Debating CCW with a liberal talk show host Thursday


PDA






Monkeyleg
December 26, 2005, 06:47 PM
I've been invited to be on the Dustin Weber show on station Z104 in Madison. The show will be taped on Thursday evening. The topic is Wisconsin's concealed carry bill.

I did a little checking on Dustin Weber, and found that he just graduated high school last summer. So, it's possible that he'll be clueless and maybe even out of control.

After all this years of discussing the bill, I should have my talking points down.

However, if anyone wants to offer up some reminders, I'm all ears.

If you enjoyed reading about "Debating CCW with a liberal talk show host Thursday" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
308win
December 26, 2005, 06:55 PM
z104 have web streaming/program archives? If so I would like to listen to the program tomorrow evening.

Spot77
December 26, 2005, 07:05 PM
You've been doing this stuff a long time; you probably know better than most what you need to do.

Just remember your facts....make sure they're MEMORIZED; nothing looks or sounds worse than a person who hasn't researched an issue compl

Flyboy
December 26, 2005, 08:48 PM
I know what you mean (I think), but you really don't want to come across as using "talking points." Image is as important as fact; you need to come across as cool-headed, logical, well-informed, and in command of the whole affair. Don't let him get you on the defensive, and don't repeat slogans. When you get right down to it, debate is little more than theatre; your job is to play your part more convincingly than your opponent.

Oh, and don't let your opponent goad you into a grenade-tossing contest, either. Put him on the defensive (but don't badger him). Again, no matter what happens, it's always exactly what you wanted to happen. Don't get flustered.

Highland Ranger
December 26, 2005, 09:03 PM
Don't know much about your local politics but here are some of my mistakes:

- Be likeable and reasonable; the masses decide more based on how you say things, not necessarily what you say ignoring logic. you can win on points and still lose.

- don't underestimate him; I know some pretty stupid people with phd's and some "uneducated" brilliant people

-if you can, drive the discussion; lay out what the objections are to the legislation and why they are false

-if there is a single concise message associated with our side, repeat it and get it across

-assuming this will be live and unedited; if not, then hope you have the proper controls in place

Good Luck!

another okie
December 26, 2005, 09:32 PM
If he's that young, it's probably a good idea to try to talk a little before the show and warm him up a little by asking about his interests, his family, his career plans, and so on. He's less likely to try to torpedo you then.

When Missourians I knew were working on people I encouraged them to point out that all the fears people commonly expressed had been expressed in every state in which CCW was debated, and hadn't come true anywhere.

NorthernExtreme
December 26, 2005, 09:34 PM
Be kind, Point out where you both agree, Refuse to be put in a position of prooving a negative (how can you proove people won't shoot each other over a parking space?), Point out that a person who shoots people over parking spots has to be pretty insane, and people who are insane will not get permits.

Truth is; if you are walking into an honest show, you have nothing to worry about, if you are walking into a trap, take it for what it is. Remember that the issue is already settled in the mind of most. There is little you can do to truely change the mind of someone who is for or against it.

By the way "talking ponts" get old after a while. The sound bites of the Pro-CCW get just as tireson as the sound bites of the anti-CCW so don't go too heavy on them. Be yourself, be honest, be open, tell them something in a way they haven't heard it before, and fun.You will do fine.

Regards,

Old Fuff
December 26, 2005, 09:53 PM
I would emphasize that the proposal now before the legislature is not something new and untried. Similar laws have been enacted in over (I believe) 33 states in the lower 48, during the past 10 years or more, and the catastrophic consequences brought up by its hysterical opponents has not occurred in one single instance. Not one of the states that enacted “shall carry” concealed weapons licensing has ever repealed their law, or added more restrictions. But several states (including Arizona) have liberalized the provisions – even to the point of recognizing permits issued in other states.

Why should you have to prove the merits of something that has already shown that it works, time after time, after time...

Standing Wolf
December 26, 2005, 10:37 PM
If you start to feel nervous, relax: we're all standing with you, so you're not alone.

I'm sure you'll do well. You've got the fact down tight, and you have the force of moral rightness on your side.

peashooter
December 27, 2005, 12:11 AM
He will try and paint you as an idiot and trigger happy gun nut. DO NOT be drawn into an argument with a kid. You can't win or get in a good word.
Take care and most of all BE COOL.
PS. When I'm asked by non-ccw types, why I carry, my response is this; because bad guys carry guns and you don't.

