hunting with the VP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/...nting_accident


--

The Universe is utterly indifferent to the fact that you do not realize
the consequences of your actions
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

In article <Sb-dnQCr1cRbNHLeRVn-pw@comcast.com>, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

€ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/...nting_accident



So are you saying he doesn't quite have this "gun control" concept
figured out yet

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:34:13 -0800, Alan Street
<agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote:

>So are you saying he doesn't quite have this "gun control" concept
>figured out yet

BFD, so he shot a lawyer.
Not like it was an endangered species or something.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:31:50 -0800, "Scott"
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

>"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
>news:Sb-dnQCr1cRbNHLeRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/...nting_accident
>
>He peppered a lawyer;
>
>He should get extra points.
>
>I knew there had something about ole Dick that was OK.
>
>
He doesn't get point, the lawyer lived

"Rod" <log_dog@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:43efc74d.56031437@news.verizon.net...
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:31:50 -0800, "Scott"
> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
> >news:Sb-dnQCr1cRbNHLeRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >
> >>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/...nting_accident
> >
> >He peppered a lawyer;
> >
> >He should get extra points.
> >
> >I knew there had something about ole Dick that was OK.

> He doesn't get point, the lawyer lived.

Honorable Mention then.

Scott wrote:
> "Rod" <log_dog@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:43efc74d.56031437@news.verizon.net...
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:31:50 -0800, "Scott"
>><pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Sb-dnQCr1cRbNHLeRVn-pw@comcast.com...

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/...nting_accident

>>>He peppered a lawyer;
>>>
>>>He should get extra points.
>>>
>>>I knew there had something about ole Dick that was OK.

>>He doesn't get point, the lawyer lived.

> Honorable Mention then.

Wait till the lawyer recovers. THEN watch the litigation begin.

"TonyP" <arpierre@hooptown.net> wrote in message
news:PvRHf.2502$cq4.2141@fe09.lga...
> Wait till the lawyer recovers. THEN watch the litigation begin.j

Perhaps, but then there is the issue of the VP being somewhat beholdin' to
someone that he accidentally shot and the person didn't press charges or
file suit... Perhaps there's certain braggin' rights about having been
accidentally shot by the VP...

Amusing news stories this morning. It seems it was the lawyer's fault for
coming up behind the VP and not announcing his presence "according to
protocol."

For those that have never hunted, here is the protocol.
The guy with the gun is responsible for ensuring that there is nothing in
front of it he does not want to shoot before he pulls the trigger.
Accidents can still happen, but should only be a problem when the victim is
concealed by terrain or something similar. Pictures on the news this
morning show the grass to be about knee deep. You can't conceal much in
that. When hunrting, you are quiet. You don't go around announcing your
presence.

When hunting birds, you bring the shotgun up and track from behind, to in
front of the bird. You fire while the gun is moving, leading the bird by a
sufficient amount to allow the shot and the bird to arrive at the same place
at the same time. It is not all that uncommon that another hunter will be
in the path of your swing. When that happens, you are supposed to see the
person and, usually, stop the swing before your weapon points at the other
hunter. At the very least, you should lift the barrel as you pass it by the
other hunter so that it is never pointed at a human. The VP obviously
didn't.

It's interesting that the lawyer was, supposedly, behind the VP. You don't
normally track a bird from in front, to in back of you. If you do, you've
already missed your best shot at hitting it. It is highly unlikely that the
lawyer was really behind the VP, but hey, even Republicans sometimes use
spin to make things look better.

This sets up an interesting situation, at least in my mind:
1. If the lawyer did any business with the government at all, the VP was
most likely in a conflict of interest situation. It would have been a
conflict for me.
2. While both people may have had a hand in the accident, the VP was most
responsible. If there wasn't a conflict of interest to start, there darned
sure is now.
3. Watch to see how long it is before that lawyer finds a way to capitalize
on his advantage. He didn't get to be a millionaire by failing to notice
opportunities like this one.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:sb%Hf.37010$697.15570@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

> Amusing news stories this morning. It seems it was the lawyer's fault for
> coming up behind the VP and not announcing his presence "according to
> protocol."

Amusing indeed. Funny how it's always someone else's fault where our
current VP and President are concerned. Someone else's fault that the Iraq
intel turned out to be exaggerated. Someone else's fault about the economy
sputtering. Someone else's fault that the federal response to Katrina was
an utter failure. Someone else's fault that we still haven't caught Bin
Laden.

> 3. Watch to see how long it is before that lawyer finds a way to
> capitalize on his advantage. He didn't get to be a millionaire by failing
> to notice opportunities like this one.

You're kidding, right? The lawyer is a Republican sycophant. He'll kiss
Cheney's ass until it's red with hickeys and then use his own handkerchief
to wipe it off. No one on the inside, absolutely no one, ever criticizes
anything Bush and Cheney do because no matter what shit hits the fan or what
pellets tan your hide, it's never their fault. Hell, it took them over 24
hours to report the incident. They only did that because it was discovered
by the media and they didn't want to be accused of trying to cover it up.
Otherwise they simply would have covered it up.

Thus spake GWB <gwb3483@eatel.net> :

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:34:13 -0800, Alan Street
><agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>So are you saying he doesn't quite have this "gun control" concept
>>figured out yet
>
>BFD, so he shot a lawyer.
>Not like it was an endangered species or something.

It was a Republican lawyer, and he didn't even kill it.

Q: How do you dress a lawyer?
A: Hang 'im up by his ankles and cut 'im from throat to crotch.
--
dillon

Could have been is in the past
Could be is in the future
There is only the now