New animal rights ad: Hey, Palin’s a savage who enjoys seeing animals suffer
posted at 3:21 pm on September 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Fun and games from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, casting our heroine in the role of a cartoon sadist. Consider it a complement to WaPo hyperventilation last week about why she increased spending for teen moms by “only” $3.9 million instead of $5 million: An expansion in funding doesn’t fit the stereotype of Republican heartlessness, so they distorted the facts to make it sound like she cut funding by $3.9 million. The same Snidely Whiplash effect is on display here but this time it’s a sin of omission rather than commission, leaving the 99 percent of viewers who’ve never heard of aerial wolf hunting to wonder why anyone would be so cruel.
Answer: To feed people. Slate’s Explainer explains:
Aerial shooting yields better results than traditional hunting, since it allows the hunter to cover a lot of ground quickly and track target animals from a clear vantage point. Historically, hunters also used planes to drive animals—polar bears in Alaska and elk in Montana, among others—toward gunmen waiting on the ground. But many hunters found the practice unsportsmanlike, since it violates the “fair chase” ethic, and animal rights activists call it inhumane, since airborne gunmen rarely get a clean (i.e., relatively painless) kill. In response to concerns like these, Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter.
The federal legislation (PDF) does have a loophole for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting “land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops.” (This doesn’t just apply to wolves; coyotes and foxes are sometimes gunned down from aircraft, especially in Western states.) Since 2003, Alaska has issued aerial wolf-hunting permits in select areas where moose and caribou populations are particularly endangered. The idea is that by killing the predators, the airborne gunmen can ramp up the number of moose and caribou that human hunters can take home for supper.
They killed 124 wolves this way over the winter, one-tenth the total amount trapped in Alaska each year. Estimated number of wildlife saved thus far: 1,500 moose and 3,000 caribou. But the idea that Palin gets her rocks off blowing away wolves from low-flying planes is much more compelling, so here you go, all pesky nuances pertaining to motive removed. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media outrage over LIES!!!1! to explode over this the way it has over McCain’s ads.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Sounds like tofu. That will raise your cholesterol.
Yum. I went to my local Cabella’s looking for some moose jerky or some elk sticks the weekend that Plain was announced VP. Walked away empty handed. I didn’t want to buy a whole pack, sinceI never had it before and I was afraid it would have tasted weird or gamey.
How about game meat like that?
wise_man on September 12, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Good practice for hunting Jihadis from a plane… Preferably an A-10.
Kuffar on September 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Professor Blather on September 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
As usual, you’re such a good one. Best regards and thanks,
Entelechy on September 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Elk is way better than beef- my opinion
kareyk on September 12, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Maybe these “defenders” would get behind an effort to gather all of these nice, furry wolves up and resettle them
on the North Slope, near ANWR.in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and maybe Austin. I hear that there’re lots ofcaribouliberals and their rat dogsup therefor them to chow down on.Puritan1648 on September 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM
FIFY
PrettyD_Vicious on September 12, 2008 at 4:43 PM
How is this supposed to net votes? Every full-grown adult whose view of life among wild animals comes solely from Disney movies is already voting Democrat anyway.
logis on September 12, 2008 at 4:44 PM
The asshats who wrote the ad have probably never been to Alaska. Matter of fact, they probably couldn’t find it on a map using both hands, a compass and a flashlight.
GarandFan on September 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I doubt that most Alaskans are “trophy hunters.” There’s a novel concept, lost on most gentrified mainland Americans — it’s called hunting to feed one’s family.
Nichevo on September 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Splendid relocation suggestion, PrettyD_Vicious.
Austin, definitely. Faux cowboys taste basted in fear-sweat would suit the average wolf to a “T”.
Will it be red or white with that, Mr. Lupus?
Puritan1648 on September 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM
As some have pointed out, nature is cruel and can be vile. What, then, does it say about a person who considers it fun to contribute to the cruelty and vileness. Animals do what they instinctively must do to live. People have a choice to be cruel or kind. So it’s not so much about the animals as it is the people.
NNtrancer on September 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Maybe a commercial along the lines….
If the Dems are against stopping wildlife predators from attacking the food Americans use for survival, do you trust them to protect you for International predators that want to kill you?
