VP huntin and npr program...

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:46:51 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

That's bull****. Cheney is responsible for the deaths and
maiming of thousands of our young men and women and hundreds
of thousands of innocent Iraqis and he dodged the draft when
it was his time in the barrel.

Who is arguing about that

" who "had more important
things to do" when it was his chance to serve..."

Calling into mind the fact that Cheney did not serve in the military
when the poster (Tatosian) did not serve either is just a little itzy
bitzy hypocritical.

Cheney did nothing worse than many folks on this forum did. He got a
student deferral like some folks on roff. Now, if you really want to
talk about a draft dodger, Clinton is your man. He was drafted,
TWICE, and did not go.

And I doubt Tatosian has served anyone except himself all these many
years.

Dave

ahhh so.

That is all well and good, Frank. But the original argument was about
serving in the military. Cheney didn't because of a student deferral
(like some on roff). Perfectly legal. I have no gripe about that.
Tatosian didn't because????? And I am still serving my country by
serving my community with volunteer time.

Dave

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:38:20 GMT, "asadi"
wrote:

ahhh so.


That's Japanese.

On Oct 22, 7:56 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:11:50 -0000, BJ Conner
wrote:





On Oct 22, 6:07 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:41:16 -0000, BJ Conner
attempted to troll:

On Oct 21, 2:51 pm, "asadi" wrote:
It appears the ranch Dick hunts on works in this fashion.

The birds are raised in a pen...you tell the 'guides' how many birds you
want to shoot.

You go out into the field and take up your position. The 'guide' takes the
bird into a bush and when you are ready, he let's them go...

The bird gets maybe 4 seconds of freedom . . .

I thought it was pretty sick...

john

Let's recap, shall we? John apparently heard the above on NPR. Even
the casual reader should notice that nothing is said about Cheney having
done anything described, only that he hunts on the ranch on which it
_appears_ to occur. IOW, Cheney could have been in a ghillie suit on
his belly stalking lawye...er, bee, er, deer, dammit, deer while John
Kerry kitted out in his new Abercrumbie and Flinch cammies and pointing
the butt of his brand new .300WM rifle at the released birds, wondering
why his brand new scope made things look so far away, all for a photo
op. But even taking the above description and its implications as
complete and accurate, it is predicated upon the presumed shooters
hitting the bird 100% of the time. I'd enjoy reading your explanation
of how hitting a flying bird released from a holding receptacle of some
sort is so much easier than hitting a bird who happened to be loose when
he was flushed. And even the casual FFing reader should have noted that
the above description would generally fit fishing in waters with stocked
fish. In fact, I'd offer that even John's/NPR's description puts more
chance into the "hunt" than fishing in stocked waters. It's not the
method or the man I support as much as it is the hypocrisy of the
detractors I cannot and do not.







It makes your wonder which came first the despicable hunter ethic

And another who has fished over stockers making judgments about hunting
stockers...

or the amoral politicians the state has cursed the nation with.

California? New York? Arkansas? Florida? I mean, you'll have to be
more specific...there's 50 or so to choose from...

Texas has hundreds of places where you can "hunt" Oryx, Axis deer, Elk or
anything else the can be flow in.

It does? OK, name them all.

IAC, the whole world has billions and billions of places where you can
do the same thing. In fact, I would submit that you can "hunt"
elephants, spotted owls, Cape buffalo and any other animal, vegetable or
mineral in your bathroom, just like you could fill your bathtub with
water and "fish" for marlin...

For mere money you can be taken out in a John Deer Gator and
become a real hunter. You don't even have to get your feet muddy.

Yeah, it's darned near like driving up to a stream and fishing over
stockers...

If you can't afford that then it's back to the deer lease to pop one of
those tame deer that's been eating at the deer feeder all year.

Or, well, drive up to a stream and fish over stockers...

If you don't have any morals, ethics or principles about hunting you
wouldn't have any about anything.

Would you substitute "fishing" for "hunting" in your statement above or
are you a hypocritical judgmental idiot rather than just a plain ol'
judgmental idiot? And your misusage and redundancy demonstrating your
lack of understanding of the concepts aside, it's impossible for a
hunter (or fisher) to (not) "have any morals, ethics or principles about
hunting." Just as it is possible for someone to not have "ethics or
principles about hunting," yet be ethical and have principles. In fact,
the latter is true of many folks.

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

blab-blab -blab.
You can write on and on. It's still chicken-****. You can
rationalize for days but it still ain't hunting. It makes real
hunters look bad and no one with any pride or self esteem would take
part in it.

Uh-huh...OK, there, Grizzly Adams...what's your definition of a "real
hunter" or fisher?

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You sound like someone with den full of trophys that you shot in a
zoo. -err -- private animal preserve. Post some pictrues, It's been
a while since I've seen an Oryx.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:48:57 -0000, BJ Conner
wrote:

On Oct 22, 7:56 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:11:50 -0000, BJ Conner
wrote:





On Oct 22, 6:07 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:41:16 -0000, BJ Conner
attempted to troll:

On Oct 21, 2:51 pm, "asadi" wrote:
It appears the ranch Dick hunts on works in this fashion.

