|
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
|
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
|
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message ... After the White House reluctantly conceded yesterday that it sat on the blockbuster news that Cheney shot a hunting buddy Saturday, the veep's office revealed he didn't even have the proper $7 stamp on his hunting license to shoot quail in Texas. NOYB wrote: He didn't shoot a quail. He shot a Whittington. Doesn't matter. If you're in the woods with a gun, during hunting season, you darn well better have all the paperwork in order. It's kind of like sitting in a boat, with a fishing rod, and line, hook, bait, etc etc.... and the wildlife enforcement asks to see your fishing license. You can't just tell him, "Don't need one, we ain't caught nothin' anyhow." You can still fish for snook in Florida without a snook stamp...as long as you have a valid fishing license...and don't keep any snook. If Cheney wasn't in possession of any quail, he could easily argue he was hunting for squirrel or other rodents. So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? Did he any quail in his possession? Ah, don't want to answer the question, huh? Typical of you. Notice, "ATTEMPT to poach" Which, in most states IS illegal. Now again, do you think it's acceptable for the VP to lie? I heard he was out hunting varmints. He got his bag limit, and called it a day. |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? It was OK for Clinton to do it.........and to a grand jury. No it wasn't. Time for Doug's Perfect Question, not used in quite some time: Who told you to say that? Nobody you've ever heard of said it was OK for Clinton to lie. The only point ever made was that lying about sex is on quite a different scale than lies which cost thousands of lives. The Dems said that repeatedly....after all, it was only about sex.....remember? checking my English/Spanish switch here....just a sec.... Nobody said he didn't lie. You know that. The Dems said it did not matter. It was only about sex after all, and no one cared about the lying to the grand jury. Remember???? Saying it didn't matter and saying he didn't lie are two completely different things. Any English teacher would slam you and keep you after school if you continued with this line of thinking. The Dems said it did not matter that Clinton lied. That is all you need to know. Yesterday, I told my son I forgot to buy Pop Tarts. He said it didn't matter. Are those two different statements, or do they mean the same thing? |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? It was OK for Clinton to do it.........and to a grand jury. No it wasn't. Time for Doug's Perfect Question, not used in quite some time: Who told you to say that? Nobody you've ever heard of said it was OK for Clinton to lie. The only point ever made was that lying about sex is on quite a different scale than lies which cost thousands of lives. The Dems said that repeatedly....after all, it was only about sex.....remember? checking my English/Spanish switch here....just a sec.... Nobody said he didn't lie. You know that. The Dems said it did not matter. It was only about sex after all, and no one cared about the lying to the grand jury. Remember???? Saying it didn't matter and saying he didn't lie are two completely different things. Any English teacher would slam you and keep you after school if you continued with this line of thinking. The Dems said it did not matter that Clinton lied. That is all you need to know. Yesterday, I told my son I forgot to buy Pop Tarts. He said it didn't matter. Are those two different statements, or do they mean the same thing? |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? It was OK for Clinton to do it.........and to a grand jury. No it wasn't. Time for Doug's Perfect Question, not used in quite some time: Who told you to say that? Nobody you've ever heard of said it was OK for Clinton to lie. The only point ever made was that lying about sex is on quite a different scale than lies which cost thousands of lives. The Dems said that repeatedly....after all, it was only about sex.....remember? checking my English/Spanish switch here....just a sec.... Nobody said he didn't lie. You know that. The Dems said it did not matter. It was only about sex after all, and no one cared about the lying to the grand jury. Remember???? Saying it didn't matter and saying he didn't lie are two completely different things. Any English teacher would slam you and keep you after school if you continued with this line of thinking. The Dems said it did not matter that Clinton lied. That is all you need to know. Yesterday, I told my son I forgot to buy Pop Tarts. He said it didn't matter. Are those two different statements, or do they mean the same thing? LOL! So you place forgetting to buy Pop Tarts on the same level as the POTUS lying to a US Grand Jury? |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message ... After the White House reluctantly conceded yesterday that it sat on the blockbuster news that Cheney shot a hunting buddy Saturday, the veep's office revealed he didn't even have the proper $7 stamp on his hunting license to shoot quail in Texas. NOYB wrote: He didn't shoot a quail. He shot a Whittington. Doesn't matter. If you're in the woods with a gun, during hunting season, you darn well better have all the paperwork in order. It's kind of like sitting in a boat, with a fishing rod, and line, hook, bait, etc etc.... and the wildlife enforcement asks to see your fishing license. You can't just tell him, "Don't need one, we ain't caught nothin' anyhow." You can still fish for snook in Florida without a snook stamp...as long as you have a valid fishing license...and don't keep any snook. If Cheney wasn't in possession of any quail, he could easily argue he was hunting for squirrel or other rodents. So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? He had a license, just not a new type stamp. Uh, the stamp IS the license to hunt quail. He didn't have it. He poached. No, the license required to hunt is a hunting license. Extra stamps may be required, but it is not the hunting license. We have to have a fishing license. Plus if you fish in San Francisco bay all the way to Redding on the Sac River, you are required to have a delta enhancement stamp. You get caught without one, you do not get a fishing without a license ticket. You get another type ticket. |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? It was OK for Clinton to do it.........and to a grand jury. No it wasn't. Time for Doug's Perfect Question, not used in quite some time: Who told you to say that? Nobody you've ever heard of said it was OK for Clinton to lie. The only point ever made was that lying about sex is on quite a different scale than lies which cost thousands of lives. The Dems said that repeatedly....after all, it was only about sex.....remember? checking my English/Spanish switch here....just a sec.... Nobody said he didn't lie. You know that. The Dems said it did not matter. It was only about sex after all, and no one cared about the lying to the grand jury. Remember???? Saying it didn't matter and saying he didn't lie are two completely different things. Any English teacher would slam you and keep you after school if you continued with this line of thinking. The Dems said it did not matter that Clinton lied. That is all you need to know. Yesterday, I told my son I forgot to buy Pop Tarts. He said it didn't matter. Are those two different statements, or do they mean the same thing? LOL! So you place forgetting to buy Pop Tarts on the same level as the POTUS lying to a US Grand Jury? You really don't understand the concept here, do you? Or are you just playing games? |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? It was OK for Clinton to do it.........and to a grand jury. No it wasn't. Time for Doug's Perfect Question, not used in quite some time: Who told you to say that? Nobody you've ever heard of said it was OK for Clinton to lie. The only point ever made was that lying about sex is on quite a different scale than lies which cost thousands of lives. The Dems said that repeatedly....after all, it was only about sex.....remember? checking my English/Spanish switch here....just a sec.... Nobody said he didn't lie. You know that. The Dems said it did not matter. It was only about sex after all, and no one cared about the lying to the grand jury. Remember???? Saying it didn't matter and saying he didn't lie are two completely different things. Any English teacher would slam you and keep you after school if you continued with this line of thinking. The Dems said it did not matter that Clinton lied. That is all you need to know. Yesterday, I told my son I forgot to buy Pop Tarts. He said it didn't matter. Are those two different statements, or do they mean the same thing? LOL! So you place forgetting to buy Pop Tarts on the same level as the POTUS lying to a US Grand Jury? You really don't understand the concept here, do you? Or are you just playing games? Playing right along with you Doug. |
Poor Dick Cheney - the saga continues (guffaw)
Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message ... After the White House reluctantly conceded yesterday that it sat on the blockbuster news that Cheney shot a hunting buddy Saturday, the veep's office revealed he didn't even have the proper $7 stamp on his hunting license to shoot quail in Texas. NOYB wrote: He didn't shoot a quail. He shot a Whittington. Doesn't matter. If you're in the woods with a gun, during hunting season, you darn well better have all the paperwork in order. It's kind of like sitting in a boat, with a fishing rod, and line, hook, bait, etc etc.... and the wildlife enforcement asks to see your fishing license. You can't just tell him, "Don't need one, we ain't caught nothin' anyhow." You can still fish for snook in Florida without a snook stamp...as long as you have a valid fishing license...and don't keep any snook. If Cheney wasn't in possession of any quail, he could easily argue he was hunting for squirrel or other rodents. So you think it's quite acceptable for the VP to attempt to poach, then when caught, lie? He had a license, just not a new type stamp. Uh, the stamp IS the license to hunt quail. He didn't have it. He poached. No, the license required to hunt is a hunting license. Extra stamps may be required, but it is not the hunting license. We have to have a fishing license. Plus if you fish in San Francisco bay all the way to Redding on the Sac River, you are required to have a delta enhancement stamp. You get caught without one, you do not get a fishing without a license ticket. You get another type ticket. Holy Hell!! I really don't care about what you WRONGLY think. Show me the CA statute that states that if you are caught without the proper stamp, that it IS NOT hunting without license/permit? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com