[kenton6]

Most of you probably don't realize unless you are going back to all the previous post at the Black Bear Blog, that I got this comment yesterday from a reader:

I personally know Chandler Woodcock and have hunted and fished with him. Trust me, he isn’t going to outlaw hunting anytime soon. Ask anyone who knows him and they’ll tell you hunting and fishing (and the right to do so) is an issue very close to his heart. If anyone tells you any different, they are lying. Period. His work on inland fisheries and wildlife while in the Legislature has been unappreciated. His fierce support of the right to hunt is the 2nd amendment is one of his finest qualities. I urge you to seek out and talk to people who really know the man, not limit your judgment to political rocks being thrown and six question surveys.

Comment by Justin . August 8, 2006

I sent the commentor an emailing suggesting that they post the comment on the latest blog done about the candidates so everyone would see. I didn't get a response back nor did I get a comment posted at any of the other blog posts. I gave him the link as well.

I thought it only fair to include this person's comment where others could read it.

BTW. I would do this no matter who said it about whom!

 

[kenton6]

Being that it is difficult to say exactly what everthing in his statement means, am I to assume that he is saying that I threw some political rocks at Mr. Woodcock?

He is right in one aspect. I don't think there is anyone on this message board who would go out and vote for or against any of the candidates simply because of how they answered my six questions - is there? I hope not.

When you decide to become a public figure and in this case a politician, many rocks will be thrown at you. Your choice is to either duck or learn how to get them to bounce off. Wishing they would stop throwing them ain't gonna happen!

 

[Cap'n Jack Duggins]

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.

 

[kenton6]

For some reason this guy won't bring his defense of Woodcock to any other place than the same post at the Black Bear Blog. I know all of you don't get a notice when someone responds to a post so I'll paste it here and you can go back to the link and respond if you want to.

The latest in defense of Chandler Woodcock:

Here is evidence of Woodcock's Pro-Life stance, as written as an attack
actually by an opponent. It is clear to me that you do not know
Chandler Woodcock and/or his policies.

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=138675&z=35 class=

The Bangor News link is the editorial of some guy supposedly bashing Woodcock.

Here's the link to the original blog.
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/?p=749#comments

 

[kenton6]

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!

 

[kenton6]

I didn't notice the last time I went over to the post at the blog, that this guy actually left two posts. I didn't get the notice on the first post until about 2 1/2 hours after the last. Here's his second post with link back to the comments page at the blog.

Uh, Chandler Woodcock is strongly pro-life. I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. Do you pick up a paper?

You are also WAY off on his second amendment support. He fully supports the right to bear arms.

Comment by Justin

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/?p=749#comments

 

[kenton6]

Fully Supports? I think what he means is he fully supports the 2nd Amendment as he interprets it to read. But then again he has promised not to let his personal convictions effect his policy making.

 

[kenton6]

Gee I hope someone else chimes in here. I'm debating myself.

As you can see, I'm having a difficult time mustering up much support for this man. I'm trying but the harder I try the less I can find.

Is there anyone who is qualified to lead Maine?
:runforhills:

 

[Cap'n Jack Duggins]

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:

 

[Ithaca37]

The one most affected by abortion is the baby that winds up dead!
This is why abortion is important:

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/09_weeks-03.jpg

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/11_weeks-04.jpg

Out of sight, out of mind. That is how we justify continuing to support a goevrnment that actively funds this genocide. Just like the german people during the 1930's and 40's we don't care because it "isn't our problem". WRONG when one in 3 pregnancies ends like these photos (which by the way not very gruesome at all compared to others) it is very important. 50 million have been slaughtered so far, how much longer must it continue?

A person is a person, no matter how small.

 

[kenton6]

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,

 

[Ithaca37]

Yeah, sorry about that. We probably should focus on hunting, etc.