Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter

[ian]

There is a rumor that the two hunters had a beer before they went quail hunting.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/15/16180/2000

(I know: Daily Kos.  But take it for what you will)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is a rumor that the two hunters had a beer before they went quail hunting.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/15/16180/2000

(I know: Daily Kos.  But take it for what you will)

It's not a rumor that Cheney had a beer earlier in the day. Because of his heart problem even 1 beer could be a problem.

Anyways, I don't know why people don't trust DailyKos. Without blogs like them you would have never heard of Paul Hackett, who seems to be popular on this board.

[J-Mann]

Anyways, I don't know why people don't trust DailyKos. Without blogs like them you would have never heard of Paul Hackett, who seems to be popular on this board.

The same reason that you presumably wouldn't trust the Drudge Report, or NewsMax or Rush Limbaugh.  I won't deny that there is perfectly factual information presented at DailyKos; I take issue with how it's written, which is by left-wing writers putting a left-wing spin on issues.  While the "facts" presented on DailyKos might make perfect sense to you, Jfern, they're nothing but left-wing propaganda to others, no different than Fox News is for conservatives who swear it is unbiased.

I also can't deny the growing influence of blogs.  They're popular, and the reason they're so popular is precisely because they present the news with a certain spin.  Conservatives will flock to conservative blogs and liberals will flock to liberal ones not because they're interested in looking at straight facts, reading varying opinions and deciding for themselves what to believe; they'll turn to this sort of information source because it makes them comfortable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyways, I don't know why people don't trust DailyKos. Without blogs like them you would have never heard of Paul Hackett, who seems to be popular on this board.

The same reason that you presumably wouldn't trust the Drudge Report, or NewsMax or Rush Limbaugh.  I won't deny that there is perfectly factual information presented at DailyKos; I take issue with how it's written, which is by left-wing writers putting a left-wing spin on issues.  While the "facts" presented on DailyKos might make perfect sense to you, Jfern, they're nothing but left-wing propaganda to others, no different than Fox News is for conservatives who swear it is unbiased.

I also can't deny the growing influence of blogs.  They're popular, and the reason they're so popular is precisely because they present the news with a certain spin.  Conservatives will flock to conservative blogs and liberals will flock to liberal ones not because they're interested in looking at straight facts, reading varying opinions and deciding for themselves what to believe; they'll turn to this sort of information source because it makes them comfortable.

Not really. I think the large success of the liberal blogs is that you can't get that news anywhere else, since the media is so right-wing, and the Democratic party tends to be a bit disorganized. There are major major stories that never got reported in the media, for example the Florida scrub list (well it got reported in the British media, but not the American media).

[TX_1824]

Imagine if this was John Kerry. His approval rating would be about 5% after the media was done with him.

But it's not John Kerry.  It's Dick Cheney, whose own approval rating isn't very damn high, and it has likely taken a further beating over this.

I'm not going to play "Pretend what the media would do with so-and-so" ... I think it was a legitimate accident, the media has made their points about the administration's sluggishness to inform the public (on this and other matters), and the only people it should be a big deal to are Dick Cheney and the guy laying in a hospital bed with buckshot floating around in him.

Other than trite comparisons to the war or administration secrecy, why would this be of much concern to anyone else?  The media has made their point; they wanted (and needed) to know.  Dick Cheney apologized (granted, some of you would rather he commit sepuku in an act of contrition, but that's unlikely) and took full responsibility.  What more do you all want?

I want Cheney to be treated the way a Democrat would be treated.

And where is the precedent for a Democrat accidentally shooting someone while bird hunting?

Maybe not for birds, but......





Vincent Foster

[J. J.]

I want Cheney to be treated the way a Democrat would be treated.

I don't recall a felony conviction for Chappaquiddick?

In Cheney's case, he seems to have complied with the law in the jurisdiction.  In the Berger case, he did not, and the judge rejected the light penalty the judge was asking.

In the Kennedy case, Ted may very well have been in a state of shock, which mitigated the circumstances.  This is Chappaquiddick without the failing to report a crime (and nobody died at this point).

[??????????]

I want Cheney to be treated the way a Democrat would be treated.

And where is the precedent for a Democrat accidentally shooting someone while bird hunting?

Just look at the way Democrats are treated. For instance this is a zillion times more important than that Sandy Burger thing.

... and even in that, I don't think this is important in the least, except to the people it directly affected.

Reminds me of a certain blow job.

I won't disagree with that at all.  In fact, the situation is somewhat similar -- Cheney and Clinton were both less than forthcoming about their respective events, which got them in deeper and deeper trouble.  Clinton's was a private matter; Cheney should have been immediately forthcoming (though I do see the logic in waiting till a local paper could cover the full story -- stories with "details forthcoming" could have caused a lot of unnecessary speculation).

I just think it's over, it's been apologized for, and I hope I don't have to read one more New York Times editorial on the issue.  It's dumb to harp on it.

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property. I don't actually think the punishment should be severe or anything. Maybe a large fine but still it is bigger then a hunting accident.

[opebo]

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property.

You mean it is illegal to have sex in the White House? 

[??????????]

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property.

You mean it is illegal to have sex in the White House? 

Correct, in the public areas it is, not the private residence. The private residence o/c is the second floor of the WH.

[opebo]

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property.

You mean it is illegal to have sex in the White House? 

Correct, in the public areas it is, not the private residence. The private residence o/c is the second floor of the WH.

That is most unfortunate, but unsurprising given the purritanical culture of this benighted land.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property.

You mean it is illegal to have sex in the White House? 

Correct, in the public areas it is, not the private residence. The private residence o/c is the second floor of the WH.

Where's this law?

[??????????]

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property.

You mean it is illegal to have sex in the White House? 

Correct, in the public areas it is, not the private residence. The private residence o/c is the second floor of the WH.

Where's this law?

Well, I don't know where to link you to it. But I do know it is against federal law to engage in sexual intercourse on federal property.

[J. J.]

I'd really have to see the statute.  That could have been a defense, sorta.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

The difference is Clinton broke federal law by engaging in a sexual act on federal property.

You mean it is illegal to have sex in the White House? 

Correct, in the public areas it is, not the private residence. The private residence o/c is the second floor of the WH.

Where's this law?

Well, I don't know where to link you to it. But I do know it is against federal law to engage in sexual intercourse on federal property.

I can't find any significant Google mentions of this...