WoosterOh on September 12, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Having a baby deer starve due to overpopulation is less cruel than hunters who harvest deer (and eat the meat) in accordance with state laws designed to control the population? Drive through the country, and you may notice wildlife refuges scattered about- those weren’t paid for by the bunny huggers, they were paid for by hunters through license fees and private groups like Ducks Unlimited.
How much heartache do you think you’d feel watching a baby moose being torn apart while crying out for it’s mother? How is that less cruel a death than the one it would deal?
Man has hunted animals for food, clothing, and to protect his lifestock as long as he has walked the Earth. Whether he uses a stone club, bow, or high powered rifle, hunters are every bit a part of “nature” as the wolf, moose or grizzly bear.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM
The point being that the Dems want to protect the predators (Child, Wildlife and International Jihadi), but they wont protect your food supply.
WoosterOh on September 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM
You can’t have a fair election without a free press.
ronsfi on September 12, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Yawn. The tired old “Killing animals is OK, just so long as one in no way enjoys it” argument. Pathetic. I’ve heard this one a million times from meat eaters who believe that raising an animal in a crowded barn and killing it for food is OK, but hunting a wild animal and killing it for food somehow isn’t.
The joy of hunting isn’t all about the kill. There’s an enormous difference between hunting and shooting, even when the target is an animal in both cases. You have zero idea what hunting is all about.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I believe we shouldn’t shoot all these kind animals. They can be rounded up and set free in a warmer climate…a more comfortable climate like L.A. Set them free to help clean up the streets. There’s plenty food to be had. And Hollywood….plenty of those rat dogs to go around. Set them free……..come on libruls…..get behind this.
oakpack on September 12, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I wonder if that’s one of those talking wolves that you see in cartoons?
Hening on September 12, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Really? What issue would you care to debate?
Spirit of 1776 on September 12, 2008 at 5:15 PM
I never claimed to be against hunting. I even commented on this thread a few times in favor of it.
Entelechy on September 12, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Ecellent analogy.
Les in NC on September 12, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Excellent.
Les in NC on September 12, 2008 at 5:23 PM
What kind of crap is this?
MarcusBrody on September 12, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Damn gun-totin’ hunters!
This crap is only going to work with Code Pink.
Which is great.
drjohn on September 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Sarah Palin is more of a conservationist that those leftwing idiots. I wonder if those creeps are vegan PETAists?
There are more caribou and moose today than when Teddy Roosevelt was out hunting. Although I wouldn’t hunt myself, I have nothing against hunters. Just cause you get your meat from supermarkets doesn’t make you superior to hunters.
Gov Palin at least eats the meat, and one animal lasts her family most of the year, and I doubt they waste it. How much of the food in these wildlife nutbags meals goes to waste?
These idiots still don’t recognize they are on the losing side of the argument. They are against drill baby drill, and if they are not careful they will endanger a hundred years of conservation work with their extremist leftwing views. By the way, aren’t they non profits who aren’t supposed to express political views in an election?
Just asking.
eaglewingz08 on September 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Wow, you guys… this is an add for Proposition 2. Which Alaskan voted No on.. Ariel Hunting.
upinak on September 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Jaysus…..Palin hunts mermaids too? She must be stopped!
Bishop on September 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Uh… yeah.
jaime on September 12, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Darn eviros. “Waaahhh don’t drill in ANWAR because it will kill the Caribu. Waaaahh don’t shoot the wolves because they kill the Caribu.” What do these people WANT???
Spectreman on September 12, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I’ve been wondering when you two would figure out you’re talking about different things.
Jaibones on September 12, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I’m going to be a little brutal here.
Why does anyone care how an animal died? Its dead. All memory of any suffering before death is just a meaningless arrangement of non-functioning neurons.
Now, I can understand that the sounds and sights of an animal dying slowly can be distressing to a human observer, but that can be prevented by not observing. One might also worry that the act of causing said suffering either reflects badly on the human who does it, or damage them in some way–also generally mitigated by not observing.
I am not a hunter. I don’t know what its like. But, when death is on the line, I prefer an unfair advantage. If an act is wrong, making it harder to do doesn’t alleviate my conscience at all.
Count to 10 on September 12, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Fine. Put the wackos in the company of those wolves for 5 minutes and see how long before they start begging for a gun.
spmat on September 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Everyone – or – Anyone
Who has figured out where Ed is coming up with 1,200 wolves a year being trapped in Alaska? I thought I followed all the links and read all the stories, but I sure don’t have that number.
That’s a lot of wolves! Holy Crap! I know Alaska is a big place, but wow.
