PootyPoot? Really?

Cindy Munford on September 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/29/questions-for-pooty-poot/

A moose walked up to once when I was standing alone, miles from anyone, in a wilderness area. Then she bent her head down, and leaned her side into me while she was plucking tasty greens from a ground-running raspberry patch. When she was done with her treat and moved along, there was nothing left but the thorny raspberry vines and one wonder-struck and terrified idiot.

Loxodonta on September 13, 2008 at 12:40 AM

Loxodonta….very cool story! I’m glad neither you nor the moose were harmed.

“70%”? Site your source Charlie – or did you pull that one from DU? Or your hindend? Puhleeze.

Does Charlie not understand that a lot of people hunt to put food on the table? If not, I’ve got a freezer full of venison I’d love to show him – even put up a pot of venison chili, if he thinks his delicate tummy can handle it.

Blue-eyed Infidel on September 13, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Yeah, and some “adorable and sweet” hunters just shoot up some caribou and leave their babies trying to suckle milk from their DECOMPOSTING MOTHERS TWO WEEKS LATER!!!

http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/478088.html

BTW, I am not a lib, but rather a pro-life right-leaning independent and vegetarian. I just hate cruelty, that’s all!

If you think hunting moose comes down to just making contact with a broad target, you’re likely to find out what a wounded moose is capable of doing.
But thanks for your armchair quarterbacking on moose hunting.
TexasDan on September 12, 2008 at 11:40 PM

Yah, reports come in almost every day about some irate wounded moose antlering some mighty hunter who was down to his last bullet to death. Maybe it would be safer to shoot the vicious beasts from a helicopter with a 50 caliber. Probably better call up the National Guard too.
PootyPoot on September 12, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Well said and point made!

Here is what Barracuda’s SPEECHWRITER, Matt Scully, who wrote the excellent speech for her big convention debut, has to say about hunting. It’s revolting!

http://www.matthewscully.com/sportsman_politics.htm

Your weak arguments are still destroyed by the gloryhole. No attractiveness, no sweet talk, no eye contact, no body language, no gender, no nothing. It’s just a hole where you can place your genitals and recieve instant genital manipulation from whoever or whatever is on the other side.

TMK on September 13, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Really? Is anonymous sex unique to the gay world? What about straight men paying a streetwalker for oral? Is that based on having a girlfriend for a few minutes or is it more about genital manipulation?

One difference between straights and gays is that with a male/female relationship females provide a constraining factor–or at least some measure of decency and judgement. In an environment where the men are attracted to each other, there really is no restraint against vulgarity.

My original point was that sexual attraction tends to be formed before adulthood by a combination of factors. In some cases there may be contributing genetic factors, but if you were born and developed as a straight guy, and always liked girls, it would be difficult, and probably repulsive, to try and be stimulated by another male. In most cases for men physical attraction to the opposite sex is limited by criteria that varies among men–some men prefer women who are young, slim with large round boobs, maybe tall, or maybe a certain ethnicity. A man might be more attracted to a woman like that than an overweight woman in her 70s. The attraction would likely be immediate and natural and not something you needed to model in a spreadsheet or discuss with advisors before making your choice.

dedalus on September 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Dresden was a nightmare, no question about it. By that point in time, I suspect, Britain was determined to completely destroy Germany. When you consider what the Germans did to London and Coventry, I can’t say I blame them.

It’s sexual attraction.

Your weak arguments are still destroyed by the gloryhole. No attractiveness, no sweet talk, no eye contact, no body language, no gender, no nothing. It’s just a hole where you can place your genitals and recieve instant genital manipulation from whoever or whatever is on the other side.

Gee FDR and Churchill bombed the hell out of Dresden and other civilian targets.
eaglewingz08 on September 13, 2008 at 9:10 AM

Even Churchill distanced himself from the bombing. The use of a firestorm in a city that had increased in civilian population due to people fleeing the Russians is now questioned, since the civilian toll seems disproportionate to the strategic military gain.

If the right accepts the murder of civilians in order to achieve one of their dubious foreign policy goals, shouldn’t they support the same think to keep America free of unwanted children? – alphie on September 13, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Because in the case of the former, we are not specifically targeting civilians. In the case of the latter, the whole purpose of abortion is to snuff out a human life.

Imbecile.

I think Gibson has enough hubris for the both of them.

Terrye on September 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Gibson asked Obama about hubris, too.

Hubris is a great word for insulting the unwashed masses who do not know what the word means.

As Krauthammer notes:

Gibson captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

70% support a ban on semi-auto?

Now, I know I am just one of those bitter clingerers and all that here in Ohio, but … a … semi auto’s and “assault weapons”(self loading mid caliber rifles)are alive and well, kept not for hunting, but for the original purpose of the 2ndA.

I do not know anyone in my circle who supports any such ban.

It’s Friday the 13th, go play with Jason

The willful and intentional termination of a human is called murder.

Just heard Bush give a speech about the 90 civilians the U.S. military killed in Afghanistan last week, watson.

He said dead civilians are a natural result of an out of control military-industrial complex…er freeeeeedom fightin’.

If the right accepts the murder of civilians in order to achieve one of their dubious foreign policy goals, shouldn’t they support the same think to keep America free of unwanted children?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Whether you agree with McCain’s response, do you honestly believe that the president should be agreeing with the Kremlin?

China and Russia now control Asia, lorien.

The only reason they allow us to rube around there is that it is bankrupting us.

In other words, America is impotent in Asia, so it doesn’t really matter what the President says about Putin.

How can I be a human with rights today but not a human in the womb of my mother and void of rights? That just makes no logical sense to me.

The willful and intentional termination of a human is called murder. Therefore abortion is murder. We don’t allow murder in civilized society. Palin and every other logical human being (religious or otherwise) knows this to be true.

Now why is Roe so important on a state level? Because the people can vote against it or for it and the battle can be fought on a more confined level. The founders knew, that eventually, NO ONE can ever beat the Feds save a few rare circumstances. Instances such as Roe, give communities time to flesh the issue out and seriously debate it. Much easier to debate life issues locally than trying to scream above the rabble in SF, which is far far away from moi.

Does Charlie not understand that a lot of people hunt to put food on the table? If not, I’ve got a freezer full of venison I’d love to show him – even put up a pot of venison chili, if he thinks his delicate tummy can handle it.