Post by: Mike Orton on August 10, 2007, 11:28:00 PM
Fedblog: PETA Goes Fishing for Federal Lighthouses
By Tom Shoop
Outside the bureaucracy, looking in.
Thursday, August 9, 3:40 p.m. ET:
The General Services Administration has a program under which it transfers lighthouses owned by the federal government to other governmental organizations and nonprofits, if they agree to take care of the properties. Now the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants to take GSA up on its offer. The organization is interested in taking over a bunch of different lighthouses.
Full column: http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog
Post by: Artur on August 11, 2007, 02:22:00 AM
Post by: OzarkRamblr on August 12, 2007, 04:41:00 AM
What a bunch of wackos.
Post by: Al Dente on August 12, 2007, 07:35:00 AM
They also euthanize over 2,500 dogs and cats each year, utilize medications (that were tested on animals) to make sure that they're still alive, and are not held accountable for it at all.
Post by: Artur on August 12, 2007, 10:50:00 PM
Don't like the message? Then don't support it. Don't agree with the messenger? Then don't listen to them. But DO NOT tell me that I am a "terrorist" just because I hold to a different ideal than yours! Or have you "forgotten" that folks such as "honest" Rush Limbaugh use the very same tactics as you claim to denounce so loudly?
DAMN, but I hate hypocrites!
Post by: Adam Mooney on August 13, 2007, 10:29:00 AM
Post by: vermonster13 on August 13, 2007, 11:29:00 AM
Post by: Al Dente on August 13, 2007, 09:17:00 PM
We as sportsmen, have done more to save the flora and fauna of the entire world than ALL of these so-called "activists". We are conservationists, not elitist terrorists who feel that they are above the law.
We are the first to condemn the poachers, the litter-bugs, and the forest-fire starters. When's the last time any animal rights "activist" has condemned a criminal act committed by one of their own? They don't denounce them, they embrace them, shelter them, fund their defenses, and keep them on the payroll.
I guess it's alright to cut down old-growth trees in order to block the road entering a state park to prevent hunters from participating in their LEGAL pasttime. Way to go in saving the environment. Save your rhetoric and your whining, you can't put a spin on the truth.
Post by: Artur on August 14, 2007, 03:02:00 AM
I pointed out that according to Ultra-Conservatives -- people who would have everyone believe that any group speaking out against "raping" the environment, including groups such as SIERRA CLUB, are "eco-terrorists" who should be either imprisoned or shot (or both) -- use the very same tactics as those "eco-terrorist" groups to get your attention.
I pointed out that I am one of those so-called "Bleeding-Heart Liberals" those Ultra-Conservatives hate so much -- because I happen to agree with the purpose of groups such as Sierra Club.
I also tell people, in no uncertain, ambiguous terms, that I WILL NOT tolerate being called a "terrorist" just because I do not follow their dogmatic beliefs. And I get jumped on for it.
Al Dente, you say "you can't put a spin on truth". Rush tried that very thing back in the 1990's: He said that There are more total forested acres in the U.S. 'today' than back in the 1700's. He was correct, but only in one way: Back in the 1700's, the U.S. was comprised of ONLY the North East Coastal area, and only AFTER 1776! Nice way to spin the truth, Mr. Limbaugh....
If all you "hear" is what they want you to "hear", then you have allowed them to do what they set out to do: Screw you over. And it does not matter one bit which "side" does it, either.
Attacking me ain't gonna change that.
Post by: vermonster13 on August 14, 2007, 07:56:00 AM
Post by: Jim Harris on August 14, 2007, 09:34:00 AM
Post by: Mike Orton on August 14, 2007, 11:20:00 PM
Dude, chill out...no one is attacking you personally in this thread and in fact, until you recently distinguished yourself as having issues regarding Terrorism phobia I do not believe I had even crossed your path on the Trad Gang. In instances such as this I thank the good Lord for the delete button.
