Bible-boy said:
Yea he was. I say let's all have a lassie burger.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Governor Palin Supports Aerial Hunting of Wolves
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
- Status
Yea he was. I say let's all have a lassie burger.
KenH
Well-Known Member
14 Wolf Pups Executed in Alaska
By Rodger Schlickeisen
Appalling news from Alaska.
Soon after Alaska's Board of Game approved the killing of all wolves in an area near Cold Bay, state officials illegally killed 14 wolf pups after gunning down their mothers -- yet another grisly chapter in Alaska's out-of-control wolf slaughter.
- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080801080734tsop.nb/topstory.html
By Rodger Schlickeisen
Appalling news from Alaska.
Soon after Alaska's Board of Game approved the killing of all wolves in an area near Cold Bay, state officials illegally killed 14 wolf pups after gunning down their mothers -- yet another grisly chapter in Alaska's out-of-control wolf slaughter.
- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080801080734tsop.nb/topstory.html
KenH said:
No Ken, thats not grisly...this is grisly
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
AJ
KenH
Well-Known Member
"Palin has authorized the hunting of wolves by helicopter," he told me. "They’re gunning down wolves by helicopter, going over to the pups with a pistol and shooting the pups in the head. That is barbaric," he said urgently over the crackling phone line.
- http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_...worst-president-in-american-history-quot.aspx
- http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_...worst-president-in-american-history-quot.aspx
KenH
Well-Known Member
McCain Lost At Least One Vote Today
"My husband says I am a politician’s worst nightmare. Not because I don’t vote or because I campaign blindly for the opposing party, but because after careful consideration of each candidate, I choose the one I agree with most or the one I think will do the most good in office and vote for them. I don’t care about political parties or any of that other crap, I vote for who I choose and I vote from my heart.
And with the election for president coming up I’d pretty much decided this time I would do something very rare for me and vote Republican. It was a hard decision because I admit, about 95% of the time, the candidates I choose to support are Democrat and after Bush…well, enough said.
So, I was going to grit my teeth and vote for McCain, but after today when I found out who he chose to run with him, all I can say is I’m looking at Obama again. I had originally decided against him because he makes me uncomfortable and I just don’t think he’s the right man for the job, but since McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, the choice has been taken out of my hands.
...
Now I’m all for boosting the caribou population, but not at the expense of another species. Especially not like this. This senseless killing of animals just turned my stomach and if it doesn’t turn yours, I don’t know what will.
Then, another couple of paragraphs down, you come across this nasty little tidbit:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has even signed off on a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign to justify the state’s barbaric wolf slaughter from the skies.
Yes, that’s right, the woman McCain chose to run with him is, in my eyes, a supporter of cold-blooded mass murder. Doesn’t matter that, as I’m sure some people will say, it was only a bunch of animals. What matters, IMO, is the fact that it should never have happened and they should have done everything possible to find a better, more humane solution. And Governor Palin should have been at the forefront, leading the charge to find that solution. Instead, she sided with the murderers and is even giving them money so they can attempt to justify what they did.
Nope, I’m sorry, but there’s no way I’ll ever vote for someone with that degree of disregard for our environment and its species.
So, unless he does something incredibly stupid over the next couple of months, I’m going to take my chances with Obama. He may not have been my first choice, but hopefully, this kind of mass slaughter of innocent animals bothers him just as much as it does me."
- http://caitlynhunter.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/taking-a-chance-on-obamafor-the-wolves/
"My husband says I am a politician’s worst nightmare. Not because I don’t vote or because I campaign blindly for the opposing party, but because after careful consideration of each candidate, I choose the one I agree with most or the one I think will do the most good in office and vote for them. I don’t care about political parties or any of that other crap, I vote for who I choose and I vote from my heart.
And with the election for president coming up I’d pretty much decided this time I would do something very rare for me and vote Republican. It was a hard decision because I admit, about 95% of the time, the candidates I choose to support are Democrat and after Bush…well, enough said.
So, I was going to grit my teeth and vote for McCain, but after today when I found out who he chose to run with him, all I can say is I’m looking at Obama again. I had originally decided against him because he makes me uncomfortable and I just don’t think he’s the right man for the job, but since McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, the choice has been taken out of my hands.
...
Now I’m all for boosting the caribou population, but not at the expense of another species. Especially not like this. This senseless killing of animals just turned my stomach and if it doesn’t turn yours, I don’t know what will.
Then, another couple of paragraphs down, you come across this nasty little tidbit:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has even signed off on a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign to justify the state’s barbaric wolf slaughter from the skies.
Yes, that’s right, the woman McCain chose to run with him is, in my eyes, a supporter of cold-blooded mass murder. Doesn’t matter that, as I’m sure some people will say, it was only a bunch of animals. What matters, IMO, is the fact that it should never have happened and they should have done everything possible to find a better, more humane solution. And Governor Palin should have been at the forefront, leading the charge to find that solution. Instead, she sided with the murderers and is even giving them money so they can attempt to justify what they did.
Nope, I’m sorry, but there’s no way I’ll ever vote for someone with that degree of disregard for our environment and its species.