Jaibones on September 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM
They strike me kind of the same as this clown.
I read Krakauer’s book, and concluded that the kid was just an idiot, and thought it was no great surprise that he’s dead, and when our national imbecile Penn produced a movie about the book, I just knew he would attempt to turn the kid into some sort of liberal icon.
Which is perfect. Now we need Penn to wander out into the Alaskan wilderness for an adventure.
Jaibones on September 12, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Are you kidding?…not after you tore ninjap a new one…nothing like culling out the libs over the air…
right2bright on September 12, 2008 at 6:05 PM
He may be, but she’s not…
right2bright on September 12, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Sorry I had a lunch date.. couldn’t say no.
Yes we have Elk, but they are on the Pan Handle of Alaska. LARGE Elk. And very small black tailed deer as well.
Penn was already up here… that Into the Wild crap was about as stupid as they come.
upinak on September 12, 2008 at 6:09 PM
I knew what Ed was referring too. Ninja didn’t I assume.
upinak on September 12, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I am not a hunter, but it seems to me you’ve taken a huge leap in your logic to assert that Sarah Palin considers it fun to contribute to the cruelty and vileness.
Hunting is an expression of a person’s culture. There is no inherent morality — good or bad — to hunting.
Some people rely on hunting for their survival. Clearly they are morally entitled to do so.
Other people hunt for other reasons. We live in a country founded on the concept of pursuit of happiness. As long as someone’s pursuit of happiness doesn’t impinge on mine, what’s the problem?
I am not a hunter, but I am quite comfortable with prospect of electing a Vice President whose whole life embodies the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Y-not on September 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Let’s see, a candidate who favors shooting wolves in the back, or one who favors stabbing babies in the head?
What was that about savagery?
Jezla on September 12, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Honestly, if you told me that one of the candidates culled predator populations in a vintage P-38, that would go a long way toward getting me to vote for them. That’s my kind of overkill.
Count to 10 on September 12, 2008 at 6:29 PM
As a hunter I can say that no true hunter wants a slow kill. I use bow and arrow only and the proper shot placement not only ensures a fast kill but also less time tracking the animal. Also, true hunters use all of the animal they can out of respect for killing it.
Les in NC on September 12, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Many times while hunting in the tri-state area of Pa NY NJ it was sad to see emaciated Fawns , Does and spike bucks that were absolutely , categorically starving… from over-population and stupid laws that prevented us from thinning the herds. When I left that area some of the laws were changing and I don’t know how it is now but my point is these squimsh touchy feely types have no idea what it’s like out in the wild world, the one from which we came.
We are by nature hunter gatherers. The lack of simple knowledge being expressed on this thread is very disheartening.
You’re all just more to protect and feed.
jerrytbg on September 12, 2008 at 6:59 PM
The point being that the Dems want to protect the predators (
Child, Wildlife and International JihadiCPS, rapists, murderers and other sordid lawbreakers, Jihadists that want to murder more Americans, etc.), but they wont protect your food supply.WoosterOh on September 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM
FIFY
PrettyD_Vicious on September 12, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Interesting fact about wolves from the Mongolian hunters:
In some parts of the world, wolves are becoming rare. There is a balance in nature we need to keep. Surely, the hunting clubs have knowledge of this, if not the Government issuing permits.
Monas on September 12, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Killing predators like wolves is not savagery. Its taming savagery. Big difference.
aengus on September 12, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Exactly the point! Well said…balance. And it’s obvious it is/was tipped in favor of the wolves….hence, the bounty.
jerrytbg on September 12, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon have an over abundance of Wolves. They are actually relocating them to parts of the South and Eastern part of the United States as they were indiginous there at one time before extermination.
Wolves THRIVE up here. They do kill quite a few sick, starving, weak and adolecent animals from Caribou to Moose, and eat mice, ptarmigan, ravens.. anything they can get their moths on… including bear at times… if they think they can kill it.
Aerial killing is still a very nasty item up here since they do not go after a specific group but shoot anything that is a wolf. I agree with just plain hunting them. those who usually get the licence for it sell the pelts to the highest bidder for coats and such. Others do it during the Fur Rondy event we have here in Febuary.
Balancing is one thing… Hunting from a plane is a totally different item.
upinak on September 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM
If McCain/Palin are elected, I predict my congressman, Frank Wolf, will leave town in a hurry.
