BigSqwert

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 09:13 AM) IF IT WAS GORE WE SHOULD HAVE HIM STRUNG UP ON THE NEAREST SOUR APPLE TREE!!!!!! Seriously though......... As much as I disagree with Al Gore a hunting accident has nothing to do with politics. People are human and mistakes get made sometimes. This should be a non-story no matter who happens to be in office. I disagree. Shooting someone in the face will always be a big story for a politician or celebrity. And this incident was handled poorly. We cannot say with 100% certainty that it was just a mistake. Who knows, although unlikely, maybe Cheney did it on purpose or he was wasted, etc. So you just can't dimiss this as a non-event and immediately chalk it up as an accident.

Curious to see some people's reactions in here if it were the exact same circumstances but it happened to Al Gore while he was Veep. We might not see as many 'who gives a s***' responses from certain people.

Happy Birthday!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 08:26 PM) You mean shooting a guy in the face is not an impeachable offense? Only blowjobs can be considered impeachable.

Maureen Dowd: February 15, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Shooter Slips on a Silencer By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON Who did this old guy think he was, coming between Dick Cheney and his helpless prey? The luckless 78-year-old Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington, is in intensive care after a heart attack, with up to 200 pellets riddling his face and body - one stuck in his heart - from Dick Cheney's designer Perazzi Brescia shotgun. And still his friend, the vice president, is Swift-BB-ing him. Private citizens have been enlisted to blame the victim. Maybe poor Mr. Whittington put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. But he was, after all, behind Vice, not in front of him. And the hunter pulling the trigger is supposed to make sure he has a clear shot. Wouldn't it be, well, classy for Shooter to express just a bit of contrition and humility? Instead, the usual sliming has begun, with the Cheney camp trying to protect the vice president by casting a veteran hunter as Elmer Dud. Scott McClellan told the White House press corps that Katharine Armstrong, a lobbyist with government ties who owns the Texas ranch (and whose mother, Anne, was on the Halliburton board that hired Mr. Cheney as C.E.O.), "pointed out that the protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying the others that he was there." As the story of the weekend's bizarre hunting accident is wrenched out of the White House, the picture isn't pretty: With American soldiers dying in Iraq, Five-Deferment Dick "I Had Other Priorities in the 60's Than Military Service" Cheney gets his macho kicks gunning down little birds and the occasional old man while W. rides his bike, blissfully oblivious to any collateral damage. Shouldn't these guys work on weekends until we figure out how to fix Iraq, New Orleans, Medicare and gas prices? This version of "The Most Dangerous Game" neatly follows the four-step Bush-Cheney cycle: Step 1: Set out to pick off what you think is an easy target, like quail this time or pen-raised and netted pheasant in the past, or a certain sanction-caged Iraqi dictator. Step 2: In the corrupt company of lobbyist-contractor friends, botch things up. Ignore the peril at hand - as with, oh, Osama at Tora Bora, or Katrina, or the Iraq occupation - and with steely resolve, indulge your raging incompetence. (Oops.) Step 3: Stonewall. Resist giving Congress information about 9/11 or Katrina; don't tell the public how you're tapping phones at home, setting up gulags abroad and making war and energy policy in secret. Why give the taxpayers, who are ponying up for these weekend hunting trips, the extraordinary news that Vice shot his hunting companion in the face and chest? Scott McClellan knew before yesterday's White House briefing at noon that Mr. Whittington was worse, but did not tell the reporters. He left that to Corpus Christi doctors, who spun the heart attack as "an inflammatory response to a metallic foreign BB." Step 4: Admit no mistakes. Express sympathy. Blame the victim without leaving fingerprints by outsourcing the smear to the private sector. Trent Lott joked in a meeting yesterday that Mr. Cheney was now the "shooter in chief," while other wags noted that Quayle was always a problem for Bushes. Presidential staff members and lawmakers speculated yesterday about whether Shooter would resign and make room for Condi if Mr. Whittington did not survive. His death would trigger a more thorough police investigation and probably a grand jury. "Are you crazy?" one Republican senator told a reporter. "He'd never quit." (Aaron Burr presided over the Senate after he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.) The shooter in chief can't quit because he is the administration. Who'd even tell him to quit? If necessary, he'd probably make W. take the fall. Despite efforts by Mr. McClellan to joke and urge reporters to get back to "the pressing priorities of the American people," the hunting debacle once more showed Mr. Cheney running the imperial show. He didn't talk to the sheriff for 14 hours, or even call the president to notify him after the 5:50 p.m. accident. Vice left that to Andy Card, who called Mr. Bush at 7:30 p.m. to say there had been a hunting accident, without mentioning that Vice was the gunman. Soon after that, Karl Rove called Mr. Bush back with that little detail. A reporter, surprised, pressed Mr. McClellan: "The vice president did not call the president to tell him he was the shooter?" Usually when there's a White House cover-up, the president's in on it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 08:14 AM) I just don't see a hunting accident as an inconceivable event. You make it sound like these types of accidents occur all the time. Here's a snippet from a mediainfo article: Doug Pike, an outdoors reporter at the Houston Chronicle who, like many such writers has been drafted to work the story, reports that the accident is rare. He said his reporting since Sunday found that Texas had only 2.7 hunting accidents per 100,000 hunting licenses sold in 2005. "That is the lowest since 1966 when they started keeping records," he said. "It is uncommon." http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1001995914 BTW: Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 01:30 PM) Breaking News on CNN.com, Harry Whittington has suffered a minor heart attack because birdshot has become lodged in his heart. No link yet. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/14/cheney/index.html Jeez...what if this guy dies. That would be messed up.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) I wonder if that is more pc than shooting wild birds? I would think it's the opposite. Why not just shoot some fish in a barrel while you're at it?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11337055/ Boy, those Dems are all nice and cozy, just like the Republicans. Seriously, this is why politics just absolutely blow. Here's a guy, by all accounts, was just trying to get his voice out there. And when he did so, he got chopblocked at the knees. It's disgusting. I completely agree with you on this one. Pathetic really.

