Run out of enemies? Shoot your friends!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:26 pm

See Dick Aim. See Dick Shoot. See Dick Squirm.

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11965-5385315,00.html

Jebus, you'd think the guy could keep his brain engaged long enough when holding a loaded gun, to actually avoid shooting his own mates.

Ah well, he's just like the US Military I guess. Shoot first, and let god sort 'em out.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:33 pm

This will be used in gun control arguments for years to come.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:37 pm

I always thought that Bush and company were red necks, and here is the ultimate proof.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:00 pm

buddy's just a little trigger-happy.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:22 pm

Guys, back off. It's not his fault! The CIA TOLD him there were birds over there. The entire senate saw the same evidence and voted to shoot the birds. It's just not fair to blame Cheney for acting on the same information that all the rest of us thought was true as well. I mean, *I* thought there were birds over there.

Sure, there were a few \"casualties\", but that is what happens when you go hunting! And besides, this way, the shooting (and casualties) all happen in Texas instead of over HERE.

Hold it. I LIVE in Texas!!!!!!

Never mind, this is a SERIOUS problem!

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:24 pm

I thought this thread was going to be about Mobius's philosophy on life. =)

By the way, Mobius, your topic suggests that Dick Cheney has no enemies. I find that offensive.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:48 pm

Haha@Kilarin

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:32 am

Have fun with this in the Cafe.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:14 am

You know I am not a friend of free gun possession, but this was while hunting, and you just don't walk up to a hunter holding a gun ready to fire without announcing yourself. Just as you don't walk towards the targets on a shooting range if a loaded gun is present.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:51 am

Kilarin wrote:Guys, back off. It's not his fault! The CIA TOLD him there were birds over there. The entire senate saw the same evidence and voted to shoot the birds. It's just not fair to blame Cheney for acting on the same information that all the rest of us thought was true as well. I mean, *I* thought there were birds over there.

Oh my god --- this made my day!

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:24 am

can american quails fly?
all the quails i've seen are flightless birds.
you guys SHOOT small flightless birds? geeze, don't you think it'd be a better idea to use traps or something?

this article gets moved to cafe, gets my little liberal chuckle, while real political debate continues elsewhere amongst people who know howto debate. *cough* not an E&C discussion *cough*

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:46 am

Sounds like it was the other guy's fault. Walking up to someone with a gun who's preparing to shoot without making a sound = not a very bright move.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:46 am

roid, you brought up an interesting point. Quails are flightless, so it's not like the bird dived to the ground and it happened. So let's drum it out, the man was wearing orange, the birds are flightless, Cheney is an \"experienced\" hunter, adds up to stupidity. Oh well, happens hundreds of times a year. Were we to think that politicans were better with guns than the rest of us?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:29 am

Two things jump into my mind here:

1) Maybe he needs to have his eyesight checked...or his hunting/gun handling privileges revoked because he sure wasn't too aware of the down range conditions if he hit a full sized man in orange while tracking a small dark bird with his front sight...

2) What did this guy do to piss off the secret service since they should have been there watching everyone with a gun and everything around the VP.....no warning shouted like DON'T SHOOT when they saw him swing his gun toward the other hunter. I guess the secret service agents were too slow or too far removed from the action.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:43 pm

or maybe this guy being a lawyer, said something about the warrantless wiretapping that Cheney didn't like

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:35 pm

Hey Mobius, wanna go deer hunting?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:36 pm

Zuruck wrote:or maybe this guy being a lawyer, said something about the warrantless wiretapping that Cheney didn't like

Did you read Jim Brady's comments?

"Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him," said Jim Brady. "I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog - and I thought he was an idiot."

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:27 pm

2) What did this guy do to piss off the secret service since they should have been there watching everyone with a gun and everything around the VP.....no warning shouted like DON'T SHOOT when they saw him swing his gun toward the other hunter. I guess the secret service agents were too slow or too far removed from the action.

The Secret Service's focus is not on the VP or his hunting buddies, rather they are looking outward for any possible threats. The agents probably weren't paying a whole lot of attention to what Cheney was doing in this type of environment.

On another note, it's good to see this place is still alive and kicking! I haven't been around in probably a year or more.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:31 pm

Zuruck wrote:or maybe this guy being a lawyer, said something about the warrantless wiretapping that Cheney didn't like

If Cheny would have used snakeshot instead of birdshot, he would have bagged that darn lawyer instead of just peppering him!

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:29 pm

First of all Quail is not a flightless bird.
The \"hunter\" who was shot separated himself from the group of hunters and then did not announce his return.

