I wish that the political threads would not go on, however it seems like many people wish to ebter into a discussion.  SO the title of the post is very obvious that you should go elsewhere is you do not wish to discuss this issue. YOU MAY JUMP TO THE NEWSCLIP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE REST OF THIS IS MY POLITICAL RANT, NO OFFENSE> Please read the excert I have pasted below.  While Clinton is/was as polarizing an individual as Bush is, I think intelligent debate is healthy.  However, it seems many individuals can’t seem to debate rationally. I think Clinton was a lame duck president in his 8 years in office. This means he sat in the chair, and let the world unfold around him. I also believe Clinton is a wonderful politician, and has much charisma.  On a side note, Hitler had much charisma too (I am not saying Clinton was evil like that, though). When Clinton took office, it was a fact that the economy was starting to recover, and that the internet was becoming an economic force. Therefore the economy did better, spurned on by tax cuts that Congress twisted Clinton’s arm for, and got. During the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the economy hummed along with or without help from Clinton.  At the end of his 8 years, the economy started into a recession, this is fact.  Under Clinton there was no oversight over the large corporations of the US, and the stock market was over-valued.  Clinton didn’t even start the Palestinian/Isreal peace talks….the peace process began under Bush Sr.  The corporate scandals of today took many years to formulate…again under Clinton’s watch. Clinton was therefore, lucky.  The economy is cyclical, and those variable he should have controlled he did not…but he was fortunate enough to leave office before the bombs he figuratively built, exploded. Clinton sought to dilute US power in the rest of the world, he did not want the US to be a Super-power.  The result was that France, and Germany really, really liked us!  Old-Europe will always begrudge what America has accomplished, and delight in any equalization in power between the US and the rest of the world. In Clinton’s 8 years terrorist and Islamic extremism grew.  This extremism did not suddenly appear in a few years under Bush.  We all know that a rock band is difficult enough to form, let alone, a terrorist network!  Thereore, even though the world seemed to like us more under Clinton…the hatred still existed.  Again, this hatred is against the way our culture is, pure and simple. So about Bush:  He is not a good politician like CLinton, nor is he as charismatic.  Clinton is a good BS-er…he wold make a good salesmen, and he probably copuld (and did!) talk many women into bed. Bush stutters, he is not a smooth talker.  However, he does what he thinks is right for the country and not just himself. These problems in the world today did not just happen overnight.  The economy was in recession when Bush came into office.  The corporate scandals finally erupted, the market was down due to the internet bubble bursting.  Bin Laden had all his networks already in place, and Saddamm had, had NO U.N. inspectors since Clinton/UN allowed IRAQ to go unsupervised. Bush came into office in a fluky election.  The news media reported on the winner of Florida BEFORE the northern third had even voted, prompting this very conservative section of florida to have on of the worst voter-turnouts ever, because everyone their vote didn’t matter. The news media really screwed up the florida election results, as well as the "popular vote."  No one will ever know whether Bush cold have won the "popular vote." Also, remember that the Election Machines were messed up for years under Gov. Chiles (D), before Jeb Bush got to the state.  Also, remember that the ballots that were "confusing" were designed by the Democrats—so if anyone was "disenfranchised" blame the democrats. Bush was elected under the laws of US, period.  When elections go bad, there is a hierarchy of the way things should go.  This process went along, and Bush won. The recounts have shown mixed results, but it appears Bush would have won all the recounts, hanging chads, or not!  Remember all the military ballots that the Democrats wished to throw out, and that they wanted to recount heavily Democratic districts supervised by Democrats doing the recounts! As a side note….did anyone ever realize that on the Florida ballot there was a candidate up for the Presidential Election named Monica Moorehead?  Very funny name given Clinton’s mess onthe blue dress! Why did Bush go into Iraq afterall….Oil?  Not. I think Bush would have had a much easier time to sit back and let IRAQ simmer and finally boil over years in the future.  He took extreme political risk by going into IRAQ.  We get most of ouor oil from South America anyway, BTW. You may say, we should have gotten Saddam the first time in ‘91. Well, rememeber that the UN and the Coalition had stated goals of ONLY removing Saddam. This time around, remember that there were 17 some resolutions to the UN about IRAQ.  Also remember that Clinton took no flap for the war in Bosnia…does everyone remember that war??  Clinton did that war to remove a dictator…and Milosevich had no history of WMD’s!! So let’s talk about WMD’s.  Let’s say you are told a bar will have a PA for your next gig, so you show up with only your DI box, and no rig. Guess what, the bar owner was wrong, or the PA broke the night before. So is it your fault you did not bring your rig?? The intelligence on IRAQ was messed up a bit.  The intelligence on Pearl Harbor was also shown to be messed up.  We actually had intelligence that we were to be bombed by Japan, and did nothing. IRAQ HAD WMD’s this is a fact.  IRAQ was trying to aquire nuclear weapons, this is a fact as shown by David Kaye.  IRAQ would have continued it’s search for WMD’s.  The fact is, there may still be WMD’s there, they may have been moved to Syria right before the war, no one knows. Does everyone know that there was an old fuselage of a Boeing 707 in Northern IRAQ used for terrorist training?  Does everyone realize that there were chemical weapon suits found in the IRAQI bunkers?  Does everyone realize that IRAQ had buried many weapon systems in the sand, to be used later?  It is a fact that entire MIG fighters were buried under sand, to be used later! How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. I welcome any responses, Good Day…and please keep the conversation going without name-calling, The Republican Dude In an excerpt from drudgereport.com: NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC’s NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery." "In this situation, the Oval Office isn’t a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions." UPI’s Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage: "Some people might have felt that it wasn’t appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it’s very legitimate to ask him any question." CUT TO 2004: NEWSWEEK’S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet — calling the investigation "sleazy." The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate — 2004 — peaked with Joe Conason’s cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"] Conason lamented: "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn’t what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation." But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?" Consaon’s reason #1: "He cheats on his wife." The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media. The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

Response:

Sorry, there’s far too much to address in this post to even bother IMO. Brad

Response:

Sounds like a well thought out post. I agreed with you 100%.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I wish that the political threads would not go on, however it seems > like many people wish to ebter into a discussion.  SO the title of the > post is very obvious that you should go elsewhere is you do not wish > to discuss this issue. > YOU MAY JUMP TO THE NEWSCLIP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE REST OF > THIS IS MY POLITICAL RANT, NO OFFENSE> > Please read the excert I have pasted below.  While Clinton is/was as > polarizing an individual as Bush is, I think intelligent debate is > healthy.  However, it seems many individuals can’t seem to debate > rationally. > I think Clinton was a lame duck president in his 8 years in office. > This means he sat in the chair, and let the world unfold around him. > I also believe Clinton is a wonderful politician, and has much > charisma.  On a side note, Hitler had much charisma too (I am not > saying Clinton was evil like that, though). > When Clinton took office, it was a fact that the economy was starting > to recover, and that the internet was becoming an economic force. > Therefore the economy did better, spurned on by tax cuts that Congress > twisted Clinton’s arm for, and got. > During the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the economy hummed > along with or without help from Clinton.  At the end of his 8 years, > the economy started into a recession, this is fact.  Under Clinton > there was no oversight over the large corporations of the US, and the > stock market was over-valued.  Clinton didn’t even start the > Palestinian/Isreal peace talks….the peace process began under Bush > Sr.  The corporate scandals of today took many years to > formulate…again under Clinton’s watch. > Clinton was therefore, lucky.  The economy is cyclical, and those > variable he should have controlled he did not…but he was fortunate > enough to leave office before the bombs he figuratively built, > exploded. > Clinton sought to dilute US power in the rest of the world, he did not > want the US to be a Super-power.  The result was that France, and > Germany really, really liked us!  Old-Europe will always begrudge what > America has accomplished, and delight in any equalization in power > between the US and the rest of the world. > In Clinton’s 8 years terrorist and Islamic extremism grew.  This > extremism did not suddenly appear in a few years under Bush.  We all > know that a rock band is difficult enough to form, let alone, a > terrorist network!  Thereore, even though the world seemed to like us > more under Clinton…the hatred still existed.  Again, this hatred is > against the way our culture is, pure and simple. > So about Bush:  He is not a good politician like CLinton, nor is he as > charismatic.  Clinton is a good BS-er…he wold make a good salesmen, > and he probably copuld (and did!) talk many women into bed. > Bush stutters, he is not a smooth talker.  However, he does what he > thinks is right for the country and not just himself. > These problems in the world today did not just happen overnight.  The > economy was in recession when Bush came into office.  The corporate > scandals finally erupted, the market was down due to the internet > bubble bursting.  Bin Laden had all his networks already in place, and > Saddamm had, had NO U.N. inspectors since Clinton/UN allowed IRAQ to > go unsupervised. > Bush came into office in a fluky election.  The news media reported on > the winner of Florida BEFORE the northern third had even voted, > prompting this very conservative section of florida to have on of the > worst voter-turnouts ever, because everyone their vote didn’t matter. > The news media really screwed up the florida election results, as well > as the "popular vote."  No one will ever know whether Bush cold have > won the "popular vote." > Also, remember that the Election Machines were messed up for years > under Gov. Chiles (D), before Jeb Bush got to the state.  Also, > remember that the ballots that were "confusing" were designed by the > Democrats—so if anyone was "disenfranchised" blame the democrats. > Bush was elected under the laws of US, period.  When elections go bad, > there is a hierarchy of the way things should go.  This process went > along, and Bush won. > The recounts have shown mixed results, but it appears Bush would have > won all the recounts, hanging chads, or not!  Remember all the > military ballots that the Democrats wished to throw out, and that they > wanted to recount heavily Democratic districts supervised by Democrats > doing the recounts! > As a side note….did anyone ever realize that on the Florida ballot > there was a candidate up for the Presidential Election named Monica > Moorehead?  Very funny name given Clinton’s mess onthe blue dress! > Why did Bush go into Iraq afterall….Oil?  Not. > I think Bush would have had a much easier time to sit back and let > IRAQ simmer and finally boil over years in the future.  He took > extreme political risk by going into IRAQ.  We get most of ouor oil > from South America anyway, BTW. > You may say, we should have gotten Saddam the first time in ‘91. > Well, rememeber that the UN and the Coalition had stated goals of ONLY > removing Saddam. > This time around, remember that there were 17 some resolutions to the > UN about IRAQ.  Also remember that Clinton took no flap for the war in > Bosnia…does everyone remember that war??  Clinton did that war to > remove a dictator…and Milosevich had no history of WMD’s!! > So let’s talk about WMD’s.  Let’s say you are told a bar will have a > PA for your next gig, so you show up with only your DI box, and no > rig. > Guess what, the bar owner was wrong, or the PA broke the night before. > So is it your fault you did not bring your rig?? > The intelligence on IRAQ was messed up a bit.  The intelligence on > Pearl Harbor was also shown to be messed up.  We actually had > intelligence that we were to be bombed by Japan, and did nothing. > IRAQ HAD WMD’s this is a fact.  IRAQ was trying to aquire nuclear > weapons, this is a fact as shown by David Kaye.  IRAQ would have > continued it’s search for WMD’s.  The fact is, there may still be > WMD’s there, they may have been moved to Syria right before the war, > no one knows. > Does everyone know that there was an old fuselage of a Boeing 707 in > Northern IRAQ used for terrorist training?  Does everyone realize that > there were chemical weapon suits found in the IRAQI bunkers?  Does > everyone realize that IRAQ had buried many weapon systems in the sand, > to be used later?  It is a fact that entire MIG fighters were buried > under sand, to be used later! > How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > I welcome any responses, > Good Day…and please keep the conversation going without > name-calling, > The Republican Dude > In an excerpt from drudgereport.com: > NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor > line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC’s NIGHTLINE on > August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush > With Adultery." > "In this situation, the Oval Office isn’t a temple," Alter explained. > "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often > distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions." > UPI’s Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage: > "Some people might have felt that it wasn’t appropriate. But when you > have the President there, I think it’s very legitimate to ask him any > question." > CUT TO 2004: > NEWSWEEK’S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity > probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet — calling the > investigation "sleazy." > The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a > presidential candidate — 2004 — peaked with Joe Conason’s cover > story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and > the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"] > Conason lamented: > "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations > isn’t what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation." > But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 > wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR > GEORGE BUSH?" > Consaon’s reason #1: > "He cheats on his wife." > The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the > media. > The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

Response:

Great post. Thoughtful. Truthful.

Response:

> How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it.

I don’t actually see any nuts but the holes are everywhere.  Little buggers are living in the attic.  I trapped them by squirting a whole can of expanding foam into the entry/exit hole.  Then they tore some big holes in the soffit screen.  I’ve got rat poison all over the place in the attic and the little *&%$#ers won’t die!!!!!! Bud

Response:

Hm, lessee…a rambling, stream-of-consciousness manifesto with not a single citation to back up his rantings? Yeah, I can see how you’d agree with that "100%" — Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm "Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sounds like a well thought out post. I agreed with you 100%. > I wish that the political threads would not go on, however it seems > like many people wish to ebter into a discussion.  SO the title of the > post is very obvious that you should go elsewhere is you do not wish > to discuss this issue. > YOU MAY JUMP TO THE NEWSCLIP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE REST OF > THIS IS MY POLITICAL RANT, NO OFFENSE> > Please read the excert I have pasted below.  While Clinton is/was as > polarizing an individual as Bush is, I think intelligent debate is > healthy.  However, it seems many individuals can’t seem to debate > rationally. > I think Clinton was a lame duck president in his 8 years in office. > This means he sat in the chair, and let the world unfold around him. > I also believe Clinton is a wonderful politician, and has much > charisma.  On a side note, Hitler had much charisma too (I am not > saying Clinton was evil like that, though). > When Clinton took office, it was a fact that the economy was starting > to recover, and that the internet was becoming an economic force. > Therefore the economy did better, spurned on by tax cuts that Congress > twisted Clinton’s arm for, and got. > During the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the economy hummed > along with or without help from Clinton.  At the end of his 8 years, > the economy started into a recession, this is fact.  Under Clinton > there was no oversight over the large corporations of the US, and the > stock market was over-valued.  Clinton didn’t even start the > Palestinian/Isreal peace talks….the peace process began under Bush > Sr.  The corporate scandals of today took many years to > formulate…again under Clinton’s watch. > Clinton was therefore, lucky.  The economy is cyclical, and those > variable he should have controlled he did not…but he was fortunate > enough to leave office before the bombs he figuratively built, > exploded. > Clinton sought to dilute US power in the rest of the world, he did not > want the US to be a Super-power.  The result was that France, and > Germany really, really liked us!  Old-Europe will always begrudge what > America has accomplished, and delight in any equalization in power > between the US and the rest of the world. > In Clinton’s 8 years terrorist and Islamic extremism grew.  This > extremism did not suddenly appear in a few years under Bush.  We all > know that a rock band is difficult enough to form, let alone, a > terrorist network!  Thereore, even though the world seemed to like us > more under Clinton…the hatred still existed.  Again, this hatred is > against the way our culture is, pure and simple. > So about Bush:  He is not a good politician like CLinton, nor is he as > charismatic.  Clinton is a good BS-er…he wold make a good salesmen, > and he probably copuld (and did!) talk many women into bed. > Bush stutters, he is not a smooth talker.  However, he does what he > thinks is right for the country and not just himself. > These problems in the world today did not just happen overnight.  The > economy was in recession when Bush came into office.  The corporate > scandals finally erupted, the market was down due to the internet > bubble bursting.  Bin Laden had all his networks already in place, and > Saddamm had, had NO U.N. inspectors since Clinton/UN allowed IRAQ to > go unsupervised. > Bush came into office in a fluky election.  The news media reported on > the winner of Florida BEFORE the northern third had even voted, > prompting this very conservative section of florida to have on of the > worst voter-turnouts ever, because everyone their vote didn’t matter. > The news media really screwed up the florida election results, as well > as the "popular vote."  No one will ever know whether Bush cold have > won the "popular vote." > Also, remember that the Election Machines were messed up for years > under Gov. Chiles (D), before Jeb Bush got to the state.  Also, > remember that the ballots that were "confusing" were designed by the > Democrats—so if anyone was "disenfranchised" blame the democrats. > Bush was elected under the laws of US, period.  When elections go bad, > there is a hierarchy of the way things should go.  This process went > along, and Bush won. > The recounts have shown mixed results, but it appears Bush would have > won all the recounts, hanging chads, or not!  Remember all the > military ballots that the Democrats wished to throw out, and that they > wanted to recount heavily Democratic districts supervised by Democrats > doing the recounts! > As a side note….did anyone ever realize that on the Florida ballot > there was a candidate up for the Presidential Election named Monica > Moorehead?  Very funny name given Clinton’s mess onthe blue dress! > Why did Bush go into Iraq afterall….Oil?  Not. > I think Bush would have had a much easier time to sit back and let > IRAQ simmer and finally boil over years in the future.  He took > extreme political risk by going into IRAQ.  We get most of ouor oil > from South America anyway, BTW. > You may say, we should have gotten Saddam the first time in ‘91. > Well, rememeber that the UN and the Coalition had stated goals of ONLY > removing Saddam. > This time around, remember that there were 17 some resolutions to the > UN about IRAQ.  Also remember that Clinton took no flap for the war in > Bosnia…does everyone remember that war??  Clinton did that war to > remove a dictator…and Milosevich had no history of WMD’s!! > So let’s talk about WMD’s.  Let’s say you are told a bar will have a > PA for your next gig, so you show up with only your DI box, and no > rig. > Guess what, the bar owner was wrong, or the PA broke the night before. > So is it your fault you did not bring your rig?? > The intelligence on IRAQ was messed up a bit.  The intelligence on > Pearl Harbor was also shown to be messed up.  We actually had > intelligence that we were to be bombed by Japan, and did nothing. > IRAQ HAD WMD’s this is a fact.  IRAQ was trying to aquire nuclear > weapons, this is a fact as shown by David Kaye.  IRAQ would have > continued it’s search for WMD’s.  The fact is, there may still be > WMD’s there, they may have been moved to Syria right before the war, > no one knows. > Does everyone know that there was an old fuselage of a Boeing 707 in > Northern IRAQ used for terrorist training?  Does everyone realize that > there were chemical weapon suits found in the IRAQI bunkers?  Does > everyone realize that IRAQ had buried many weapon systems in the sand, > to be used later?  It is a fact that entire MIG fighters were buried > under sand, to be used later! > How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > I welcome any responses, > Good Day…and please keep the conversation going without > name-calling, > The Republican Dude > In an excerpt from drudgereport.com: > NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor > line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC’s NIGHTLINE on > August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush > With Adultery." > "In this situation, the Oval Office isn’t a temple," Alter explained. > "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often > distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions." > UPI’s Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage: > "Some people might have felt that it wasn’t appropriate. But when you > have the President there, I think it’s very legitimate to ask him any > question." > CUT TO 2004: > NEWSWEEK’S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity > probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet — calling the > investigation "sleazy." > The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a > presidential candidate — 2004 — peaked with Joe Conason’s cover > story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and > the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"] > Conason lamented: > "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations > isn’t what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation." > But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 > wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR > GEORGE BUSH?" > Consaon’s reason #1: > "He cheats on his wife." > The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the > media. > The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

Response:

> I’ve got rat poison all over the place in the attic and >the little *&%$#ers won’t die!!!!!!

Well if they do, they will pay you back by doing it in a wall space. "BTDT". Stinko, baby. Suggest big Victor rat traps, baited with peanut butter. Collect trapee and trap with a plastic garbage bag, dispose. Gruesome, but the rat poison is not without issues. You are compelled to deal with this problem in spite of the cruelty involved because critters chew wire insulation (possums, too). Fire hazard, especially in older houses. They’ll also (for some reason) damage your AC ductwork. Our Austin house was surrounded by Pecan trees, just to say I’ve seen plenty of nuts (getting back on the OT). –TP

Response:

Get a cat. A big one. Skogatt (Norwegian Woods Cat) or Maine coon should do the trick. Those cats weigh in average 10 to 13 kilos (that would be 22 to 28 lbs). — Henry! "One of the four last guys that are wearing cowboy boots in France." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > I don’t actually see any nuts but the holes are everywhere.  Little buggers > are living in the attic.  I trapped them by squirting a whole can of > expanding foam into the entry/exit hole.  Then they tore some big holes in > the soffit screen.  I’ve got rat poison all over the place in the attic and > the little *&%$#ers won’t die!!!!!! > Bud

Response:

LOL Brad – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Hm, lessee…a rambling, stream-of-consciousness manifesto with not a single >citation to back up his rantings? >Yeah, I can see how you’d agree with that "100%" >– >Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm >"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." — >George Orwell > Sounds like a well thought out post. I agreed with you 100%. > > I wish that the political threads would not go on, however it seems > > like many people wish to ebter into a discussion.  SO the title of the > > post is very obvious that you should go elsewhere is you do not wish > > to discuss this issue. > > YOU MAY JUMP TO THE NEWSCLIP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE REST OF > > THIS IS MY POLITICAL RANT, NO OFFENSE> > > Please read the excert I have pasted below.  While Clinton is/was as > > polarizing an individual as Bush is, I think intelligent debate is > > healthy.  However, it seems many individuals can’t seem to debate > > rationally. > > I think Clinton was a lame duck president in his 8 years in office. > > This means he sat in the chair, and let the world unfold around him. > > I also believe Clinton is a wonderful politician, and has much > > charisma.  On a side note, Hitler had much charisma too (I am not > > saying Clinton was evil like that, though). > > When Clinton took office, it was a fact that the economy was starting > > to recover, and that the internet was becoming an economic force. > > Therefore the economy did better, spurned on by tax cuts that Congress > > twisted Clinton’s arm for, and got. > > During the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the economy hummed > > along with or without help from Clinton.  At the end of his 8 years, > > the economy started into a recession, this is fact.  Under Clinton > > there was no oversight over the large corporations of the US, and the > > stock market was over-valued.  Clinton didn’t even start the > > Palestinian/Isreal peace talks….the peace process began under Bush > > Sr.  The corporate scandals of today took many years to > > formulate…again under Clinton’s watch. > > Clinton was therefore, lucky.  The economy is cyclical, and those > > variable he should have controlled he did not…but he was fortunate > > enough to leave office before the bombs he figuratively built, > > exploded. > > Clinton sought to dilute US power in the rest of the world, he did not > > want the US to be a Super-power.  The result was that France, and > > Germany really, really liked us!  Old-Europe will always begrudge what > > America has accomplished, and delight in any equalization in power > > between the US and the rest of the world. > > In Clinton’s 8 years terrorist and Islamic extremism grew.  This > > extremism did not suddenly appear in a few years under Bush.  We all > > know that a rock band is difficult enough to form, let alone, a > > terrorist network!  Thereore, even though the world seemed to like us > > more under Clinton…the hatred still existed.  Again, this hatred is > > against the way our culture is, pure and simple. > > So about Bush:  He is not a good politician like CLinton, nor is he as > > charismatic.  Clinton is a good BS-er…he wold make a good salesmen, > > and he probably copuld (and did!) talk many women into bed. > > Bush stutters, he is not a smooth talker.  However, he does what he > > thinks is right for the country and not just himself. > > These problems in the world today did not just happen overnight.  The > > economy was in recession when Bush came into office.  The corporate > > scandals finally erupted, the market was down due to the internet > > bubble bursting.  Bin Laden had all his networks already in place, and > > Saddamm had, had NO U.N. inspectors since Clinton/UN allowed IRAQ to > > go unsupervised. > > Bush came into office in a fluky election.  The news media reported on > > the winner of Florida BEFORE the northern third had even voted, > > prompting this very conservative section of florida to have on of the > > worst voter-turnouts ever, because everyone their vote didn’t matter. > > The news media really screwed up the florida election results, as well > > as the "popular vote."  No one will ever know whether Bush cold have > > won the "popular vote." > > Also, remember that the Election Machines were messed up for years > > under Gov. Chiles (D), before Jeb Bush got to the state.  Also, > > remember that the ballots that were "confusing" were designed by the > > Democrats—so if anyone was "disenfranchised" blame the democrats. > > Bush was elected under the laws of US, period.  When elections go bad, > > there is a hierarchy of the way things should go.  This process went > > along, and Bush won. > > The recounts have shown mixed results, but it appears Bush would have > > won all the recounts, hanging chads, or not!  Remember all the > > military ballots that the Democrats wished to throw out, and that they > > wanted to recount heavily Democratic districts supervised by Democrats > > doing the recounts! > > As a side note….did anyone ever realize that on the Florida ballot > > there was a candidate up for the Presidential Election named Monica > > Moorehead?  Very funny name given Clinton’s mess onthe blue dress! > > Why did Bush go into Iraq afterall….Oil?  Not. > > I think Bush would have had a much easier time to sit back and let > > IRAQ simmer and finally boil over years in the future.  He took > > extreme political risk by going into IRAQ.  We get most of ouor oil > > from South America anyway, BTW. > > You may say, we should have gotten Saddam the first time in ‘91. > > Well, rememeber that the UN and the Coalition had stated goals of ONLY > > removing Saddam. > > This time around, remember that there were 17 some resolutions to the > > UN about IRAQ.  Also remember that Clinton took no flap for the war in > > Bosnia…does everyone remember that war??  Clinton did that war to > > remove a dictator…and Milosevich had no history of WMD’s!! > > So let’s talk about WMD’s.  Let’s say you are told a bar will have a > > PA for your next gig, so you show up with only your DI box, and no > > rig. > > Guess what, the bar owner was wrong, or the PA broke the night before. > > So is it your fault you did not bring your rig?? > > The intelligence on IRAQ was messed up a bit.  The intelligence on > > Pearl Harbor was also shown to be messed up.  We actually had > > intelligence that we were to be bombed by Japan, and did nothing. > > IRAQ HAD WMD’s this is a fact.  IRAQ was trying to aquire nuclear > > weapons, this is a fact as shown by David Kaye.  IRAQ would have > > continued it’s search for WMD’s.  The fact is, there may still be > > WMD’s there, they may have been moved to Syria right before the war, > > no one knows. > > Does everyone know that there was an old fuselage of a Boeing 707 in > > Northern IRAQ used for terrorist training?  Does everyone realize that > > there were chemical weapon suits found in the IRAQI bunkers?  Does > > everyone realize that IRAQ had buried many weapon systems in the sand, > > to be used later?  It is a fact that entire MIG fighters were buried > > under sand, to be used later! > > How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > > I welcome any responses, > > Good Day…and please keep the conversation going without > > name-calling, > > The Republican Dude > > In an excerpt from drudgereport.com: > > NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor > > line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC’s NIGHTLINE on > > August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush > > With Adultery." > > "In this situation, the Oval Office isn’t a temple," Alter explained. > > "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often > > distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions." > > UPI’s Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage: > > "Some people might have felt that it wasn’t appropriate. But when you > > have the President there, I think it’s very legitimate to ask him any > > question." > > CUT TO 2004: > > NEWSWEEK’S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity > > probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet — calling the > > investigation "sleazy." > > The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a > > presidential candidate — 2004 — peaked with Joe Conason’s cover > > story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and > > the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"] > > Conason lamented: > > "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations > > isn’t what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation." > > But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 > > wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR > > GEORGE BUSH?" > > Consaon’s reason #1: > > "He cheats on his wife." > > The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the > > media. > > The developing Kerry drama may or may not join

… read more »

Response:

>Great post. >Thoughtful. >Truthful.

Yeah, especially comparing Bill Clinton with Hitler, and then backing out. Long: <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922> Shorter: <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922> Quick and easy: <http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2004_02_11.gif>  or:  <http://tinyurl.com/22w62> Since Uncle Addie got dragged into the room: <http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm> Wow, biz connections going back to slavery. Enabling Hitler with money, arms shipments. Big time  entanglements in some high places. The rape of Poland. Control of public discourse, aiding the rise of Hitler. Clinton? Such a lightweight– lost money in Whitewater, couldn’t keep it his pants even for a sweathog like Monica. –TP

Response:

Nah, buy a 410 over&under Shotgun! Then go hunting!! Or buy a Ferret. Once Mice and Rats smell a Ferret, they’re out of there!!! But if its Squirrels, put on heavier wire mesh over the areas they get in. Do this during the day,while they’re out eating.                                                       Good Luck Bud!! Scott

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Get a cat. > A big one. Skogatt (Norwegian Woods Cat) or Maine coon should do the trick. > Those cats weigh in average 10 to 13 kilos (that would be 22 to 28 lbs). > — > Henry! > "One of the four last guys that are wearing cowboy boots in France." > > How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > I don’t actually see any nuts but the holes are everywhere.  Little > buggers > are living in the attic.  I trapped them by squirting a whole can of > expanding foam into the entry/exit hole.  Then they tore some big holes in > the soffit screen.  I’ve got rat poison all over the place in the attic > and > the little *&%$#ers won’t die!!!!!! > Bud

Response:

I am OUTRAGED that a political post has appeared in this newsgroup.   OUTRAGED I say.  Also, I am SHOCKED that there is gambling going on in this establishment.  SHOCKED! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I wish that the political threads would not go on, however it seems > like many people wish to ebter into a discussion.  SO the title of the > post is very obvious that you should go elsewhere is you do not wish > to discuss this issue. > YOU MAY JUMP TO THE NEWSCLIP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE REST OF > THIS IS MY POLITICAL RANT, NO OFFENSE> > Please read the excert I have pasted below.  While Clinton is/was as > polarizing an individual as Bush is, I think intelligent debate is > healthy.  However, it seems many individuals can’t seem to debate > rationally. > I think Clinton was a lame duck president in his 8 years in office. > This means he sat in the chair, and let the world unfold around him. > I also believe Clinton is a wonderful politician, and has much > charisma.  On a side note, Hitler had much charisma too (I am not > saying Clinton was evil like that, though). > When Clinton took office, it was a fact that the economy was starting > to recover, and that the internet was becoming an economic force. > Therefore the economy did better, spurned on by tax cuts that Congress > twisted Clinton’s arm for, and got. > During the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the economy hummed > along with or without help from Clinton.  At the end of his 8 years, > the economy started into a recession, this is fact.  Under Clinton > there was no oversight over the large corporations of the US, and the > stock market was over-valued.  Clinton didn’t even start the > Palestinian/Isreal peace talks….the peace process began under Bush > Sr.  The corporate scandals of today took many years to > formulate…again under Clinton’s watch. > Clinton was therefore, lucky.  The economy is cyclical, and those > variable he should have controlled he did not…but he was fortunate > enough to leave office before the bombs he figuratively built, > exploded. > Clinton sought to dilute US power in the rest of the world, he did not > want the US to be a Super-power.  The result was that France, and > Germany really, really liked us!  Old-Europe will always begrudge what > America has accomplished, and delight in any equalization in power > between the US and the rest of the world. > In Clinton’s 8 years terrorist and Islamic extremism grew.  This > extremism did not suddenly appear in a few years under Bush.  We all > know that a rock band is difficult enough to form, let alone, a > terrorist network!  Thereore, even though the world seemed to like us > more under Clinton…the hatred still existed.  Again, this hatred is > against the way our culture is, pure and simple. > So about Bush:  He is not a good politician like CLinton, nor is he as > charismatic.  Clinton is a good BS-er…he wold make a good salesmen, > and he probably copuld (and did!) talk many women into bed. > Bush stutters, he is not a smooth talker.  However, he does what he > thinks is right for the country and not just himself. > These problems in the world today did not just happen overnight.  The > economy was in recession when Bush came into office.  The corporate > scandals finally erupted, the market was down due to the internet > bubble bursting.  Bin Laden had all his networks already in place, and > Saddamm had, had NO U.N. inspectors since Clinton/UN allowed IRAQ to > go unsupervised. > Bush came into office in a fluky election.  The news media reported on > the winner of Florida BEFORE the northern third had even voted, > prompting this very conservative section of florida to have on of the > worst voter-turnouts ever, because everyone their vote didn’t matter. > The news media really screwed up the florida election results, as well > as the "popular vote."  No one will ever know whether Bush cold have > won the "popular vote." > Also, remember that the Election Machines were messed up for years > under Gov. Chiles (D), before Jeb Bush got to the state.  Also, > remember that the ballots that were "confusing" were designed by the > Democrats—so if anyone was "disenfranchised" blame the democrats. > Bush was elected under the laws of US, period.  When elections go bad, > there is a hierarchy of the way things should go.  This process went > along, and Bush won. > The recounts have shown mixed results, but it appears Bush would have > won all the recounts, hanging chads, or not!  Remember all the > military ballots that the Democrats wished to throw out, and that they > wanted to recount heavily Democratic districts supervised by Democrats > doing the recounts! > As a side note….did anyone ever realize that on the Florida ballot > there was a candidate up for the Presidential Election named Monica > Moorehead?  Very funny name given Clinton’s mess onthe blue dress! > Why did Bush go into Iraq afterall….Oil?  Not. > I think Bush would have had a much easier time to sit back and let > IRAQ simmer and finally boil over years in the future.  He took > extreme political risk by going into IRAQ.  We get most of ouor oil > from South America anyway, BTW. > You may say, we should have gotten Saddam the first time in ‘91. > Well, rememeber that the UN and the Coalition had stated goals of ONLY > removing Saddam. > This time around, remember that there were 17 some resolutions to the > UN about IRAQ.  Also remember that Clinton took no flap for the war in > Bosnia…does everyone remember that war??  Clinton did that war to > remove a dictator…and Milosevich had no history of WMD’s!! > So let’s talk about WMD’s.  Let’s say you are told a bar will have a > PA for your next gig, so you show up with only your DI box, and no > rig. > Guess what, the bar owner was wrong, or the PA broke the night before. > So is it your fault you did not bring your rig?? > The intelligence on IRAQ was messed up a bit.  The intelligence on > Pearl Harbor was also shown to be messed up.  We actually had > intelligence that we were to be bombed by Japan, and did nothing. > IRAQ HAD WMD’s this is a fact.  IRAQ was trying to aquire nuclear > weapons, this is a fact as shown by David Kaye.  IRAQ would have > continued it’s search for WMD’s.  The fact is, there may still be > WMD’s there, they may have been moved to Syria right before the war, > no one knows. > Does everyone know that there was an old fuselage of a Boeing 707 in > Northern IRAQ used for terrorist training?  Does everyone realize that > there were chemical weapon suits found in the IRAQI bunkers?  Does > everyone realize that IRAQ had buried many weapon systems in the sand, > to be used later?  It is a fact that entire MIG fighters were buried > under sand, to be used later! > How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > I welcome any responses, > Good Day…and please keep the conversation going without > name-calling, > The Republican Dude > In an excerpt from drudgereport.com: > NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor > line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC’s NIGHTLINE on > August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush > With Adultery." > "In this situation, the Oval Office isn’t a temple," Alter explained. > "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often > distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions." > UPI’s Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage: > "Some people might have felt that it wasn’t appropriate. But when you > have the President there, I think it’s very legitimate to ask him any > question." > CUT TO 2004: > NEWSWEEK’S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity > probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet — calling the > investigation "sleazy." > The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a > presidential candidate — 2004 — peaked with Joe Conason’s cover > story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and > the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"] > Conason lamented: > "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations > isn’t what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation." > But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 > wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR > GEORGE BUSH?" > Consaon’s reason #1: > "He cheats on his wife." > The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the > media. > The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

Response:

> I am OUTRAGED that a political post has appeared in this newsgroup.   > OUTRAGED I say.  Also, I am SHOCKED that there is gambling going on in > this establishment.  SHOCKED!

Here’s your winnings…

Response:

>Great post. >Thoughtful. >Truthful. > Yeah, especially comparing Bill Clinton with Hitler, and then backing out.

Yeah, come on, Steve.  Hillary’s a much better comparison.  The screaming, whining, nag…. Bud

Response:

Dude, there’s a damned good reason to be skeptical of the Kerry affair charges — ‘cuz it never happened: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_POLIER?SITE=YAHOOELN…

Response:

C’mon, it must be true. Drudge is rarely wrong… according to pd. It has to be true, otherwise they’ll have to find dirt elsewhere. I just hope they can find some Iraq war-sized dirt. ;^) Brad >Dude, there’s a damned good reason to be skeptical of the Kerry affair >charges — ‘cuz it never happened: >http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_POLIER?SITE=YAHOOELN…

TION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Response:

> C’mon, it must be true. Drudge is rarely wrong… according to pd. > It has to be true, otherwise they’ll have to find dirt elsewhere. > I just hope they can find some Iraq war-sized dirt.

I’m nominating this for "Post of the Week".

Response:

I read the news report that was linked to in the previous post, and one line stuck out for me; this was about the parents of Sen. Kerry’s alleged paramour Ms Polier’s parents being quoted in the UK tabloid paper "The Sun". For those of you who aren’t familiar with this rag, it was – and may still be – owned by Rupert Murdock, the ex-Australian now American media baron who owns Fox news, and it has a history of creating news stories (often with a very right-wing extremely pro-Thatcher theme) quoting people that they didn’t even speak with; there was a big scandal in the 80’s when this ‘news’paper was roundly slated for ‘quoting’ the widow of a British soldier killed in the Falklands war when they hadn’t spoken with her. Regards Fretbuzz

> Dude, there’s a damned good reason to be skeptical of the Kerry affair > charges — ‘cuz it never happened:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_POLIER?SITE=YAHOOELN… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

>> How many nuts have you run across in your yard buried by Squirrels > over the year?  Hmmm, think about it. > I don’t actually see any nuts but the holes are everywhere.  Little buggers > are living in the attic.  I trapped them by squirting a whole can of > expanding foam into the entry/exit hole.  Then they tore some big holes in > the soffit screen.  I’ve got rat poison all over the place in the attic and > the little *&%$#ers won’t die!!!!!! > Bud

Shame yer poisonin’ em. I heard they makes great bar-b-que. Taste like Penguin.

Response:

> Shame yer poisonin’ em. I heard they makes great bar-b-que. > Taste like Penguin.

They actually make really good gumbo.  No kidding.  They’ve just pissed me off to much to eat them at this point.  I bought a trap off of Ebay today. Bud

Response:

> I read the news report that was linked to in the previous post, and one line > stuck out for me; this was about the parents of Sen. Kerry’s alleged > paramour Ms Polier’s parents being quoted in the UK tabloid paper "The Sun". > For those of you who aren’t familiar with this rag, it was – and may still > be – owned by Rupert Murdock, the ex-Australian now American media baron who > owns Fox news, and it has a history of creating news stories (often with a > very right-wing extremely pro-Thatcher theme) quoting people that they > didn’t even speak with; there was a big scandal in the 80’s when this > ‘news’paper was roundly slated for ‘quoting’ the widow of a British soldier > killed in the Falklands war when they hadn’t spoken with her. > Regards > Fretbuzz

Doesn’t surprise me. The media sucks. Double that for TV media. Right wing, left wing, whatever. I’m so tired of their "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality. If TV news was your only source of information, you’d think nothing good EVER happens in the world. The only time you hear about anything uplifting, or life-affirming on the news is when it’s tacked on at the end of a broadcast, almost as an afterthought. A make-believe happy ending to the day’s catalog of carnage. To paraphrase a comic routine I once heard: "18 THOUSAND PEOPLE DIED TODAY IN A CHILEAN EARTHQUAKE. But, look….KITTENS!" Sad thing is, it’s not a joke. And that’s just the way they like it. They want you tuned in, they want you frightened of terrorism, of serial snipers, of West Nile virus, of Mad Cows and — (LOL, my latest favorite) Bird Flu —  and so does the government that feeds them this shit. Fear makes it hard to think straight…and makes it easy for them to tell you what to do, how to think. In the wake of 9/11 they know that many people (daresay the majority) will listen to anything, believe anything, tolerate anything…as long as they can feel safe. Fuck em. Living in fear isn’t living at all. P.S. And someone please tell Geraldo Rivera that nobody cares if he’s rooting around up Bin Laden’s ass with a flashlight; there are plenty of other reporters over there who manage to cover the war without acting like glory-hound jerk-offs. /rant off

Response:

>I’m nominating this for "Post of the Week".

Don’t you think the POTW should at least be bass related????

Response:

>> Shame yer poisonin’ em. I heard they makes great bar-b-que. > Taste like Penguin. > They actually make really good gumbo.  No kidding.  They’ve just pissed me > off to much to eat them at this point.  I bought a trap off of Ebay today. > Bud

Damn. I was hoping for some jerky.

