Search This Blog

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Hunt with Cheney or ride with Kennedy?

Before being shot, 78-year-old attorney Harry Whittington was an acquaintance of Vice President Dick Cheney.

After being shot, 78-year-old attorney Harry Whittington was an acquaintance of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Before being drowned in Senator Ted Kennedy's car, Mary Jo Kopechne was an acquaintance of Senator Kennedy.

After being drowned in Senator Ted Kennedy's car, Mary Jo Kopechne was very tragically dead.

Go here if you don't believe that Ted Kennedy has been allowed to get away with, at the very least, vehicular homicide/manslaughter and yet the left considers him an elder statesman and suitable spokesman for the party. Okay, Democrats, if you want him you got him!


Enough idiocy from the left about the "Cheney shooting"! He didn't notify the Washington Press Corps, big deal! He and his cohorts got medical care for the victim and Whittington is now out of the hospital. Furthermore, Whittington was likely more at fault for the accident in that he put himself in between other hunters and the game without notifying them.

All in all, I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy. (Bumper sticker available!)


cranky old fart said...

Yes, Kennedy got away with a drunken drive that ended in death. Can't deny it. And yes, Cheney's drunken near killing of a RW true believer doesn't begin to compare. I mean did you hear that tool saying he was sorry for what the THE CHENEYS have gone through?!?! Again, we agree on something. Yikes!

Cheney already shares the responsibility for so many deaths and maimings of Americans, it's just stupid of the press get all hepped up about this particular drunken folly.

sanity said...

Cranky, as you know that Cheney was not proven to be drunk.

This is a made up report and/or infatuation of the Left Consiracy tin-foil hat wearing thoerists that are so hoping to have anything to put on Chney they will actually make it up.

This was the media throwing a tantrum about someone not putting a story in thier lap instead of having to go out and getitng facts and information and a story.

I would be angry too if all i did was sit around at the whitehourse and wait for scott to come out and give me the story of the day....

Kyle said...

You know Cranky, you guys really ought to take a step back and consider what you sound like.
In our system of government the elected representatives sometimes make the decision to take us to war, It is there estimation that the risks outweigh the costs.
You are free to disagree with the decision but to say that they then have blood on their hands, etc. Is not helpful, and does not do much to recommend your position.
You are not in a position to know what would have happened if war had not been pursued, nor or you in a position to predict all of the possible long term outcomes.
Simply hating on your political opponents, and replaying lies, attacks and slurs is stupid and childish. And then you guys wonder why you have been doing so poorly in elections?

cranky old fart said...

I don't wonder why we have done "poorly" in elections. Americans pay far more attention to who won American Idol than to what is going on in the world.

I don't "simply hate" the party in power. I simply hate lies, torture and profiteering. Unfortunately, only 48% of the country seems to agree.

highboy said...

Well, if Cranky hates lies, torture, and profiteers, than I guess he did NOT vote for Clinton, and was overjoyed to learn that Iraqis are no longer suffering in Saddam's torture chambers.

But now lets get to to the accusations. What deaths does Cheney hold responsibility for? Our troops? Some with common sense might say that the fault lies with the terrorists and Saddam Hussein. What lies is Cranky refering to? WMD? Old news: WMD was one of 16 counts we had against Saddam, chiefly the multiple violations of the Gulf War Ceasefire Treaties. The party in power is elected, and will continue to be, for a few reasons: 1.)Democrats have only accomplished dead babies high taxes, and refuse to represent their own respective electorates. Cases in point: abortion-as has been recently becoming clear, abortion is NOT favored by the majority. same-sex marriage-voted down by the majority of the entire nation, even Mass., yet still representatives like Kennedy refuse to represent their people 2.)They refuse to protect their constituents. People who do not see the Adolf Hitler of the 21st Century as a threat are incompetant for office. Chase after Bin Laden all you want, it is meaningless. Another will sprout up as long as murderous Muslim regimes control the Middle East, starve and torture their people, and blame us. 3.)The Democratic Party would make sense if this were a democracy. The Republican Party and ideology makes better sense, since we live in a republic. (according to the dictionary)Lastly, the main reason Dems can't get elected, despite Bush's low numbers, is the fact that Americans don't like to be dependant on the goverment, which is all the Dems push. Americans don't like to be told they are too stupid and irresponsible to save their own money, and that its safer to have the government do it for them, meanwhile be told by the same group that they are so infinitley wise that they can make life and death decisions concerning unborn babies. Dems make no sense as you can see, and if you can't the rest of the country does so that's okay.

cranky old fart said...