Transcript from hilarious Daily Show bit last night: Jon Stewart: "I'm joined now by our own vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst, Rob Corddry. Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it? Rob Corddry: "Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Wittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. "And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington's face." Jon Stewart: "But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?" Rob Corddry: "Jon, in a post-9-11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak." Jon Stewart: "That's horrible." Rob Corddry: "Look, the mere fact that we're even talking about how the vice president drives up with his rich friends in cars to shoot farm-raised wingless quail-tards is letting the quail know 'how' we're hunting them. I'm sure right now those birds are laughing at us in that little 'covey' of theirs. Jon Stewart: "I'm not sure birds can laugh, Rob." Rob Corddry: "Well, whatever it is they do … coo .. they're cooing at us right now, Jon, because here we are talking openly about our plans to hunt them. Jig is up. Quails one, America zero. Jon Stewart: "Okay, well, on a purely human level, is the vice president at least sorry?" Rob Corddry: "Jon, what difference does it make? The bullets are already in this man's face. Let's move forward across party lines as a people … to get him some sort of mask."

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 11:18 PM) hahaha, the duckhunt was sooo classic. Yeah that was pretty funny. Guess I'll stay up to see Colbert's take on this. EDIT: DOH! Rerun.

The Daily Show is having a field day with this story. Pretty funny s***.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) I never said I knew his true motives. I'm saying I believe in the inherent good of most people and I don't belive his true motives are evil. Most democratic leaders preach otherwise. I did too until the whole Iraq thing. Seemed to be a hidden agenda right from the start as I saw no correlation to 9/11. That's when he lost me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) OK Chaos, I must concede, there is one person on this board who tends to blame everything on Bush (*cough* Sqwert *cough*) hey...I voted for Bush in 2000. But I can admit mistakes, unlike people in the current administration.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) He isn't out to hurt the poor and help the rich. He didn't go to war for oil. He wasn't sitting at his desk in the white house saying....slow down with the help for New Orleans, they're mostly black people. He isn't spying on two old ladies chatting about their next crocheting project. I didn't realize you two were so tight and that he actually confides in you, telling you his true motives.

What a waste of money this guy was.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 06:49 PM) I'm excited as well. Saw= Saw it at the theater. Not as good as the first but entertaining nonetheless.

I give up on horror flicks. Especially remakes. Always a letdown.

Great 'Office' episode tonight. Several cringe-inducing moments.

I dug up the old thread I started about this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261495/ I might have been right in my assumption that Jack-off knew Georgie Porgy.

Shameless plug... If anyone wants a copy of my most recent hip hop mix PM me. Made it last summer. Mostly underground stuff.

Link Evangelicals launch environment crusade By Frank James Washington Bureau Published February 9, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A group of evangelical Christian leaders kicked off a national campaign Wednesday to urge Congress to pass legislation to limit carbon dioxide emissions, contending that decreasing the human role in global warming was central to putting faith into action. The evangelical leaders said they were acting not only out of a sense of stewardship for the Earth as God's creation but also out of concern for the poor who are most often the hardest hit by hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters linked to climate change. Through a national advertising campaign using television, radio and print media--including an ad running in Thursday's New York Times with a statement signed by 86 of the Christian leaders--the evangelicals said they hoped to further the growing momentum for environmentalism within many churches. Evangelical Christians for many years have been portrayed in the media as virtually a wing of the Republican Party and many hold views that are all but indistinguishable from the GOP's platform. But evangelicals say they have always been a more diverse group than media portrayals have suggested. Still, the group of 86 acknowledged that other evangelicals, including some notable leaders, have expressed doubts about whether humans are a factor in global warming and have also steered clear of environmentalism, which they have long associated with the liberal, secular culture. But the evangelical leaders said they hoped their new campaign would win those doubting evangelicals over to their side. "In the 1st Century the Roman world was a tumultuous place," said Leith Anderson, pastor of the Wooddale Church, a megachurch in Eden Prairie, Minn. "And St. Peter wrote to the Christians and said do what is right and don't be afraid. And that's what we as evangelicals are stepping up to do on the issue of climate change. "Those 86 of us who have signed this statement and others as well are saying that we believe we are doing what is right and we are not afraid," Anderson said. "We're convinced that God created the world and entrusted it to us and we're concerned about the impact of global warming upon those who are the poorest of the poor and the marginalized in society." Because evangelical Christians for many years have had a close relationship with Republicans and specifically with President Bush, a born-again Christian, the relationship has produced results, according to political experts. Evangelicals were galvanized to act over the atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan long before many other Americans had even heard of the crisis there. Their interest was due to many of the victims being Christians while the aggressors were Muslims associated with the government. The analysts credit the agitation of evangelicals for keeping the pressure on the Bush administration to make Sudan a foreign policy priority. The environmental evangelists hope similar pressure on environmental issues will move the administration to support limits on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. To date, the administration has opposed such limits. But environmental issues have proved divisive within the body of believers who identify themselves as evangelicals. Some who believe the world is in the "end times," with a return of Jesus imminent, have not seen the necessity of protecting the environment for the long term. Others, meanwhile, have taken the view espoused by the evangelicals who unveiled their campaign Wednesday, that humans were given dominion over the Earth with the responsibility to protect it. Members of the Evangelical Climate Initiative at Wednesday's news conference included Todd Bassett, the Salvation Army's commissioner; Jo Ann Lyon, president of World Hope International; Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College in Illinois; and Anderson. Later, they met with some members of the Senate Energy Committee to discuss possible legislation to restrict carbon emissions. Jim Ball, executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network, commended Bush's call during his State of the Union address last week for more research into cleaner energy sources, saying it was a good move as far as it went. "What we need is a requirement that carbon dioxide start to be reduced," Ball said. "That's the legislation we need. Legislation saying there is a requirement. That we deal with this in a business-friendly way, dealing with market-based mechanisms." But the evangelical environmentalists face strong headwinds in their effort. Numerous conservatives oppose limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) issued a news release about a letter he sent to his Senate colleagues saying that the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest and most important of the evangelical groups, backed away from taking a position against global warming after considering doing so. That group apparently decided not to support carbon dioxide limits after it was prodded by another group associated with such widely influential evangelical leaders as James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family radio program and organization, and Charles Colson, a former Nixon administration aide.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 07:12 PM) I s*** all over rap because it deserves to be shat on, American Beauty does not deserve that treatment. That movie wasn't very good. And the Grateful Dead blow. Zero talent. Nothing innovative.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) Ha. Grateful Dead sucks, but Aerosmith doesnt? If music was a truck, and it hit you.. youd think a feather landed on you. Don't get so offended. You s*** all over an entire genre of music without blinking an eye and now you can't handle it when someone s***s on 1 album you like.