Response:

Sorry, I should have put OTP on this. Gwen

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->How To Tell Where A Driver Is From! >1. One hand on wheel, one hand on horn: CHICAGO >2. One hand on wheel, one finger out window: NEW YORK >3. One hand on wheel, one finger out window, cutting across all lanes >   of traffic: NEW JERSEY >4. One hand on wheel, one hand on newspaper, foot solidly on >   accelerator: BOSTON >5. One hand on wheel, one hand on nonfat double decaf cappuccino, >   cradling cell phone, brick on accelerator, gun in lap: LOS ANGELES >6. Both hands on wheel, eyes shut, both feet on brake, quivering in >   terror: OHIO, but driving in CALIFORNIA >7. Waving at everyone that you pass, eating a moon pie, sipping an RC, >   smiling and chewing and talking to yourself. TENNESSEE >8. One hand on 12 oz. Double shot latte, one knee on wheel, cradling >   cell phone, foot on brake, mind on radio game, banging head on >   steering wheel while stuck in traffic: SEATTLE >9. One hand on wheel, one hand on hunting rifle, alternating between >   both feet being on the accelerator and both feet on brake, throwing >   McDonald’s bag out the window: TEXAS >10. Four-wheel drive pick-up truck, shotgun mounted in rear window, >    beer cans on floor, squirrel tails attached to antenna: ALABAMA >11. Two hands gripping wheel, blue hair barely visible above >    windshield, driving 35 on the Interstate in the left lane with the >    left blinker on: FLORIDA >12. Knee up against steering wheel, one hand on Tim Horton’s coffee >    cup, cell phone in ear, accelerator to the floor, applying >    makeup/doing crossword puzzle/reading morning Free Press, >    knocking down orange barrels, changing lanes without turn signals: >    MICHIGAN

Hey, I live in Baltimore and I’m offending that we’re not on the list. Let me add…. if one hand is at 3, and the other is on a 9mm, then you know he’s from Baltimore. –Brian

Response:

How To Tell Where A Driver Is From! 1. One hand on wheel, one hand on horn: CHICAGO 2. One hand on wheel, one finger out window: NEW YORK 3. One hand on wheel, one finger out window, cutting across all lanes    of traffic: NEW JERSEY 4. One hand on wheel, one hand on newspaper, foot solidly on    accelerator: BOSTON 5. One hand on wheel, one hand on nonfat double decaf cappuccino,    cradling cell phone, brick on accelerator, gun in lap: LOS ANGELES 6. Both hands on wheel, eyes shut, both feet on brake, quivering in    terror: OHIO, but driving in CALIFORNIA 7. Waving at everyone that you pass, eating a moon pie, sipping an RC,    smiling and chewing and talking to yourself. TENNESSEE 8. One hand on 12 oz. Double shot latte, one knee on wheel, cradling    cell phone, foot on brake, mind on radio game, banging head on    steering wheel while stuck in traffic: SEATTLE 9. One hand on wheel, one hand on hunting rifle, alternating between    both feet being on the accelerator and both feet on brake, throwing    McDonald’s bag out the window: TEXAS 10. Four-wheel drive pick-up truck, shotgun mounted in rear window,     beer cans on floor, squirrel tails attached to antenna: ALABAMA 11. Two hands gripping wheel, blue hair barely visible above     windshield, driving 35 on the Interstate in the left lane with the     left blinker on: FLORIDA 12. Knee up against steering wheel, one hand on Tim Horton’s coffee     cup, cell phone in ear, accelerator to the floor, applying     makeup/doing crossword puzzle/reading morning Free Press,     knocking down orange barrels, changing lanes without turn signals:     MICHIGAN — Words are windows to the heart.

Response:

will do, my friend….donnah – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > We just had a Nursing student go off the deep end today. He walked into > a classroom and killed two instructors that had given him a flunking > grade and then he killed himself. Its a real mess. I got ahold of Lucy > and she is walking home. Its impossible to get anywhere close to campus > right now. This one struck pretty close to home as I have friends who > teach at the hospital. > As a culture we have gone completely insane. Way too many people seem to > think using a gun is a solution. Very depressing and sad day here in the > ol’ Pueblo. Students are devastated over the incident and its going to > take a lot of follow up counseling to get folks back to normal. > Please keep us in your thoughts and prayers today. > johnie

Response:

> As a culture we have gone completely insane. Way too many people seem to > think using a gun is a solution. Very depressing and sad day here in the > ol’ Pueblo. Students are devastated over the incident and its going to > take a lot of follow up counseling to get folks back to normal.

I was just hearing this on NPR.  Another very sad situation.  We need to help more people learn effective ways of dealing with frustration, disappointment and angre, but I just don’t know how we do it on a large scale.  We can just > Please keep us in your thoughts and prayers today.

Done. — Nann remove the Gator cheer to email me It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

Response:

Thanks Harvey, I don’t know the answers, I don’t care for guns although my husband is a collector and does go hunting. I just see kids, and adults to be fair, in the workplace who don’t have a clue as to honoring one’s word, how to live up to making a commitment and following through.  Owning up to one’s mistakes is too much to expect.  We have all gotten too lax, too  tolerant and too understanding.  A little discipline never hurt anyone and usually makes a better person out of them. Everyone needs guidlines. Lyn > Hi Lyn,   I sure like the way you think and express yourself.  Is there > a price for children being raised without accountability, without > responsibility, are we seeing the answer, living with the answer? When > you blame the gun, are you condoning that kind of thinking, kind of way > of life? > Harv

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

> As a culture we have gone completely insane. Way too many people seem to > think using a gun is a solution. Very depressing and sad day here in the > ol’ Pueblo. Students are devastated over the incident and its going to > take a lot of follow up counseling to get folks back to normal.

I talked with my parents in AZ and they were pretty upset about it also.  I wonder how much of this is copy cat shootings?   — Visit my website: http://www.mzuschlag.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi Joyce, > I won’t get into the First Amendment, but the problem lies with people not > accepting responsibility for their actions.  Example, the kid in OK who killed some > people because a neighbour cautioned him about his driving.  Adults don’t bear > responsibility for events in their lives, it’s always someone elses fault. > Children are not brought up to take responsibility for their actions by their > parents and the schools have their hands tied as far as disciplining the students. > It’s time some responsibility was brought back into our lives.  More laws won’t > solve anything.  We have good laws on the books now that are not being enforced for > many reasons.  Taking away guns won’t solve anything. > Lyn  ( in Tucson)

Hi Lyn,   I sure like the way you think and express yourself.  Is there a price for children being raised without accountability, without responsibility, are we seeing the answer, living with the answer? When you blame the gun, are you condoning that kind of thinking, kind of way of life? Harv

Response:

I knew I should have kept my big mouth shut. I do believe Education and Parental and Adult responsibility is the key. My father taught me to have a healthy respect for any type of weapon. I did mis-speak and want to correct it before this goes any further. I said in the earlier post…… "I do not believe that people should be able to buy game hunting weapons and even certain kinds of hand-guns with safety mechanisms like trigger locks installed." It should have read…" I do believe that people should be able to buy game hunting weapons and perhaps on a limited basis ‘handguns’ if they have good well thought out safety devices so they could not be used by a child or a stranger. SORRY ABOUT THAT MISREAD…..It was the opposite of what I meant to say. I can not voice strongly enough that EDUCATION and parental responsibility is the place to begin. johnie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Joyce, >         It is sweet that someone would consider me beloved in any group >bg< but I > consider you a very much loved member of this NG. I think we are in agreement on > guns. I certainly don’t want to start a thread on gun laws. Its too political and > pushes way too many buttons. I am of the mind-set and have been for many years > that a strict gun registration program be put in place and that guns that are > built for the sole purpose of killing people (particularly semi-automatics) be > destroyed and banned from production. This would be a good start. I do not believe > that people should be able to buy game hunting weapons and even certain kinds of > hand-guns with safety mechanisms like trigger locks installed. I also believe that > the screening process needs to be much tougher for people wanting to buy guns. I > will not comment too much further because its a rocky, rough road to start a > discussion on. > I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN A THREAD ABOUT GUNS because I think it creates too many > ill feelings. I know there are many people here that do not believe guns should be > made harder to get and I do remember the last time this issue came up. It ended > badly. There is no need to go there again so I hope no one will. PLEASE. My > original post was there because it affected me so closely and directly. It was one > more horrible tragedy and it was carried out by someone that could have gotten a > gun no matter how tough a gun registration program could be. I do know that there > is something about American culture that play a large role in the problem. There > are a few European country’s with liberal gun laws but very low homicide rates. > The key appears to be EDUCATION. We have to change the way we think about guns as > they relate to problem solving and we have to do it one generation at a time until > we have a country that doesn’t associate PROBLEM SOLVING with THE USE OF GUNS. > There, I opened my big mouth and I hope it doesn’t start a thread we don’t need. > The world is stressful enough without us debating GUN CONTROL. > Joyce, you see, I think we are probably in agreement in most instances about gun > laws. Im sorry if my post was misleading in any way. I do not own a gun and most > if not all of my friends do not own guns. I was also raised in an environment > where carrying a gun was common. I kept a shotgun in my car as early as age 14 and > used one on the farm as early as age 10. My exposure to guns and their uses is > extensive. > And don’t forget that I consider you a beloved member of this group.>g< I just > hope we didn’t start a mini-flame war. There is just so much tragedy in the world > right now its overwhelming. God help us all. > johnie > >Way too many people seem to > >think using a gun is a solution. > Is that any surprise when we can’t seem to get a sensible national gun law > passed?  Johnie, I know you are a cherished member of this NG, while I am only > a sometime visitor.  I am thinking about the students there, certainly.  And I > am wondering when we can all come to our senses and realize that we need to > disarm our population. > The right to bear arms was rational back when we were a small settlement of > farmers and small businesses, not even a nation, and we were about to embark on > a rebellion against what was then the most powerful empire in the world.  They > were the bullies then.  But they never turned their guns against their own > people. > It is not rational now.  We are a different kind of society, open to one and > all.  There is too much sorrow in every newspaper, on every newscast.  I have > lived a long time and only a few of my years were during peacetime.  That > dismays me.  I live in a large city, but death by gunfire is not restricted to > large cities. > Johnie, I am not cross with you.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I am just so > distraught about how we seem to be killing ourselves over nothing at all. > I’ll get over it, or maybe not.  I would prefer not.  I have still not gotten > over the desecration of my beloved city, New York. > Joyce

Response:

