Cheney shoots someone (I'm not kidding)

Scott Seidman wrote:

Actually, Cheney's lack of response is pretty chicken****. What the man
needs to do is stand up, apologize, admit his embarassment, and donate a
reasonable chunk of change to hunter education programs in Texas.

Ask if, in hindsight, he regretted shooting the man, Cheney replied,
"Certainly not. I acted correctly based on the best intelligence at the
time. If I had it to do over again, I would still shoot him. It was the
right decision and I stand by it."

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

wrote in message
...
...Actually, based on the links, there's no way to determine if
"collaborated" was accurate or not -

True. Given that the information is presented in a text based format, you
would have absolutely no way of knowing.

IOW, just because it was indicated
in quotes, it doesn't mean it quoted accurately

Also true. Neil Armstrong's claim to have walked on its surface certainly
doesn't negate the theory that the moon is made of green cheese.

(but I'd not be
particularly surprised if it were - I doubt many Kenedy County deputies
have access to Wolfgang's dictionaries).

Correct again. However, the possibility of some sort of lend/lease program
is not entirely out of the question. Given Texas' close geographical
proximity to the United States, it shouldn't be too difficult to arrange for
the delivery of a few dictionaries. Of course, this leaves unsolved the
problem of what they'd actually DO with them.......but hey, I haven't got
time to solve ALL of their problems.

IAC,of more importance, at
least IMO, is the alleged fact that the SS had to use ****ing cell
phones to contact the Kenedy County LEOs because of radio
incompatibility. To me. that is much more of a story than a hunting
accident.

To be sure. I mean, seriously, how many of you who have actually hunted
upland birds of one kind or another have ever come back without being shot a
couple three times, huh?

Wolfgang
who hopes he is not alone in his appreciation of dicklet's penchant for
corroborating in his own demise.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:32:31 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:



Come on......dicklet......fess up. You've never actually seen a gun, have
you?

Let's just say that I'd bet a lot more than some paltry nickel, however
shiny, that I know as much about firearms and weapons as do you (and
probably quite a bit more), and as to something objectively
determinable, that I'd outshoot at least 99.9% of those reading this,
including you, in anything from .22 pistol to high-power competition,
any standard shotgun sport, or hunting whatever game...heck, I'd even
toss in those who might potentially or accidentally ever read this...or
have it shown to them...and yeah, I remember your claims about being the
weapons guy on some tugboat or something...


15 late-season doves with less than a box of .410 shells......dick

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:15:52 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

****ed up in this. OTOH, the "HE SHOT SOMEONE!" coverage is pretty
chicken****, and the lack of the new stamp is REALLY nonsense

If you read the thread fully you can get my take on it.

I wondered where you were in the responses. Some people who see things
differently from you politically see the lack of an initial announcement
of
one more example of Mr. Cheney's disdain for communication and penchant
for
operating covertly. Remember one man's chicken**** is another man's
fertilizer (or some texan saying or such )

And now, I'm hearing that he may have had a non-res spring turkey
license, which, apparently, in typical bureaucratic fashion, is some
(forgotten in the statute???) strange exception that doesn't require or
even allow for the "upland bird" stamp which replaced the prior turkey,
quail, etc. regs on other licenses.

Strictly as a point of info, anyone reading this who doesn't regularly
do so, but plans on fishing or hunting in Texas now until seasons close
2007, look the regs over _carefully_ and don't rely on others to tell
you what you need.. This would especially true if someone else gets
your license for you (allowed in TX). For example, if Cheney bought a
full non-res license in Nov., but didn't hunt until Feb., he ****ed away
a coupla-hundred dollars (he turned 65).

It's about enough to stupefy, ainna? I mean, land sakes alive, how in the
world can anyone expect someone like dick (coincidence?) Cheney, Vice
President of the United States of Murrica, to marshal the resources to
settle an abstruse point of law like whether the state of Texas' requirement
that one have an "upland bird" stamp to hunt upland birds means that he
should have an "upland bird" stamp to hunt upland birds? This is a question
that has vexed the finest legal minds in the finest Texas law and
cosmetology schools for centuries.....perhaps, millennia*. One can hardly
expect someone with the minimal staff naturally accruing to an advocate of
smaller government to cut through a sucking morass like this in time to
allow sufficient remaining daylight to be sure of just which hunting
companion to drop in what order.

Wolfgang
who, admittedly ignorant of the prevailing conditions "on the ground", as it
were, will nevertheless make so bold as to suggest that taking the one going
away first is generally a good policy.

*have you ever noticed that there is NEVER an alito around to offer opinions
on settled law when you really need one?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:32:31 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:



Come on......dicklet......fess up. You've never actually seen a gun, have
you?

Let's just say that I'd bet a lot more than some paltry nickel, however
shiny, that I know as much about firearms and weapons as do you (and
probably quite a bit more), and as to something objectively
determinable, that I'd outshoot at least 99.9% of those reading this,
including you, in anything from .22 pistol to high-power competition,
any standard shotgun sport, or hunting whatever game...heck, I'd even
toss in those who might potentially or accidentally ever read this...or
have it shown to them...and yeah, I remember your claims about being the
weapons guy on some tugboat or something...

Well. Gosh.

15 late-season doves with less than a box of .410 shells......dick

He said "dick"........hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...

Hey, you'll get no argument from me if your premise is that Cheney
****ed up in this. OTOH, the "HE SHOT SOMEONE!" coverage is pretty
chicken****, and the lack of the new stamp is REALLY nonsense - this has
been going on all season, and as such, the wardens aren't even issuing
cites...ever known a departmental wildlife department to beg off cites
across the board, _as an overall policy_, and _on species
stamp/licensing requirements_ right across-the-board?

Oh, it's even worse than that! I just did an exhaustive check of Texas game
laws, and it turns out that THERE IS NO SPECIAL NEW STAMP REQUIRED TO SHOOT
A HUNTING COMPANION AT ALL!

HAH!

Wolfgang
for the departmental research department.

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

Oh, it's even worse than that! I just did an exhaustive check of
Texas game laws, and it turns out that THERE IS NO SPECIAL NEW STAMP
REQUIRED TO SHOOT A HUNTING COMPANION AT ALL!

HAH!

Wolfgang
for the departmental research department.




.... and the bag limit on cronies is 2, so he's OK there.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in message
...

..."dove" stamps are now required for all species, too.

Hm......

So, not only did Cheney not have the required "upland bird" stamp, it
transpires that he was also lacking the "dove" stamp needed to shoot a
hunting companion. Wow.

Wolfgang
who, it should not be necessary to add, supposes that......even in
texas......a "whittington" belongs to some species or other.

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news6kIf.4329$Nq1.165@dukeread11...
Wolfgang wrote:

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:J_9If.4315$Nq1.2829@dukeread11...

rw wrote:


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?


um....i'd be willing to volunteer for the experiment, assuming a
reasonably competent cook. (and no olives)


Well, not to make any outrageous claims of competence or anything, but
I'd be willing to try the cooking. I suggest we choose the venue
carefully, though. Idaho, for example, doesn't appear to have discovered
the freezer yet......and you know what they say about guests and hanging
birds.

Wolfgang

you'll do. g ok, now who can we get to boot, shoot and donate the
birds? free-range preferred...

Hardly matters.......any dick will do.

jeff (who's never eaten pheasant...does it taste at all like crow?)

Hm......nah.....more like crony, I'd say.

Wolfgang
somewhere in the land where we really DO know about such exotic fare.

rw wrote:
Ask if, in hindsight, he regretted shooting the man, Cheney replied,
"Certainly not. I acted correctly based on the best intelligence at the
time. If I had it to do over again, I would still shoot him. It was the
right decision and I stand by it."

Good one, RW

Snoop