Waitone
December 27, 2005, 12:30 AM
Sit down with yourself and decide on what one factoid you want the audience to remember 1 day after the show is broadcast. Not 2 or 3. One factoid. Then make sure you pound that one factoid multiple times during the show, REGARDLESS OF THE DIRECTION THE HOST WANTS TO GO.

Now to add variety have in your hip pocket points 2 and 3 but just assume you will only get a chance to pound point #1.

Good luck on ya. Let us know if the show will be streamed.

Nimitz
December 27, 2005, 01:16 AM
good luck and let us know how it goes.

Chad

taliv
December 27, 2005, 01:35 AM
if i were in your shoes, i'd focus on the freedom angle. it's a hot topic these days, and people are very sympathetic. so i'd try to cast the debate as: the other side is tryign to restrict our freedom.

WE shouldn't have to prove our activity is safe or desirable. The burden of proof is on the anti-ccw side to show that it's a) not safe, b) undesirable, AND c) not constitutionally protected.

we believe the statistics firmly support our cause, and the best the opposition can come up with is the CDC's "results are inconclusive" which isn't sufficient to restrict our freedom.


i'd also recommend you take the high road. don't resort to ad hominems against the vpc/soros/diaz/brady/clinton etc like the NRA does.


i'd also do a google search for public speaking tips. you know, stuff about talking slowly and clearly, etc.

what another okie said is definitely good advice. talk to him before the show. but... just because you guys get all buddy-buddy before the show, doesn't mean he won't turn on you, so don't ambush yourself.

jeepmor
December 27, 2005, 02:05 AM
"When I'm asked by non-ccw types, why I carry, my response is this; because bad guys carry guns and you don't."
Nuff said.

I'm a socially liberal fellow, but I personally got tired after 3 attempted (thank you DOG!) break ins at my residences over the past 15 years and the fact that my wife's truck was stolen by METH heads. I don't want to shoot anyone, not at all, but having a gun at the right place and time would still have that nice rig in the driveway, without all the joyride totalling, cost of getting a new rig, etc. Tweakers suck and are becoming a bigger problem everyday in this area. They are not just committing small time burglaries and the like, they are hurting and killing people in the process due to their drug induced psychosis.

Also, that excellent guard dog that thwarted 3 home burglaries is no longer with us and her replacements are nowhere near as vigilant as she was.:cuss:

I'm a big beleiver, and always have been, that if everyone in America owned a gun, there would not be much crime, if any. I know of an incident that happened in New Mexico where a CCW person shot a gun wielding wackjob in a McDonald's and saved many peoples lives in the process. The psycho would have taken as many as he could, then himself. He got to be first, not last, I like that.

I'm not going to advise you what to say to this guy, but isn't that part of the country pretty conservative? I'm in the Portland Oregon area and we have CCW here, so it should pass there even easier than here. :)

Plus - guns ARE freedom, but true liberals seem to forget how freedom is delivered.

jeepmor

ka50
December 27, 2005, 02:12 AM
rip him a new one

on a public radio

Jeeper
December 27, 2005, 03:51 AM
Focus on the low crime rate among CCW holders and the long time many ccw laws have been in affect with no issues. I wouls also hit gun ownership in general with Katrina.

BigFatKen
December 27, 2005, 06:38 AM
I'm not going to advise you what to say to this guy, but isn't that part of the country pretty conservative? I'm in the Portland Oregon area and we have CCW here, so it should pass there even easier than here. :)


jeepmor

Madison, Wisconsin is one of the most liberal placres in the Country. It is the home of Donna Shalala and the whole State Government. They have tried City gun bans. nuff said

Phantom Warrior
December 27, 2005, 07:55 AM
Similar laws have been enacted in over (I believe) 33 states in the lower 48, during the past 10 years or more, and the catastrophic consequences brought up by its hysterical opponents has not occurred in one single instance.


Actually, I think MN two years ago was lucky number 35 or 36. I know it's above 33.


Also, check out this Permit to Carry Report (http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Documents/CarryPermit/PermittoCarry.html) on the Minnesota DPS website. It has some good stats. Essentially, permit holders almost never commit crimes.

Igloodude
December 27, 2005, 08:43 AM
Focus on the low crime rate among CCW holders and the long time many ccw laws have been in affect with no issues. I wouls also hit gun ownership in general with Katrina.

