# Good--Bad---Kerry---Bush



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Good < -- > Bad

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe???

Lemme' see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Thought you would find this interesting. Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.

This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Only 61 days until the election.


----------



## pjb1816 (Sep 8, 2003)

Well said SFC... well said.

The double standards and media biases are stunning.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Rude,
Your hypocricy is dumbfounding.
The way you rewrite the facts(or lack thereof) to fit your political stance is stunning. 
Just one example, the conflict in serbia in no way shape or form cost this country 77 billion dollars. However you could read that into it with the additional funding added to the budget due to more military spending during that fiscal year. Nice try though.
The stock market crash of 2000? The stock market might have dipped but it was still above any level it had under reaganomics. YIKES! REAGANONMICS, the worlds greatest oxymoron.

personally I chose to vote for someone who I think will help OUR country and not every other one in the world.
Which to be honest makes it tough for me to even vote this year.
When forced to vote for DUMB OR DUMBER I chose the man that didn't shove cocaine up his nose and didn't go awol from his job. If someone did the things bush had done they would be in the pokey, not the oval office. Plain and simple.

cootkiller


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

cootkiller......if you think stealing our privacy and freedom is going to help us, then by all means. vote for kerry.

by neutraliing our threats, bush is protecting the homeland. your right, rude got the numbers off, but yea, it actualy did cost nearly that much in serbia.....why didnt you hear about it then? because the leader was a democrat, so the democraticaly owned media chanels put it in a good light. eveorything is owned and controllled in the end by one of the two partys. thats why we NEED a VIABLE third, forth, or even fifth party in america. when there are only two choices, it causes a greater devide amongst the parts, as they are free to focus all there hatetred on one target.

How do you think we will be safer under Kerrry, when he bans eveorything except blackpowder muzzel-loaders and stick-bows? when the patriot ( read: un-patriot ) act is expanded to include eveoryone out of fear of "terrorists", will you be saffer? when the United Nations is put in complete controll of our law making and elections, wil you be safer? im just currious.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Trooper,
You showcase how misinformed you are by your last paragraph.
Kerry does not wish to ban hunting weapons, however a ban on assault weapons is one of his platforms, and well it should be. There is no hunting arena in which assault weapons have a place and the Brady laws should be reinstated. And if you really think that Bush's motives to go into Iraq were to neutralize (spelled correctly here) our enemies, you've got another thing coming. Where did Bush and his family make their millions, could it be OIL!
What company still has Cheney on its payroll? Could it be Haliburton.

And as all republicans before you, you conveniently sidestepped the issue of our president snorting enough cocaine to get Rick James by for a year.

So let us compare:
Clinton-- getting a presidential hummer-- Not illegal but immoral, not punishable by jail time but as very bad example and damaging to the office of the president. Becomes a hero to college age males all over the U.S.

Bush-- snorting a highly illegal narcotic over and over again while he is supposed to be in the National Guard protecting U.S. airspace-- highly illegal and morally wrong and punishable by 10 to 20 in a maximum security prison. Makes it hard to be proud of our country doesn't it.

cootkiller


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

(read with a Clinton accent) BUT I DIDN'T INHALE. HA! HA! HA!



> The way you rewrite the facts(or lack thereof) to fit your political stance is stunning.


Not accusing you of rewriting facts, just ignoring many others to fit your political view. What about Kerry admitting to war atrocities committed in Vietnam? Highly illegal according to the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention. I certainly don't hold it against him for what he did or did not do over there, but just a point to ponder.

I do the same, but eventually I have to take the two canidates no matter how imperfect and compare them on a balance. I weigh my principles for and against them to determine a clear-cut choice. I won't always agree with their views, but sometimes you have to make a decision even if it means you'll sometimes be wrong.

On another note, and I haven't done any research on this. 
How many other contractors (i.e. Haliburton) would have the resources to rebuild the infrastructure of a war-torn country the size of Iraq. I'm betting it isn't many.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

cootkiller said:


> Trooper,
> You showcase how misinformed you are by your last paragraph.
> Kerry does not wish to ban hunting weapons, however a ban on assault weapons is one of his platforms, and well it should be. There is no hunting arena in which assault weapons have a place and the Brady laws should be reinstated. And if you really think that Bush's motives to go into Iraq were to neutralize (spelled correctly here) our enemies, you've got another thing coming. Where did Bush and his family make their millions, could it be OIL!
> What company still has Cheney on its payroll? Could it be Haliburton.
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cootkiller

I have no idea how much we spent in Serbia, but I am willing to bet you don't know either. Therefore, you have to be bias to make the statement that it in no way shape or form cost 77 billion. How do you know? I am conservative, and admit it, but I hope I weigh the facts better than you just did.