Believe me, I'm no lover of Democrats either. Both parties are beholdin' to one constituency. Big Corporations. Power and greed run government on either side of the aisle. It just seems to me the democrats are a little less craven.

In any case, let me explain some earlier comments. The deaths I refer to are indeed young American soldiers. Over 16,000 killed and maimed so far in Iraq.

Do you think for a moment Osama could have accomplished as much in so short a time? Well maybe you do. And despite all information to the contrary, you might even believe Saddam was coming to get you also. Boo!

The big lie, though it may be hard now to recall with all the new "reasons" for the Iraq adventure, was indeed the WMD. The lie was not that they weren't there, or that we cherry picked supporting intel, but simply the excuse of WMD altogether.

The administration wanted to go to war from the day they entered office. My goodness (to use a favorite Rummy expression) this has been documented over and over. But Mr. "We don't do nation building" Bush couldn't just come to the American people and ask for a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives for "bringing democracy" for its own sake. Who would have voted for that? No he had to create a boogeyman to scare the gullible masses. WMD, boo! Saddam+UBL, boo!

As for your other statements about democrats losing, well, it's just the usual. High Taxes, boo! We have record high deficits and tax cuts for the richest 1%. Any claims of fiscal responsibility as a hallmark of this administration is just laughable. Taxing and spending is indeed a problem. NOT taxing and still spending is the greater wrong.

But hey, who's paying attention anyway? The only thing that matters is that we're being kept safe from the boogeyman.

And gays.


radar said...

1. Could terrorists have continued killing people over here? They sure have everywhere else! Yes.

2. Did Saddam train and equip and provide money to terrorists and the families of suicide bombers? That has been proven to be true, yes.

3. Have WMD been found in Iraq? Yes. Is there evidence that most of it was trucked to Syria as the fighting began? Yes. Did both Democrats and Republicans as well as other leaders all around the world believe Saddam had WMD? Yes. Did he use WMD against his own people? Yes.

4. The tax cuts benefit business and help jobs. Why do you suppose the economy has been growing ever since the tax cuts? Because they help the small businessman and help the job market.

5. If the Democrats wanted to cut spending, they would allow congress to pass the line item veto. Players on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to pass that because they don't want their "pork" cut out of legislation but the Democrats are the biggest obstacle.

By the way, discretionary spending has been cut by this administration. Much more needs to be done, however. But I think the Republicans are more likely to cut than Democrats.

highboy said...

16,000 American troops killed? Do some research and come back later.
WMD was NEVER the only reason we went to war with Iraq, its just that liberals only hear what they want.

All of your other assertions, though you claim are well-documented, have no proof. And I'll tell you what the real boogeyman is in this country. It is "the evil Republicans want to cut your welfare." Boo. "The evil Republicans want to take all the money from the poor and give it to the rich." Boo. If Dems ever care about bringing the poor out of poverty, it'll be the end of their party. There would be no one left to vote for them.

As for your ridiculous sarcasm refering to gays, no one anywhere advocated "protecting" us from them. That is a strawman, spin, and another scare tactic from the liberal left to scare voters into voting for them. As you can see, it doesn't work.

cranky old fart said...

Take a breath highboy.

I said 16,000 killed AND WOUNDED.

WMD was just side issue? Rewind to Gen. Powell and the UN, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", etc.

No gay bashing? Ok, it was all "protection of marriage".

radar said...

If gays want to be gay, that is their right. I personally believe it is wrong, but then I believe adultery is wrong and we don't say much about that. I believe two single people cohabiting is wrong but then again that is me.

It is when gays want to change what a traditional marriage is, that is when I fight. Marriage has always been between man and woman, a way to help cement a permanent (hopefully) relationship for the sake of society and any children that may come along.

Gays want to co-opt marriage to take advantage of benefits devised for ordinary families. They want the "marriage" imprimateur on their relationship so as to give it an air of respectability. They also want to break down the divisions between sexes.

