You are not a hunter.  Neither am I.  But contrary to your statement, they are a problem because man has won the competition with their other natural predators, so their population si out of control.  Hunters do not maim and kill needlessly (the responsible ones), but they do serve a purpose. They are replacing the removed predators in the food chain.  those who get their food from desicated pellets, it may seem barbaric.  But is it more barbaric than allowing them to starve to death (the alternative)?  These animals are far from endangered (those are protected).  It is nice to sit in a warm comfortable chair beside a roaring fire and forget that nature is not nice or fair.  But it is nature, and as such, over breeding and then mass starvation are the normal cycle, not the exception.

Yea, and Obama's 1/2 hour of prime time?  If you want to hold these clowns to some kind of accountability, make it swing both ways.  Lipstick on a pig is more useful than a 30 minute infomercial - especially when most have alternatives.

The sexist, misogynist, patriarchal ways of thinking and behaving that have been exhibited in this thread (and others) are atrocious and reflect very negatively on the members of this community (Wincustomize) and particularly on the individuals espousing such disgusting behavior in the name of 'political discourse'.

The bigotry being shown here is astounding both in its unmitigated audacity and moral depravity.

No I am NOT... I don't need to be!  There are plenty of butchers around for me to purchase professionally and humanely butchered meats to satisfy my need for meat products... as there are for Sarah Palin. Moreover, Palin is wealthy enough to purchase all the domestically slaughtered meat she and her family needs... plus the entire town of Wasilla... and that IS THE POINT.  Palin has NO NEED to hunt/kill moose... to her it is a past-time and she has openly admitted it in more than one interview.  One reason why I don't like her!

Also, you and Leauki seem to think I have an issue with hunting and killing animals for survival... I DON'T.  What I have a problem with is weekend hunters who have no real need (their survival doesn't depend on it) yet still kill and maim wildlife in the name of 'sport'. I can understand the need to hunt for survival in impoverished and Third World societies, but not in a 1st World country like the US, where there's an abundance of resources and little or no starvation.  OK, there may be some out in the backwoods who still need to hunt due to isolation from those resources, but these are not the people I have a problem with.  Again, it's the weekend/recreational hunter who has a preoccupation with guns, who can't legally shoot people, so has to kill something else to satisfy a blood lust.

Again, it is NOT bias! It has nothing to do with Palin being a Republican... she could be a Democrat and I'd dislike her just the same.  It is about her dubious character and personality... about having no business whatsoever holding high office because she is a clueless political airhead, irrespective of Party... it's about the $200,000 + she spent on clothes, shoes and lipstick in less than 4 months.  To me, that is beyond extravagent... and don't tell me you'd like it if your wife went and spent that much on her wardrobe in such a short space of time.  Why have I not critisised the Obama/Biden ticket for excess wardrobe spending?  Because in the very same article (and others) which reported on Palin's spending, it was stated that the 'opposition camp had spent considerably less on campaign clothing/accessories.... hence, I had nothing to comment on.

Oh, and before anyone calls me sexist because Palin is a woman, that has nothing to do with my views, either.  I dislike George Bush just as much, for many of the same or similar reasons.  Neither of them should hold or have ever held high office.... because, from personal observations of them both during TV interviews, the lights are on but (for the most part) nobody's home... and surely a leader needs to be... no, must be more coherent and intelligible than that... otherwise they're just puppets for big business and other agenda driven groups who did not get elected.

Also, I am NOT anti-Republican!  Firstly, while I may have taken a few tongue in cheek pot shots at John McCain, I happen to think he is considerably a more decent human being than George Bush, he's certainly more intelligible, and that he would make a much better President, if it weren't for the airhead he got lumbered with as VP on the ticket.

Having said that, I am not pro-Democrat, it's just that Barack Obama comes across as being more together and therefore a more capable President at this time.

So Leauki, does it get any better than this?? First it was sarcasm, now it's insults and name calling!  My first impression was correct... address NOTHING further to me as we have nothing further to discuss, given your prior attempts to twist my words.

I wouldn't say I condemn it, it's free speech and obviously satire. I do think it's an ignorant and stupid statement and I don't find any humor in it either.

I don't get how taking offense to a 'joke' rooted in bigotry equates to taking politics too seriously. (I'm just sayin)

@Leuki :

This kind of crap serves no one!

As much as I can I avoid personal attacks. You should also! The prerequisite for discourse is civility.

Get away from the personal stuff. Feeling strongly about your position is laudable. Acting responsibly and civilly towards others is the minimum, and less is not tolerable.

