Palin, Wolves, and Bears -- Lipstick Free

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of like Obama would let babies born in botched abortions just suffer and die.

According to Factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

you are incorrect.

Nice try though.

If you think jumbled mess of an article settles anything, you're incorrect. He voted against the cmte bill that had the same langauge as the federal one, so that's disingenuous, and he was more concerned with protecting the language of the pro-choice movement than those poor babies born despite botched abortions -- and the effect of voting against the bill is denying them medical care in their suffering.

Interesting how you are able to read Obama's mind. Is that a talent with which you were born or something that you acquired over time?

While you may have found the article challenging, I think others will find it sufficient to inform them of the facts of this issue.

BTW, you are welcome to start your own "Obama wants to kill babies" topic, but we are discussing Palin, Wolves, and Bears here. Do you have an opinion about that?

[Anonymous]

So glad I didn't watch it either , I was elated when the Dept. of Interior reintroduced wolves to Wyoming and Idaho. After decimating the entire wolf population in the lower 48 states, they were finally back. At least let the hunt be fair, if that's what you're into. Personally, I find hunting, if it's for the sport, disgusting and see it mostly as a form of dominance. We had mice in our basement and convinced my husband to "live" trap and release!

Palin should have been born with a penis.

[Anonymous]

I think the video iss digusting and I do not hunt. Isn't it a fact though that this is a way of life in rural hunting communities? I have family in WI by way of Chicago and the WI relatives hunt. It is gross, but it is what they do. Friends in Wyoming hunt as well. My DH's boss hunts deer and duck. As shocking and upsetting as it is to us, many people do not think anything of it, including Palin.

Where do you meet in the middle with people who believe this is ok to do?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Where do you meet in the middle with people who believe this is ok to do?

You raise a good point and one that I thought would come up earlier.

One thing that is important to many hunters is to eat what they kill. I don't think anybody eats wolves, though I guess its possible. Also, as a sport, hunting should have a challenge. Shooting a dark colored animal in the middle of an empty field of snow from an airplane doesn't seem very sporting.

Finally, nobody has made what I think is the most obvious argument against the video. The state is paying for these wolves to be killed. That's not because the Sarah Palin has a deep-rooted hatred of wolves and bears. Its because these animals are over populating and causing harm of some sort (probably killing more desirable animals). This is simply population control measure.

I don't know what other population control options exist. I also don't know if the ramifications of over population really necessitate this sort of killing. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I simply have no idea.

My interest in this ad is that it is very hard hitting, while being accurate (as far as I know). It may be a bit below the belt if the need for wolf and bear population control is real. However, given the outright lies being advertised by McCain, and the resultant cries from Obama supporters to hit back, I thought this case of a hard hitting ad was interesting.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Interesting how you are able to read Obama's mind. Is that a talent with which you were born or something that you acquired over time?

While you may have found the article challenging, I think others will find it sufficient to inform them of the facts of this issue.

BTW, you are welcome to start your own "Obama wants to kill babies" topic, but we are discussing Palin, Wolves, and Bears here. Do you have an opinion about that?

No, silly, see when you actually READ news reports and what HE SAID, you do not need to read his mind. Please do your homework before calling out "misinformation." Obama has said many many times, because he's been pressed on this a lot, that he could not vote for the bill b/c it did not include some limiting language that was present in a federal bill on the topic that basically said the statute should not be read to limit Roe in any way. On this ground, he voted against providing medical care in these instances, such that babies could literally be left to die. This is absolutely accurate. I do not know how you're reading of the fact check article led you to a different and incorrect conclusion, but I did not want to be so rude as to suggest it was too challenging for you, which is why I insulted it, not you. How silly of me to take issue with the issue and not you.

But, of course, I do not think Obama, or any pro-choice supporter, wants to kill babies. I would never, and have never in my life, used such language to discuss such a serious and delicate issue. Nor do I honestly believe anyone wants to make that difficult decision to have an abortion. I do, think, however, that his vote on this bill is as extreme an extension of the pro-choice position as I have seen and it does concern many, who are otherwise williing to live with reasonable limitations on abortion.

And, I'm sorry, it may seem irrelevant to you, but many people see it as hypocritical when people get more riled up about animal rights than the taking of innocent human life. Still, you might want to remind others that posts have to meet your definition of relevance.

And since you asked, I'm not a hunter, don't get it at all actually, am somehwat horrified by it ... didn't watch the clip for that reason.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

No, silly, see when you actually READ news reports and what HE SAID, you do not need to read his mind. Please do your homework before calling out "misinformation." Obama has said many many times, because he's been pressed on this a lot, that he could not vote for the bill b/c it did not include some limiting language that was present in a federal bill on the topic that basically said the statute should not be read to limit Roe in any way. On this ground, he voted against providing medical care in these instances, such that babies could literally be left to die. This is absolutely accurate. I do not know how you're reading of the fact check article led you to a different and incorrect conclusion, but I did not want to be so rude as to suggest it was too challenging for you, which is why I insulted it, not you. How silly of me to take issue with the issue and not you.