NNtrancer on September 12, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Yours is the one opinion of this that I feel I can trust. I’ll concede that the method may have something wanting but …I have to defer to the people who have more knowledge of this up there…mine is near zero.
I would have to believe the method is being used out of desperation to control the packs and will change when warranted. Fair assessment?
jerrytbg on September 12, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Sarah is killing the wolfs for the children. Hey, it works for the Democrats, why shouldn’t we give it a try sometimes?
Besides, the ad it totally wrong, they do not shoot the wolfs from an airplane, they do it from a helicopter.
Maxx on September 12, 2008 at 7:56 PM
upinak on September 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Please, how hunting wolves in Alaska should be done in your opinion?
Monas on September 12, 2008 at 8:07 PM
One. More. Time.
Whether you agree with the practice or not, what is being done here is not hunting. Hunting involves much more than shooting a wild animal- something I should think you’d agree with.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Agreed…thinning…actable with both prey and predator.
jerrytbg on September 12, 2008 at 8:33 PM
NNtrancer,
“As some have pointed out, nature is cruel and can be vile. What, then, does it say about a person who considers it fun to contribute to the cruelty and vileness. ”
Read about the deer population in the Everglades about 5 years ago, and how healthy they were. Then ask yourself if controlling the animal population is cruel or not.
exhelodrvr on September 12, 2008 at 8:35 PM
got to go upinak…waited long enough….will ck back tomorrow.
jerrytbg on September 12, 2008 at 8:36 PM
This ad seems to target the very people that were not going to vote for her in the first place.
Maxx on September 12, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Wait….you can shoot wolves from HELICOPTERS?!?!?!
Where do I sign up??
WOW!
skree on September 12, 2008 at 8:57 PM
I know that in Ohio at least we’re able (not me personally, but hunters) to thin the populations – kind of…how many a hunter can take varies depending on the “zone” you’re in. Not sure about our neighbors in PA.
JeepGirl on September 12, 2008 at 9:28 PM
True story: The reintroduction of the wolf to the Yellowstone “eco-system” (whatever the hell that means) had the unforeseen (by Lefties) adverse impact of endangering mountain lion habitat.
Ya the wolves out hunt the lions, the lions starve.
Oh and don’t ask the elk about all this. They are the animal kingdom version of the tax-payer.
Montana on September 12, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Then you will be including Matthew Scully the conservative republican and SPEECHWRITER of Palin’s knockout convention debut speech. Matt is an animal activist and makes his disdain for hunters clear in his book “Dominion: The Power Of Man, The Suffering Of Animals And The Call To Mercy, and in his articles, such as the one linked below. He makes the point that man SHOULD HAVE MERCY FOR ANIMALS because we have power over them!
Those of you who mock animal welfare activists should get a clue! Animals are sentient beings who can feel content and happy (dogs) and animals also DO FEEL terror, fear and pain! As Matt states, man should be humane and MERCIFUL TO ALL OF GOD’s CREATURES.
Oh, and btw, I am NOT A LIB—but rather a pro-life, right-leaning independent and vegetarian. There actually are some conservatives/repubs who care about being decent and humane to animals. The rest of you repubs need to pull your heads outta the sand and get into the 21st century!
http://www.matthewscully.com/sportsman_politics.htm
Shelby on September 12, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Memo to DOWAF & PETA: Where would your spokesbimbo Plastic Pammy Anderson be Without animal testing?
And you’re gonna worry about a few wolves getting whacked?
Suck It PETA!
Teddy on September 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Governor Palin thinks that abortion is savagery. I guess that’s a priority thing.
nyrofan on September 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM
So, what do you have to say to Matt Scully?
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I have nothing to say to Matt Scully, Shelby.
He can go play Pitch & Catch with Scott McClellan.
Teddy on September 13, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Yeah, entelechy – wait till a deer comes through YOUR windshield. Where I live despite hunting, the deer population is exploding and has been for about 30 years. That’s because the deer like the new habitat – subdivisions. Plenty of shrubbery to eat year round. They adapt quite well. And some of the animal rights nuts around here are trying to get the government (taxpayers) to pay for birth control for the deer. On the other hand, the hunters pay to hunt and a good many of them donate their kills to local homeless shelters. So everybody benefits including the deer.
