Ah, the beauty of the Internet. Everybody thinks that something that they say will only be heard by the people right around them. Luckily for us, not so:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney explains hunting
The former Massachusetts governor has called himself a lifelong hunter, yet his campaign acknowledged that he has been on just two hunting trips _ one when he was 15 and the other just last year.
"I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear," he said. "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times."
Romney has also supported gun control. When he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1994 he backed the Brady law and a ban on assault-style rifles. As governor, he supported the state's strict gun-control laws and signed into law one of the nation's tougher assault weapons laws.
He joined the National Rifle Association last August as a "Lifetime" member.
And before you right wing nuts get your panties in a bind, yes, I realize that Kerry did something similar a few years back. It's kinda ironic to read that article and see some of the quotes that administration stooges said about Kerry:
"... The NRA ... accusing Kerry of suiting himself up as a sportsman while opposing gun owner rights. Kerry has said he supports hunters and sportsmen's rights to own guns, but gun advocates have assailed him for supporting the ban on assault weapons and for requiring background checks on gun purchases."
"If John Kerry thinks the Second Amendment is about photo ops, he's daffy ..."
A spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign called the orchestrated event "another example of John Kerry presenting himself as someone he is not."
"It's a fraud," said Steve Schmidt, the Bush spokesman. "He has fought against the interests of gun owners throughout his 20-year Senate career."
Wow, pretty much all of those things could be said about Romney. But there's pretty much silence from the NRA now. Hmmm. Maybe it's not really about liberty, the Bill of Rights, etc. It's really about political partisanship and money. Hypocrisy, thy name is Romney/NRA/Republicans.
=================================================================
I am the walrus, coo-coo cachu. The man who put the "dip" in diplomacy recently decided it was time to lecture a foreign leader, Saudi's King Abdullah on the legality of the US Iraq invasion:
"With all due respect to the King, it's a mistake to characterise the US presence in Iraq as illegal," -- Bolton said the US was in Iraq at the invitation of its government and its presence was further sanctioned by a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Right. We listened to a couple of rich Iraqi expatriates (hardly the Iraqi government) and we lied to the UN about the Iraqi threat in order to get them to sanction the war. Sounds like the Saudi king pretty much has it correctly pegged as an illegitimate war.
John Bolton, you ignorant slut. What a pompous ass. He goes around with an air of righteousness and is consistently proven wrong. Recently, after repeatedly telling Jon Stewart that Stewart was wrong on issues of policy, history, etc., it was quite easy for the Daily Show to prove Bolton wrong. In other words, the man that was the ambassador to the UN, a position of great influence in which one should have a fairly encompassing knowledge of history and foreign policy, was schooled by a comedy show. In an administration full of people without the slightest bit of self-awareness or modesty, Bolton still stands out.
9 comments:
I've never understood the Right's obsession with hunting. Guns are for shooting politicians, not animals.
It's always funny to watch the Left and Right argue who is a GOOD president like Abe Lincoln. As long as he's the measuring stick for good presidency we're all screwed.
What?! Scott--you're going to have to qualify that statement about Abe Lincoln.
Um, well, he's not he worst president ever, Wilson, FDR, and Truman give him a real run for his money there, but certainly he's in the top 5.
He's the father of federal corporate welfare in America. He vastly increased the size of the Federal Government in his brief tenure and squashed the constitution and the only stop against Federal tyranny left; State rights. He surely had no regard for the separation of powers.
He also pointlessly sacrificed 600,000 American lives, and shut down newspapers in the North who called him on it. He also illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus to perform mass arrests of detractors who wanted a peaceful resolution to the Civil War. When the Chief Justice called him on that he issued a warrant for his arrest. Yeah, he really "listened" to his rivals, what a crock.
Mitt Romney grew up in Michigan and only went hunting ONCE as a kid? How disgusting! What a disgrace! No wonder he fled for the east coast! Too embarrased to stay in Michigan!
""I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear," he said. "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will."
Cuz there's nothing more manly than shooting small animals for sport. That makes me want to rip an man's clothes off on the spot!
I've always been a believer in government as caretaker. There are certain things, like enforcement of basic rights for all people, that must be done on a governmental scale. I also think that the basic measure of a society is how well it cares for its poorest, most vulnerable populations.
Scott, I'm not even going go there and try to argue the merits of presidents (though I'm afraid to know who you thinka good president is) way before either of our lifetimes. Neither of us are even close to qualifying. But neither is John Bolton. I didn't bring up the point to compare presidents. I did it to illustrate one of the primary character flaws of Bolton: complete and utter certainty in the face of abslutely zero knowledge.
Laura said, "There are certain things, like enforcement of basic rights for all people, that must be done on a governmental scale" -- I completely agree. There is such a thing as the "common good". Society and industry, when left to their own devices, will not always work for the betterment of all. Without regulation, we'd have child labor, monopolies, meat wouldn't be inspected, pollution would be worse than it already is, etc. Obviously, there should be some limits (check out the "nanny state" discussion here). Despite what idealists on either side think, a great society is not one with a "pure" economic/social/political system. The perfect society learns the correct balance of both capitalistic and socialist elements. We'll truly make progress when those idealists don't automatically cringe and rebel when they hear the words "socialism" or "capitalism".
Agreed. There's also certain things that I believe should not be run 'for profit'. Social services, education, health care - those are all common good services that should be run for the benefit of all, not the exclusion of those who cannot afford them. It turns my stomach when I read about things like the Breast Cancer bill requiring insurance companies to cover in-patient mastectomies being turned down in congress (hopefully it will pass this time). Just because it's not profitable to keep a woman overnight for observation doesn't mean it's also in her best medical interests. Doctors, not pencil-pushers or FDA and pharmaceutical lackies should be deciding what is in the best interests of their patients.
I'm not even going go there and try to argue the merits of presidents way before either of our lifetimes. Neither of us are even close to qualifying.
Well it is, of course, your discussion to that's fine, but I must say that's a bit surprising coming from you.
though I'm afraid to know who you thinka good president is
Well, those that start useless wars automatically rank lower than those who don't.
Scott, I'm just saying that I might be a little outside of my element trying to argue the merits of a president that I was not even around to see. Too much of my evidence would be anecdotal. And a lot of presidents that were not viewed positively during their time in office are viewed better now (and vice-versa). But I'd definitely be interested to know who you thought was a good president and I'll try to argue to the best of what I do know.
"Well, those that start useless wars automatically rank lower than those who don't." -- Unfortunately, I'm not sure that anyone in the last 60 years hasn't started one. Maybe Ford? lol. I don't think he started any wars.
Post a Comment