What a bunch of bull.

This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives -- it is about THE RULE OF LAW and whether or not the people's servants (that's the government, btw) who have vowed to uphold the constitution of the US and its laws believe themselves instead to be ABOVE THE LAW.

Yes, hunting accidents do occur, all the time, and when they happen, the police investigate to make sure that it was just an "accident" and not the result of stupidity or criminal negligence or drunkenness or the result of mixing beer with heart medications. If it happens to a NORMAL person, the police investigate IMMEDIATELY while the evidence is still there. They look at the crime scene before it can be contaminated. They check measurements. They verify the stories of multiple witnesses to make sure nobody has said a distance was "30 yards or so" when physical evidence indicates it was more likely 20 FEET, as that would be lying to an investigating officer, and a form of PERJURY, for which members of our government have been impeached in the past ("It's not the sex, it's the LYING about it.").

But, of course, for those who believe that Reagan was a saint and neo-conservatives can do no wrong, this is just about liberals and conservatives and how Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo twenty (or was it thirty?) years ago and ran home and didn't report it. You know, I think Nixon did something wrong too, but I don't bring it up, because it's HISTORY -- ANCIENT HISTORY!!!

Charlie L
Portland, OR
CLL2001@gmail.com

So as a police officer who votes Republican religiously, if I believe Vice-President Cheney was drunk, I hate America? That's moronic.

Any time the shooter in an accidental shooting a) evades police, b) has a well-documented drinking problem (including 2 DUIs), I figure he's got something to hide. The most reasonable guess is that he was drunk. O'Donnell's comments about the Ivy League thing were the weakest part of his argument. Cheney's being asked to leave Yale matters more. The fact that he's rich and powerful only means he'll probably get away with it.

Saying it ain't so doesn't change a thing.

Ted

Of course he was drunk.
No other plausible explaination for the delay. He was sleeping it off.

I agree liberals hate Cheney, but you sound a little nuts equating that with hating America. Increasingly when I hear people saying "liberals hate America" I realize this is essentially a weird euphemism for "I hate liberals." But since nobody could actually justify hating all liberals, few people want to come out and say that.

Just a friendly observation.

I'm still wondering why the physicians at the ER did not involve the police...I believe it is LAW that they do so when there is a case involving a gunshot victim....

I appreciate your comments. I do believe there is a segment of liberals who hate America. Go to Democratic Underground and read some of the outright hateful things they about Bush and Cheney, conservatives, Christians, and Republicans in general.

I just cannot fathom some of the things they say about this country, and for that reason I believe they are hateful.

How ironic to give your dittohead regurgitation blog the title you do. How much "reason" is required to figure out that Bush, the God awful filth that dominates the republican party or the Jesus is a stupid asshole cultists who sadly call themselves "Christians," are not pro-American. Hating hypocrites, traitors and the rest of you parasites and prostitutes is nothing against America. Don't go to DU to find anti-Americanism - go to freerepublic AKA fascistrepublic or Little Green Footballs.

By the way, America was founded by liberals on liberal principles. Hate them and those who believe in them all you want.

And for crying OUT LOUD, stop with the friggin' drivel about privacy. Do you even think before you repeat what you were told to say? What friggin privacy is lost? Sheeple idiot.

Your anger filled post made my point about liberals being unhinged better than I could.\

And as far as America being founded on liberal principles, true, though not in the sense that modern liberalism is defined. Where the modern liberals are for a welfare nanny state, and mock self-reliance, and capitalism, the founding fathers were for exactly the opposite.

Thanks for posting on my blog, and for reading what I wrote. I'm serious. (And I kinda like America. I've lived elsewhere.)

Dan

Please take the photo of Ben Franklin off your site. You don't deserve him, for Franklin believed in pluralism and liberalism. Change your title, too, because from what you have written, you have no sense of Reason. You wouldn't know a fallacy if it hit you in the face. Here's some help: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

I am somewhat amused by the way you righties always use the tu quoque fallacy (he did it, too!) You constantly bring up TK and Clinton's BJ as if somehow these things make your side's transgressions ok. The TK incident has absolutely nothing to do with Cheney being drunk and nearly killing a guy. Using this line of illogical thinking makes your argument invalid.

Are you really so dense as to actually believe that liberals hate America? (BTW, this is called Dicto simpliciter, meaning a sweeping generalization.) First of all, if someone cares enough to spend a lot of time discussing policy and talking about how they believe this administration is destroying America, can you reasonably equate that with hatred for the country? That is illogical and irrational. Secondly, do you even come into contact with any liberals outside of the blogosphere? Have you ever had a face to face conversation with a liberal? Somehow, I doubt it. You'd get slaughtered in a logical argument. "Liberals hate America" is the line you people use when you can't logically argue a point.

Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't mean they hate America. Pluralism is a fundamental characteristic of American democracy. Your intolerance of opinions different from yours goes against this principle. Why do you hate America so much?

I only brought up Ted Kennedy AFTER someone else did. Again, your argument is totally pointless. Ben Franklin believed in Classical Liberalism, something more akin to today's Libertarian party than today's Democratic party (or Republican Party). He believed in small government, capitalism, and free-markets. The modern view of Liberalism is totally against the self-reliant and small government views of the Liberalism of even 50 years ago.

And regarding Liberals hating America. When I see people say downright hateful things, that goes beyond the normal line of "discussing the issues".

I don't see how when I say that I believe a large percentage of Liberals hate America, I'm some kind of evil person.

But when people publiclly call the Vice-President an Evil SOB who should be arrested, or when former Vice-President goes to the Middle East, and in front of a audience sympathetic to the Islamic terrorists, says that America is abusing and torturing detainees and that we are rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps, that is somehow just "discussing the issues"?

Ben Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." And what you, Tom, are mistaking for "hateful words" are actually the truth, and the truth eats at your denial like acid. Yes, the truth hurts. It is not uttered to be hateful, however, but to point out, to highlight, to try to shine a light for your poor folks who cannot see your way ahead. The way this country is being raped and pillaged by those greedy assholes lining their pockets is the REAL hatred in America. Whoever they are. Whatever their party. They are considering their own gain before the interests of this country, and THAT, Tom, is the real definition of anti-American.

Liberals like you continually talk out of both sides of your mouth. You talk about the founding principles of this country, but then every single thing you stand for is contrary to that. And the sad thing is that you don't even see it.

The sad thing is, if this Cheney incident would have happened to John Kerry, you would be taking the same position I am taking now, and I would still be consistent.

Which founding principles in particular are you speaking of, Tom? Would you elaborate, please, and then explain how "what I stand for" differs from each principle you are referring to. And you're wrong about the Kerry parallel you drew; it would depend on the circumstances surrounding the incident itself, AND THE WAY THE POLITICIAN handled it, no matter WHICH politician it was. Don't assume you know what position I would take on such an issue.