I'm sure Rude found a site or received an email with this story, and if I remember it is old and came from a time when Iraq had cost us less. We are at 120 billion now and Kerry exaggerates that and says 200 billion. That is the projected cost. I enjoyed Rude's post.

The stock market didn't crash under Clinton, but It began it's dive into the crapper in April while Clinton was in office. Although I am conservative I am realistic enough not to blame him a lot for that. The stock market could not continue unchecked and it had to come down. Janet Reno braking up Microsoft may have been the trigger that began the decline. Then 9/11 hit us and that didn't help either. I blame a rapid unchecked stock market, and Muslim terrotists for the poor economy that we have now passed through.

I may not agree with Regans trickle down theory, although it had a slight beneficial impact. The real success to Regan's economics was tax cuts, and the confidence of the American people which the media is doing it's best to destroy for Bush right now.

Shove cocaine up his nose? I heard about the drinking, but not anything about drugs. I thought I had heard it all. Where did you hear about cocaine, source that please.

I can't remember the generals name, but he just wrote a book and was pitching it on TV the other night. In the interview he was asked about Haliburton. I also watched an interview with an executive of a competitive company. I was impressed with the executives honesty and surprised by his answer. Both he and I think it was general Franks said Haliburton was the only company in the United States big enough, and with means to meet the requirements of the government contract. Simple answers are normally the correct answers.

The assault weapon ban should be reinstated. Why, the are not automatic like the media keeps saying. They are semi auto. Did you see the list that Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, and Feinstein wanted to tack onto the assault weapon ban? As I understand it anything that had been used by the army. This bill already outlawed weapons with pistol grips. The shotgun that Kerry was presented with last week and waved in the air would be illegal under the assault weapons ban.

If the Brady bill would save a single life it would be worth something, but I think the Brady bill caused more problems, and solved none. The media manages to dig up a law enforcement officer here and there like the one this morning on MS NBC. He stated that there would be AK47 all over the streets. What an idiot AK47 are full auto and they remain illegal, and have been so since 1934.

Clintons oral sex was not illegal, but his perjury was. Felony as a matter of fact.

I think Bush opened his military records two years ago and at that time solved the question of AWOL. Now there are new records, but they appear to be fraudulent. I notice the liberals hate to accept the idea that someone forged these records, but then how do they account for the testimony of the wife and son of the man who supposedly signed the records. A typewriter, more accurately typesetter typewriter could have done it. If he had changed the ball that sets the type twice, and reset the paper twice for a simple memo. Possible, but not probable.

You chastised Rude for hypocrisy out of one side of your mouth, while spewing your own out the other side. I notice Rude more than likely copied an article he liked, but your hypocrisy was your own words. How is it you have such strong opinions with little or no facts? I am conservatively bias, but admit it. Even so I hope my post is more realistic than the baseless partisan line you posted.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Much of my info came to me from the fact that I just finished reading Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars who tell them". It is a ultra liberal left wing book written by an ultra liberal which I am not. The basis of the book, which was also the basis of my post was how easy it is for a person to take the facts and bend them to use for their own political gain. My little paragraphs about bush and clinton are examples of just such bending to my own agenda, and it was pretty easy.

What I did learn from reading the book was that, yes Bush did use Cocaine, yes Right wing conservatives bend the facts frequently and viciously, as do left wing liberals.

Point being, I would rather not vote for either candidate but with the system we have in place will be all but forced to do so. A vote for Ralph Nader would be worse than not voting at all.

cootkiller


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

cootkiller said:


> Rude,
> Your hypocricy is dumbfounding.
> The way you rewrite the facts(or lack thereof) to fit your political stance is stunning.
> Just one example, the conflict in serbia in no way shape or form cost this country 77 billion dollars. cootkiller


Cootkiller,

While you are in school, have one of your pupils tell you what 'Hypocri*s*y' {and in your terms:


cootkiller said:


> (spelled correctly here)cootkiller


}means. I by no way changed views while attempting to maintain the first. Stop using big words out of context.