And btw – humans by their very nature are cruel so dont try pulling THAT crap about adding to cruelty.
abcurtis on September 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM
As a hunter myself, I think of hunting not just for the benefit of having a supply of food on the table, but as a means of properly managing the wildlife population of a particular region. Look at news stories about whitetail deer in urban areas, how many times have you heard about deer being trapped in someone’s home or store because it couldn’t find it’s way out. Look at the amount of roadkill left to waste on the side of the road because of animals migrating to better food sources. Wildlife encounters can cost people lots of money from property/livestock damage, and in terms of hitting deer with automobiles and etc, it can cost people their lives in some instances.
The goal of a true hunter is the embodiment of why God supposedly put us above animals… to be stewards of such resources. As hunters, we detest waste, we want clean, quick, and efficient kills, and we want to maintain the levels of critters of which we want to eat so that it’s a perpetual harvest for generations to follow. Although the media loves to portray us as drunken hillbillies that will shoot at anything that moves just to get a thrill, it’s completely not true. We respect the land and it’s inhabitants by ensuring that the balance is maintained while reaping the rewards of many good meals depending on what is being harvested. The thrill for many of us hunters is being skillful enough to successfully take down our prey by knowing how to track an animal, knowing how animals behave, and how to properly kill them in the most humane and least possible means. I think I can safely say all this for most hunters without blurring the details.
I don’t think true hunters want an animal to suffer, and having to track an animal a long distance is not only inconvenient, it’s potentially wasteful in the event Bambi escapes us. I know when I kill an animal, I don’t like thinking of it suffering, I like thinking of it as Bambi enjoying a nice patch of clover as it’s last thought.
Everything liberals throw out there for us hunters does more harm than good. Munching on granola and tofu may come easy for them, they don’t actually have to earn their meals so to speak. So by this, they think they can save one animal out of benevolence, yet their shortsightedness may lead to a spread of disease, starvation, personal property damage, and unbalanced populations that ensure trouble. They claim to be so in touch with the earth, yet they have no clue as to how it is run, or man’s proper place in it. Species of animals are becoming extinct because liberals refuse to be extinct themselves, and that is the true crime against nature.
Honoris Causa…
Silverblade on September 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I’m a Palin fan but, in truth, the hunting aspect is the one facet of her life style I couls do without.
jeanie on September 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I don’t see your logic. Matthew Scully left the White House to write a book about the need for man to be merciful to animals. Scott McClellan is a loser who wrote a negative book about the Bush administration for profit. Please explain the Scully/McClellan association.
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I think this will bother a lot of independents and others.
Yes. From watching the ad, one can definitely see it is beyond cruel to kill animals this way.
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Agreed Y-not. Watching that ad of the wolf being shot from the plane and then struggling in the bloody snow as it dies, WILL BE EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE FOR THOSE IN THE MIDDLE, such as myself!
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Shelby,
First, you need to check out this in depth piece by Mary Katherine Ham about the true origins of the hunting they are misrepresenting in the ad. If you don’t see the bias and slime after that then you really need to get some professional help.
SayWhat on September 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM
SayWhat on September 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I love animals and could NEVER ( in a civilized world) be a hunter. (I always tell people I am one SANE step away from PETA. Meaning: I love animals, but I’m not insane about it. ) There’s no need for me to hunt, there are stores and restaurants. BUT I thank God there are people that enjoy doing it and eat what they kill. It needs to be done so the animals don’t overpopulate and starve. Let the Alaskans do what they have to do.
amynorw on September 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM
No Problem, Shelby.
You see, the “compassionate” conservative doesn’t register with LibRats no matter How hard Repubs try to send the message!
Just ask Dubya.
So to Matt Scully, I say, either be a damn Conservative or yak-yak to the MSM about those “gentle” hunting kills, and about how the assault weapons ban should’ve been reinstated by BusHitler, etc. But you Cannot be or do both.
In other words, Matt, Either F**k The Libs or F**k Yourself, as far as I’m concerned!
Teddy on September 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Wow, Teddy…an impressive display of anger management and decency there with the language! Isn’t that what you’d expect from the libs???!!!
And even though you sound like you would rather drink a gallon of lead-based paint than to admit that there are conservatives that DO CARE ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE, too bad, your angry and extreme attitude is not that of the majority of the US.
Seek help, Teddy.
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Great article, Teddy! I hadn’t read it before. The article is so good that I am reposting the link, starting at page 1, versus yours that begins at page 2 and from which you did your little spin.