But, of course, I do not think Obama, or any pro-choice supporter, wants to kill babies. I would never, and have never in my life, used such language to discuss such a serious and delicate issue. Nor do I honestly believe anyone wants to make that difficult decision to have an abortion. I do, think, however, that his vote on this bill is as extreme an extension of the pro-choice position as I have seen and it does concern many, who are otherwise williing to live with reasonable limitations on abortion.

And, I'm sorry, it may seem irrelevant to you, but many people see it as hypocritical when people get more riled up about animal rights than the taking of innocent human life. Still, you might want to remind others that posts have to meet your definition of relevance.

And since you asked, I'm not a hunter, don't get it at all actually, am somehwat horrified by it ... didn't watch the clip for that reason.

Actually, it is you who are forcing all of us to accept your definition of what is relevant. I started a discussion about an advertisement -- one that you didn't even watch. You have the same opportunity to start a discussion on any topic. You would not like it if you started an abortion discussion and I came in and diverted it to something completely different.

You make one hell of an assumption about everyone participating in this topic when you suggest that we care more about animal rights than the taking of innocent human life. If you think such an assumption is not a personal affront, I seriously have to question your judgement. If someone was currently running a hard hitting abortion advertisement, I might want to discuss it. But, as things stand, this is the ad I chose to discuss since it is the one that is currently running.

As I said previously, anyone here is capable of reading the article and arriving at their own conclusion. You prefer to tell us what we should believe. But, in Sarah Palin's famous words (which he apparently never actually said), no thanks.

[Anonymous]

I am not forcing you to accept anything - just expressing my opinion of what is relevant -- you can ignore it, reject it, or accept it. YOU argued with me about the specifics. YOU posted an article to refute my point, so I responded. Even now, as you chastise me for being off topic, you make a snippy comment about me trying to tell you what to believe, when I am quite certain I pointed to what Obama has said on the topic on the Illinois senate floor, and many times since (btw, just re-read the article, and it's very clear on this point I was makiing, so you should re-read it).

Had I posted any "irrelevant" jab at Palin, I am sure it would not have elicited this response.

So, I find your reaction pretty astonishing actually.

Enough to say good riddance to this thread and the site.

It's a colossal time suck anyway. Back to your great wolf debate and other similarly ridiculous rants.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Enough to say good riddance to this thread and the site.

See ya.

[Anonymous]

Nice job from the site administrator -- stifling debate. You should be so very proud. See ya.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Nice job from the site administrator -- stifling debate. You should be so very proud. See ya.

As I said, you are welcome to start your own discussion in its own thread. But, you said you were taking your toys and going home. Its entirely up to you. I'd have assumed that personal responsibility was something you supported.

[Anonymous]

In all seriousness, perhaps I did not understand the rules of the threads. Maybe I violated some rule of which I was unaware.

It was an honest reaction on my part when I read the quote about leaving animals to die -- it was indeed a parallel that immediately came to my mind and therefore relevant.

If some rules of thread management or relevance govern, and you were being neutral in that sense, then you should have said that from the beginning, rather than debating me first, then telling me to take it elsewhere when you got frustrated. That's what I find obnoxious and problematic given your role as adminstrator.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:In all seriousness, perhaps I did not understand the rules of the threads. Maybe I violated some rule of which I was unaware.

It was an honest reaction on my part when I read the quote about leaving animals to die -- it was indeed a parallel that immediately came to my mind and therefore relevant.

If some rules of thread management or relevance govern, and you were being neutral in that sense, then you should have said that from the beginning, rather than debating me first, then telling me to take it elsewhere when you got frustrated. That's what I find obnoxious and problematic given your role as adminstrator.

My actions have not been due to my role as administrator. I'm just trying to guide the discussion on a thread that I started just as any other user might. It is just common courtesy not to hijack a thread -- particularly if the author of the thread doesn't want it hijacked.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a fan of hunting unless it's necessary for population control and/or the hunter is using hunting as a source of food. I'm a vegetarian so the latter argument doesn't do much for me, but I understand that most people eat meat and I respect those who are willing to undertake the actual killing themselves rather than getting meat from a factory-farmed source. (Barbara Kingsolver and Michael Pollan helped form those attitudes for me.) It's obviously a hard-hitting, very graphic ad. My difficulty with it is that it doesn't make it clear whether the intention is sport or population control. If it is in fact for population control, I think the ad is a bit misleading.

[Anonymous]

20:09. Sorry; I should have read the entire thread before I posted. I see Jeff mentioned the population control issue. I suspect the purpose is population control because Palin supported a bounty on wolves. That seems to suggest that population control is the goal. I still dislike hunting, but I also see the difficulty of roaming Alaska shooting contraceptives into animal populations that are out of control.

[Anonymous]

Sure, sure, sure.

If I hijacked it, you rode with me for a while until you could not win your point and then you told me to get off your thread. I'll let you reclaim your oh so riveting and really serious thread. And pretend you're not being a bully.

enough. see ya.