The birds are raised in a pen...you tell the 'guides' how many birds you
want to shoot.

You go out into the field and take up your position. The 'guide' takes the
bird into a bush and when you are ready, he let's them go...

The bird gets maybe 4 seconds of freedom . . .

I thought it was pretty sick...

john

Let's recap, shall we? John apparently heard the above on NPR. Even
the casual reader should notice that nothing is said about Cheney having
done anything described, only that he hunts on the ranch on which it
_appears_ to occur. IOW, Cheney could have been in a ghillie suit on
his belly stalking lawye...er, bee, er, deer, dammit, deer while John
Kerry kitted out in his new Abercrumbie and Flinch cammies and pointing
the butt of his brand new .300WM rifle at the released birds, wondering
why his brand new scope made things look so far away, all for a photo
op. But even taking the above description and its implications as
complete and accurate, it is predicated upon the presumed shooters
hitting the bird 100% of the time. I'd enjoy reading your explanation
of how hitting a flying bird released from a holding receptacle of some
sort is so much easier than hitting a bird who happened to be loose when
he was flushed. And even the casual FFing reader should have noted that
the above description would generally fit fishing in waters with stocked
fish. In fact, I'd offer that even John's/NPR's description puts more
chance into the "hunt" than fishing in stocked waters. It's not the
method or the man I support as much as it is the hypocrisy of the
detractors I cannot and do not.







It makes your wonder which came first the despicable hunter ethic

And another who has fished over stockers making judgments about hunting
stockers...

or the amoral politicians the state has cursed the nation with.

California? New York? Arkansas? Florida? I mean, you'll have to be
more specific...there's 50 or so to choose from...

Texas has hundreds of places where you can "hunt" Oryx, Axis deer, Elk or
anything else the can be flow in.

It does? OK, name them all.

IAC, the whole world has billions and billions of places where you can
do the same thing. In fact, I would submit that you can "hunt"
elephants, spotted owls, Cape buffalo and any other animal, vegetable or
mineral in your bathroom, just like you could fill your bathtub with
water and "fish" for marlin...

For mere money you can be taken out in a John Deer Gator and
become a real hunter. You don't even have to get your feet muddy.

Yeah, it's darned near like driving up to a stream and fishing over
stockers...

If you can't afford that then it's back to the deer lease to pop one of
those tame deer that's been eating at the deer feeder all year.

Or, well, drive up to a stream and fish over stockers...

If you don't have any morals, ethics or principles about hunting you
wouldn't have any about anything.

Would you substitute "fishing" for "hunting" in your statement above or
are you a hypocritical judgmental idiot rather than just a plain ol'
judgmental idiot? And your misusage and redundancy demonstrating your
lack of understanding of the concepts aside, it's impossible for a
hunter (or fisher) to (not) "have any morals, ethics or principles about
hunting." Just as it is possible for someone to not have "ethics or
principles about hunting," yet be ethical and have principles. In fact,
the latter is true of many folks.

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

blab-blab -blab.
You can write on and on. It's still chicken-****. You can
rationalize for days but it still ain't hunting. It makes real
hunters look bad and no one with any pride or self esteem would take
part in it.

Uh-huh...OK, there, Grizzly Adams...what's your definition of a "real
hunter" or fisher?

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You sound like someone with den full of trophys that you shot in a
zoo. -err -- private animal preserve. Post some pictrues, It's been
a while since I've seen an Oryx.

And you sound like someone whose pecker and brain are engaged in a
"which is smaller" contest...please don't post any pictures....

HTH,
R

On Oct 22, 11:27 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Now, if you really want to
talk about a draft dodger, Clinton is your man. He was drafted,
TWICE, and did not go.

On Oct 22, 11:27 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Now, if you really want to
talk about a draft dodger, Clinton is your man.

You got that right. From many accounts Clinton raised draft dodging
to an art form using student deferments, personal connections,
manipulations, and other schemes to avoid being drafted. (and this is
an admission from someone who actually likes the guy.)

He was drafted, TWICE, and did not go.

That said, there is quite a bit of misinformation out there his
"failure to report". In fact, his first notice to report for a
physical was sent to him in England via surface mail and arrived after
the scheduled date, and a later second notice was ultimately
nullified. He did not go because he was not legally obligated to go.

Joe F.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:20:56 -0700, rb608
wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:27 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Now, if you really want to
talk about a draft dodger, Clinton is your man.

You got that right. From many accounts Clinton raised draft dodging
to an art form using student deferments, personal connections,
manipulations, and other schemes to avoid being drafted. (and this is
an admission from someone who actually likes the guy.)

He was drafted, TWICE, and did not go.

That said, there is quite a bit of misinformation out there his
"failure to report". In fact, his first notice to report for a
physical was sent to him in England via surface mail and arrived after
the scheduled date, and a later second notice was ultimately
nullified. He did not go because he was not legally obligated to go.