Thanks, again, Teddy boy. Good read–loved it!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50367-2004May23.html
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 4:50 PM
To answer the Ad – Yes.
{^_^}
herself on September 13, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Oh, you’re quite welcome Shelby. My pleasure.
Here’s another article mentioning Scully that you also might enjoy, so-called “spin” not included.
SO brutal, that NRA… I’m getting the vapors.
You wanted Scully’s association to McClellan? There it is.
Neither of them can or should be trusted by Any Conservative.
Scully writes nice speeches. Great.
Let him write the speeches, but otherwise, keep him the hell out of the loop!
Ps. Btw, Scully sure seems to have some anger and language issues. Don’t ya’ think?
Eh, maybe a quick trip over to Oprah or Dr. Phil will teach him to “manage” them.
Teddy on September 13, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Finally! A thread where at least one theme of your Scully spam (i.e., hunting animals) is actually on-topic. Unlike the other 18 threads where you posted almost the same opening blurb, OT.
But my question to you is: why the “Scully” “Scully” “Scully” feedback loop? Is there something we should take away about *Scully* per se, other than the fact that he’s written a book you’re fond of, about a subject you’re fond of?
RD on September 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Teddy boy, where to start????
Well, first off trying to cite an extreme right-wing news source that probably gets paid quite well by the NRA for advertisements, etc, is absurd! I am an independent–your trying to convince me with an extreme right mag is akin to me directing you to PETA’s website!
And the article you cited has many errors. There are body builders and triathlon athletes that are vegetarian or vegan and they are quite strong and healthy. More healthy than, say, Tim Russert, oh yeah, he’s gone from a heart attack…too many hamburgers.
I did not see Matt Scully mention F**k one single time, but you did twice in one post! So, who’s got the good Repub morals going on, huh?
And I wanted to ask, are you the head of the NRA? You seem very defensive so I would not be surprised if this were the case!
Keep trying to convince yourselves how swell you are. You hunters are just adorable bullies aren’t ya?
Anchorage Daily News
Caribou slaughter leaves calves stranded
Published: July 29th, 2008
”Hunters from the villages of Point Hope and Kivalina are suspected of massacring more than 100 caribou and leaving at least half of them to rot on the tundra earlier this month, according to Alaska Wildlife Troopers.
Calves were left stranded, some still trying to suckle milk from the decomposing cows two weeks after the slaughter.”
There is a photo at the Anchorage Daily News of a caribou calf as it stands by its DEAD MOTHER! SICK! SICK! SICK!
http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/478088.html
And the the swearing
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM
You could take away the FACT that not all conservatives are merciless towards God’s creatures.
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Oops.
Shelby on September 13, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Did I mention I belong to PETA?
That’s People Eating Tasty Animals.
I’m just sayin’
bradenmikael on September 14, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Palin is starting to remind me of Teddy Roosevelt. They fear her more because she may just reform Washington corruption and actually clean up corrupted bloated government programs that waste taxpayer money. Democrats are dead without being able to sell votes using taxpayer dollars. Bully! Bully Sarah! Clean up the Democratic corruption and make the tenth amendment as important as the second amendment….
adamsmith on September 14, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Silverblade on September 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Responsible hunters (of which I used to be one) seem to think the characterization of hunters as drunks who shoot at anything that moves is a lie. Since I’ve experienced it, I doubt that. Obviously, not all hunters are like that, but there are enough of them that as my father said, don’t hunt on public land if you value your life. As for the image of skillfully stalking your prey and dispatching it painlessly, from what I’ve seen, most deer hunters, at least, sit in stands and ambush the animal. Whether the animal dies instantly or in pain depends on the accuracy of the hunter, but then, another of my observations is that too many hunters aren’t that careful. They just shoot as best they can, sometimes while excited (buck fever). Anyway, I’ll say it again. I would never stop anyone from hunting. But I’d say that unless you can’t make your way to a grocery store, there isn’t much reason to hunt (which is a dying sport anyway) unless you just enjoy killing an animal.
NNtrancer on September 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
One thing I’d like to add, PLEASE purchase your animal products from a humane source. There are plenty out there. Here is one that is excellent:
http://www.certifiedhumane.org
“The Certified Humane Raised and Handled program is the only farm animal welfare and food labeling program in the U.S. dedicated to improving the welfare of farm animals from birth through slaughter for the 10 billion farm animals raised for food each year.”
Shelby on September 15, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3