A post is coming on this soon...but it is not that I am hating on gays, but that I am going to oppose them when they try to intrude into territory that should not be yielded to them

We let gays "marry" and then here comes NAMBLA looking for adult/child marriages. Then what? Man/animal? Live person/dead body? Sexual perversion is sexual perversion. Lots of people do things behind closed doors I just don't need to know about. But opening the door to illicit and even abusive and criminal and even deadly lifestyles, to give them an approval stamp from society, that I cannot endorse!

cranky old fart said...

"Slippery Slope" arguments are always attractive to those who do not want to directly address the issue at hand. It's a straw man.

You began well enough. Heading down the straw man trail just weakens your argument, IMHO.

I'll wait for your future post on the issue to discuss the gay marriage to say more, maybe.

radar said...

Fair or tomorrow I am posting on the subject and away we go!

highboy said...

First, one quote from Powell does not prove that WMD was the primary concern. It only proves it was a concern. It still is a concern. Especially when the Iraqis themselves state that Saddam burned up 4,000 villages containing WMD, and unfortunatly burned up the men, women, and children unfortunate enough to occupy the same space. But libs can pretend that murderous dictators who hate our guts pose no threat.

I'm going to address the gay issue now, instead of waiting, because Cranky is very hypocritically trying to scare people into thinking that Republicans are trying to remove the civil rights of homosexuals. First, homosexuals have the right to be as gay as they want. But up until recent years, marriage was defined as man+woman. Saying otherwise is like saying up is down. What is the issue at hand by the way Cranky? You state that Republicans are trying to "protect" us from gays, yet have no proof other than they oppose same sex marriages. So if I oppose anything about a certain group, I oppose them is that it? The slippery slope argument IS the issue, because Democrats never want to think that far ahead. One reason the Middle East is the way it is:Carter didnt' think ahead. Dems don't stop the see how this can effect society. The real "straw man" is when liberals take the "no same-sex marriage" stance and interpret it as "burn gays at the stake" stance. That is a scare tactic used to get minority votes. Again, it doesn't work, because most of us have common sense. Already there are cases, like the one in Georgia, of 15 year olds marrying 40 year olds. Child porn is not prosecuted. Pedophiles are not punished properly, if at all. Democratic liberals are trying to get society to accept these lifestyles as natural. You call it a straw man, I call it reality.

oriolebird38 said...

I don't wanna get into this argument fully, cause I just don't care enough. However, I did notice one thing and just HAD to throw in my two cents.

"5. If the Democrats wanted to cut spending, they would allow congress to pass the line item veto. Players on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to pass that because they don't want their "pork" cut out of legislation but the Democrats are the biggest obstacle."

Sorry Radar, the Line Item Veto has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So, no amount of Democrat congressional pressure will change that (until they get a court full of line item happy judges, which will be never). Guess you'll have to find another problem with the Keystone Cops...

radar said...

Oriole, that is true and yet not a problem.

"The Supreme Court has ruled this particular version of the line item veto unconstitutional. But it has not said that the line item veto is de facto unconstitutional. Congress can and should immediately enact a version that will pass constitutional muster. The line item veto is fixable." From The Cato Institute ( )

The line item veto is available if congress will finally get with the program.

oriolebird38 said...

That is true, the Court has not said "Line Item Veto = bad." However, I don't see an instance where the Court would allow it. When it was first challenged, it was challenged by a few companies who were screwed out of cashflow by the line-item veto. They took it to the SC and the court said no. I don't remember the exact wording, but it went along the lines of the President not having the power to unilaterally reject statutes on his own. If they were gonna pass a bill allowing it, it would either have so much back and forth moving that it in itself would be wasteful, or get struck down as soon as one group gets screwed. If they really wanna get this thing done, it's time for Amendment 28. And I think it would make a much better 28th Amendment than "Gays cannot get married." Don't you think so?

radar said...

Oriole, it is a tricky thing and a constitutional amendment is very hard to accomplish. Not sure which battle to agree to....

I just don't think that there is such a thing as "gay marriage' and I think an amendment for just that is stupid. But then I wrote a whole post on that above this one.

Let homosexuals do what they do in the privacy of their own homes without them trying to change what a marriage is and all is well!