So, unless he does something incredibly stupid over the next couple of months, I’m going to take my chances with Obama. He may not have been my first choice, but hopefully, this kind of mass slaughter of innocent animals bothers him just as much as it does me."
- http://caitlynhunter.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/taking-a-chance-on-obamafor-the-wolves/
KenH
Well-Known Member
"I’m sorry, but I have to post this entry. I just caught the news and I am sick to my stomach and disgusted over McCain’s choice for a Vice President. His first decision is picking a Vice President, and already he is showing bad judgment. Are you kidding me?? Most people don’t know anything about Sarah Palin. But I do! Oh yes I do. I’ve followed this woman closely for two years because of the aerial gunning of wolves in Alaska, and her unwillingness to put an end to it.
Just a couple months ago she objected to listing Polar Bears as an endangered species. Of course she would! She believes in aerial gunning of wolves and bears! It’s been going on in Alaska for years and she hasn’t done a thing to stop it despite numerous petitions over the years, and the involvement of Defenders of Wildlife to conserve wolf population in Alaska. Not only that, but the people of Alaska have voted twice to put an end to aerial gunning, yet it still continues. Not only does it still continue, but Palin has allocated state funds which pays hunters $150 a wolf. Why? Because they claim that by killing wolves it increases populations of prey for hunters and Palin herself is a hunter. But the truth is that most of these hunters who apply for a license are the same hunters who once killed wolves for sport.
If you aren’t familiar with aerial gunning it’s a cruel and inhumane practice in which wolves are tracked from low flying planes by sport hunters. They chase these wolves, run them until they are exhausted, and then shoot them to death. Congress put an end to this practice 30 years ago. But Alaska found a loophole in the legislation allowing them to resume the practice. Here’s a video on it. It’s about 10 minutes, but worth watching."
- http://journals.aol.com/xlxravenheartxlx/my-random-thoughts/entries/2008/08/29/he-picked-who/2457
Just a couple months ago she objected to listing Polar Bears as an endangered species. Of course she would! She believes in aerial gunning of wolves and bears! It’s been going on in Alaska for years and she hasn’t done a thing to stop it despite numerous petitions over the years, and the involvement of Defenders of Wildlife to conserve wolf population in Alaska. Not only that, but the people of Alaska have voted twice to put an end to aerial gunning, yet it still continues. Not only does it still continue, but Palin has allocated state funds which pays hunters $150 a wolf. Why? Because they claim that by killing wolves it increases populations of prey for hunters and Palin herself is a hunter. But the truth is that most of these hunters who apply for a license are the same hunters who once killed wolves for sport.
If you aren’t familiar with aerial gunning it’s a cruel and inhumane practice in which wolves are tracked from low flying planes by sport hunters. They chase these wolves, run them until they are exhausted, and then shoot them to death. Congress put an end to this practice 30 years ago. But Alaska found a loophole in the legislation allowing them to resume the practice. Here’s a video on it. It’s about 10 minutes, but worth watching."
- http://journals.aol.com/xlxravenheartxlx/my-random-thoughts/entries/2008/08/29/he-picked-who/2457
Like I said before, some people, even professing Christians, have their priorities messed up, placing more value on animals than on precious human life.
The Creator of the Universe and all there is took on human form and died to redeem humans because He placed priority on humans out of all of creation. With all creation, He said it was good, but with humans, He said it was "very good."
I love animals just as much as anyone on the board and I hate senseless slaughtering of animals and cruelty.
But it is more humane to put a bullet in the head of a wolf than to rip apart bit by bit (without pain killers) or poison with salt, or suck the brains out of 4000 unborn babies every day.
Ken, you desperately need help.:tear:
The Creator of the Universe and all there is took on human form and died to redeem humans because He placed priority on humans out of all of creation. With all creation, He said it was good, but with humans, He said it was "very good."
I love animals just as much as anyone on the board and I hate senseless slaughtering of animals and cruelty.
But it is more humane to put a bullet in the head of a wolf than to rip apart bit by bit (without pain killers) or poison with salt, or suck the brains out of 4000 unborn babies every day.
Ken, you desperately need help.:tear:
KenH said:
Yes its much better to vote for someone that supports killing human babies than it is to support one that supports hunting.
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
Not until I post something I posted in 2006 in another thread Ken started about animals... and it turned out much the same way...
Pondering One-Issue Politics and Cruelty To Animals
Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?
No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office-on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor-that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.
It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.
So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those.
When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, "No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
* * * This article is from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997), pp. 279-280. Used with permission.
While we try to rescue the animals, who will be rescuing the unborn?
So, is a wolf still as important as a baby in a mothers womb?
God help you if you say it is.. I'll be prayin for you!
One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society
Pondering One-Issue Politics and Cruelty To Animals
Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?
No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office-on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor-that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.
It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.
So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those.
When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, "No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
* * * This article is from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997), pp. 279-280. Used with permission.
While we try to rescue the animals, who will be rescuing the unborn?
So, is a wolf still as important as a baby in a mothers womb?
God help you if you say it is.. I'll be prayin for you!
tinytim said:
Not Obama supporters to be sure.
rbell said:
Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!
- Status