chadn

Not hunting?

 

Foxes are killed because they are vermin, rats are killed because they are vermin.

 

The only difference is that when killing foxes the participants wear funny clothes.

 

Would that make it ok then? If the fox hunters were to simply stop wearing fancy dress? Suddenly it's not hunting?

No, its not.

There is far more to hunting than killing. Do you then consider slaughtering cattle to be hunting?

Yes. This (fox hunting) is an antiquated piece of upper class pretension carrying with it disregard for animal lfe while masquerading as ecologically friendly vermin control. Fine. Control the bloody things, don't revel in their blood.

I am not familiar with the method of killing in fox hunting. If they simply let the dogs tear the fox apart, then yea, I oppose it. This is not a humane method of killing and essentially ruins everything about the fox, the fur, the meat, whatever. Neither fits my criteria and so I would oppose it.

It would make sense, however, as to why fox hunting never took off in the US. When you hunt to survive, such waste becomes unacceptable.

Not hunting?

 

Foxes are killed because they are vermin, rats are killed because they are vermin.

 

The only difference is that when killing foxes the participants wear funny clothes.

 

Would that make it ok then? If the fox hunters were to simply stop wearing fancy dress? Suddenly it's not hunting?

No, its not.

There is far more to hunting than killing. Do you then consider slaughtering cattle to be hunting?

Yes. This (fox hunting) is an antiquated piece of upper class pretension carrying with it disregard for animal lfe while masquerading as ecologically friendly vermin control. Fine. Control the bloody things, don't revel in their blood.

I am not familiar with the method of killing in fox hunting. If they simply let the dogs tear the fox apart, then yea, I oppose it. This is not a humane method of killing and essentially ruins everything about the fox, the fur, the meat, whatever. Neither fits my criteria and so I would oppose it.

It would make sense, however, as to why fox hunting never took off in the US. When you hunt to survive, such waste becomes unacceptable.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that our world, as it now stands, is all in all a pretty boring place. I think that this world could be made a lot more interesting with the advancement of science. For example once we can live longer and stimulate our brains (educate ourselves) through electrical components and have robots do lot of the "trashwork", we can finally break free of this ridiculous path: study, talk with friends about how boring studying is, sleep, study, work, talk with friends about how boring work is, drink beer, sleep, work, die.

Come now, if anything living longer will only worsen this. Part of our drive is the fact that we only have a limited time in which to live. If anything that should motivate you break from this rediculus path.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that our world, as it now stands, is all in all a pretty boring place. I think that this world could be made a lot more interesting with the advancement of science. For example once we can live longer and stimulate our brains (educate ourselves) through electrical components and have robots do lot of the "trashwork", we can finally break free of this ridiculous path: study, talk with friends about how boring studying is, sleep, study, work, talk with friends about how boring work is, drink beer, sleep, work, die.

Come now, if anything living longer will only worsen this. Part of our drive is the fact that we only have a limited time in which to live. If anything that should motivate you break from this rediculus path.

Immortality, how boring. I think death adds a lot to what makes humans, human. You all can live forever, when my times up I'll be happy to go.

Immortality, how boring. I think death adds a lot to what makes humans, human. You all can live forever, when my times up I'll be happy to go.

So according to your criteria there is no justification for killing rats as the bodies are not shown respect and used.

That is not hunting. Anyways I find use for dead rats, cat food.

So according to your criteria there is no justification for killing rats as the bodies are not shown respect and used.

That is not hunting. Anyways I find use for dead rats, cat food.

I am a hunter, but that does not mean I support every form of hunting.

I have two criteria that must be followed in order to get my support.

1) The method of killing must be humane.

2) The dead prey should be shown respect and used. In other words, no killing and then just leaving the body to rot.

If fox hunters hunt by these two criteria, then yes, they have my support.

I am a hunter, but that does not mean I support every form of hunting.

I have two criteria that must be followed in order to get my support.

1) The method of killing must be humane.

2) The dead prey should be shown respect and used. In other words, no killing and then just leaving the body to rot.

If fox hunters hunt by these two criteria, then yes, they have my support.

Wow, Imagine if Bush had lost. You'd probably go shoot someone.