Joyce,         It is sweet that someone would consider me beloved in any group >bg< but I consider you a very much loved member of this NG. I think we are in agreement on guns. I certainly don’t want to start a thread on gun laws. Its too political and pushes way too many buttons. I am of the mind-set and have been for many years that a strict gun registration program be put in place and that guns that are built for the sole purpose of killing people (particularly semi-automatics) be destroyed and banned from production. This would be a good start. I do not believe that people should be able to buy game hunting weapons and even certain kinds of hand-guns with safety mechanisms like trigger locks installed. I also believe that the screening process needs to be much tougher for people wanting to buy guns. I will not comment too much further because its a rocky, rough road to start a discussion on. I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN A THREAD ABOUT GUNS because I think it creates too many ill feelings. I know there are many people here that do not believe guns should be made harder to get and I do remember the last time this issue came up. It ended badly. There is no need to go there again so I hope no one will. PLEASE. My original post was there because it affected me so closely and directly. It was one more horrible tragedy and it was carried out by someone that could have gotten a gun no matter how tough a gun registration program could be. I do know that there is something about American culture that play a large role in the problem. There are a few European country’s with liberal gun laws but very low homicide rates. The key appears to be EDUCATION. We have to change the way we think about guns as they relate to problem solving and we have to do it one generation at a time until we have a country that doesn’t associate PROBLEM SOLVING with THE USE OF GUNS. There, I opened my big mouth and I hope it doesn’t start a thread we don’t need. The world is stressful enough without us debating GUN CONTROL. Joyce, you see, I think we are probably in agreement in most instances about gun laws. Im sorry if my post was misleading in any way. I do not own a gun and most if not all of my friends do not own guns. I was also raised in an environment where carrying a gun was common. I kept a shotgun in my car as early as age 14 and used one on the farm as early as age 10. My exposure to guns and their uses is extensive. And don’t forget that I consider you a beloved member of this group.>g< I just hope we didn’t start a mini-flame war. There is just so much tragedy in the world right now its overwhelming. God help us all. johnie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Way too many people seem to >think using a gun is a solution. > Is that any surprise when we can’t seem to get a sensible national gun law > passed?  Johnie, I know you are a cherished member of this NG, while I am only > a sometime visitor.  I am thinking about the students there, certainly.  And I > am wondering when we can all come to our senses and realize that we need to > disarm our population. > The right to bear arms was rational back when we were a small settlement of > farmers and small businesses, not even a nation, and we were about to embark on > a rebellion against what was then the most powerful empire in the world.  They > were the bullies then.  But they never turned their guns against their own > people. > It is not rational now.  We are a different kind of society, open to one and > all.  There is too much sorrow in every newspaper, on every newscast.  I have > lived a long time and only a few of my years were during peacetime.  That > dismays me.  I live in a large city, but death by gunfire is not restricted to > large cities. > Johnie, I am not cross with you.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I am just so > distraught about how we seem to be killing ourselves over nothing at all. > I’ll get over it, or maybe not.  I would prefer not.  I have still not gotten > over the desecration of my beloved city, New York. > Joyce

Response:

>Please keep us in your thoughts and prayers today. >johnie

Mannnnnnnnnnn! How sad. Will for sure keep you all in thoughts and prayers. Rose

Response:

Hi Joyce, I won’t get into the First Amendment, but the problem lies with people not accepting responsibility for their actions.  Example, the kid in OK who killed some people because a neighbour cautioned him about his driving.  Adults don’t bear responsibility for events in their lives, it’s always someone elses fault. Children are not brought up to take responsibility for their actions by their parents and the schools have their hands tied as far as disciplining the students. It’s time some responsibility was brought back into our lives.  More laws won’t solve anything.  We have good laws on the books now that are not being enforced for many reasons.  Taking away guns won’t solve anything. Lyn  ( in Tucson) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Way too many people seem to >think using a gun is a solution. > Is that any surprise when we can’t seem to get a sensible national gun law > passed?  Johnie, I know you are a cherished member of this NG, while I am only > a sometime visitor.  I am thinking about the students there, certainly.  And I > am wondering when we can all come to our senses and realize that we need to > disarm our population. > The right to bear arms was rational back when we were a small settlement of > farmers and small businesses, not even a nation, and we were about to embark on > a rebellion against what was then the most powerful empire in the world.  They > were the bullies then.  But they never turned their guns against their own > people. > It is not rational now.  We are a different kind of society, open to one and > all.  There is too much sorrow in every newspaper, on every newscast.  I have > lived a long time and only a few of my years were during peacetime.  That > dismays me.  I live in a large city, but death by gunfire is not restricted to > large cities. > Johnie, I am not cross with you.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I am just so > distraught about how we seem to be killing ourselves over nothing at all. > I’ll get over it, or maybe not.  I would prefer not.  I have still not gotten > over the desecration of my beloved city, New York. > Joyce

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Johnnie, It’s already made the Phoenix news.  Hard to believe that the quiet town I grew up in has been subjected to that kind of violence.   Anne AAC/AAF/AFBV62.0844.AZ http://www.tckworld.com/opfoot

Response:

>Way too many people seem to >think using a gun is a solution.

Is that any surprise when we can’t seem to get a sensible national gun law passed?  Johnie, I know you are a cherished member of this NG, while I am only a sometime visitor.  I am thinking about the students there, certainly.  And I am wondering when we can all come to our senses and realize that we need to disarm our population. The right to bear arms was rational back when we were a small settlement of farmers and small businesses, not even a nation, and we were about to embark on a rebellion against what was then the most powerful empire in the world.  They were the bullies then.  But they never turned their guns against their own people. It is not rational now.  We are a different kind of society, open to one and all.  There is too much sorrow in every newspaper, on every newscast.  I have lived a long time and only a few of my years were during peacetime.  That dismays me.  I live in a large city, but death by gunfire is not restricted to large cities. Johnie, I am not cross with you.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I am just so distraught about how we seem to be killing ourselves over nothing at all. I’ll get over it, or maybe not.  I would prefer not.  I have still not gotten over the desecration of my beloved city, New York. Joyce

Response:

We just had a Nursing student go off the deep end today. He walked into a classroom and killed two instructors that had given him a flunking grade and then he killed himself. Its a real mess. I got ahold of Lucy and she is walking home. Its impossible to get anywhere close to campus right now. This one struck pretty close to home as I have friends who teach at the hospital. As a culture we have gone completely insane. Way too many people seem to think using a gun is a solution. Very depressing and sad day here in the ol’ Pueblo. Students are devastated over the incident and its going to take a lot of follow up counseling to get folks back to normal. Please keep us in your thoughts and prayers today. johnie

Response:

Flip a coin on these two rounds for deer and hog.  They both will do the job in like manner.  I have hunted the 150 gr core-lokt for years without any fear of it not doing it’s job.  I used 150gr because that was what my dad started me out on.  I have moved on to handloads now, but there is a soft spot in my……enough of that. Depending on how big your deer are I would go with the 180 if I was going to start over. Scott Young – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.hunting Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 5:16 PM > I am wondering what is a good over all weight for whitetail and hogs? I have > hunted for years with a shotgun but this is my first rifle. I have been > using Remington Express Core-lokt 150 grain pointed soft point. I have > sighted the gun into a nice grouping at 100 yards. Anyone had any experience > with this ammo? All my shots will be within 100 yards or closer. Will it be > effective on both Whitetail and Hogs? Today I took the rifle out to the > range and after 2 sets of 3 with the 150 grain I switched to 180 grain > Express Core-lokt to see the difference. The 180 grain hit the target 3" > lower than the 150 grain. I am guessing because of the weight. > I was amazed in the change. I have tried different ammo in my Remington 870 > 12 gauge with just a little difference in pattern but I have learned there > is a big difference in a rifle ammo. Is the type of ammo allot like personal > rifle preference? I am getting very comfortable with the 150 grain Remington > ammo and I feel I know where the bullet if going to end up. > Thanks in advance for anyone’s assistance, > Robert Jackson > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: >         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Most .30 cals seem to like 165gr. bullets how ever not all co. offer them loaded. And yes most guns do have a prefference for a particular load. Unless you reload keep experimenting until you find a factory load thats "just right" for your particular gun. Then buy a case of that lot. Luck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.hunting Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:16 PM > I am wondering what is a good over all weight for whitetail and hogs? I have > hunted for years with a shotgun but this is my first rifle. I have been > using Remington Express Core-lokt 150 grain pointed soft point. I have > sighted the gun into a nice grouping at 100 yards. Anyone had any experience > with this ammo? All my shots will be within 100 yards or closer. Will it be > effective on both Whitetail and Hogs? Today I took the rifle out to the > range and after 2 sets of 3 with the 150 grain I switched to 180 grain > Express Core-lokt to see the difference. The 180 grain hit the target 3" > lower than the 150 grain. I am guessing because of the weight. > I was amazed in the change. I have tried different ammo in my Remington 870 > 12 gauge with just a little difference in pattern but I have learned there > is a big difference in a rifle ammo. Is the type of ammo allot like personal > rifle preference? I am getting very comfortable with the 150 grain Remington > ammo and I feel I know where the bullet if going to end up. > Thanks in advance for anyone’s assistance, > Robert Jackson > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: >         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I got a gold crown grade 835 and i just got a ported slug barrel with a scope mount that im using this year for buck! why? because were im gonna hunt is in the thick brush…Todd Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

>I am wondering what is a good over all weight for whitetail and hogs? I have >hunted for years with a shotgun but this is my first rifle. I have been >using Remington Express Core-lokt 150 grain pointed soft point. I have >sighted the gun into a nice grouping at 100 yards. Anyone had any experience >with this ammo?

I shot my first deer last year with that exact round, from a 22" barrel. He was about 40 yards away, and I hit him perfectly behind the shoulder, perfectly at least for a quick kill.  Anyway, he dropped instantly, and the bullet left a big ol’ exit hole, so I guess I have no complaints with the performance of the round/bullet. All that said, I’ve heard it argued pretty persuasively that 180’s are the better choice for 30-06.  Better penetration, lower velocity which helps jellify less venison, and a ballistic path that is not significantly different than the 150 at practical hunting ranges. For deer the 150 Core-Lokt’s are fine, but for hogs I’d use 180-gn Partitions, which are a much tougher bullet that still expands nicely, and while you are at it, use them for deer too <g>!  I’ve never hunted hogs, but that would be the thing to use… >effective on both Whitetail and Hogs? Today I took the rifle out to the >range and after 2 sets of 3 with the 150 grain I switched to 180 grain >Express Core-lokt to see the difference. The 180 grain hit the target 3" >lower than the 150 grain. I am guessing because of the weight.

