|
Post by Julian on Dec 21, 2010 13:02:48 GMT -5
I approve this message! www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-sorkin/sarah-palin-killing-animals_b_793600.html(not sure if it should go in politics or Entertainment... Although that comment applies to the kind of nonsense the GOPs been running out with for the last two years anyway I suppose) I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 21, 2010 15:13:56 GMT -5
While I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that TLC REALLY needs a name change, I kind of disagree with his screed against hunters.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 21, 2010 16:12:56 GMT -5
While I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that TLC REALLY needs a name change, I kind of disagree with his screed against hunters. There's nothing wrong with killing for food, but I find it disturbing that people do it for fun. Sorry, "sport".
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 21, 2010 16:28:11 GMT -5
While I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that TLC REALLY needs a name change, I kind of disagree with his screed against hunters. I don't think he was ranting against hunters, but rather against the fact that Palin used the public, filmed and broadcasted killing of an animal as a means of promoting herself and her ideology. It isn't a hunting program, or a wilderness program at all, but rather "Sarah Palin's Alaska" is nothing but an extended commercial for Palin and her political ambitions. I don't think he has anything against hunting per se, or against hunters who utilized the kill, but Palin was not doing it for any reason other than self promotion. She craves publicity and she has discovered that the easiest way to get it is to take the Coulter Method and say/do things that are controversial or designed to upset people. But TLC? The fact that they are willing to allow Palin what amounts to compensated advertising for herself just to get a few looky-loo ratings numbers is sad.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Dec 21, 2010 17:43:00 GMT -5
Aye. The hunting of an animal is the least political thing that one should do. Also, Provocation is a horrible political tool, because it alienates more than it garners support in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 21, 2010 21:23:31 GMT -5
While I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that TLC REALLY needs a name change, I kind of disagree with his screed against hunters. There's nothing wrong with killing for food, but I find it disturbing that people do it for fun. Sorry, "sport". It does seem really hypocritical and inconsistent that sport hunting is OK but Michael Vick is pure evil. We should decide as a society. Either both sport hunting and dog fighting are OK, or neither are.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 21, 2010 21:25:29 GMT -5
While I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that TLC REALLY needs a name change, I kind of disagree with his screed against hunters. There's nothing wrong with killing for food, but I find it disturbing that people do it for fun. Sorry, "sport". It does seem really hypocritical and inconsistent that sport hunting is OK but Michael Vick is pure evil. We should decide as a society. Either both sport hunting and dog fighting are OK, or neither are.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 21, 2010 22:40:14 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with killing for food, but I find it disturbing that people do it for fun. Sorry, "sport". It does seem really hypocritical and inconsistent that sport hunting is OK but Michael Vick is pure evil. We should decide as a society. Either both sport hunting and dog fighting are OK, or neither are. Uh, not really. Dog fighting involves a lifetime of abuse for the animal, constant maltreatment, and repeated fights to the death for nothing other than monetary gain. Hunting involves a normal life for the animal up until one really bad moment, then a guy makes some venison steaks or jerky. Not really even close.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Dec 21, 2010 22:47:33 GMT -5
Not to mention deer populations sort of need people to come along and kill some of them off, regardless of the individual motivations. In most areas, the deer are so damn common and lack natural predators that they'd consume all the resources in an area. Then we'd be left with starving deer.
|
|
|
Post by faythofdragons on Dec 21, 2010 23:01:04 GMT -5
Not to mention deer populations sort of need people to come along and kill some of them off, regardless of the individual motivations. In most areas, the deer are so damn common and lack natural predators that they'd consume all the resources in an area. Then we'd be left with starving deer. I prefer to think that deer are being bred by car insurance companies to artificially raise the rate of collisions.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 21, 2010 23:02:50 GMT -5
Not to mention deer populations sort of need people to come along and kill some of them off, regardless of the individual motivations. In most areas, the deer are so damn common and lack natural predators that they'd consume all the resources in an area. Then we'd be left with starving deer. Couldn't the same be said about stray dogs?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 21, 2010 23:23:38 GMT -5
Not to mention deer populations sort of need people to come along and kill some of them off, regardless of the individual motivations. In most areas, the deer are so damn common and lack natural predators that they'd consume all the resources in an area. Then we'd be left with starving deer. Couldn't the same be said about stray dogs? We don't abuse deer, put them in a pen, and force them to fight to the death.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Dec 22, 2010 0:29:35 GMT -5
As entertaining as that may be...
AA, you do just realized you put two very different things together into a false dilemma, right?
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Dec 22, 2010 0:49:13 GMT -5
While I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that TLC REALLY needs a name change, I kind of disagree with his screed against hunters. There's nothing wrong with killing for food, but I find it disturbing that people do it for fun. Sorry, "sport". I don't even mind if people have fun doing it. But that wasn't the case here: she killed the thing purely for entertainment purposes, with no plans at all to utilize the animal as anything but a prop on her show. And unlike actual hunting shows, there was no educational value at all involved.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Dec 22, 2010 2:25:54 GMT -5
Not to mention deer populations sort of need people to come along and kill some of them off, regardless of the individual motivations. In most areas, the deer are so damn common and lack natural predators that they'd consume all the resources in an area. Then we'd be left with starving deer. Happens when you exterminate the predators in an area - although overpopulation in good times, followed by starvation tends to be a fact of life in the food chain. It also hurts the animals too small to be preyed on by alpha-predators, but their predators are now in abundance.
|
|