Seconded. The two things I would hit on that seem to most effectively destroy anti-CCW arguments are the much-lower-than-the-general-public crime rates among CCW holders, and how many states already have them with no "blood in the streets".

Find as many cases as you can of CCW holders actually committing violent crimes (road rage, etc), and then find as many cases as you can of CCW holders successfully averting massacres. I'd think (and hope) the latter would be more than the former. But with that data in your back pocket, you can challenge the host on it; if it looks late in the show like he's clueless, ask him to cite a single instance of a CCW holder committing a violent crime, and even if he can cite one instance, you can respond with the averting-massacres incidents.

erik the bold
December 27, 2005, 09:23 AM
Michigan State Police CCW reports are available, here (http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html)

Crime reports are here (http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1645_3501_4621---,00.html)

A lot of good data from a "neighbor" state.

In Michigan last year:

Residents = 10.1 million
CPL holders = 218,000 approx. (2.16% of population)

Total crimes reported = 997,914 (9.8 per 100)
Criminal or other activity by CPL holders resulting in revocation = 121 (0.06% of CPL holders / 0.0012% of total population)

Trip20
December 27, 2005, 10:59 AM
Radio stations, and more so DJ's, will invite "guests" on to their show with the intent of making them look like jackasses (when they do not agree w/your view).

The fact that this DJ is just out of high school... makes me even more apprehensive... Hopefully he's mature enough to have a conversation/debate, with out bullying or railroading you into a corner.

Bring logic to the table, Dick. That is all you need to win a debate about CCW. Be quick to point out emotion versus logic.

Let him know ahead of time you're prepared to walk off of the set if he's going to be off-the-wall, and not willing to discuss the topic logically. He can hide behind the guise of "comedy,” and turn the interview into a circus... and an embarrassing one at that.

I’ve met you in person. I have full faith in your ability to discuss the topic and represent us in an admirable way.

davec
December 27, 2005, 11:26 AM
gun control debate on a CHR FM station?

Something dosent add up here. No top 40 station is going to break format to have an AM talk style conversation about a "hot button" issue.

http://www.z104fm.com/main.html

http://2005.z104fm.com/cc-common/mlib/2121/07/2121_1121372830.jpg

Waitone
December 27, 2005, 11:27 AM
Good point. Rememeber Tom Selleck and Rosie O.

sturmruger
December 27, 2005, 11:28 AM
Dick if I were you before doing the interview I would ask for his assurance and his boss that they will not edit the interview in any way. A lot of times they will edit this kind of stuff to make you look like an idiot. You need to make sure they will not edit the flow of the interview. I can see them taking specific sections because they can't use the whole thing, but you are not going to want them to piece it together bit by bit.

After looking into what station this kid works for I would probably decline to do the interview. If this is a top 40 music station they avoid controversy like the plague. Since they don't like controversy the only real reason they would take the time to do this interview is for comedic value. I know I would want to be the brunt of some little punks jokes.

otomik
December 27, 2005, 12:00 PM
maybe you want to be more informative about the situation in wisconson, what the CCW bill is like and assure people that there's never been "blood in the streets" because CCW is legal, are you sure this guy wants a debate?

Sergeant Bob
December 27, 2005, 12:44 PM
From his web page:

Favorite vacation spot?
Paris or Nice France

Favorite TV Shows?
Myth Busters, ER, West Wing, The Apprentice

http://2005.z104fm.com/pages/dustin.html?feed=105060&article=296500

19 year old FM DJ in the Berkley of the Midwest.

Are your Spidey Senses tingling?

Smells like a trap to me.

Trip20
December 27, 2005, 01:17 PM
You should open-carry :D

HankB
December 27, 2005, 03:54 PM
Keep your arguments short and to the point. Don't ramble on about statistics - no matter how valid, you'll lose audience.

Don't say: "Crime reports show that CHL holders are statistically prone to be X times more law abiding than the population at large, yadda yadda yadda. . . "

Say: "You know, if you judge things just by arrest records, CHL holders have a better history of being law abiding than the officers in some major, big-city police departments."

If he says "Why do you need a gun? Aren't you man enough to defend yourself?"

You could always work in something along the lines of "Well, not everyone can duke it out with a mugger. You know, if Nicole Brown Simpson (Or maybe Lacey Peterson?) had been armed the night she was murdered, there's a good chance that today she'd be a rich widow. No guarantees, but don't you think a mugger's target deserves at least a chance?"