!["[dntthnk]"]("graemlins/dntthnk.gif" "\"\"")
Post by: Artur on August 14, 2007, 11:22:00 PM
Back in the days of Ronald Reagan, "tax increase" became "revenue enhancement" -- and has now become "user fees" (Minnesota governor Pawlenty's favorite term for "Tax Increases").
Now, what, exactly, did I say, and what do you THINK I meant? Apply the same excercise to everything said by "your" favorite "eco-terrorist group".
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." --- Donald Rumsfeld
Are you confused? I'm not. Mr. Rumsfeld merely said that there are things yet to be discovered, among a couple of other things.
Post by: vermonster13 on August 14, 2007, 11:28:00 PM
Who are we to think you were referring to here?
Post by: Artur on August 15, 2007, 02:50:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by vermonster13:If you think of yourself as ultra-conservative, that is your prerogative. As for PETA buying lighthouses: That's their prerogative, they can spend their donor's money any way they want for as long as those donors allow.
Who are we to think you were referring to here?
Which was the reason I posted in this thread to begin with. Too bad others decided to read my words in other posts and interpret them according to what they wanted those words to say....
Not all Political Liberals are "tree-huggers" -- nor are all Political Conservatives "pro-Personal Freedom". It has nothing -- and everything -- to do with YOUR hunting privileges (There is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the "right" to hunt). And before anyone jumps to yet any more conclusions, I happen to be pro-hunting AND pro-conservation AND pro-environment; I am NOT pro-go-out-in-the-woods-and-kill-whatever-crosses-my-path, though, and I really don't believe any of those posting here are, either -- regardless how groups like PETA may wish people to think otherwise.
Really, why complain about what PETA is doing if it has no real bearing on your own activities? And why play into "their" hands by acting in the manner they want everyone else to believe you act in? The "Either you're for us or against" mentality has got to go.
Post by: vermonster13 on August 15, 2007, 08:53:00 AM
Also the way you posted your thoughts reads as total baiting. If I truly believed that you had an agenda similar to theirs do you think you'd have a post left?
Post by: rnharris on August 15, 2007, 09:24:00 AM
Post by: Mike Orton on August 15, 2007, 09:53:00 AM
Quote
Not all Political Liberals are "tree-huggers" -- nor are all Political Conservatives "pro-Personal Freedom". It has nothing -- and everything -- to do with YOUR hunting privileges (There is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the "right" to hunt). And before anyone jumps to yet any more conclusions, I happen to be pro-hunting AND pro-conservation AND pro-environment; I am NOT pro-go-out-in-the-woods-and-kill-whatever-crosses-my-path, though, and I really don't believe any of those posting here are, either -- regardless how groups like PETA may wish people to think otherwise.[/b]
If you really "don't believe any of the posting here are, either" than why do you have so much to say? Sir, you have taken a very long winded approach toward saying nothing....I suspect you would like to say something but are falling somewhat short of reaching that goal.
I beleive you would be an interesting man to share a campfire with some evening, although admittedly I would need to visit your campfire rather than inviting you to mine. You appear a bit radical in your thinking and I do not believe that your presence would add to the harmony in my camp.
:campfire:
Post by: Al Dente on August 15, 2007, 04:56:00 PM
And it is not just with their donors money. Over 40 million dollars was given to PETA and HSUS from the USF&W under Presidents Clinton's regime. When questioned about it, it was A- unaccounted for, B- unexplained, and C- swept under the rug and forgotten.
We, as hunters should care because those funds were taken directly from OUR purchases under Pittman-Robinson. They are to be solely used for state DNR's and conservation departments.
Post by: Artur on August 17, 2007, 12:31:00 AM
As I said once already, there is absolutely no mention of "hunting and/or fishing rights" in the Constitution of The United States of America, including all 27 amendments to that Document. Any laws passed by Congress -- or State Legislatures -- merely grant or rescind privileges, not "rights".