IMO, all one has to do is read 2 letters - the one from Clinton to the
ROTC Colonel and the statement the same Colonel submitted and that was
made part of the Congressional Record (1992). While I'll grant that
just about all the "commentary" on the whole situation is blatantly
partisan one way or the other, the, um, "uncommented-upon" facts clearly
show that he was so good at dodging things he had nothing to fear in
Vietnam. The evidence indicates (but does not absolutely prove) that he
was, in fact, legally obligated to go but was saved at the last minute
by illegal interference. He (and various benefactors and dupes)
specifically, unquestionably, and with the exception of the dupes,
intentionally interfered with the process to the point that would have
been, in any other "war," prosecuted offenses.

And if you can honestly say you respect Clinton after reading Clinton's
letter and the ROTC Colonel's statement, IMO, you have no business
offering criticism on _anyone_ regarding military service or lack
thereof. When it comes to "military service," Clinton makes Bush look
like a cross between York and Murphy.

And as an aside, and again, IMO, the fact that this story and in
particular, those two documents weren't _really_ covered by the
"mainstream" media gives _substantial_ credence to bias claims. Where
was Dan Blather and company in 1992?

TC,
R

Joe F.

On Oct 22, 8:57 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:48:57 -0000, BJ Conner
wrote:





On Oct 22, 7:56 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:11:50 -0000, BJ Conner
wrote:

On Oct 22, 6:07 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:41:16 -0000, BJ Conner
attempted to troll:

On Oct 21, 2:51 pm, "asadi" wrote:
It appears the ranch Dick hunts on works in this fashion.

The birds are raised in a pen...you tell the 'guides' how many birds you
want to shoot.

You go out into the field and take up your position. The 'guide' takes the
bird into a bush and when you are ready, he let's them go...

The bird gets maybe 4 seconds of freedom . . .

I thought it was pretty sick...

john

Let's recap, shall we? John apparently heard the above on NPR. Even
the casual reader should notice that nothing is said about Cheney having
done anything described, only that he hunts on the ranch on which it
_appears_ to occur. IOW, Cheney could have been in a ghillie suit on
his belly stalking lawye...er, bee, er, deer, dammit, deer while John
Kerry kitted out in his new Abercrumbie and Flinch cammies and pointing
the butt of his brand new .300WM rifle at the released birds, wondering
why his brand new scope made things look so far away, all for a photo
op. But even taking the above description and its implications as
complete and accurate, it is predicated upon the presumed shooters
hitting the bird 100% of the time. I'd enjoy reading your explanation
of how hitting a flying bird released from a holding receptacle of some
sort is so much easier than hitting a bird who happened to be loose when
he was flushed. And even the casual FFing reader should have noted that
the above description would generally fit fishing in waters with stocked
fish. In fact, I'd offer that even John's/NPR's description puts more
chance into the "hunt" than fishing in stocked waters. It's not the
method or the man I support as much as it is the hypocrisy of the
detractors I cannot and do not.

It makes your wonder which came first the despicable hunter ethic

And another who has fished over stockers making judgments about hunting
stockers...

or the amoral politicians the state has cursed the nation with.

California? New York? Arkansas? Florida? I mean, you'll have to be
more specific...there's 50 or so to choose from...

Texas has hundreds of places where you can "hunt" Oryx, Axis deer, Elk or
anything else the can be flow in.

It does? OK, name them all.

IAC, the whole world has billions and billions of places where you can
do the same thing. In fact, I would submit that you can "hunt"
elephants, spotted owls, Cape buffalo and any other animal, vegetable or
mineral in your bathroom, just like you could fill your bathtub with
water and "fish" for marlin...

For mere money you can be taken out in a John Deer Gator and
become a real hunter. You don't even have to get your feet muddy.

Yeah, it's darned near like driving up to a stream and fishing over
stockers...

If you can't afford that then it's back to the deer lease to pop one of
those tame deer that's been eating at the deer feeder all year.

Or, well, drive up to a stream and fish over stockers...

If you don't have any morals, ethics or principles about hunting you
wouldn't have any about anything.

Would you substitute "fishing" for "hunting" in your statement above or
are you a hypocritical judgmental idiot rather than just a plain ol'
judgmental idiot? And your misusage and redundancy demonstrating your
lack of understanding of the concepts aside, it's impossible for a
hunter (or fisher) to (not) "have any morals, ethics or principles about
hunting." Just as it is possible for someone to not have "ethics or
principles about hunting," yet be ethical and have principles. In fact,
the latter is true of many folks.

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

blab-blab -blab.
You can write on and on. It's still chicken-****. You can
rationalize for days but it still ain't hunting. It makes real
hunters look bad and no one with any pride or self esteem would take
part in it.

Uh-huh...OK, there, Grizzly Adams...what's your definition of a "real
hunter" or fisher?

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You sound like someone with den full of trophys that you shot in a
zoo. -err -- private animal preserve. Post some pictrues, It's been
a while since I've seen an Oryx.

And you sound like someone whose pecker and brain are engaged in a
"which is smaller" contest...please don't post any pictures....

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can post yours on Larry Craigs website. IF he like you, you can
take him hunting in the back 40. After shoots the big 5 you can elect
him to something or other.