Cheney shoots someone (I'm not kidding)

"Dave LaCourse" wrote


John McCain will probably be the Republican Party choice in 2008. Who
can the Dems put forth to beat him?



McCain really hurt himself with me in the same way that Colin Powell did ...
that is, he proved to be more patriotic to the Republican Party than to the
USA .... he knew the Party was doing things wrong and still went along ...
on several issues.

He, of course, is now trying to distance himself from Bush as the later is
clearly a loser, but it's a bit too little too late to impress me. I can
say I 'agree with' more of what I've heard come out of Cain's mouth over
they years than disagree. His actions, post Bush admin, have, however,
caused me to wonder just how many faces he has, and which to believe.

I think he would be a good choice for 'your' Party and certainly several
steps up from the last one.


As for the Dems, I think they need to find direction rather than sulky
rebellion. I honestly believe that a man that got up there and made us
feel like he really wanted us ALL to be working together for a sustainable
future, fiscally, environmentally, and socially with room for all .... could
get most of the votes, regardless of Party.

Whoever the Dems put up, the Reps will personally attack, as a main tactic.
It's worked for them before ( Russ Limbaugh first showed them you don't have
to make sense or be right to get a huge following, if you issue permission
to hate ) and it will be hard to defend against that while still honestly
looking forward ( one reason the attacks work so well is they avoid issues
by side tracking them ). My fear is that the Dems will try to use what
they see as dirty Republican tactics this next time, but they don't really
have the skills and mindset needed to make it work, .... Rove is a genius
of division, nastiness, and hate and genius can't be found everywhere. Add
the clear danger of becoming like the enemy ( the danger we see every day,
here at home, don't we ) as we behave like him, and I hope the Dems choose
to fight FOR their traditional beliefs, and fight fairly.

I'm NOT optimistic about my country's future ...

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:38:38 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:

I'm NOT optimistic about my country's future ...

Last I checked, Canada ain't that far.

Willi wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:

We all draw the line somewhere. Personally, for me, its big game
enclosed by a fence, because I don't think its "sporting" (whatever
that means) and the management practice helps spread CWD. With
respect to the birds, certainly, wanton waste enters the picture, so
what's done with the 70 birds is somewhat important. Perhaps a
donation of the game to a feed the poor program would somewhat
ameliorate what appears at first glance to be gluttony.

While sportsmen certainly need to police their own sport, so others
don't do it for them, I try to tread rather lightly. For example,
there are some people who think that catch and kill fishing is
immoral. There are catch and release fishermen that think catching
and releasing fifty fish in a day is an abuse of the resource and of
the fish. There are anti-
wackos who say that any fishing at all is morally repugnant. There
are environmentalist who object to fish stocking. Which definitions
of sportsmanlike should I follow?



There's a similar continuum with respect to fishing. Below is that
continuum as I see it. (probably left some out and not so sure about the
order of some of the steps but there's enough to get the idea)
Unfortunately, most of our fishing is pretty far down that list.
"Throwing stones" at hunters seems kind of hypocritical.

Native fish in native "natural" environments

Self sustaining native fish re-introduced into native "natural"
environments

Self sustaining non native fish in "natural" environments

Stocked fingerling native fish into native "natural" environments

Stocked catchable native fish in native "natural" environments

Stocked non native fingerlings in "natural" environment

Stocked non native catchable fishes in "natural" environment

Stocked non native fingerlings in man made environments

Stocked catchable non native fishes in man made environments

Stocked non native fishes in man made environments with introduced food
ie mysis shrimp, introduced minnow base

Stocked catchable non native fishes in "natural" environments with
supplemental man made food

Stocked catchable non native fishes in man made environments with
supplemental feedings of man made food

Stocked genetically manipulated fishes (with the above permutations)

Willi


i am simply in awe of the genius and effort involved in thinking about
and constructing the above continuum... i now better understand your
success in fishing. you've got gills, don't you. g

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Wounded Knee in North Carolina is the closest parallel I can think of.

I believe Wounded Knee was somewhere else and the only hunting people
allowed to hunt were the Feds.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Tim J." wrote



You're, of course, assuming that Bush IS a conservative,

Actually, no. I think I'm far more conservative than Bush in many
areas, especially fiscal responsibility. BUT, Bush/Rove do have the
adman repeat the mantra style down and that is what I cited when using the
phrase "Bush-like"

Sidenote:
I often wonder what 'conservative' now means ... I live within my budget,
( my only debt is what remains on my mortgage ). If I want something I
can't afford I look for ways to make the money BEFORE I buy. If I must
buy something I can't afford ( emergency ) I instantly look for ways to
increase my income, maybe go back to work. I am 'liberal.'

