It's called wildlife management. During winter, if the wolf population is too high, the choice is to kill some of the wolves or let many more starve to death. Which is more humane? This is just another distortion of the facts in an effort to destroy Sarah Palin's character. They've got nothing, so they have to lie.
ohh, okay... so that wolves have been able to survive for thousands of years without humans having to get their kicks killing things has nothing to do with it then?
nevermind how they're actually in the long run risking wolves genetic lines being weaker in the end... think about it... if they're so "for" the survival of wolves, how is it that they're risking killing a wolf with better genetic history than just the weak ones?
hunting wolves from an airplane is reserved for the dickless shitheads that get their jollies off of killing. since they can't kill it if it walks on two legs, they'll just get right on with the next thing.
oh, and really, you should be smarter than this than to excuse palin and McCain for choosing her. honestly, after looking at her history and what she's done as well as her experience, it's save to say that the only thing that got her the position were her tits and her pussy. that's it.
“dickless shitheads” “it's save (sic) to say that the only thing that got her the position were her tits and her pussy. that's it.” That's the way to win an argument. Ahem, our intelligence is showing.
Wait, I get it! A woman can’t possibly become successful unless she is a liberal. And, since be both know that Sarah Palin is not a liberal, then the only way she could have become successful is by whoring her way to the top.
***This message was paid for by the National Organization for (Liberal) Women***
of course, you've nailed me, i'm just some horrible, wife beating chauvenistic ass... yep, you got me there. well, i may as well just admit your points are 100% valid because suddenly since i can't see her lack of experience, her support of draconian and backwards policies as anything other than a weak point, since also i can't see the whole hypocrisy of the fact that she's even less experienced in dealing with politics than Obama is surely nothing to consider, i'm just a chauvenistic pig... plain and simple.
here's a tip, sweetcakes, try researching a candidate before you toss your vote in their hat. you might learn a thing or two.
“i can't see the whole hypocrisy of the fact that she's even less experienced in dealing with politics than Obama” This statement is totally false. She has more executive experience than Obama. If you look at the details of Obama's career, he has not done anything impressive except write to self-serving autobiographies, and he gives good speeches. Palin has been the executive of a city and state. You can disagree with her policies, but at least she has actually taken the initiative to be for something. You can't vote ‘present' when you are an executive.
The media has spent more time investigating Palin's associations in the last few weeks than they have spent investigating Obama's associations in the last 19 months. The result? 90% lies and distortions. When will someone ask Obama why he maintained a 20 year association with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, when he claims he doesn't agree with their political and social views? Obama claims he is for change, but look at what he is proposing; the same old tax and spend liberal policies. “Only tax the rich?” Hold onto your wallet. We've heard that one before. “Tax only corporations?” Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on as higher prices to the consumer. Only if you never buy anything will you not be affected. On the issue of national security, Obama is living in a pre-9/11 world. Hate Bush all you want, but it is his policies that have kept America safe for the last 7 years. McCain will continue the aggressive war on Islamic Terrorism. Obama will ignore it, just like Clinton did. Here is a tip when evaluating a political candidate. If most of the media is praising him or her, then your best choice is probably the opponent.
you know what, i could reply with point by point disarming your so-called "Argument" but i get the feeling that you're one of those lost souls whom will vote for all the wrong reasons.
"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither." -Franklin
"The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance" -Jefferson
don't expect me to reply and feel free to snipe back with a childish "i win" if you want. but this argument is over imo.
I don't think it has anything to do with wildlife management. I think it has everything to do with "sport." The wildlife population pretty well takes care of itself--predators take care of the smaller prey animals (moose, deer, etc), and the weak predators die naturally, or kill one another during pack in-fighting. Survival of the fittest and all.
The problem is, hunters are pissed that they can't kill the moose themselves when the wolves and bears are doing it for them, so their solution is to slaughter the wolves and bears--by aerial hunting, which is a really unncessary, brutal practice. The animals have NO fighting chance when they're being shot out of a plane in the wide open spaces with nothing for protection.
I live in Illinois. My dad is a deer hunter. Here, population control is necessary, because we don't have any large predators around to take care of the situation naturally, so when there are a large number of deer, car accidents rise and people die. That is not the case in Alaska.
Here's a question: who hugged w/ the food chain to the extent that wolves are overpopulating the area? What link has been removed, and by whom, or what? I honestly don't know, but my first guess is that we have done it. And if that is the case, aren't we just saying "ok, we f'ed up your environment; sorry wolves, but now there're too many of you; you gotta go. Enjoy this parting gift of excruciating pain."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-09-15 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-15 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-16 11:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-16 01:21 pm (UTC)nevermind how they're actually in the long run risking wolves genetic lines being weaker in the end... think about it... if they're so "for" the survival of wolves, how is it that they're risking killing a wolf with better genetic history than just the weak ones?
hunting wolves from an airplane is reserved for the dickless shitheads that get their jollies off of killing. since they can't kill it if it walks on two legs, they'll just get right on with the next thing.
oh, and really, you should be smarter than this than to excuse palin and McCain for choosing her. honestly, after looking at her history and what she's done as well as her experience, it's save to say that the only thing that got her the position were her tits and her pussy. that's it.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-16 10:29 pm (UTC)Wait, I get it! A woman can’t possibly become successful unless she is a liberal. And, since be both know that Sarah Palin is not a liberal, then the only way she could have become successful is by whoring her way to the top.
***This message was paid for by the National Organization for (Liberal) Women***
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 04:01 am (UTC)here's a tip, sweetcakes, try researching a candidate before you toss your vote in their hat. you might learn a thing or two.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 09:38 am (UTC)The media has spent more time investigating Palin's associations in the last few weeks than they have spent investigating Obama's associations in the last 19 months. The result? 90% lies and distortions. When will someone ask Obama why he maintained a 20 year association with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, when he claims he doesn't agree with their political and social views? Obama claims he is for change, but look at what he is proposing; the same old tax and spend liberal policies. “Only tax the rich?” Hold onto your wallet. We've heard that one before. “Tax only corporations?” Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on as higher prices to the consumer. Only if you never buy anything will you not be affected. On the issue of national security, Obama is living in a pre-9/11 world. Hate Bush all you want, but it is his policies that have kept America safe for the last 7 years. McCain will continue the aggressive war on Islamic Terrorism. Obama will ignore it, just like Clinton did. Here is a tip when evaluating a political candidate. If most of the media is praising him or her, then your best choice is probably the opponent.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 12:45 pm (UTC)"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither." -Franklin
"The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance" -Jefferson
don't expect me to reply and feel free to snipe back with a childish "i win" if you want. but this argument is over imo.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-16 02:04 pm (UTC)The problem is, hunters are pissed that they can't kill the moose themselves when the wolves and bears are doing it for them, so their solution is to slaughter the wolves and bears--by aerial hunting, which is a really unncessary, brutal practice. The animals have NO fighting chance when they're being shot out of a plane in the wide open spaces with nothing for protection.
I live in Illinois. My dad is a deer hunter. Here, population control is necessary, because we don't have any large predators around to take care of the situation naturally, so when there are a large number of deer, car accidents rise and people die. That is not the case in Alaska.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 04:19 pm (UTC)