If he says "There will be blood in the streets, and people will be shooting each other over fender benders . . . "

Say "Oh, for crying out loud, that argument has been proven wrong so many times that I'm surprised anyone has the chutzpah to try to use it any more . . . "

Trip20
December 27, 2005, 05:02 PM
+1 HankB.

Stay away from statistics. Statistics are boring and most people feel statistics are worthless anyhow.

He'll more than likely state most of the anti-gun clichés, which are designed to appeal to the emotional side of people who cannot think for themselves. This drivel works due to its "shock value.”

You'll need to counter his rhetoric with an unheated – though passionate – logical point of view. Hopefully you can appeal to the listener’s common sense side… but we are talking Madison here… :barf:

Colt
December 27, 2005, 05:14 PM
If I were you, I'd be prepared for the old-time favorite: "A person who has a gun in their house is X-times more likely to have the gun used on them, or have a child injured or killed with the gun, than they are to successfully defend themselves from an attacker."

Also be ready for the "X people were murdered with guns in <insert city name here>, located in a state with CCW laws. How do you explain that?" Be sure to point out that most guns used to commit crimes are obtained outside the laws, and that the real solution is to start enforcing the laws we already have....

Good luck!

CZ 75 BD
December 27, 2005, 05:26 PM
Give It to Them Straight
by John Ross
Author of Unintended Consequences

Source http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/RKBA_FILES.htm

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our
enemies define the terms.

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you
COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the
lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed.
Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

***

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer --
they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire.
My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah."
(FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace
your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is
designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most
reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with
freedom is that they're good practice."

***

THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in
bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more
heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important
is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have
the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken
arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

***

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You
have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is
reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people
who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to
live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

***

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should
all have atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the
citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not
howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

***

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing
these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY:"You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But
let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE
go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if
you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This
license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteenyear-
old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot
them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country
to shoot these guns on public property."

***

Final comment, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant
more to you than anything."

THEY SAY:"Huh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill
Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the
next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them
to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"

.45Guy
December 27, 2005, 05:42 PM
I have a definate "Ides of March" feeling about this. The fact that it is going to be recorded rather than aired live screams of creative editing. Also bear in mind the key demographic of this station (Progressive Madison bliss-ninnies). Perhaps it will be a true discourse on the issue. However, it is more than likely an attempt for the young social crusader to smite the "evil gun owner.":rolleyes:

Waitone
December 27, 2005, 06:06 PM
Depending on how strong your paranoia is, consider recording the broadcast session. You bring your own recording equipment, don't rely on the station's copy. That's my stock advice to anyone dealing with the media this day and time.

Trip20
December 27, 2005, 07:20 PM
Good advice Waitone.

AWESOME post, CS 75 BD; containing a number of great retorts.

Shadowpballer
December 27, 2005, 08:21 PM
next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them
to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
dont you mean house?

Trip20
December 27, 2005, 08:26 PM
dont you mean house?
He's quoting this document (http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/HEARTS_AND_MINDS/Give_It_To_Them_Straight.pdf).

fiveoboy01
December 27, 2005, 10:51 PM
Hmm, it's going to be taped?

I'm going to assume that it will air at another time/date?

If so, do you know the time and date that it will air?


Something does smell fishy to me. Z104 is in the heart of liberal/communist Madison, and it seems weird that they'd set up a CCW debate. I've never known them to air political stuff. Then again, I never listen to their crap anyways...

HankB
December 28, 2005, 10:17 AM
. . . consider recording the broadcast session. You bring your own recording equipment, don't rely on the station's copy.+1 - don't just consider it - DO IT!!!

Nickotym
December 28, 2005, 10:36 AM
+1 on recording the conversation, but also let him know you are recording so he doesn't ty to pull anything.

thumbody
December 28, 2005, 10:38 AM
Be very very careful ;http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=82620&highlight=crossballs
Even the best can be set up! Especially if it is taped for later broadcast.

otomik
December 28, 2005, 12:24 PM
editing will happen, what you need is final approval of the "to air" version, how much lead time before this airs?

V4Vendetta
December 28, 2005, 01:39 PM
"YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant
more to you than anything."

THEY SAY:"Huh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill
Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the
next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them
to have been stripped of it BY YOU?""


