I’m a gun owner and I support hunting and have family members who’ve always hunted (I don’t have the patience or the eyesight myself). When I fish, I won’t fish in a stocked pond. The people I know who do this kind of “hunting” are pretty foul people (the kinds of guys who have all the expensive, good looking clothes but don’t know how to clean their own guns). Lots of attorneys. And they always tell you exactly how much it cost and how many hundreds of birds they shot.
They (and Cheney) should have to eat each and every bird.
Go to back to the OP, which I didn’t answer the first time through:
It’s a little late for that, isn’t it? It’s hard to ask news outlets to ignore something that they know will get attention; that’s just not going to happen. Celebrity can be a factor in determining something’s newsworthiness. (Although if you watch the news on TV, you’d get the impression that that’s the ONLY thing that matters.) Even if it were incumbent upon them to do that, I doubt this qualifies as such a situation. But you’re not the first person to correctly note that newspeople have some screwed-up priorities. The problem is that everybody has a different opinion on what’s relevant - different news outlets, different journalists, etc. - and it’s not an absolute. And in addition to that relevance, they do have to get people to watch or read.
Oh have some sense. If I shot somebody in the chest and face because I was careless and stupid I’d feel a hell of a lot worse than if I were involved in an extramarital blowjob. Anybody that doesn’t feel that way has their priorities completely bass ackwards.
Just wanted to correct myself. That was Bush in 1994. I am thinking of something else that Ann richards did in the 1990 election that was compared to this moment.
There are some wonderful programs in South Texas (where there are a LOT of poor people) that let you bring in game and they get them to needy families.
My family takes a few extra deer every year to get some meat to these programs.
It seems you don’t do self-corrections either. Not content to cite the wrong number of birds as well as the wrong incident altogether — complete with a link to an all but irrelevant editorial — you attributed to me — in quotes, no less — something that I did not say. It might be that you consider brief posts to be some horrible evil mainly because you don’t do them, but I submit that fabricated numbers, red herring responses, and made up quotations are at least almost as bad.
Well, I guess I’m not on record as claiming that I don’t do them. I don’t know how horrible they are compared to, oh, say the Lisbon earthquake, but there you are.
The numbers weren’t fabricated, the responses weren’t red herring. I didn’t mean anything as a direct quote, but rather a toned down version of the truly grostesque ends to which you are willing to stretch the word “love.” (<----note, not a direct quote of anybody but an expression of someone’s sarcasm) And the worst you can say is that tit matches tat.
This diarist from from Daily Kos offers a good explanation for why this is more important than just the story itself; obviously, it was written before the details of the guy’s condition came out.
I’d bet it’s more likely you’ve fished stocked pond and lakes and just didn’t know about it. Most inland lakes with decent fishing are stocked fairly regularly.
Here’s a whole raft of stuff from the Michigan DNR about their fish hatcheries and stocking efforts.
Exaggeration it is, but you gotta make allowances. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time Cheney and friends killed innocent creatures trapped in a pen. [coughFallujah*cough]
Lets start with your point of view. You’ve assigned stupidity to one person in an accident that includes the actions of 2 people. Hunting involves communication between both parties. If you include the Secret Service then you have an entire staff of spotters that should have caught the potential cross-fire situation. If a group of people trained to look for dangerous situations missed it then it’s a little premature to assume Chaney was careless beyond reason.
I don’t even know where to go on your position of infidelity. Just looking at it from a relationship point of view I would think infidelity would do a lot more damage than an accidental injury. While working on projects with my friends (building houses) I’ve been shocked by electricity, hit with an 8 lb hammer and had a finger crushed in a concrete mold. While playing sports I’ve taken stitches in the face and had enough broken bones to lose count. All of them accidents and all of them forgiven.
If this accident affects Mr. Whittington’s friendship with Vice President Chaney in even a fraction of what infidelity does to a relationship I would be very surprised.
You can’t be serious. Before you shoot you make sure what’s on the other side of your rifle isn’t a person. That’s pretty much all there is to it. There’s just not a lot of variables here. A hunting accident happens one way - shooter is an idiot or careless or both. Or wasted.
And you’re uh - unique. If my s.o. was ever confused which I’d prefer he do - have an unauthorized blow job or accidentally shoot me in the chest, I hope somebody would please tell him where I stand on this.
I’ve changed my original opinion somewhat. I still think that it’s no big deal that Cheney didn’t tell the press right away. But I had no idea that he didn’t report it to the police, and that his handlers didn’t allow Cheney to be interviewed right afterwards. I have no idea whether it was because he had something to hide from police (influence of alcohol) or whether he’s just that arrogant.
It’s hard to ask news outlets to ignore something that they know will get attention; that’s just not going to happen. Celebrity can be a factor in determining something’s newsworthiness. (Although if you watch the news on TV, you’d get the impression that that’s the ONLY thing that matters.) Even if it were incumbent upon them to do that, I doubt this qualifies as such a situation. But you’re not the first person to correctly note that newspeople have some screwed-up priorities. The problem is that everybody has a different opinion on what’s relevant - different news outlets, different journalists, etc. - and it’s not an absolute. And in addition to that relevance, they do have to get people to watch or read.