This may shock the hell out of you, but I didnt vote for Bush. As I have already stated:

Dont mistake me as a bush supporter, I may come across as one in my rants against the democrats, but I am no republican.

Bush won, got more seats in the senate, got rid of his big rival, is replacing all the moderates around him and I am still hearing complaints.

 

Can you imagine if Reagan had all that? He actually had to deal with people who didn't agree with him - and got things done. Same with Clinton.

So what? My party has no representation beyond the state level, I could really care less, Im simply sick of bitter dems calling people names out of anger.

Wow, Imagine if Bush had lost. You'd probably go shoot someone.

This may shock the hell out of you, but I didnt vote for Bush. As I have already stated:

Dont mistake me as a bush supporter, I may come across as one in my rants against the democrats, but I am no republican.

Bush won, got more seats in the senate, got rid of his big rival, is replacing all the moderates around him and I am still hearing complaints.

 

Can you imagine if Reagan had all that? He actually had to deal with people who didn't agree with him - and got things done. Same with Clinton.

So what? My party has no representation beyond the state level, I could really care less, Im simply sick of bitter dems calling people names out of anger.

Remind me why the office of president, unlike other political offices, has a veritable army of advisors attached to it.

Their advice is also colored by their personal beliefs.

Remind me why the office of president, unlike other political offices, has a veritable army of advisors attached to it.

Their advice is also colored by their personal beliefs.

Presumably every politician acts on the basis of his beliefs. No doubt he believes that his beliefs are in the best interests of society, otherwise he wouldn't believe them.

Excellent point, all decisions are colored by a person's beliefs, some just do a better job of hiding them.

Presumably every politician acts on the basis of his beliefs. No doubt he believes that his beliefs are in the best interests of society, otherwise he wouldn't believe them.

Excellent point, all decisions are colored by a person's beliefs, some just do a better job of hiding them.

Call me a wacky liberal pinko, but I don't think being a religious figurehead is any part of the president's mandate. His responsibilities are to the welfare, advancement and defence of your society, and he should not be sneaking in personal mandates under the guise of religious conviction (or, more worringly, because of religious conviction).

 

This man is at the helm of one of the most powerful, resource-hungry and destructive nations on the planet. What does he do with this power? Try to amend the basis of your society so that people whose life style he doesn't agree with can't play with his (and in many cases, their) religion's toys. I'm sure you can see why this sort of thing from the politically elected (read: not divinely chosen) leader of a supernation makes people bitter.

I understand that they are bitter, but I am tired of their BS arguments that anyone who supports Bush is an idiot.

You want to talk about bitter, this attitude is making me bitter. I have been putting up with this attitude since the end of the election. I encounter it all the time, and now I am bitter. Many of the people that these jerks are calling idiots are my family and friends and they are far from ignorant.

You think I am going to sit back at let some bitter cry-baby call my loved ones ignorant idiots?

Call me a wacky liberal pinko, but I don't think being a religious figurehead is any part of the president's mandate. His responsibilities are to the welfare, advancement and defence of your society, and he should not be sneaking in personal mandates under the guise of religious conviction (or, more worringly, because of religious conviction).

 

This man is at the helm of one of the most powerful, resource-hungry and destructive nations on the planet. What does he do with this power? Try to amend the basis of your society so that people whose life style he doesn't agree with can't play with his (and in many cases, their) religion's toys. I'm sure you can see why this sort of thing from the politically elected (read: not divinely chosen) leader of a supernation makes people bitter.

I understand that they are bitter, but I am tired of their BS arguments that anyone who supports Bush is an idiot.

You want to talk about bitter, this attitude is making me bitter. I have been putting up with this attitude since the end of the election. I encounter it all the time, and now I am bitter. Many of the people that these jerks are calling idiots are my family and friends and they are far from ignorant.

You think I am going to sit back at let some bitter cry-baby call my loved ones ignorant idiots?

liberal, progressive

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

 

I think protection of liberties is a good thing no?

The protection of civil liberties is not the main objective of liberals. Liberal in this nation describes a leftist stance in favor progress towards leftist philosophies and does not necessarily include the protection of civil liberties.

Only one party in this nation has made the preservation and advancement of personal rights and liberties their sole objective, its the Libertarians.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

- Benjamin Franklin

 

This reminds me of the Patroit act.

Which passed, because liberal democrats cast their vote alonside the conservative republicans. For instance John Kerry voted for the patriot act, not only that hehelped write the damn thing. Does that sound like someone who's for the protection of our civil liberties.

liberal, progressive

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

 

I think protection of liberties is a good thing no?

The protection of civil liberties is not the main objective of liberals. Liberal in this nation describes a leftist stance in favor progress towards leftist philosophies and does not necessarily include the protection of civil liberties.

Only one party in this nation has made the preservation and advancement of personal rights and liberties their sole objective, its the Libertarians.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

- Benjamin Franklin

 

This reminds me of the Patroit act.

Which passed, because liberal democrats cast their vote alonside the conservative republicans. For instance John Kerry voted for the patriot act, not only that hehelped write the damn thing. Does that sound like someone who's for the protection of our civil liberties.

chadn, what he's trying to say is that bush is so wrapped up in a faith system that denies the advancement of society. i dont know about you, but i want technology to improve. by contributing to companies that deal with oil power

I want all corporate welfare to end now.

he just doesnt understand, as a small mind wouldnt, the extent of technology in this decade.

What proof do you have that Bush is dumb?

he still believes in the old work 9-5, be a hero, drink a beer addage. he works his belief in god into the laws that he passes, and so we are all living his belief system, which hey, you are free to have it, but dont impose it upon people who dont share your beliefs. just like you'd be pretty pissed if the pledge was revised to say under god, zeus, and hercules.

Dont mistake me as a bush supporter, I may come across as one in my rants against the democrats, but I am no republican.

chadn, what he's trying to say is that bush is so wrapped up in a faith system that denies the advancement of society. i dont know about you, but i want technology to improve. by contributing to companies that deal with oil power

I want all corporate welfare to end now.

he just doesnt understand, as a small mind wouldnt, the extent of technology in this decade.

What proof do you have that Bush is dumb?

he still believes in the old work 9-5, be a hero, drink a beer addage. he works his belief in god into the laws that he passes, and so we are all living his belief system, which hey, you are free to have it, but dont impose it upon people who dont share your beliefs. just like you'd be pretty pissed if the pledge was revised to say under god, zeus, and hercules.

Dont mistake me as a bush supporter, I may come across as one in my rants against the democrats, but I am no republican.

Why don't you give some positive things you think this tax shift will do. It won't stop government spending, so what is the main benefit? Who gets most of the benefit?

It will eliminate the robbery of peoples income.

I do agree that in general, people will spend less, or try to spend money in such a way as to avoid the tax. The wealthy, naturally, will be able to curb their spending more if they want. Then, you would see either higher sales taxes, or taxes on savings - as mentioned in previous posts.

Or cuts in government spending.

To understand my stance you need to understand my political beliefs.

Im a Libertarian, that should give you some hints.

Why don't you give some positive things you think this tax shift will do. It won't stop government spending, so what is the main benefit? Who gets most of the benefit?

It will eliminate the robbery of peoples income.

I do agree that in general, people will spend less, or try to spend money in such a way as to avoid the tax. The wealthy, naturally, will be able to curb their spending more if they want. Then, you would see either higher sales taxes, or taxes on savings - as mentioned in previous posts.

Or cuts in government spending.

To understand my stance you need to understand my political beliefs.

Im a Libertarian, that should give you some hints.

The Republicians are great at making others who don't agree with them look as if they are extremist such as Moore. This is the reason so many people have the idea that Liberal is a bad thing. Liberal comes from the word LIBERTY, in my book thats a good thing.

Liberty may be the root word, but that doesnt mean that politically speaking liberal = liberty.

The biggest problem I have with Bush is his lack of putting science and reason above mystical beliefs. We have a president that still belives the jury is still out on Evolution, and that Global Warming is also a non issue. Does teh President also belive the Earth is 6000 years old?

 

To me these facts alone would be enough to have elected Kerry however I underestimated just how uninformed and ignorant my fellow Americans have become.

Dude, Im well informed on science and I still put those so called mystic beliefs before science. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are uninformed and ignorant. I find your above statement to be very uninformed and ignorant.