That's a GREAT idea. Good job on that post.:)

jnojr
December 29, 2005, 04:23 PM
Depending on how strong your paranoia is, consider recording the broadcast session. You bring your own recording equipment, don't rely on the station's copy. That's my stock advice to anyone dealing with the media this day and time.

Why? What would you do with your recording after they got done "editing" and airing what they wanted to?

If you felt you had to record an interview with the media, you're better off not getting involved in the first place.

cookekdjr
December 29, 2005, 04:50 PM
Be prepared for a focus on accidental deaths. The most disconcerting thing about gun ownership is the increased likelyhood that your child or a playmate will accidentally shoot themselves or someone else.
Be prepared for that angle. Doctors and stay-at-home moms are really going after guns based on that.
-David

Monkeyleg
December 29, 2005, 08:36 PM
Well, I just finished up. Dustin was extremely fair, and almost seemed to be on our side.

I'll be getting a CD of the interview on Saturday, so we'll see if anything gets cut. I don't expect it, though.

AZRickD
December 29, 2005, 09:02 PM
Well I hope all of the detractors at THR are eating a bit of crow today. :p

Rick

fiveoboy01
December 29, 2005, 09:02 PM
Dick, that is extremely suprising to me...

Kudos to both of you if the discussion went well, and they edit it to keep the original content intact.

Did they indicate when(if at all) it would air?

Monkeyleg
December 29, 2005, 11:52 PM
fiveoboy01, he said it would air the morning of January 1st. I didn't ask for a specific time.

I'll see if one of our Madison volunteers can tape the show.

From his questions, though, I don't think he's going to do anything underhanded. It was a really good show. And, believe me, I've had some really hostile interviews. A couple of times I just hung up the phone.

If anyone can 'splain to me how to upload a CD or other audio file to a website, everybody here will be able to critique my "um's" and "uh's."

I have to hand it to this kid, Dustin. Just out of high school, and I think he has the "fair and balanced" thing down right.

Trip20
December 30, 2005, 11:11 AM
Well I hope all of the detractors at THR are eating a bit of crow today. :p
Being a pessimist... you get used to the taste of crow. :D
It's like duck, but a little more "gamey". :neener:

Honestly - I'm always happy to eat crow in a situation like this. Glad it went well, Dick.

he said it would air the morning of January 1st.
Isn't that a coincidence... an unpopular topic to air when most of the U.S. is asleep with a hangover. There I go being pessimistic again. :scrutiny:

Waitone
December 30, 2005, 11:26 AM
Well I hope all of the detractors at THR are eating a bit of crow today.No need to eat crow. Cynical assessments are merely based on clear-eyed reality. The fact that Monkeyleg got a fair shake is not SOP. A shiv in the ribs is more like reality.

Sergeant Bob
December 30, 2005, 01:04 PM
Well I hope all of the detractors at THR are eating a bit of crow today.
It hasn't aired yet. I sincerely hope it does go well.

Oh, and if we do end up eating crow, here's a good recipe.

Crow and Mushroom Stew

3 crows
1 Tbsp lard/shortening
1 pint stock or gravy
2 Tbsp cream
1/2 cup mushrooms
salt and pepper
cayenne pepper

Clean and cut crows into small portions and let them cook a short time in the lard/shortening in a saucepan, being careful not to brown them.
Next, add to the contents of the pan, the stock or gravy, and salt, pepper and cayenne to taste.
Simmer 1 hour, or until tender, add mushrooms, simmer 10 minutes more and then stir in cream.
Arrange the mushrooms around the crows on a hot platter.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!! Good!

Nitrogen
December 30, 2005, 01:45 PM
If anyone can 'splain to me how to upload a CD or other audio file to a website, everybody here will be able to critique my "um's" and "uh's."



You can download a program like iTunes and let it do everything. Just pop the CD into your computer, start up itunes. The itunes program will have a little icon representing your CD. Just click on it, then click "Import".
If you need a web host to host the audio files, I can set something up for you as well. You can e-mail the files to me and i'll host 'em.

PM me if you need any other help.

Guy B. Meredith
December 30, 2005, 02:26 PM
If I had noticed this thread earlier I would have suggested reviewing all of Ted Nugent's interviews for material.

If you enjoyed reading about "Debating CCW with a liberal talk show host Thursday" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!