that the polls show that considerably more people dislike Cheney than like him, the media is simply feeding on that. I don't see it as shooting themselves in the foot, I see it as playing to the majority. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote:
Considering that the polls show that considerably more people dislike Cheney than like him, the media is simply feeding on that.
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it. Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I never mentioned Iraq one way or another. But the immediate linkage of a silly hunting incident in Texas to the invasion of Iraq kind of says it all. Anything, regardless of how silly and insignificant that might in even the most remote way deligitimize the Bush administration is related to Iraq. By doing so, you deligitimize whatever small amount of legitimate criticism might exist. "You get that which you tolerate"
You called for that linkage yourself. Nobody mentionned Irak until after you said: "This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been"
-
I have never known anyone to face such charges as a consequence of a fatal hunting accident. When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled. Civil lawsuits (as you might imagine) are far more common in such cases. Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny. This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been. The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny.
And it's all in your silly head. (Or did Rush and Hannity tell you to say that?)
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
Wow, you guys are desperate! The VP of the US shoots some guy in the face, he hides it for 24 hours, he doesn't even make a statement about it, and now the fact that the media is anxiously looking for answers (because, after all, it's the VP of the US, and he SHOT someone) is proof that every charge leveled against this administration is baseless? How moronic! Tell me if Rush or Hannity have presented my take: This incident proves once again the arrogance, incompetence, and criminality of this administration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country
Quick! Look over there... at that other guy! He's the real bad guy, not us!
Don't make me come down there. - God
-
Vivic wrote:
Do we also assume the risks involved when you cross the street of your own free will? Or is the motorist held responsible?
Depends on who had the right of way to some extent. If I purposefully step in front of your car while jay walking the charges will be much different than if you plow through a red light while I'm crossing legally. There is no legal concept of 'right of way' in an open field. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I purposefully step in front of your car while jay walking the charges will be much different than if you plow through a red light while I'm crossing legally.
You still go to jail for manslaughter. Jeremy Falcon
-
if this guy dies? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_whittington[^]
He should. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Jeremy Falcon
-
jasontg wrote:
Considering that the polls show that considerably more people dislike Cheney than like him, the media is simply feeding on that.
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it. Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they created the negative Cheney image and continue to exploit it.
Yep, thanks to Mr. go-f*ck-yourself Cheney himself.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another good example of that is comparing the media treatment of Dan Quale and John Edwards. Quale was a 100 times as proficient in Congress as Edwards was, but Edwards' media image was much more positive than was Quale's. Everytime Quale did anything that tended to validate the image of him the media was promoting, it was broadcast. Edwards, the original empty suit, on the other hand, could do no wrong.
Hey, what a coincidence, we're discussing Cheney and you bring up Quayle. If only Cheney had shot one of those instead of his hunting buddy. :sigh: Anyway, Dan was not nearly as good as Bush, but he was still very proficient at making an ass[^] out of himself in public. I wonder if that had anything to do with his image. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Don't make me come down there. - God
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny.
And it's all in your silly head. (Or did Rush and Hannity tell you to say that?)
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
Wow, you guys are desperate! The VP of the US shoots some guy in the face, he hides it for 24 hours, he doesn't even make a statement about it, and now the fact that the media is anxiously looking for answers (because, after all, it's the VP of the US, and he SHOT someone) is proof that every charge leveled against this administration is baseless? How moronic! Tell me if Rush or Hannity have presented my take: This incident proves once again the arrogance, incompetence, and criminality of this administration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country
Quick! Look over there... at that other guy! He's the real bad guy, not us!
Don't make me come down there. - God
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Wow, you guys are desperate! The VP of the US shoots some guy in the face, he hides it for 24 hours, he doesn't even make a statement about it, and now the fact that the media is anxiously looking for answers (because, after all, it's the VP of the US, and he SHOT someone) is proof that every charge leveled against this administration is baseless? How moronic!
It was a hunting accident. If the "victim" had been a younger man, he would not even have been hospitalized. He didn't 'hide' anything because there was nothing to hide, because nothing important happened.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
This incident proves once again the arrogance, incompetence, and criminality of this administration.
:laugh: You apparently have no clue how rediculous you make yourself sound. If this is an example of the arrogance, incompentence and criminality comparable to all the others this administration is accused of, than it must be one of the best administrations in history. And, btw, now that I have sirius satellite radio, I spend most of my radio time listening to the left not the right. It is far more funny - just like you. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 10:41 Wednesday 15th February, 2006