Kerry on Gun & Animal Rights issues

[Ithaca 37]

Bambi, Now maybe we're getting somewhere. "So ANTI-It are you for or against the humane society??? They save puppies from anit-freeze and are willing to do anthing they can do to take away your hunting, and you praise their good intentions. You want to be associated with them?"

No, I am not a member of any of the groups mentioned in MD's post and I don't support any of them.

HOWEVER, it is possible that I might take the same position on some piece of legislation that they do. For instance----the anti freeze bill. If Kerry or anyone else takes the same position on some innocuous bill that those groups do I don't neccessarily think that is bad.

That is my whole point here and I'm flabbergasted that anyone can, by any stretch of their imagination, think that having the same position on some issues is bad, or even indicates support for the group or that it will lead to funding for the group. Some people here aren't thinking clearly, and it's not me.

Let's get back to the question I'm using as an example.

Bambi, Plainsman, Fairchace, Tom and Hanger: Are you for or against the anti-freeze bill?

Please answer this one, too: Is this following action by the AHA good or bad?

Calling it a critical issue in how communities protect children, the American Humane Association (AHA) today announced it will conduct the first national study of the use of law enforcement to respond to and investigate cases of child abuse and neglect. Through a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation AHA, the national leader in child and animal protection issues, will address the effectiveness of using law enforcement personnel to handle reports and investigations of child abuse and neglect.

"Traditionally, the role of reporting on and investigating charges of child abuse has fallen on social workers," said Paul DiLorenzo, Director of AHA's Children's Services. "If a charge is made, it is the responsibility of a local social service agency to determine whether abuse or neglect has occurred, and then what to do to ensure the safety of -children. Over the past few years, we've witnessed a change where some communities are handing that responsibility directly to law enforcement agencies."

DiLorenzo pointed to four counties in Florida and the state of Arkansas as recent examples where the investigation of child abuse cases is handled by law enforcement agencies. In Colorado, the Governor's Task Force on the Welfare of Children has recommended further study of a proposal to take similar action statewide.

"Honestly, this is a hot button issue. Strong arguments have been made in favor of involving law enforcement agencies in investigations, and strong arguments have been made for keeping this under social service agencies. What hasn't been done is a balanced national study of this issue to determine.....
http://www.charitywire.com/charity9/00144.html
-----------------------------------------------

Would you be in favor of a national study of that issue or not?

As we can already see by Plainsman's avoidance of the anti- freeze question, it gets tougher when you have to take a position for or against something. I'm not surprised he tried to dodge the question, but I'm still hoping he'll answer it.

How about it, Plainsman, Bambi, Fairchase, Tom and Hanger, can you answer my questions and take a position on the anti-freeze bill and the law enforcement/ child abuse study?

 

[Bambistew]

what are you trying to prove with your question? Are you trying to show us ingrates that because we may have the same views as these freaks we are also of the same blood (like you)? How did you expect us to react when you pompously float out all the info to back up these anti-hunting orgs position? Anti-hunting means just that ANIT-HUNTING, they want to save the puppies and children too. But so do a lot of other org's that don't adamantly promote anti-hunting bull shit!

I don’t' care how may puppies get saved or how many children are rescued from dump truck disasters... If these anti's sponsor a bill I will not be for it. I will not sit there and let them sugar coat something all while they eventually will stab me in the back. If you really feel strongly about it, why don't you start up the anti-freeze movement and form a org and sponsor the bill. I'd be for it then... that is unless you are an anti-hunting org, then tough shit!

if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to save some poor animals and children from an anti-freeze death that’s fine. But if you back them up that just fuels their fire to propose even more legislation... what’s next quail hunting? I wouldn’t give a chit if it was my mother who promoted the legislation to save the last spotted owl from extinction... if she was against me killing shit then too bad.

Do you think that 100% of the time Kerry voted on the same views as the anti's had anything to do with money/perks?

What it comes down to is... would you want a candidate that votes for the same views as anti’s 100% of the time no mater what bill it is??? Seems kind of strange that he had the same views 100% of the time...

You can have your views and so can we. Just because you don't have a spine to make a stand for something its not our fault!

 

[Plainsman]

I think Ithaca is missing the point. His unadultrated love for Kerry has blinded him. The organizations that Ithaca himself listed are among the top anti-hunting groups in the nation and definitely some of the wealthiest. Here's an analogy that Ithaca might understand. It would be the same as an anti-hunter Doris Day group member saying its O.K. to support the Red Mist Culture because they support anti-abortion laws. It's a noble idea, but I doubt that it would ever happen. You go right ahead and support those groups Ithaca, you cute little hard left winger you! Punch in anti-hunting organization on your search and see what groups come up at the top of the list, time after time. Didn't you know that these groups are anti-hunting Ithaca? I guess I figured the cut and paste King knew all.

I want to ask you one question Ithaca. Why do you have to belittle someone that doesn't have your view. I did it to you to make a point and I don't feel good about it, because I don't know you. The guy starting the post is obviously concerned about the future of hunting. So let's knock the hell out of him and any one else that's not pro-Kerry? Sad game to play...

 

[Hangar18]

MD4M and Ten Bears have earned every bit of ridicule they get.

Bambi, Plainsman, Fairchace, Tom and Hanger: Are you for or against the anti-freeze bill?

How about it, Plainsman, Bambi, Fairchase, Tom and Hanger, can you answer my questions and take a position on the anti-freeze bill and the law enforcement/ child abuse study?

That's pretty ballsy Ithaca, to justify ridicule and then demand others reveal a position. I'll spare everyone my homebrewed psycho-analysis of this, and simply say:
</font>

• When you can figure out that directly ridiculing others tells everyone a lot more about you than those you are ridiculing;</font>
• When you can figure out that your presentation of information refuting a position, without ridicule, is ALL that is needed to make a good point;</font>

Only then will I give the courtesy of an answer. There is nothing wrong with giving everyone a basic amount of respect, no matter how you feel about them personally. I don't say anything on here that I wouldn't say to someone's face. Ask Elk Gunner, and you will probably see for yourself at Moosie's picnic this summer.

 

[Tom]

Ok, I think I figured out I'm for the bitter tasting antifreeze to protect children and pets, but there's plenty of other organizations to support that bill.

I think there's lots of competition funding for research from foundations and the federal government and I'd rather give money to those places to decide what study to fund.

I remember giving money to the state police fund here and thought it was to benefit their projects for children. They had one policeman that loved to work with children and used the money for a lot of other different projects that didn't involve children. When I found that out, I quit giving them money. That one project was good, but it was that one policeman's favorite project, the money didn't support it much. Another example like that. Our local police got money for child abuse and family violence cases from a study once. They were supposed to get specially trained police, who could focus on that type of potential crime, yet help the family, rather than just arrest and jail someone in the family. They just used it to hire another policeman. No special training for child and/or family violence cases, that's what the social worker types told me. That study sounds like its got its own agenda and its not a competitive funding process, so the best designed study, gets the money. I don't think I'm for that one.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"I think MD4M's point is that many of the organizations listed are alleged to be anti-hunting."

Hanger,you are correct.
On the anit freeze---Ithaca,I try not to back any anit-hunting org. even IF its on something I agree on, not when I can back the same issue with org. that are not shown to be anit-hunting.
I give money to our local animal shelter (I let them know Im pro-hunting ) but i will not back the Humane society of the united states on ANYTHING.

All I can say about Ithaca's post attacking me again for what I believe ,I will forever remember him as the guy that posted this link.
You guy's be the judge.

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/index.htm

 

[JoseCuervo]

Bambistew,

If you won't support Kerry because of some correlation to the Doris Day Society and the ominous threat to end all hunting that Ms. Day represents, how can you possibly support Dubya and his plans to drill the Rocky Mt Front, extinct all Salmon runs in Idaho, and continue to destroy Public Lands via Grazing?

What good is the right to hunt or fish, if there is not an Elk left in Montana, a Deer in Wyoming, or a Salmon in Idaho?

 

[Bambistew]

Gunner, I dont' hunt the front and I can step around the turds!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Bambistew,

See, it is not that easy for you to answer a pro-Dubya question, as no hunter can defend Dubya's stances. Thanks for letting me know that you are more worried about the evil Doris Day. Are you also worried about Dinah Shore and Marlo Thomas, Mary Tyler Moore?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Yeah, I AM more concerned about Ms Day, Ms Moore and Ms Thomas (and Mr. Kerry) than I am about Bush.

 

[JoseCuervo]

So you are ok with extincting the wild Salmon in Idaho, drilling the lands where Elk need, and high winter kills on Deer due to poor condition of public lands?

Which do you really think is the more ominous threat? Doris Day or Dubya? That is not even close....

 

[Tom]

B&Cs web site is pretty impressed with Bush's conservation mindedness. They are at the center of Montana intelligence according to Buzz's quote at the bottom of his posts.

Nothing left, elk salmon, etc., is a rediculous exageration unsupported by anything and makes it easy to ignore your posts. Support it somehow or be ignored, that's my request.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tom

What percentage of Idaho's Salmon and Steelhead runs are on the Endangered Species List????

Tell me again how somebody is impressed with Dubya's conservation?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Uh Ohh.... Looks like Dubya and the evil Doris Day are in cahoots.... Now who are you gonna vote for.... Straight from the Doris Day website....

Exotic Pet Protection Act
Signed into law by President George W. Bush December 19, 2003 (P.L. 108-191). Summary: Bans the interstate commerce of certain species of large wild cats bound for the exotic pet trade. Includes lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, cougars and jaguars. Sponsors: Reps. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and George Miller (R-CA) and Sens. James Jeffords (I-VT) and John Ensign (R-NV).

 

[Calif. Hunter]

So, Eg, that means you are in favor of trade in "exotic" or domesticated wild animals, just because Bush is opposed to it? I thought you would be against hatchery fish and game farm elk - the same thing as a house-raised ocelot.

What other point are you trying to make? Bush opposed the trade in exotic pets, or domesticated wlid life. So did Doris Day - your point?

I would even agree with Kerry that crap stinks - but he may change his mind, based upon his track record, tomorrow - while I will still say it stinks.

 

[Plainsman]

My stance? I think we have enough laws and government intervention. We need no more! How's that? Does that answer your question Ithaca?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ok, Here's where we're at:

Bambi says he's not in favor of any bill sponsored by any group he thinks is anti- hunting. He doesn't realize that being in favor of a bill is not the same as sponsoring it. The info we have does not say the AHA sponsored the bill. It just might be impossible to have a logical debate with Bambi. He doesn't comprehend the topic. He has not answered the question.

Hanger refuses to tell us his position. He tries to dodge the question and take the easy way out.

MD thinks that being in favor of a bill is the same as backing a group that is in favor of it. She has not answered the question. She gives money to the local animal shelter. The AHA and Doris Day League support giving money to animal shelters. In fact, they give money to animal shelters themselves. CA Hunter says, "funding them in any way helps them oppose hunting by freeing up or providing funds." We now must conclude that when MD gives $ to animal shelters and frees up $ for the Doris Day League to use in their anti-hunting efforts MD is supporting anti-hunting groups. That means she is now on the shit list of herself, Bambi, CA Hunter, etc.

Tom is in favor of the anti-freeze bill. According to the thinking of MD, Bambi and others, that makes him a supporter of the Doris Day League. Tom is now on their shit list.

CA Hunter seems to think that being in favor of a bill that an anti-hunting group supports is the same as funding them.

Plainsman dodges the question with a statement about not wanting any more laws.

EG points out that Dubya signed into law a bill supported by the Doris Day League. According to the thinking of MD, Fairchase, Bambi, Plainsman and CA Hunter that makes Dubya the enemy. Who will they vote for now? Certainly not any politician who signs into law a bill supported by an anti- hunting group!

This is a real mess. How are we gonna resolve it?

I anxiously await a solution to this quandary from MD, Plainsman, CA Hunter and Bambi. Maybe Hanger will help us figure out what to do.

[ 05-27-2004, 19:33: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
So, Eg, that means you are in favor of trade in "exotic" or domesticated wild animals, just because Bush is opposed to it? I thought you would be against hatchery fish and game farm elk - the same thing as a house-raised ocelot.

What other point are you trying to make? Bush opposed the trade in exotic pets, or domesticated wlid life. So did Doris Day - your point?

I would even agree with Kerry that crap stinks - but he may change his mind, based upon his track record, tomorrow - while I will still say it stinks.

Hey Cali,
So you are going to support the Dubya/Doris Day coalition? Boy, that is gonna get you on the wrong side of the fence with Bambistew. As there is no way Bambistew could support you or Dubya, based upon his logic.

And as for Kerry's opinions, I think he could answer both ways, and be correct. As you are on record as knowing your shit stinks, while I know mine doesn't....

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Ithaca = please point out where I said that supporting a bill is the same as funding the organization. Also, please point out where I said that anyone has to agree with anyone else 100% of the time in order to get my vote. (In fact, I have stated many times that my choice of candidates is based upon who most closely approximates my own values, particularly on the issues I hold most dear.)

EG - where did I ever say that MY crap stank?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ca Hunter, Here's what you said. I could never get an answer from you. So I said, "CA Hunter seems to think ........." You are the one who brought funding into the debate. I don't know why. I got the impression that you think if someone gives money to a cause that an animal rights organization gives money to, that person is freeing up money for the animal rights org. to use elsewhere.

"Hmm - a couple of quotes from the ASPCA policy statement shown above:

"Intentional cruelty is often more shocking than neglect and is frequently an indicator of a serious human behavior problem."

"Someone who is violent towards animals may be violent towards family members or others."


Wouldn't shooting an animal with a gun or bow be considered cruel or violent by the ASPCA? I think we know their attitude - funding them in any way helps them oppose hunting by freeing up or providing funds.

I know how Ithaca feels about MD4me - that is clouding his normally rational thinking!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5137 | From: La Palma, CA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000 | IP: Logged |

Ithaca 37
Member
Member # 366

posted 05-27-2004 09:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif., How is taking the same position on the anti-freeze bill as Kerry going to fund the ASPCA or any other group that takes a position in favor of it?

When the NRA takes a position for or against any bill, does that mean they are going to be funded by it?"