Most of the people that I deal with are younger than me, Yuppies or 'old
money,' Republican voters and call themselves 'conservative.' A
tremendously high percentage are in debt up past their ears, measure their
own worth ONLY by what they own ( it's the only thing they ever mention
about themselves, so I'm forced to think it is their only self measure),
think deficit and debt doesn't really matter, show ZERO real interest in
what the world will be like after they are gone and want to use up as much
as they possibly can while here. They are 'conservatives' ..... just
what is you guys 'conserve'?? G


Yeah, once he's told what to believe. ;-)


Possibly true, humans are all subject to human nature. But, at least at
the level of social issues, I'd bet 15 to one on most 'liberals' at least
trying to listen to the views of others over most 'social conservatives'
But, this roffian zoo shows that few on either side listen past hearing
something they think they can argue with ... I point that out because it
really is on the same thread as 'sound bite culture' ... communication,
the act of honestly trying to share and understand other's ideas, even if
the belief in them is not shared, is dying fast over all our culture. I
think this is largely because of TV and it's effect on HOW we think, not
what we think....i.e. sound bite grab em in 10 seconds cause that is all
they can handle, thinking.




Talk about yer oversimplification! Hoo boy.
--

Again my point was about the effect of 'admen' and 'sound bite culture' on
political outcomes .... I don't get the impression that is what you are
responding to G As an experiment, in your own mind, try to formulate
'sound bite' messages for both sides of one issue ... stem sell research
using the little 4 cell 'embryos' produced as part of some infertility
treatments. Note how easy ( regardless of your true belief, that is NOT
the subject, sound bite advertizing is the subject ) it is to conjure up a
few words and 'inspiring' images to support the side that believes those
four cells are 'a human.' Note how difficult it is to present a QUICK
argument for research of unknown outcome, demanding a degree of ethical
care, but in the long term very likely producing great improvements for
humans that have actually grown past 4 cells and have brains and families
and friends and are more than just DNA, are actually humans i.e. self
aware social animals.

Again, MY issue here is not the stem cell issue, itself, rather the
suitablity of the various 'sides' for adman tactics in our culture.

Bush is Pres not because of his actual personal quality. Rather an adman
found him and made him the neocon product spokesman. That is my point,
and I believe I'm right ... I will try to listen to opposite opinions, but
admit that I already have thought about this a lot and believe that Bush
was choosen BECAUSE he was a very common person, not too bright, easy to
manipulate, eager to be a 'true believer,' had lots of money, a 'good
family political name' and just the right amount of 'good looks' ..enough
to present well on TV but not so much as to leave Clyde in Tulsa feeling
inferior.

And all this from the man who wonders about others' balls, wants to sue and
arrest the neighbors, club, shoot, or otherwise destroy their dogs, insults
them to their faces.....or when their backs are turned.....etc., etc. Yeah,
we'll pay close attention to this little sermon.

Wolfgang

Wayne Knight wrote:


My eyes might suck but I can tell the difference between a Libriarian
and a grouse.

uh oh... um, i promise not to grouse while in da yoop?

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
John Hightower wrote:

"rw" wrote:

So you think that shooting 70 farm-raised pheasants is sport?


I figure its just about the same amount of "sport" as catching stocked
fish.


Exactly right, John. I'll confess to having done both in
the past but given my druthers, I'd just as soon not do
either in the future. (I'll make an exception for Santeetlah,
just 'cause it's so goddamn pretty.)

I wouldn't mind shooting a few farm-raised pheasants. But shooting 70
seems a little extreme. How long does it take someone to eat 70 pheasants?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:28:09 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

There'll be lots of jokes, as there should be, sorta like the stain on
the blue dress dontchaknow. d;o)

Yeah.....that's right......it's Klinton's fault.

Where did I say it was Clinton's fault? Jokes were hot and heavy over
the blue dress, and they will be hot and heavy over this. PERIOD. No
blame. No fault. Just a funny time. Once again, you show your
inability to read. d;o)


Moron.

You're calling me a moron, Girly Boy, and you can't read a sentence
properly? Two phunny.


You must be havin' another bad day, Girly Guy. Didja go by the
playground and have the kids steal your lunch money (shiney nickles
and all) again? I think that's where you got the "shiney nickle"
schtick - having lost so many when you were a kid at the playground.
And now you're STILL a girly boy complaining. tsk tsk tsk Maybe
that's why you stink so much; you've **** your pants so many times
when you were a kid that the stink is stuck to ya.

Damn, you're getting near about as good at this as.......dicklet.

Wolfgang
that's it.....FEEL the rage......give in......don't fight it......

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

...How long does it take someone to eat 70 pheasants?


It varies. A big man with a good appetite and a real fondness for
pheasant?.......a couple of weeks, maybe.

Wolfgang

Tim J. wrote:

So "Republican culture of corruption" is a Bush-like mantra, right?

Chaney was hunting illegally. He didn't have the required upland game
bird permit. Are you happy about voting for a poacher?

In the grand scheme of things, considering the mind-boggling, scandalous
illegality this administration is involved in, I guess not having the
required hunting tag doesn't rank very high. But it's indicative of the
sense of privilege and the basic incompetence of this crew. No doubt
Cheney will blame his lack of a tag on some pathetic, low level member
of his staff.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.