Also, stop believing Kitty and her Bush-banging book. Those are not facts even though she said she interviewed 986 'sources' to include the ex-Bush who said that she never said anything about W doing cocaine at Camp David and that it was a fabrication by Kitty.

Your attacks on everyone one of my comments forms a cycle of animosity towards me. Talk to me about not having facts and you retaliate with a 'feeling or belief' that the facts I used were fictitious. At the time this was written, those were the facts. This is a re-post of former information. Stop pointing the finger when you have three coming back to you.

Either contribute information or just stay a voyeur and stop trying to sound so collegial. Sometimes you post some good debates and I have acknowledged that you. Stick with it.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Sorry Rude,
As I said, the purpose of my post was to demonstrate how easy it is to take FACTS that don't belong in the arguement and use them to one's own
advantage. Heck, Frankens book points out how the Rep. party does this all the time and then Franken does it himself in every chapter, which is the point he is trying to make and he does so eloquently. That is all.

I am not pro Kerry, but I am most assuredly not pro Bush. In a country of almost 300 million it is amazing that we cannot come up with a candidate for president who is worthy of office.

cootkiller


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

cootkiller said:


> Trooper,
> You showcase how misinformed you are by your last paragraph.
> And as all republicans before you, you conveniently sidestepped the issue of our president snorting enough cocaine to get Rick James by for a year.


CASE IN POINT= WHERE ARE YOUR 'FACTS' FOR THIS STATEMENT?



cootkiller said:


> Bush-- snorting a highly illegal narcotic over and over again while he is supposed to be in the National Guard protecting U.S. airspace-- highly illegal and morally wrong and punishable by 10 to 20 in a maximum security prison. Makes it hard to be proud of our country doesn't it.
> 
> cootkiller


AGAIN, WHERE IS ANY FORM OF A FACT HERE? Is an opinion stated by someone else in a book which was VERY loosely paragraphed a FACT? Nope, don't think so buddy.

So again I ask you, any facts or is the 'teacher' exempt from this journalism ethic?

Backup, re-group, plan your attack, and strike over. Or just slam me about being a high-n-tight wearing, right-winged nut-job again like you have done before when I backed you up a step and move on.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Rude,
Aren't your 'Facts' also taken from someone else. I am guessing that you took them from another right-wing ultra-conservative, and (in your words) nut job.

So as I have proven my point, anyone can take what someone else has said, proclaim it as fact and proclaim it to others. This is routinely done by people in politics. You want examples fine.

Check pages 72, 17-20 of "lies and the lying liars who tell them"

People like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly make it very easy for people to make fun of ultra conservative, right wing , nut jobs.

For proof on Bush snorting coke, here it is. Int he 2000 electionBush was asked point blank if he did cocaine sometime before 1974. He refused to answer. When he filled out the paperwork to run for president he had to answer the question because he was applying for a federal job. It asked if he had used drugs in the last seven years. He was able to answer no, as he told the press. He was then asked if he could answer no if asked if he used drugs when his father was president. He had to pause and think. eventually he answered, Let me see, um, yes I could.
He had to think whether or not his father was president was before or after 1974. Evidence of his drug use.

Page 51 in Lies and the lying liars that tell them.

cootkiller


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

NOW,
Do I really think GW did coke. I don't know I wasn't there and second hand info is never good. But I hope I have made my point as to the fact that politics stink and have ruined our country.
People from both sides take facts and peoples words and get them all screwed up.
Like I said before, I wish there was a candidate to vote for but I for one do not see one.

I may just write in BILL CLINTON.

cootkiller


----------



## Britman (Dec 18, 2002)

Kerry does not wish to ban hunting weapons, however a ban on assault weapons is one of his platforms, and well it should be. There is no hunting arena in which assault weapons have a place and the Brady laws should be reinstated.