And the rug-sweeping-under isn't the province of only the "Liberal" people. "Conservatives" want to blame the economy on "Liberals", they want to blame everything on "Liberals" -- and somehow "forget" that fiascoes such as Enron and the Exxon Valdez took place during "Conservative Regimes". Anyone really want to talk about fiscal responsibility and whether or not tax-payer monies are going where they should be going? Or do you want only to point fingers and shift blame to whomever happens to be the "enemy"? (I remember learning in History classes how during WW1, German-Americans - CITIZENS of the USA - were generally suspected of being "spies for the Kaiser". It was "Us or Them", and "Us" lost out to fear- and hate-mongering. Now, you want to do it again, with the non-hunter in the role of German-American.)
If you REALLY want to keep your hunting and fishing PRIVILEGES, stop blaming the 'other guy' and start taking responsibility for putting into Office those who, figuratively speaking, later stab you in the back. Try looking deep into THEIR motives, by way of who they take contributions from and who they really support. But, they say what you want to hear, so they must be on your "side"....
Post by: vermonster13 on August 17, 2007, 08:17:00 AM
Post by: rnharris on August 17, 2007, 09:13:00 AM
P.E.T.A. people eating tasty animals
Post by: Artur on August 20, 2007, 02:58:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Mike Orton:I read that as "I do not agree with your views, and you should not have the right to express them". See, it's about how things are said, not what is said. Of course, if you truly believe that what I say is worth hearing, then why would you not invite me to your campfire? If all it takes to ruin the harmony of your camp is an idea you do not agree with, I pity those in your camp for their unwillingness to disagree with you.
Arthur, you are an interesting individual....
I beleive you would be an interesting man to share a campfire with some evening, although admittedly I would need to visit your campfire rather than inviting you to mine. You appear a bit radical in your thinking and I do not believe that your presence would add to the harmony in my camp.
:campfire:
You appear to not be open to new ideas, Mike. The tip-off was your use of the word "radical". Is it "radical" to ensure that your grand-children have a place to hike, to fish, to hunt -- to be able to enjoy the wilderness as you are allowed to do, whether they choose to hunt or not? If so, then I am a "radical".
Post by: Chortdraw on August 20, 2007, 03:27:00 PM
Post by: oldgriz on August 20, 2007, 03:43:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Artur:Interesting, I don't see anywhere that Mike said you would not have the right to express your opinion. Basically, what I understand Mike to have said was that WHEN you expressed your opinion you would not add to the harmony of his camp.
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Orton:I read that as "I do not agree with your views, and you should not have the right to express them".[/i] See, it's about how things are said, not what is said. Of course, if you truly believe that what I say is worth hearing, then why would you not invite me to your campfire? If all it takes to ruin the harmony of your camp is an idea you do not agree with, I pity those in your camp for their unwillingness to disagree with you.
Arthur, you are an interesting individual....
I beleive you would be an interesting man to share a campfire with some evening, although admittedly I would need to visit your campfire rather than inviting you to mine. You appear a bit radical in your thinking and I do not believe that your presence would add to the harmony in my camp.
:campfire:
You appear to not be open to new ideas, Mike. The tip-off was your use of the word "radical". Is it "radical" to ensure that your grand-children have a place to hike, to fish, to hunt -- to be able to enjoy the wilderness as you are allowed to do, whether they choose to hunt or not? If so, then I am a "radical". [/b]
BIG DIFFERENCE.
I don't doubt that a visit from Mike or any of us who do not agree with your opinions would add to the harmony of your camp either.
Personally, you have every right to your opinion and the right to speak your mind. HOWEVER, when I find your opinions distasteful or fundamentally opposed to my own beliefs, then I have the right to not listen or try to come to some compromise that will not totally tick each other off.
AS to whether your thinking is radical, that is up to the person you are speaking to. You obviously do not think so... but just because someone else believes you might have radical beliefs is no reason to insult them...
I find it interesting that most liberals will not listen to anyone who has a differing belief from them.... in fact I have found that most hard core liberals will automatically decide that such a person does not have the brains to think for themselves and therefore must have the liberal theory thrust upon them until they understand... from whence comes my opinion that Liberals Aren't.
