Kerry on Gun & Animal Rights issues

[Ithaca 37]

Hangar, Here's where I first noticed you posting. It's the Welcome Hangar topic. I said, " Hi Hanger, How'd ya get the Hanger handle? (I probably shouldn't ask)"
and then the next thing I know you're critizing me:

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=001529

Hangar18
Member
Member # 1033

Rate Member posted 05-15-2003 15:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEW -

From what I wrote, you drew the conclusion I am a LAND RAPING SNOWMOBILE RIDING DRUNK MORON ROTFLMFAO!! How is that? Have you stereotyped snowmobilers into a single catagory? You have serious issues with distorting the written word. You must drive your husband crazy..............

As for Ithaca, he is bashing. You said it yourself. When someone points out only one side of an issue, (the flaws) they are bashing the other side. Ithaca's so-called uselessness position is based on opinions of people with an agenda. They are paid to sway public opinion, not deliver the news. Ithaca has committed to stereotyping as well. Only is this (Ithaca's? inserted by It.) case, as well as yours, the stereotyping has been done based on narrowminded rhetoric. You do not listen to anyone that disagrees with you, and you hold in highest regard those you do agree with. 99% of those that ride snowmobiles, ATVs, OHVs, etc. are responsible yet you both have allowed the 1% to form your stereotypes. That's like saying someone poached an elk, therefore all hunters are bad. Someone shot someone else, so all gun owners must be murderers. And spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat."
----------------------------------------
Notice my peacemaking efforts with you from the start and thru the whole topic. Who came in with a chip on their shoulder attitude like they were gunning for me?

As you pointed out, here's another: "On this issue you are completely full of shit, and I'm going to prove it."

So now you're all peace and love and want me to be, too!

Fair, "But you loose all credibility when you attempt to defend groups like the American Humane Association , the ASPCA and especially the Defenders of Wildlife !!!"

I wouldn't say I give them blanket approval, but I would say that not everything they support is bad. That's the point I've been trying to make in this topic since the beginning. No matter what you think about any of the groups named in the first post, sometimes they take positions on bills and other issues that I would agree with. The anti-freeze bill is a good example. Whomever wrote the first post that MD quoted is trying to make Kerry look bad by saying that he agreed with them on the bills they chose to judge on. Big deal! For all anyone knew they could have judged him on only the anti-freeze bill and the caretaking/charity bill and on those two he agreed with them 100%! The writer tries to take something like that and make Kerry look bad. Apparently some people here fall for that kinda BS without thinking it thru in a logical way. That's why I said anyone would have to be an idiot to draw any conclusions from it. Go back and read my posts from the beginning. Anyone who still isn't clear about what I was saying isn't reading clearly.

We've also found out that some of the SI posters who had the guts to take a position on the bills I asked them to had the same opinion as the Doris Day League, etc.

As EG pointed out, Bush signed into law a bill that some of those groups supported when he could have vetoed it. Why don't we hear a big outcry about what Bush did?

As CA hunter points out, the best way is to make decisions on a case by case basis about the positions anyone takes on bills and issues-----and that includes forming opinions about whether or not a bill the Doris Day League is OK. I think some people here just automatically assume anything the Doris Day League supports is bad. Is that the way you think?

Fairchase, You seem to think the Defenders of Wildlife is a bad organization. Can you start another topic on them and tell us what's bad about them? Please don't include it into this topic, as this one is screwed up enough already. Here's a couple links to info about them to help you build your case:

http://www.animaladvocacy.net/positions.html

Defenders of Wildlife
1244 Nineteenth Street NW
Washington DC 20036
(202) 659-9510
N "…neither an anti-hunting nor a pro-hunting organization, but most of its 80,000 members are non-hunters and their concern is with the restoration and protection of all species of wildlife and their habitats…"

http://www.defenders.org/

Notice their positions on habitat.

 

[Michaelr]

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

this is nothing more than ANTI-IT bashing on MD4ME every time she post regardless of what the post is about. This fued has been years running, It has no credibility when he is posting anything that involves MD4ME.

Gunner.... your comments about exstinct salmon and grazing are lame and simplistic at best.
those problems were here before Bush and will still be here after Bush.

 

[pawclaws]

On the first bill I am in favor. We presently buy Sierra brand coolant because it supposedly is non-toxic to animals. I think eliminating the sweet taste and aroma of the stuff is a plus well worth supporting for the sake of all; especially, domestic animals. On the second; I'm lukewarm.I see it as just another "feathered cap" project for some politician who made campaign promises. I detest that kind of thing in politics.