Coot, ignorance must be bliss. Your statement above shows your lack of knowledge in regards to the 2nd ammendment. Our fore fathers were not thinking about hunting when they wrote it. It is also a proven fact that the more gun control laws that go into effect, crime rates actually increase. Look at Australia. Geez I wonder why?? :roll:


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

No, I wouldn't call it ignorance, I would call it my opinion that we don't need to own semi automatic ASSAULT rifles. The bans in australia and great britain were not just focused towards Assault firearms and I do not support that. I think we should be able to own shotguns and rifles and handguns. However, I DO NOT think that americans need to possess firearms that are capable of firing off 7.62 full metal jacket rounds at near automatic rates for any reason. 
Just my opinion.

cootkiller


----------



## Britman (Dec 18, 2002)

Then I guess you do not believe in the 2nd amendment :eyeroll:


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

No, that is not what I said. I think that the way YOU perceive the US constitution and the way I do may differ a little.
I do not believe that our forefathers intended for paramilitary groups to be walking the streets with enough firepower to eliminate 100's.
Remeber they wrote it in a time of muskets and muzzleloaders.

cootkiller


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

CotKiller.....YOU DARE SAY THAT I AM THE IGNORANT ONE! WHEN YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS HAVE NO SPORTING PURPOSE?

AR-15: coyotes, woodchucks. bolth viable sporting species ( CAN EASILY BE MODIFIED TO EFFECIVELY HUNT ANYTHIG FROM SQUIREL TO KODIAK BEAR....BUT THATS NOT THE POINT...)

AK47 / SKS : more than i viable deer gun out to 150 yards. the round is balisticaly identical to 30-30, historys most prominent deer cartridge. again, verry viable for a sporting purpose, DEER HUNTING.

THESE ARE THE TWO MAJOR "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ( IN QUOTES HERE, AS THEY DONT MEET THE MILITARY DEFINITION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON, JUST THE LIBERAL LEFTIST DEFINITION...) yet, they have many viable, MAINSTREAM hunting applications.....so how is it you reconsile the obvious with your Leftist view point?

**BTW:i am typing on a laptop keypad, am im not used to it yet, thus the majority of my misspellings. And if your wondering why your name is misspelled, whell, that was just out of disdane for your vicious attack on my mental capacity.

STOP TRYING TO "INTERPERATE" THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS AND IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS!!!!!!! JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT DOESNT MEAN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO "INTERPERATE" ITS SIGNIFICANCE AWAY. sorry for yelling, but im getting fed up with it.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Also, how do you figure that my Semi auto SKS, with wich i can get a maximum of 4 shots per second ( uncontrolled, unaimed fire...) comes anywhere close to the firing rate of fully automatic AK, wich can dump its 30 round mag in a litle under 2 seconds?

the firing rate of your average semi-auto is less than 1/3 the rate of a standard assault rifle......where do you get this stuff from? that book? :lol:

And BTW: there not "para-military"groups, they are the legitimate segments of the UNORGANIZED militia, just as provided for in the United States Code..... and lest you retort with the "the national Guard is the militia" line, no, no, sorry, the national guard is the ORGANIZED militia.....thats only half of it.

** when i say militia, i mean the average, eveoryday joe-shmoe gun owner who would ban together with his gun owning neibors to defend this nation......not the religious Zealots and nut-cases. there are not the militia, tey are just cults that parade around as militia. dont confuse the two.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Dang, I'm glad my kids aren't in Coots school system. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have a degree in education like Coot. There is nothing more liberal in the world than a college professor in education. Hence perhaps the reason for Cootkillers skewered opinions. Take a look at the North Dakota Teachers Association, and for that matter the national. Not many people more liberal. Have you seen the antihunting crap your kids see in school? Hey Coot if you receive anti hunting material for the education of the children in your classes do you balance it with pro hunting material? NDEA would sell their sole for Kerry in office, or any other appeasement pansy. Also read anti gun, pro same sex marriage, pro welfare, anti military, pro choice ( ah sorry pro abortion, choice is in the bedroom) etc. etc. etc.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Hold on guys,
I do not mix my professional life with my private life. And since some of you are also in education you know that there is strict guidelines as to what you can introduce in the classroom and what you can't.
As far as not wanting your child in my classroom. How do you know. You have never been here and have never observed my teaching. Pretty shallow of you to make such a judgement on me because of my political stance.
And you all can keep telling yourselves that "assault weapons" are great for hunting but I am guessing that if faced with a 200 yd shot at a boone and crockett whitetail you would not select the ak47 or the sks but a conventional hunting firearm. My choice would be bolt action, a variety not banned in the Brady laws.