Post by: Mike Orton on August 20, 2007, 05:08:00 PM
Regarding the issue of the term “Radical” that term is subjective and varies by definition. Post your views upon the tree-hugger web blogs and you’d be a regular guy, with an invite to Hillarie’s post primary celebration bash. The followers of al Queda do not believe Osama to be radical. Most Americans, even the misguided urban masses representative of your type of thinking, have a different opinion of OBL. It’s all about perspective….your postings on this conservative based Traditional Archery blog are radical to most readers.
Free speech is a guaranteed right through the Bill of Rights. Posting here you are exercising that right. While I do not agree with the message you spout I fairly well enjoy saddling you up and taking you for a spin around the mountain. Nothing more fun than to light-up a flaming liberal and watch him spout. In addition to your right to free speech you have the right to remain silent. It’s apparent you do not have the “ability” to remain silent. There-in lies the beauty of it all.
Arthur, In your last post directed toward me again you have raised another red-herring to divert from the predicate issue. It’s not about you… It never has been about you. It’s not about you and I holding hands at the camp fire during the cuum-by-ahh harmony-song. It’s about PETA and their attempt to do bad things to good people. It’s not about your precious Sierra Club or GreenPeace or whatever membership cards you’re carrying today in the old wallet. It absolutely ain’t about you Dude. The thread is about notifying Trad Gagsters about the evil enemy organization called PETA and what they are presently doing to further their twisted agenda. Keep your eye on the subject matter Arthur and I’ll stay put in the saddle guiding you back toward the PETA issue. Do you like Some-mores, I like cooking-em at your campfire.
:campfire:
Post by: bravedeer on August 21, 2007, 06:42:00 AM
In the end all you are really doing is arguing each other's views.
I am happy to see the different views. If you could only keep the personal attacks down...
Post by: Mike Orton on August 21, 2007, 11:08:00 AM
Wellput. It's time for me to take a tactical retreat from Arthur's campfire. :saywhat:
Post by: fyrfyter43 on August 29, 2007, 06:51:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by vermonster13:I hate to bring up a sore subject, but thought this quote from a local news article might enlighten some as to why PETA would be interested in buying these old lighthouses.
You need to do some research on some of these groups Artur and see how much the things these folks do are impacting your hunting and fishing rights. If you believe that the buying of the lighthouses doesn't play into their agenda some way, you are being naive.
Quote
The federal government is already offering West Bank Light and Old Orchard Light, Romer Shoal's sister lighthouses in the Lower Bay, for private preservation, as long as they are not used for profit and maintained as navigation aids. So far, only the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has shown interest. PETA wants to use at least one of the lighthouses as a place to teach the public that fish feel pain and should not be caught and eaten.
Post by: vermonster13 on August 29, 2007, 07:28:00 AM
Post by: Reg Darling on August 29, 2007, 10:46:00 AM
Post by: beachbowhunter on August 29, 2007, 02:11:00 PM
I believe there needs to be much more coordination and cooperation between environmental and hunting rights groups rather than confrontation. This does not include single-issue nut jobs like PETA.
Post by: Shakes.602 on August 29, 2007, 03:32:00 PM
I HOPE WE ALL Get OUT & VOTE This "Terrorist Attractant" OUT of WHATEVER GOLDEN PARACHUTE They are Hiding Under!! Just "Frosts My Cookies!" :help:
Send PETA over to Eagle Eye the Critters In IRAQ , and Have a "Peaceful March" through Downtown Baghdad! I am Sure they will have a Warm Welcome "Brunch" for their Cases. Bwahahaha :archer:
Post by: Roger Moerke on August 30, 2007, 09:58:00 PM
Post by: MountainTool21 on October 11, 2007, 07:03:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on October 11, 2007, 08:37:00 PM
Post by: sou-pawbowhunter on October 14, 2007, 09:20:00 AM
Post by: jon on October 19, 2007, 12:49:00 PM
Post by: MountainTool21 on October 19, 2007, 09:16:00 PM
My friend your last sentence of your post was right on target
Post by: hs6181 on October 20, 2007, 03:05:00 AM
thats something to smile about, thanks Mike for the info about the lighthouses
Post by: 702plmo on October 25, 2007, 11:51:00 PM