To The Defense of Chandler Woodcock

Anyone can come onto a public forum and post anything they can think of for any purpose!

Justin,(if your listening) I could say I have hunted with YOU and you are a good person and everyone should vote for you and blah blah blah...

See?

Woodcock stumbled, no he TRIPPED when attempting to answer the six questions asked! Fell right over is tongue when he should have said

"I have no idea, no clue how to answer this question but I do hunt and fish! See, I have my licenses right here. I need to LEARN more about the subject before I answer."

Instead he babbled on completely incoheirent. Maine is full of BS'ers
and everyone knows, you can't BS a bullsh!tter!
A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed. At least that would be honest.


p.s. Do Maine's polititions get freeby licenses? If so, Why don't they let folks know they have one? Folks here in Maine would see that as a sign of honesty & boldness. With 10% anti-hunt, 10% pro-hunt and 80% indifferent, that alone could sway the elections.

If you go read the Bangor News article you might find like I did that this article really doesn't spell out Woodcocks stance on abortion - really. It merely points out how he voted on a few issues. That means nothing except he thinks a waiting period before a woman gets an abortion is okay, etc. etc.

Not to get on an abortion discussion in this forum but assuming this can only be in response to Ithaca's comment about abortion, it certainly doesn't help any.

My response to the commentor is that we don't often know anything about Woodcock because he doesn't seem to want to say much.

The article in the Bangor News says Woodcock promised not to let his personal views influence his policy making. What? Huh? Are you shitting me? Why in the world would anyone in their right mind vote for a man who promises not to let his personal views, admittedly conservative, not influence his policy making? Why? Why? Why? Isn't that why we vote for certain people because we come to understand the basic core beliefs and values of a person?

I am going to have to assume that the information written the article is incorrect. Nobody could be so stupid as to have made that statement. Nobody!

Well, I am not qualified to lead this state but I am reading hear. The blogs are still over my head for understanding them.

As for abortion, what the hell does it have to do with running the state? I am a man and do not have a vagina, uterus or any other parts to allow me to carry a child so why is abortion any of my business unless I am the father? That decision is not mine to make as it is not my body. Where does the general public get off telling people what to do with their body? That should be left to the one who is most affected by it.
I don't consider myself prolife or pro abortion as it is none of MY business.

This is one of the big reasons Maine is a very independent state. We elect independent governors multiple times.

As for the Woodcock for Gov thing, I think my mind is made up.

Tom, ask them all what they think of T.A.B.O.R. :shock:

In an attempt to bring the discussion back to gun rights and hunting issues, I really don't know who this Justin is but in his attempt to defend Chandler Woodcock, I think he is making assumptions of his own.

As with every law that was ever written, we all have a way of interpreting it as we see fit. This self-interpretation becomes a reflection of our personal beliefs.

Jack says he feels it is none of his business and I respect that. Ithaca feels very passionately that abortion is murder and I too respect that. It is the same with gun rights, civil rights, etc. etc., all complex issues that can foster some heated discussions.

This is why when election time rolls around, we are out searching for the candidate that best exemplifies our prioritized personal beliefs.

I said before that I didn't think there was one individual on this board who would go out and vote for any of the candidates based on my six questions. My attempt was to bring to light, the ideas and philosophies of each person to give us a better understanding of who they are and how it relates to hunting, fishing, trapping and the outdoors.

In a sense, Woodcock brought this discussion on because of his lack of being forthcoming in any of the discussions we had. This has led us to make assumptions. This coupled with the defense of Woodcock by this Justin guy and here we are.

Justin believes that Woodcock is a supporter of 2nd amendment and is pro-life. By how he views these issues, that is what he believes. By how others view them, there are differing opinions.

There is one thing for certain. A raging debate about abortion issues will accomplish only one thing on this message board - pissing people off.

I am not censoring the discussion. There has been no name calling and this is good. When it gets to that, I will pull the plug.

I was the one who inadvertantly raised the subject of abortion. In my attempt at bringing to light that views on one person's stance varies from one individual to the next. It wasn't an attempt to muster a discussion on abortion.

Let's move the discussion back to 2nd amendment and hunting issues as they pertain to Chandler Woodcock.

Thank you,