While this won't make any sense to non-hunters, the real hunters will understand how this could have happened accidentally.
Based on how it's being reported(by both sides), it's the victims fault.

Dick is an idiot, but it still appears to be an accident.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:06 pm

how hard is it to mistake a human from a bird?

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:04 pm

It depends on a human.

Since the guy's a lawyer, and moved near Cheney without announcing himself, the phrase \"Bird-brained\" comes to mind...

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:43 am

I better title for this thread might have been \"Dick shoots man in the face\"

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:34 am

Ack, I was thinking of a grouse as being flightless. I'm still not sure how this is the victim's fault. Unless he walked directly into Cheney's sweep path, it's Cheney's fault. Cheney was following his target and didn't think about muzzle sweeping someone else. First rule of close combat...NO MUZZLE SWEEPS! Being the NRA card carrying hunter that he is, I would think he would have been a little bit smarter. But, still an accident that happens quite a bit. Only getting the press because the White house press corps doesn't like McClelland these days. Can't blame them either.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:21 pm

Sounds like its the fault of both of them. The lawyer didn't announce his presense, and Cheney didn't check if anyone was in the way before firing. Thats a clear violation of firearm safety.

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:52 pm

Lothar wrote:Have fun with this in the Cafe.

I agree, have fun you guys.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:21 pm

MD-2389 wrote:Sounds like its the fault of both of them. The lawyer didn't announce his presense, and Cheney didn't check if anyone was in the way before firing. Thats a clear violation of firearm safety.

I totally agree.

The thing that I find most funny is that the media seems to be more upset that they were shut out of the information loop for 72 hours than they are that the VP actually shot someone.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:39 pm

Whatever... this is a non issue. The only thing that nakes it one is his status and People floggin it to death. Simple hunting accident. Nothing more.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:08 pm

Dedman wrote:I totally agree.

The thing that I find most funny is that the media seems to be more upset that they were shut out of the information loop for 72 hours than they are that the VP actually shot someone.

Really it's the Washington/Whitehouse pool reporters that are all trying to prop up the cover up conspiracy because the VP's office didn't go before them and tell them personally...the story was broken by a local Texas newspaper on the day of the accident I believe.
It's really funny how high and mighty they can be sometimes. It's not that the whole world hadn't heard about it it's that they didn't get to do their usual snake dance in front of the camera instead they had to report what had already been reported by some lesser news orginazation. Heh!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:17 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Really it's the Washington/Whitehouse pool reporters that are all trying to prop up the cover up conspiracy because the VP's office didn't go before them and tell them personally.

Yeah, it's crazy. You KNOW that I think Bush and Cheney are the anti-christs personal assistants. But come on. The only people the VP was obligated to contact in this case were the police and the hospital, and he did BOTH. Immediatly. The only way you can qualify this as a "cover-up" is if you believe the public is entitled to every detail of the VP's life. Sorry, I don't need (or want) to know when he's constipated, when he has a fight with his wife, or whether he wears womens underwear. The issues have NOTHING to do with his job. Neither does a hunting accident.

It IS news, no doubt, but I just can't see ANY way a reasonable person would feel he was OBLIGATED to tell us about it.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:29 am

Or at least obligated to tell people about it before making sure the guy was okay and taken care of.

Jon Stewart played a clip of a reporter asking incredulosly \"Do you think it's right for a private citizen to release the fact that the Vice President shot someone?\" Well, DUH, it was a private citizen who got shot, and his family that released the information! For real!

It's now impossible to deny that the media will try to spin anything anti-Bush-Administration. I even heard someone refer to this as Cheney-Shot-Someone-In-The-Face-gate. Yay for the sensationalized, agenda-ridden media conglomerate.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:53 am

Funny that you would say that Kilarin, was it our business to know if a man was cheating on his wife? Seems like the Repubs thought it was 8 years ago. There are a couple of things that people aren't hearing, why the sheriff was not allowed on property until a day AFTER the shooting, how many beers Cheney had (he admitted to one). Me? I really don't care, I'm not surprised by anything this administration does anymore, I don't know why anyone would. I'm glad that they brought honor and integrity back to the White House. I mean, the blowjob was bad, horrible in fact, I still have nightmares about it, but the wiretapping, corruption, secrecy, and everything else about this administration makes me feel like we are in good hands. I mean, the man running the country can't even hunt without screwing someone else's life. Can you impeach for just blatant incompetence?

Hattrick · Post by **Hattrick** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:34 am

I personally like the \"this is a message to scooter Libby to keep his mouth shut\" conspiracy.

Man, the people making such a big deal out of this need to get out more.

It was an ACCIDENT, the type of accident that happens everyday to some quail or other like small fast game bird hunters every day during season somewhere in the united states.

The VP took all responsibility and feels terrible for the unfortunate accident. Hell, Even Harry (the guy who was shot) is saying that this is being blown way out of proportion.

of course anything to drag the republicans through the mud

The great part this really shows the true colors of the libral left and the press quite nicely.
Nice investgative reporting troops!
keep up the good fight \"snicker\".

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:03 am

I’d still rather be hunting with Dick Cheney than riding with Ted Kennedy

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:22 am

Zuruck wrote:was it our business to know if a man was cheating on his wife?

yes and no. Was he obligated to tell us? No. Does it speak directly to his integrity? yes. So would I want to know before I voted this person into an office of trust, yes.

I belive that someone can be unmarried and promiscuous and still be an ethical person. They obviously disagree with me about where sexual union is appropriate and where it is not. But that is a disagreement that rational people can have.

However, there can be no debate about the ethics of taking an oath, and then breaking it. Unless you have some kind of clearly acknowledged "open" marriage agreement, cheating on your spouse is blatantly and obviously wrong. And if a man (or woman) will break solemn oaths to the one closest to them, why would I assume that ANYTHING they say to me will be binding on them in the least.

Now did he lie about it in COURT, that is an entirely different and very salient legal question which most DEFINITELY is our business since it's a crime.

Zuruck wrote:Seems like the Repubs thought it was 8 years ago.

I am not, and never have been, a Republican. Just THINKING about it makes me want to go take a bath!

(I feel the same way about the Democrats, by the way)

BUT, I do not subscribe to the view that just because you disagree with someone, EVERYTHING they do must be demonized as pure evil. It was a hunting accident. I'm not a fan of hunting, but I don't think it should be illegal, and as long as Cheney followed the correct and legal procedures for responding to a hunting accident, I'm just not seeing any big conspiracy or cover up.

You make a mistake this big, you've got to expect people to make fun of you. But that doesn't mean you are a criminal.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:26 am

Zuruck wrote:Funny that you would say that Kilarin, was it our business to know if a man was cheating on his wife? Seems like the Repubs thought it was 8 years ago....

I don't recall hearing the press concerned that Clinton didn't call a press conference to announce his recieving blowjobs from an intern.

The republicans, along with most people who were aware of Clintons reputation, knew he was always fooling around. What they did show interest in was when he got caught up testifying in a deposition regarding accusations against him in a sexual discrimination lawsuit.....when he lied under oath and was caught doing it then they started circling like sharks in the water because he could actually be in deep trouble for doing that.

So if you want your Clinton/Lewinsky analogy to be appropriate you'll have to wait until Cheney's accidental shooting becomes a legal problem for him and then if he lies under oath about the event and trys to hide it from the press then you can trot this red herring out again and it will have some relevance.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:57 am

I went to peruse the American media channels after seeing everyone here getting their knickers in a twist. Bloody hell.

There's people dying in Somalia from lack of water. Iraq,Iran,Hamas,bird flu,Russian gas,enviroment,Brad and Angelina!!

...get a grip guys and start acting as you expect to be treated.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:02 pm

Well, Cheney came out and admitted his responsibility. Saw it last night on the local news.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:52 pm

I have also said it was an accident and nothing more...I also think the press corps is giving McClelland a hard time because the guy is an azz...oh please Will...Clinton should have never been under oath to explain his personal life, it was a investigator started by the right wing. His messing around with a fat intern meant nothing to me, since when do we look to politicians for inspiration to be better?

Kilarin, you speak of integrity...do you think Bush or Cheney are men of integrity? I certainly don't...they reek of lies, corruption, and deceit. The same exact stench that came from Clinton, the same that comes from most politicians. To think that Bush is cleaner than Clinton is wrong, he may not be getting blowjobs...but his pants are down somewhere else...

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:15 pm

Zuruck wrote:do you think Bush or Cheney are men of integrity?

Clinton was immoral. He was dangerous in a small way because he had no rudder and acted in a completely self centered way. He could never acomplish any LARGE evil because he didn't actually BELIEVE in anything. The first time a poll went against him he would change his mind. You can never get anywhere that way.

Bush and Cheney are DANGEROUS because the DO believe in something. They are fighting for what they believe is right. They are convinced that almost any action they take is excusable as long as it furthers the cause. Which is why, in the long run, I am FAR more afraid of them than I was of the despicable Clinton. Terrorist can only do so much damage. A government out of control is far worse. Especially when the sheeple think that Big Brother is worth it, if it gives them a little bit more safety.

Run out of enemies? Shoot your friends!

Run out of enemies? Shoot your friends!

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: