I wasn’t in error. Bush shot a killdeer during his photo op. That is not in dispute. Whether he did so because he is a moron is a matter of opinion.
I can’t find the quote, so I don’t think Kerry actually said that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the OP was exaggerating for humorous effect.
First, “The Pit” never has been a valid logical reason for using insults in lieu of facts when a factual discussion is underway. But that’s opinion itself, not fact.
Second, failure to respond to half of my posts does not make the topics raised and facts presented in that half null. The point in question being what seems to be a fairly unbaised cite that admitting it was a mistake made by “experienced” hunters.
Third, I thought you would have “give(n) a shit” to some extent if you made the post in the first place, unless the post was intended just to invoke a reaction. Since your motives for making the post are now unclear that’s difficult to determine.
Fourth, you still claim you “(weren’t) in error”, but you limit your claim of being correct to one point, which was never in dispute. Now the cite could be wrong, or reported wrongly, but you have not presented anything other than your memory as a cite in response to the main portion of your earlier claims with respect to Richards shooting more birds than Bush, and him being a moron for shooting the killdeer. He may be a moron, true, but characterizing a person who shoots a bird on accident during a dove hunt as a moron has not been supported by the facts.
You have however presented insults and slurs; are those to be your cite? Is my point and are the facts invalid because you slur me as a “fucktard” on this message board? That doesn’t seem right. Even in the Pit there has to be a limit.
You are correct on one point which I never disputed - Bush mistakingly shot a killdeer instead of a dove. He also readily admitted (from the article):
Seems to me that you could learn something from Bush, but maybe I’m wrong.
I’m glad you can now admit that I was not in error.
Incidentally, whatever happened to that George Bush?
Sure. But the opinion is - presumably - based on facts. When a neutral - or an arguablky anti-Bush - site suggests that shooting a killdeer is a common mistake, made by experienced hunters, your characterizatin of Bush as a moron for doing so loses some weight. Are all experienced hunters that commit this error also morons? If you contend this, your contention loses its sting; Bush did what many experienced hunters do. What of it?
I’m sorry, but you are not presenting the situation factually here. I said you were not in error on one point, which was never in dispute. In fact, my cite showed that point was valid.
But that’s not what we are talking about. That same cite shows how you were in error on at least two other key points. Please present a cite as response to those points and address them, or admit your error.
The only key point was that Bush shot a killdeer during a photo op in which he was posing as a hunter. Richards is irrelevant to the story, as is any apologist spin about how smart hunters shoot killdeers too.
If that’s the only key point, then what’s the point? Your story illustrates nothing. You’re doing a nice Reeder impersonation.
It seems to be catching. I see many people refusing to even consider the possibility that they could be incorrect…
I blame the Olsen Twins… or maybe Sinbad…
Diogenes, you’re the one that brought Richards name up and attributed to her skills that you were belittling GWB for not posessing. Doing so did have a direct impact on how the magnitude of his inadequacy would be interpreted. Yet when you’re politely shown the error in your recollection, you shoot the messenger(s).
I’d like to compliment Una and Bricker both for their clarity and admirable restraint.
Anne Richards is irrelevant to the story. The story is not about Bush getting outshot by a woman. Only a misogynist would think that was anything to be embarrassed about. The story is about Bush posturing as a hunter and blasting away at endangered songbirds. That is funny and embarrassing all by itself. Anne Richards does not even need to be part of the story.
I told the story pretty much as Molly Ivins told it on television. Maybe she got the Richards detail wrong, maybe not. I don’t know and I don’t care. It’s not relevant to the story. It’s no more significant than the color of Bush’s socks.
I was not wrong and I have nothing to retract. The invitation to suck my balls still stands.
How does the story show BUsh “posturing” as a hunter? When experienced hunters do the same thing that Bush did, that means the shooting of a songbird doesn’t tend to show any particular incompetence.
So what part of the story suggests Bush was posturing? What reason have we to draw that inference from the story?
The fact that he was doing it as a photo op for an election campaign. I was trying to make a point (and not very well, apparently) that Bush did the same thing Kerry is being mocked for the first time he ran for governor of Texas. He went out to get his picture taken while hunting.
If John Kerry had accidentally shot a killdeer last week, do you think conservatives would have been at pains to point out what a common mistake that was for exoerienced hunters or do you think they might have made a little sport of it?
Well, I certainly will not defend the idea of mocking Kerry’s hunting – as I’ve already said above, since Kerry is an experienced and long-time hunter, there is no rational reason to mock him for this hunting trip, and anyone who does so is simply being idiotic.
If conservatives HAD mocked Kerry for accidentally killing a songbird, they’d be idiots, since it’s a common mistake even for experienced hunters.
If Kerry is being mocked for an idiotic reason, I think there’s value in pointing that out, but not by mocking Bush for an equally idiotic reason. Instead, simply point out that the original Kerry criticism is ill-founded.
- Rick
One more try, and then I’m done. The original quote from you:
She may not need to be mentioned, but she is. And as I noted, part of the punch of the story is the counterpoint between the two – that’s why Molly Ivins told it that way, I suppose, and why it was memorable to you. It’s part of the story, and it’s (apparently) inaccurate. Yet when this inaccuracy is called to your attention, your response is not to say “woops, okay, but the central point remains” it is instead to say
This leaves entirely aside the fact that Una also addressed the primary point of your post, that GWB is a moron because he shot an endanged songbird. If that’s a common mistake, then making it doesn’t make him a moron.
Underneath the vitriol of your post is substance, and people are trying to address it. You’re refusing to do so, and marginalizing yourself. Shit, I agree with you politically and I’m getting tired of it.
Noob? Take a look at my join date. There’s a difference between what’s appropriate and what’s not, even for the pit. I realize you loathe Bush – just like I do – but don’t let it take you over the line. Getting banned for ranting about Bush is better than getting banned for Verhoeven, but not by much.
Dio, dude, I’m trying to help you. I loathe Bush as well, but if you value your participation in this community, take a step back and look at your behavior and MODIFY IT.
On a goose hunt?
Why is that any more weird than killing one on a duck hunt?
It was a dove hunt. For crying out loud, you’re making me ashamed to be a Democrat.
Doves, ducks, whatever, they’re all fucking rodents, what’s the difference?