Different brands of ammo, even if they are the SAME bullet weight, will usually group if different places… Enjoy your new rifle! -jeff Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Since we’re talking about slug guns, I have a question. I just got back from my first deer hunt in Indiana (I got a 6 point with my muzzleloader). I have a Mossburg 835 Ulti-Mag (turkey choke) that I might would like to get a rifled barrel for, if possible. Anyone have any suggestions? I’d like to shoot a shotgun up there next year. I would only need it for hunting up there. We have a very long season here in SC where we can use rifles. Thanks, Tommy Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> I am wondering what is a good over all weight for whitetail and hogs? I have > hunted for years with a shotgun but this is my first rifle. I have been > using Remington Express Core-lokt 150 grain pointed soft point. I have > sighted the gun into a nice grouping at 100 yards. Anyone had any

experience PERFECT…  Stick with it…  Won’t dissapoint you.  Remmeber the KISS principle REM7600 Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I have one of the Mossberg 24 inch rifled barrels for my 835. I have been pleased with it and can get tight groups fro it. I got it directly from Mossberg, check out their web site: www.mossberg.com

> Since we’re talking about slug guns, I have a question. I just got back > from my first deer hunt in Indiana (I got a 6 point with my muzzleloader). > I have a Mossburg 835 Ulti-Mag (turkey choke) that I might would like to > get a rifled barrel for, if possible. Anyone have any suggestions? I’d like > to shoot a shotgun up there next year. I would only need it for hunting up > there. We have a very long season here in SC where we can use rifles. > Thanks, > Tommy > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: >         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am wondering what is a good over all weight for whitetail and hogs? I have > hunted for years with a shotgun but this is my first rifle. I have been > using Remington Express Core-lokt 150 grain pointed soft point. I have > sighted the gun into a nice grouping at 100 yards. Anyone had any experience > with this ammo? All my shots will be within 100 yards or closer. Will it be > effective on both Whitetail and Hogs? Today I took the rifle out to the > range and after 2 sets of 3 with the 150 grain I switched to 180 grain > Express Core-lokt to see the difference. The 180 grain hit the target 3" > lower than the 150 grain. I am guessing because of the weight. > I was amazed in the change. I have tried different ammo in my Remington 870 > 12 gauge with just a little difference in pattern but I have learned there > is a big difference in a rifle ammo. Is the type of ammo allot like personal > rifle preference? I am getting very comfortable with the 150 grain Remington > ammo and I feel I know where the bullet if going to end up. > Thanks in advance for anyone’s assistance, > Robert Jackson

That’s fairly normal.   Remember, you’re not shooting your shotgun at 100 yards.  If you patterned it at 50, then 100, you’d find that the center of the pattern drops quite a bit.   Shotguns are pretty sensitive to load changes, not so much in center of pattern as in pattern density and consistency.  Each type of gun has it’s idiosynchracies. Anyway, a 3" change in point of impact isn’t unusual.  Part of it can be change in bullet weight affecting velocity.  It could be affected by the muzzle being not square … many rifles "flip" the bullets a little as they leave the muzzle, sometimes consistently enough that they still group extremely well, just not where you expect.   Changes in the shape of the bullet can do the same thing. Example … I shot 50 grain Speer TNTs and 50 grain Nosler Ballistic tips out of my .220 Swift with the same max load of H380 to nearly the same velocity, both grouped very very well, but about 2-1/2 inches apart at 100 yards.  The difference was the shape of the bullet and how they’d act as they left the muzzle. Personally, for a do-most-anything ‘06 factory load I have a great preference for 180s over 150s or any other weight.   They shoot plenty flat enough for anything an ‘06 should be used for and hit harder at all ranges.   Among cheap ‘06 ammo, I like the 180 grain CoreLokt Remington, among better grade ammo I like Federal premium with the Nosler 180 grain partition bullet. Considering your 100 yard maximum range, I’d probably go with 200 grain bullets instead; they still go plenty fast enough to expand, the trajectory is still string-flat within 100 yards, and they penetrate better than the light bullets can.   More than likely, the lower velocity will also leave you with less meat damage. Tom Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I am wondering what is a good over all weight for whitetail and hogs? I have hunted for years with a shotgun but this is my first rifle. I have been using Remington Express Core-lokt 150 grain pointed soft point. I have sighted the gun into a nice grouping at 100 yards. Anyone had any experience with this ammo? All my shots will be within 100 yards or closer. Will it be effective on both Whitetail and Hogs? Today I took the rifle out to the range and after 2 sets of 3 with the 150 grain I switched to 180 grain Express Core-lokt to see the difference. The 180 grain hit the target 3" lower than the 150 grain. I am guessing because of the weight. I was amazed in the change. I have tried different ammo in my Remington 870 12 gauge with just a little difference in pattern but I have learned there is a big difference in a rifle ammo. Is the type of ammo allot like personal rifle preference? I am getting very comfortable with the 150 grain Remington ammo and I feel I know where the bullet if going to end up. Thanks in advance for anyone’s assistance, Robert Jackson Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Has anybody tried either of these new powders? Are they measured the same as Black Powder or Pyrodex? Mark Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

>Has anybody tried either of these new powders? Are they measured the same

as Black Powder or Pyrodex? >Mark

Tried Clear Shot this year in a Thompson Center Renegade .54.  Cleaning was much easier and residue easily removed to reload in the field.  Better accuracy with Clear Shot than I had in the past with FFG blackpowder which produced better accuracy than Pyrodex RS in the past.  365 Grain Maxi-balls over 110 grains of powder provide good accuracy with both Clear Shot and blackpowder in this rifle.  Unfortunately I ran into ignition problems while hunting with this load.  Number 11 caps (which were several years old) resulted in a few misfires.  Unfortunately they occured when the rifle was pointed at mule deer bucks.  The primers were CCI No 11 and several years old.  I later tried Dynamit Nobel No 1075 at the range and did not have any misfires.  A friend using an in-line with shotgun primers had no ignition problems.  I intend to use Clear Shot again in the future for hunting if I can verify that the ignition problem was old caps and not more difficult ignition of the powder.  The Clear Shot is measured by volume as is blackpowder.  GOEX discusses Clear Shot on their website. Irv Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

What ever powder you use it will clean up better with GLASS PLUS That’s right the window cleaner will clean blackpowder guns slicker than anything you have ever used. Throw away all those expensive BP solvents and get Glass Plus. WW Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> Has anybody tried either of these new powders?

Ive used Clear Shot in my 38-55. While it doesnt seem to attack the barrel/etc it for sure will attack brass. Within 30mins of firing the brass started turning green. I also wouldnt try using it in small pistol cases as the fouling is extreme and very difficult to remove even as recommended (cool water). OTOH in a rifle with a long barrel there is very little fouling which cleans up pretty quick. I suspect youd get comparable results with a muzzle loader. >Are they measured the same as Black Powder or Pyrodex?

Yes, if youre loading by volume.                                 HTH jimg Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

What ever powder you use it will clean up better with GLASS PLUS That’s right the window cleaner will clean blackpowder guns slicker than anything you have ever used. Throw away all those expensive BP solvents and get Glass Plus. WW>>>>>>>>> I have heard that and planned to try it when I get my new gun this Xmas. What do you use for rust prevention after you clean witht the glass plus? Does’nt Glass Plus have amonia in it? Could this cause rust? Mark Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.hunting Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:22 AM > Has anybody tried either of these new powders? Are they measured the same as Black Powder or Pyrodex? > Mark > Mark  I just purchased clean shot pellets 50 gr equivelant to pyrodex and black powder by volume. My experience with pyo was its as dirty (fouling) as BP. So I will try this out at .23 a pellot. > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: >         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> What ever powder you use it will clean up better with > GLASS PLUS > That’s right the window cleaner will clean blackpowder guns slicker than > anything you have ever used. Throw away all those expensive BP solvents and > get Glass Plus. > WW>>>>>>>>> > I have heard that and planned to try it when I get my new gun this Xmas.

What do you use for rust prevention after you clean witht the glass plus? Gun oil as always. >Does’nt Glass Plus have amonia in it?

Nope. It’s ammonia free. Could this cause rust? Nope. WW Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> Got a chance to do a little pheasant hunting this year in California, near > Stockton. A few years ago, the hunt was OK but not spectacular. Anybody > out there getting their limits? I don’t feel like going through the hassle > of flying across state borders with a weapon these days unless it’s worth > it.

Greetings. If your post doesn’t get other response, I suggest you call the CA department of fish & game in Sacramento & ask to talk with an upland bird biologist. I’ve had good luck with these folks being accessable, friendly and knowledgeable (probably about the specific area you have in mind). For pheasant, I’ve been a denizen of the local game bird club for the last several years, so I can’t offer first hand observations on the wild birds. My second-hand sense from the talk around the range, the bird club & the sports shop is that you’ll probably find the situation similar to what it was a few years ago. Not worse, but no great strides ahead either. I’m optomistic as groups like Pheasants Forever can have fairly quick impact with a few tweaks to the handling of the habitat, but I don’t think we are near critical mass for those changes in CA yet. On another front, my son and I travelled to Wyoming from CA (and back) a couple of weeks ago for an antelope hunt and did not experience unusual inconvenience for the prescence of firearms & gear. My experience is that you can probably bring your shotgun out and decide about the hunt upon arrival without major hassles. Good luck & enjoy the hunt/Jim Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Got a chance to do a little pheasant hunting this year in California, near Stockton. A few years ago, the hunt was OK but not spectacular. Anybody out there getting their limits? I don’t feel like going through the hassle of flying across state borders with a weapon these days unless it’s worth it. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> Next novice question – do you wear ear protection when out hunting?  We > do > when we are at the trap range, and we noticed that on the show "Hunting > with Hank" it appears the handler wears ear protection only on his gun > side > ear.  Is that common?  I honestly cannot recall noticing at the hunt > tests > if the gunners wear ear protection… I was too overwhelmed with my > rookie > trained and handled dog doing so well that she kept passing…  But we > are > wondering.  We keep those little foam ones in the gun case right now, and > that’s what we use at the range.

Depends on how much shooting and with what type of gun.  For big game hunting, where you would fire one shot, ideally, you can probably forget the hearing protection.  Or, you can put in one earplug, in the ear thats closest to the muzzle. This is mainly to have your sense of hearing when you are out hunting for game and you have not located it yet.  Of course, you can try and locate your game first, and if you could, put on hearing protection just before you shoot. For shotgunning at ducks/geese, you will probably have the time to put on hearing protection when you start calling them, and they get to within range. Of course, you can always get some of those ‘hearing aid’ type hearing protection <http://www.walkersgameear.com>.  This is not an endorsement, I do not work for them, nor do I receive any compensation from them. But this type of hearing protection will allow you to get a good cheek-stock weld for shooting. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Next novice question – do you wear ear protection when out hunting? We do > when we are at the trap range, and we noticed that on the show "Hunting > with Hank" it appears the handler wears ear protection only on his gun side > ear.  Is that common?  I honestly cannot recall noticing at the hunt tests > if the gunners wear ear protection… I was too overwhelmed with my rookie > trained and handled dog doing so well that she kept passing…  But we are > wondering.  We keep those little foam ones in the gun case right now, and > that’s what we use at the range.