cootkiller


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

thats all fine and dandy for you cootkiller, but the fact still remains that they are more than capable of being used for legitimate sporting purposes. just because you choose not to use them doesnt mean we cant.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

True,
I just hope I am never in the area where a deer hunter is using one of those weapons. It is dangerous enought without a rat-a-tat-tat and bullets zinging wildly everywhere from a semiauto borderline machine gun that was not built for hunting.

cootkiller


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

No....coot, you missed it again.

There is no RAT-A-TAT-TAT. it shoot one bulet ONE. thats it. just like any ohter hunting rifle. go to remingtons website. look up the 7400 model rifle. its semi auto, has detachable mags, and fires MORE POWERFULL bullets than the AK, or the AR-15. yet it nothing out of the ordinary. its just an average, joe-hunter type gun. but, in essence, there is no diference betweene it and the Semi-auto AK or SKS. the only diference is the 7400 LOOKS MORE pliticaly correct. 
its not a border-line machiene gun. its not even close. the cyclic rate ( the rate at wich it shoots bullets) in NOWHERE close to it. as i have stated before, 4 does not equal, nor is it close to 15-20 rounds pers second. you have to add to this, that you MUST USE A 5 ROUND CLIP in order to be legal for hunting in most states.

Third, a hunter wouldnt fire off all those shots.

#1, he wuoldnt have that many( shots)

#2, if he did, it would throw off his aim so badly, that he would most likely miss with all 5 bullets.

Im trying to be open minded about this whole debate. i would like to formaly appoligise for yelling at you earlyer. i should have been more tollerant of your point of view, regardless if i think its right or wrong. again, you have my appology.

I have no doubt taht you hunt, and that you have considerable knowledge of traditional hunting arms. the problem is, i suspect, you have probably never been in the same room as an AR-15, SKS, Ak-47 (ect.). and if you have, i would surmise that you have never actualy used one, albeit at the range or on a hunting trip. Democrats are alwase campaining as the party that for the people, corect? i am not a rich man ( regardless of what the republican steriotype says ) and i cant afford alot of guns. i chose the SKS as my rifle. why? because they are inexpencive, durrable, reiable, fire cheap, eadily avalible ammunition, and are reasonably accurate out to 150yards ( especialy the Chineese and Albanian models...).

for me, not being of much substance finantialy, the SKS, at $70 ( the cost of a arsenal refinished chinneese SKS in the mid 90's) the SKS would alow me to hunt Deer, varmints, and would serve as an excelant defencive rifle for when i was out in the field. i canot afford A Weatherby, or a fiochi, or even a remington for that mater. i have never spent more than $150 on a gun. and i never will. DOES THAT MEAN THAT I AM SOMEHOW UN-FIT TO OWN ONE? i am an American Citizen, I am of legal age, I work for a living, and i have never even had a parking ticket, let alone any criminal violation. Yet, you support the man who would take away the most cost-effective firearms from the market. thats why i have a problem with john kerry, and why i have a problem with other hunters who think that there OK as long as people are not after thare "hunting" rifle.

There are MANY groups in this nation whos stated goal is to disarm the American Ciilian. "Hunting" rifles and all. the only reason they are not comming after YOU, AND YOUR GUNS is because they think me, and my SKS are a bigger threat.

[*parafrased]
"I am but a flea, yet you have searched long for me, that you may destroy me, as one hunts for a partridge in the mountains." i am no threat to anyone, yet toulsand f people would jump at the chance to snatch the so-called "assault rifle" out of my hands, and financialy exclude me from partisipting in hunting. What makes me sick is that they push for such things in the names of SAFETY, and EQUALITY. when all they ahve done is destroyed my safety, and made me a second-class citizen.


----------



## Britman (Dec 18, 2002)

"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Adolf Hitler


----------



## Britman (Dec 18, 2002)

My general counsel tells me that while firearms are exempted from our jurisdiction under the Consumer Product Safety Act, we could possibly ban bullets under the Hazardous Substances Act.
--- Richard O. Simpson, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1973.

Firearms are currently exempt from the health and safety laws that apply to every other consumer product in America, from toasters to teddy bears. Applying those same standards to guns is the real key to reducing firearm death and injury in America. Under these standards, handguns would be banned because of their high risk and low utility.
Violence Policy Center (cited March 16, 1999).


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

For the record I have shot a sks before and I have seen an ar15 in action at the Devils Lake rifle and pistol club.

You have a point, those guns get a lot of their bad rep because of how they look. I agree we all need to be more open minded.

cootkiller


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Glad we could find some common ground Coot.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey coot, I really appreciate you looking beyond your political vision and giving the gun issue real thought. I don't have an SKS or anything close, but the more guns they take away the closer they are to mine. The SKS is just a stepping stone to my Remingtons, Winchesters, Rugers, Brownings, and eventually even my single shot. Perhaps even the now exempt muzzleloaders. After all if they had been able to tack on what they wanted to the assault weapon ban (any firearm previously used by the military) they would take away the old 1873 Springfield and the even older 58 caliber muzzleloaders.

Most of our population is concentrated in cities, many who know nothing of wildlife management and how hunting fits into the equation. While you and I hunt they spend their time at art festivals, listen to classical music, and talk about Neanderthals who hunt. They see themselves as more sophisticated, more knowledgeable, better informed etc, and us as backwards sodbusters of the prairie. They over estimate themselves greatly.

In 1967 I had a college room mate that convinced his friends back in Pennsylvania that we had a day off because of an Indian attack. Hard to believe that even back in 1967 you could find someone so gullible. It gives you an idea of the foolishness we hunters, gun owners must contend with. These people see us as a danger because we are not bright enough to have lethal weapons. I had a fellow hunter tell me he didn't think people who didn't have an advanced degree should be allowed to have a hand gun. The legends in their own mind are dangerous.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

whell Duh, eveoryone knows how hunters ar absolute morons (sarcasm)

settle in all, as i am about to share with you a long-winded, over-blown, and realy borring tale from "back in the day"...

Once apon a time, in a rural Northern Indiana county, a young lad by the name of Joshua had just parked his Pontiac 6000 STE in the parking-lot of his Over-priced, exclusively Republican, Private High school. He steped out of his rusty old wagen and headed down the walk twors the double doors.

Once inside he happened accross his band dirrector, who, by nesecity, was an avid hunter. continueing up the staircase, he happened accross his theology teacher who, as per his morning custom, was on the way to the bathroom to brush his teeth ( with the pasted brush clamped in his teeth as a one might clamp down on a pipe ). The lad entered the teachers room to wait with his fellow rabidly Republican classmates. The deer heads covered the walls along with stuffed Coyotes and Turkeys. All trophies of age-ed Mr.Jones hunting exploits. Many a time, and offten it was the Mr.Jones would regail the students with stories of the hunt, and boast on the many caability of his Strum Ruger Bolt action chambered for the 25-06.

Why were there so many avid hunters at this Respected, and well-known Private School? arnt such people snoody, snobish, and rich? no, no, my friend! for you see, the average Public school teached barely scrapes by on $30,000 a year. this salery howver, is paid by the state. the salerys of private school teachers comes solely from the payments of the enroled students! this in turn, paid the teachers of this respected accademy a mear $21,000 a year, and all of them had familys to feed. Inn the case of m former band director, 9 chidren and a wife to feed! How could this bee one might exclaim? For een tough his wife had no job, he was able to feed, cloth, and comfort his large family, with no debt, on a mear 21,000 per year. His family did not go without, nor did his very beautifull daughters  .

so what is the point of my long-winded and borring tale of yore? the man took te bag limit on eveory type of game alwed to be hunted eveory year,and planted an enourmous garden eveory spring, and as a result he was able to provide upwards of 70% of the food for his wife and 9 children with no additinal expence, and as a reesult, had the extra money he needed to buy his family all of the extras they had need of.

the morale of my story? its hard to feed a family of 11 on a teachers salery, but a skilled hunter can reduce the burden substancialy by means of his craft. and thus, never let anyone tel you that you dont need to hunt. because i know many people who would go hungry if their fathers couldnot hunt game.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Amazing what one can do when he really puts his heart into it. Good story Trooper.


----------