Starkers has a right to voice his opinions the same way you do. Please respect others.

Leuki: "Except I would like to add that you are also a misogynist."  

Starkers pokes fun in a uniquely Aussie/Brit manner. Bear that in mind. If you object, say so civilly. Pm him. Just remember the time difference. He is not and has never been a misogynist. I know that as fact. His wife is one of the nicest people around (LadyPirate) and he just put together a party with tonsa family for his Mom who came all the way from England to Australia to wed in his back yard!.

I doubt she would have done that for a misogynist. In fact, he suffers from medical problems that had him in a knot doing all that for his Mom. If your statement were true, I wouldn't say a thing, but frankly you're so far off base you're not even in the same Borough as the ball park.

You owe him an apology, Leuki.

Doc

I knew that since Starkers insulted me regarding the "lowest form of wit".

Starkers may accuse Sarah Palin of whatever he wants and insult me but I am not to respond in kind. Check.

And you expected more from me than from Starkers? I respect that.

But the fact remains that he is a hypocrite if he eats meat but condemns people who kill animals to eat them.

I don't have to respect hypocrites.

I am myself against hunting. I think it adds unecessary pain to an animal's death. However, when someone accuses hunters as a group and specifically one hunter of killing animals just for fun and pretends that killing game is qualitatively different from slaughtering we have reached, I think, the border between civilised disagreement and hypocrisy.

I responded in kind to an insult of his. He decided to continue to flame war. I am game.

I don't know why you intervened on one side, but I must assume it is because you somehow figured that I should be above insulting people. Unfortunately, I am not. I wait until the other side starts with the insults, but I am not above responding in kind.

If Starkers (who might not need your help) didn't want to insult me he should have taken the opportunity to make that clear AFTER I responded in kind. Instead the took the arrogant version of the "high road" and seemed shocked, SHOCKED, that someone might insult him.

But he already said that he wouldn't address me any more.

So I suggest you point your ire at him now, since I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter. Perhaps it was better than you addressed me and not him since I tend not to snap and dig in when the flame war starts.

Nice to meet you.

Unless, of course the the vitriol is directed towards either a person or a group who is not a member of WC, et al.

Apparently that is both sanctioned and acceptable to many here.

Civility is not painting a whole group of individuals with the same broad brush as a result of an opinion based on a documentary or what one has 'heard'.

It is bigotry.

Nor is civilty rude, uninformed, superficial comments toward a woman one does not even know personally based on her sex.

It is sexist at best and misogynistic at worst.

When members of any society fail to repudiate these types of actions ... or worse yet, defend them in the very name of civility ... that society begins to lose the very attributes of civility.

Oh, get a grip.

Disliking a particular individual is not 'prejudice'.

Disliking a group through differentiation [discrimination] may be classed as 'prejudice'.

I dislike GW Bush.

This does NOT mean I dislike all presidents of the US...or all men...or all American men....or all people with the initials 'GW'....or all people whose name implies a shrubbery.

Try not to confuse life with semantics....

The choice of words could be based on prejudice.

Someone might dislike Colin Powell. That is fine.

But disliking that crafty nigger Powell is certainly something else.

Yes, I know. That's what I said.

So you don't want me to use bad words AND you don't want me to agree with you about why using those words is wrong.

If you want civility it might be helpful if YOU started to show some such. Somehow I get the feeling as if you feel that you are obviously excluded from your own call. And perhaps by asking for civility you really did mean that only I (and perhaps my "ilk") should be polite whereas you and yours should be allowed to do as you please.

Unless you weren't addressing me. But your reply was located under mine and since you didn't quote what you were referring to it was hard to tell.

If that was all they were saying, I would agree it is just hysteria.  But you dont have to read far to see that most are saying a lot more than they just dont like her.

Well then....you better NOT use the words 'Liberals' and 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' as they are QUALIFIERS.....

'Bitch' in Palin's case is legitimate....afterall didn't she refer to herself as a bull-dog [or whatever]? ....

Context, dude!

Some words have a meaning that is perfectly justified as such (like a Latin word for "black" or a word for "female dog") but have been used for other purposes so often that it is hard to conceive that you are using them in the original sense.

A female bull-dog is, I guess, a bitch. But when applied to women the word "bitch" today insinuates something else. Calling her a "lioness" is probably acceptable.

(I wonder if the civility police will come down on me for using the word "bitch" in an explanation of why it shouldn't be used.)

(I guess "lioness" is safe.)