 

[Hangar18]

Notice my peacemaking efforts with you from the start and thru the whole topic. Who came in with a chip on their shoulder attitude like they were gunning for me?

As you pointed out, here's another: "On this issue you are completely full of shit, and I'm going to prove it."

So now you're all peace and love and want me to be, too!

You were full of shit and I did prove it.

That isn't belittling someone. It's saying you are wrong in a crude manner. I didn't call you names or claim to be a lot smarter than you. In fact, I challenge you to find anywhere where I call you "IT". I'm refering to the above statement in bold alone.

I pointed my BS out for everyone to see, and my ego is small enough to know most likely no one cares. I acknowledged I came in here, as you put it well, "with a chip on my shoulder" because of the BRC bashing. And as you can see, and I have already said, it lasted the first few days out of the year or so I've posted somewhat consistantly on here. Two days to be exact.

If you remember shortly after, I did say that I would probably agree with you on most points, and would hope to talk with you after last years hunting season about things, because I think you have some knowledge and understanding of a lot of issues that few others have. Obviously that never happened.

Yet you continue to belittle and ridicule people, and try to justify it. I don't have a right to tell you what to do, but I can tell you it's clouding your credibility when you point out how stupid you think someone is.

It's not peace and love - it's let your ideas and fact-gathering speak for itself.

 

[Muledeer4me]

On the Antifreeze Safety Act (H.R. 1563)


As we know Ithaca alot of bill's are endorsed by different org. that are not anti-hunting so when I see something I am in support of ,I will do so ONLY THROUGH an org. that I'm pretty sure isn't anti-hunting .( Im sure we all could have unknowling supported anti-hunting org. through the year's )
Why give support to any nasty radical group's (anti-hunting ,Jon Marvel type's) when we can find other pro-hunting ,pro-ranching group's that are along the same line's but with a better approach (unless the supporter himself has the same agenda?)
I can at the same time support the anti-freeze bill,and support responsabile grazing even to stop grazing in some area's ) with out giving my support THROUGH org. that I and many hunter's find are working against us.


I would not give support to The Humane Society of the United Stated or Jon Marvel even if they came out in support of George W Bush!!!!!
My support like always would go through the org. I know I could trust to support my love of freedom and hunting.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Plainsman dodged the question. Bambi, Hangar and Fairchase still haven't answered it. I think most everybody else has. (I hope I have the scorecard correct)

Well! We seem to be finding out, now, that it's OK to be in favor of a bill that anti-hunting groups support, because some of the posters here do it themselves!

Now, can anyone explain why it's bad, necessarily, for Kerry to vote in favor of a bill that anti-hunting groups support?

And before we get into the percentage of times Kerry voted the way an anti-hunting group hoped he would on bills they supported please remember that if they only supported two bills and he voted for both of them, that's 100%.

[ 06-01-2004, 09:44: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]

 

[pawclaws]

"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."

No not across the board. Like all organizations the ASPCA is made up of human beings; all have their own thoughts. Does leaning toward voting for Kerry make one an abortion rights advocate, anti-gun, anti-hunting, etc? No; not across the board.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Now, can anyone explain why it's bad, necessarily, for Kerry to vote in favor of a bill that anti-hunting groups support? "


Whats necessary is for everyone to be aware of how he has voted on all issue's that are important to each of us.
His voting record over all does give us an idea how he lean's and what and who he will favor if elected.
I sure don't want a left leaning libreal that favor's the anti-hunting group's,not when many of the issues can be supported through groups and org. that are hunter friendly.


Ithaca ,can you please explain why you had such a bad reaction to a post that give's people more info.on such an important issue?
Can you explain why you seem to favor and stand up for many of the anti-hunting group's ?
Can you explain why a hunter would support and stand up for anti-hunting group's on issues that can be supported through pro-hunting groups?
Can you explain why a hunter would help these org. to get a foot hold?
If Bush and The Humane Society of the United States both were calling for donations in support of the same thing -who would get YOUR money and why?

We all understand that we are often called on to make hard choice's ,but a person's overall voting record and choice of what to support how and why is a good indication of what that person think's ,isn't it?

 

[pawclaws]

In Kerry's case there are two things that bother me much more than his voting record: (1) He seems to be able to "think very strongly both ways depending on who is listening. (2) He is a traitor to his supporters, ergo, Vietnam comrades, DNC, RNC, Congress and you can not trust a man who dumps his comrades depending on the mood or the weather. He has no moral courage whatever.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Anyone could see that the writer of the article posted in the #1 post wanted to paint Kerry in a bad light. My point was that the info was very incomplete and no one should pass judgement until they knew what the individual bills were that Kerry voted on.

It sure was tough to get such basic, common sense thru to many SI posters, but by using the anti-freeze bill as an example I hope many of them now realize the first post in this topic was BS and won't ever fall for something so assinine. And anyone who starts a topic with BS like that should be exposed as someone who is trying to mislead people, or else isn't very bright (if they believe such BS is valid).

Anyone who is trying to say anything else about my posts in this topic supporting anti-hunting groups is full of shit, or else too stupid to recognize propaganda when they read it, or maybe just wants to stir up trouble by making accusations without any basis.

 

[Bullhound]

"my posts in this topic supporting anti-hunting groups"

yep, IT's an Anti all the way. Anti absolutely anything he doesn't enjoy himself or has never done..................


And I'm not full of shit...........IT.........

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Anyone could see that the writer of the article posted in the #1 post wanted to paint Kerry in a bad light. My point was that the info was very incomplete and no one should pass judgement until they knew what the individual bills were that Kerry voted on.

It sure was tough to get such basic, common sense thru to many SI posters, but by using the anti-freeze bill as an example I hope many of them now realize the first post in this topic was BS and won't ever fall for something so assinine. And anyone who starts a topic with BS like that should be exposed as someone who is trying to mislead people, or else isn't very bright (if they believe such BS is valid)."


LMAO, what else is there to say about the way Ithaca responded to this post.


http://www.vote-smart.org/program_about_pvs.php


"Project Vote Smart's policies, procedures and structure are designed to guarantee absolute impartiality and standards of excellence in fulfillment of its mission. Key characteristics in maintaining this integrity include:

Nonpartisan-- PVS was inaugurated in 1992 by national leaders as diverse as former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, former U.S. Senators Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, and former U.S. Representatives Newt Gingrich and Geraldine Ferraro. All Founding Board members must join with an ideological opposite to provide balance and ensure strict impartiality in PVS programs and materials.

Non-profit-- As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, PVS is funded exclusively through private donations by over 45,000 members, and grants from private philanthropic foundations, including the Carnegie, Ford, Pew and Revson Foundations and others. All member contributions are tax-deductible.

Independent-- To guarantee its integrity and accountability as a nonpartisan and wholly objective service to the American people, PVS does not accept financial contributions from lobbyists, governmental organizations, corporations, businesses or special interests.

Objective-- Every candidate - Democrat, Republican, third party or independent is treated with equal deference, and only relevant and unbiased facts are presented. PVS does not lobby for, support or oppose any candidate, position or issue. All PVS staff and interns are required to sign a pledge affirming their commitment to absolute impartiality.

Reputable-- Over 5,000 public libraries and over 250 national and local news organizations, including CNN, C-SPAN, Cox News, Fox, Knight-Ridder, MTV, National Journal, NBC, Newsweek, PBS, MSNBC and Washington Week in Review, sponsor PVS. Find out what they're saying about us.


Mission-oriented-- PVS is structured similarly to the Peace Corps and operated by interns, member volunteers and a modest number of staff at our Great Divide Ranch in Montana. Staff members commit to work through the next general election, accepting only minimal salaries.

Thorough-- PVS works with a bipartisan cross-section of political scientists from around the country to provide maximum objectivity and depth to PVS programs and services. These consultants give PVS researchers input on the construction of the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), assistance with selection of Congressional key votes and review of issue briefs.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bullhound, "yep, IT's an Anti all the way. Anti absolutely anything he doesn't enjoy himself or has never done.................."

I have to point out that only a simpleton would make a statement like that. Here's an example of why your statement is a lie: I've never sky dived. I doubt I'd enjoy it. I'm not anti-sky diving and I don't care who else does it. I'd recommend that you try sky diving, even though I'm not going to. Have fun.

Bull, I thought you were smarter than your post indicates, but I guess not.

Were you around when I got tired of being accused of being anti-hunting and posted some hunting pictures?


MD, Here's what vote -smart has to say about the ratings you quoted:

"Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. ..........."

[ 06-01-2004, 14:37: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]