   (snipped)   I like to wear ear protection whenever possible. I’ve lost 1/2 of my hearing now, and will never get it back. Range and target shooting, it’s mandatory. Small game and varmints, I’d recommend it, but calling turkeys, you can’t wear ‘em and be able to hear the turkeys. Use your own judgment. I sure miss those birds singing. Haven’t heard a cricket in years…… Bob Experience is something you don’t get until just after you need it. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Hi there! Again, thanks for all your wonderful advice and suggestions so far in our entry into the world of hunting, upland bird in particular.  We still hope to have our first "real" outing next year, as all the "hunter ed classes" are full up until January. Next novice question – do you wear ear protection when out hunting?  We do when we are at the trap range, and we noticed that on the show "Hunting with Hank" it appears the handler wears ear protection only on his gun side ear.  Is that common?  I honestly cannot recall noticing at the hunt tests if the gunners wear ear protection… I was too overwhelmed with my rookie trained and handled dog doing so well that she kept passing…  But we are wondering.  We keep those little foam ones in the gun case right now, and that’s what we use at the range. Of course for the bow hunters, this may not apply as a question.  ;-) Oh and now that we have our new shotgun sized for us, it has made a huge difference in our enjoyment of shooting and in our success in hitting those silly clays.  We highly recommend getting a gun sized, especially if you are female!  Right out of the box, the stock was easily 2 or 3 inches too long for both of us.  Had to pull it as far in front of me as my arms would reach, just to even begin to plant it near my shoulder.  HUGE difference now.  Well worth the nominal (we thought) price of sizing it.  Not to mention we got a free cleaning lesson out of it as well. Good luck to all! Tracy & Jeni Olympia, Wash kibble providers to Ch. Cameo’s Wild Cherry Jubilee WDX JH , Clumber Spaniel Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I have been thinking about buying a gun and really have no idea where to start.  So I am looking for any ideas on a gun that would be easy for a woman to pack around and that is between $250.00 to $350.00. If you have any suggestions please let me know!  Thanks! Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

>I have been thinking about buying a gun and really have no idea where >to start.  So I am looking for any ideas on a gun that would be easy >for a woman to pack around and that is between $250.00 to $350.00. >If you have any suggestions please let me know!  Thanks!

 With the word "gun" you covered a *lot* of  territory. Since this is a "hunting" NG would it be reasonable to assume you mean a rifle a/o a shotgun. Though there are people who use handguns for hunting . Do you intend to go hunting or shoot a paper targets ? If you’re a complete beginner, a .22 caliber rifle of numerous brands will cost within your limits. And ammunition for one is very inexpensive. Then, if you’re talking about "packing" a handgun, that’s a whole ‘nuther subject. Worth a whole lot of discussion. About that, ask again on the newsgroup rec.guns      Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)  "No matter how hard you try, you can’t throw a potato chip very far." "Linus" Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

It would help if you could be a bit more forthcoming on what your intended use is.  Hunting covers a very wide range of critters, and there are classes of game, that require different weapons for best use. Birds require a shotgun, shall game should be taken with rimfire type weapons, and big game sizes are so varied, that selecting a weapon is problematic without more information.  I would be glad to help, if you could narrow down the perameters a bit.         I live far out in the alaskan bush, and my wife and I both hunt on occasion when the need arises. —   Bruce (semiretired powderman & exFCC Field Inspector for Southeastern Alaska)   Bruce Gordon * Debora Gordon R.N.       Bruce’s Trading Post         P.O. Box EXI                      Excursion Inlet South      Juneau, Alaska 99850               Excursion Inlet, Alaska 99850     University of Alaska           Remote Weather Data Collection Site Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> I have been thinking about buying a gun and really have no idea where > to start.  So I am looking for any ideas on a gun that would be easy > for a woman to pack around and that is between $250.00 to $350.00. > If you have any suggestions please let me know!  Thanks!

   Let us know what animals you plan on hunting, and in what type of terrain, Jess. Give us as much information as you can, and we can help better. Bob Experience is something you don’t get until just after you need it. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.hunting Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:50 PM > I have been thinking about buying a gun and really have no idea where > to start.  So I am looking for any ideas on a gun that would be easy > for a woman to pack around and that is between $250.00 to $350.00. > If you have any suggestions please let me know!  Thanks! You will get lots of advice so here is mine. I don’t think you should worry about the type or caliber of gun.  At first I think you should look for a rifle that fits.  Do you ware shoos that don’t fit?  How a gun fits has a lot to do with how much and how well you will enjoy shooting.  I like smaller cartridges with less recoil. (Pain) Things like Bolt, auto, 260 or 7-08 can what till you find a brand that fits. Alan Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Check for fresh tracks at the water.  In my area, hunting water only works when it’s very dry and the number of water sources are limited.  Right now, there is water everywhere, so no one source is much better than any of the others. Look for tree rubs, ground scrapes, trails w/ fresh tracks and fresh droppings.  Absent any sign, look for "funnels" to deer travel if you’re limited to the area where you hunt. Our "body count" on our 700 acre farm stands at 17 for this year, well toward the goal of 25! Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

Preparation is the single most important factor in any hunting. – The deer may be pressured into using other areas for escape when there is pressure from other hunters (within 7 miles!). – Is the area you are talking about close to a feeding site – their kitchen?  They do most of their feeding in the night or low light conditions. – Hoe visible are you to the deer?  ANY movement in the grass will be like a fire alarm in the woods.  You need to think ambush.  Unseen, unheard, unscented. Go to: http://gameandfish.about.com/library/weekly/blmn_index.htm?iam=dpile&… to learn more. I would reccommend getting out of the path, behind something – out of their natural awareness areas.  Remember deer walk around with their nose to the ground alot. Good luck Scott > I hunted today for the first time not in a stand.  Here’s the situation: > There was thick woods, then 75 yards of tall grass before a wattering hole. > I saw some trails to the hole but no droppings.  If facing the woods the wind > was to my face, so I hunkered down in the grass halfway between the woods > and the water and watched the tree line.  It was shotgun only, so distance > was a factor.  I didn’t see any deer.  What would you guys have done in this > situation?  Did I pick the right place to park myself, or did I mess up? > Thanks! > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: >         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I just tagged my first one this week, so I am no expert.  But one thing I have been told is that if you have the wind in your face, to scout into the wind to see if a better area is available, and if worse comes to worse to retreat downwind back to your original spot.  As for me, I just happened to walk upon mine.  All the acorn scent, grunts, rattlers, and doe scent didn’t do me squat! LOL Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I hunted today for the first time not in a stand.  Here’s the situation: There was thick woods, then 75 yards of tall grass before a wattering hole. I saw some trails to the hole but no droppings.  If facing the woods the wind was to my face, so I hunkered down in the grass halfway between the woods and the water and watched the tree line.  It was shotgun only, so distance was a factor.  I didn’t see any deer.  What would you guys have done in this situation?  Did I pick the right place to park myself, or did I mess up? Thanks! Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> I hunted today for the first time not in a stand.  Here’s the situation: > There was thick woods, then 75 yards of tall grass before a wattering hole. > I saw some trails to the hole but no droppings.  If facing the woods the wind > was to my face, so I hunkered down in the grass halfway between the woods > and the water and watched the tree line.  It was shotgun only, so distance > was a factor.  I didn’t see any deer.  What would you guys have done in this > situation?  Did I pick the right place to park myself, or did I mess up? > Thanks!

You obviously know about the importance of playing the wind.  But how was the cover you were hiding in.  Deer comming to a water hole, especially one with a change from woods to water around it will stop to observe before steping from the woods.  The older deer will likely approach from downwind. Sitting just inside the woods about 40 yards off the trail downwind of the water hole would be a good idea.  It is possible since you were on the upwind side of the waterhole that the deer downwind were smelling you, and you were not looking in that direction so you didn’t see them. I am getting more and more certain that having the wind directly in your face is a bad idea,  quartering into your face is better.  Deer walking upwind (their perferred method) will not wind you.                   |                  /   wind direction                   s   sign you are hunting over (the place you expect to see deer example water hole.)          y you .          +      d   deer sneaking in using the wind.          +       .        +++     . Henry Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

In my search for the Ultimate Tight Buckshot Pattern, I bought a Patternmanster last year. At about 25 paces it was *very* tight using the recommended Federal shells. It was mediocre using Winchester Supremes, my preferred load. The tube cracked after several shots, I sent it back and they refunded it. It is too bad, it seemed to work really well with Federal 00. I haven’t been able bring myself to cut loose EIGHTY-FIVE DOLLARS to buy that tube again. I’m still looking – thinking about trying the comp-n-choke tube. I use Winchester Supreme 00 and 000, with Full and Modified chokes.   Shot a nice fat spike last night at 25 paces – it rolled him. Got another spike and a 6-pointer on 27 Oct. All with Winchester Supreme 00, all one shot each – two at about 45-50 yards – all went down hard. JonB Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

">    I tried the Patternmaster with 7 1/2 lead shot and 5 lead shot. It > didn’t seem to give a good pattern. I went back to my improved and/or > modified win-chokes. I have not tried it with the large steel shot or > buckshot.

Thanks for the reply.That is what I was looking for some one that had used them. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

> ">    I tried the Patternmaster with 7 1/2 lead shot and 5 lead shot. It > didn’t seem to give a good pattern. I went back to my improved and/or > modified win-chokes. I have not tried it with the large steel shot or > buckshot. > Thanks for the reply.That is what I was looking for some one that had used > them.

Buckshot is a special case.  You don’t know how a shotgun and choke combo will perform with a particular round until you shoot it. Often a full choke will not pattern buckshot tightly, so "didn’t seem to give a good pattern" with 7 1/2 and 5 shot is practically meaningless when related to buckshot. Find a dealer with a liberal return policy.  Buy the choke, shoot it and look at your results.  If you don’t like them, take it back. It’s tough to get a tight 40 yard pattern out of 00 buck.  In my experience I get the best results with a smooth forcing cone and IC or modified choke.  YMMV. — http://home.teleport.com/~larryc Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

I have 2 remington shot guns, A pump and a semi. Lots of systems on the market. Pattern Master says their tubes will pattern 100% in a 20 inch circle at 40 yards with 3 in mags 00 buck. I find this hard to believe. Does any one have any experience with these tubes or any other system? Any pro or cons on the Hasting Wadlock barrels? Thanks in advance. Virgle Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response:

>I have 2 remington shot guns, A pump and a semi. Lots of systems on the >market. Pattern Master says their tubes will pattern 100% in a 20 inch >circle at 40 yards with 3 in mags 00 buck. I find this hard to believe. Does >any one have any experience with these tubes or any other system? >Any pro or cons on the Hasting Wadlock barrels? >Thanks in advance. >Virgle

   I tried the Patternmaster with 7 1/2 lead shot and 5 lead shot. It didn’t seem to give a good pattern. I went back to my improved and/or modified win-chokes. I have not tried it with the large steel shot or buckshot. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:         http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

Response: