Re: The Biggest Problem with the Cheney Shooting


Matthew Hennig wrote:
"xyzzy" <xyzzy.dude@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1140021583.308325.160480
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Dan Bretta wrote:

My theory is: You put a gun in the hand of millionaires who only seem
to be able to hunt farm raised game that's fenced in and eventually
they're going to shoot each other.

This summarizes it in a nutshell for me. The fact that he accidently
shot someone on a hunting trip doesn't say much about him either way
IMO -- accidents happen. Around where I live if we get through a
hunting season without someone getting killed that's a good thing. But
that's actually hunting where people have to go into he woods and find
prey. That is not what Cheney was doing.

What says more about his character is that he goes on these canned
hunts where the prey is basically helpless and provided for him on a
silver platter, complete with a full bar and a chauffer to drive him up
to it. That's not being an outdoorsman, that's not sport, that's not
hunting. That's slaughter for the fun and sake of slaughter. And then
given that the whole "hunt" is contrived and made idiotproof and yet he
STILL fucked up and shot a friend makes one wonder if he should be
"hunting" (real or fake) at all. But since he's the VP no one's going
to say to him "you're too old/drunk/stupid/whatever" to do this,
because he won't permit anyone to tell him this. If you're not blinded
by partisan blinders, this has to make you question his judgement and
attitude.

I'm not a hunter so I don't know for sure, but in my conversations with
the many neighbors and friends in my area who are, not many consider
that hunting. The hunters I know pride themselves on going into the
woods and it being them against a prey that has a chance so if they
bagged one, they've actually accomplished something, and if they
didn't, at least they got to spend some quality time in the woods. I'm
sure most of them give Cheney a pass on his fake hunting because
they're NRA guys and Cheney is the NRA's man, but if it were anyone
else going on such a farce of a canned hunt, they'd be full of
derision. Just imagine the reaction of rsfc 'wingers if Kerry had been
found to have gone on a canned hunt, and had shot someone on it, and
hidden that fact for almost a full day?

If Edwards (a more apt comparison) had gone hunting and accidentally shot
one of his friends and not made a press release on it for 18 hours, I
would have had the same response to the Cheney one. There's no coverup
here as much as the reporters want to try and make it look like there is
one. They're mad that a local paper got to break the story, not the
national press. They're mad that Cheney isn't catering to their every
little request. Given the media's actions towards the administration, is
it any surprise that the administration isn't out to try and help the
media out?

I mean, seriously, the press is whining about 18 hours.

You seized on one small point in my larger post for your response,
which is certainly a time honored usenet tactic that we all indulge in
so I can't blame you for that. But let's take it a little further.

Leave aside the press issue for a minute. Let's assume for the sake of
argument that they are all just a pack of Democratic hyenas who are
just out to make a mountain of a molehill and put that factor aside.
Hell, for the sake of argument, even forget that Cheney shot a guy.

Tell me what you think of Cheney's apparent love for canned hunts that
are basically just slaughters of caged, farm-raised animals, complete
with open bar and chauffer to and from the site of the massacre.
Compare and contrast that to what you would think if Kerry (and I pick
Kerry not Edwards because Kerry is the one who was accused of being a
poseur after posing in fatigues with a hunting rifle) were "hunting" in
that fashion with, say, George Soros or Ed Asner or some other rich
liberal supporter.

.