S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (bushveld, Ken57),
186
guests, and
20
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,572
Posts546,458
Members14,424
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 122
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 122 |
The choice was a no brainer. We absolutely could not allow Hillary Clinton the power of the presidency.
The choice in the next election is a no brainer too.
Alan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308 Likes: 44
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308 Likes: 44 |
The choice was a no brainer. We absolutely could not allow Hillary Clinton the power of the presidency.
The choice in the next election is a no brainer too.
Alan King’s goofy grandkids should get a good chuckle when Trump is re-elected. __________________________ Get ‘em oot playing street hockey with Sid, King. He’s available.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
...Frankly, the science behind lead in waterfowl beats "Big Pharma" drug science a hundred times over. The reasons for that, are of course, blindingly obvious, and I am quite certain you are not so unintelligent to not see that, craig, so why the pretense? Yes, you can say anything you wish, but your credibility is pretty much shot.... It's an honor to discuss things with you because of your credibilty. Heck Brent, climate change was mentioned. What would make me think big pharma was yet another dog whistle for lefties? Only a hundred times, eh, a thousand would feel quite a bit more impressive.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
You've forgotten, lonesome. My grandsons played street hockey with Sid. "He always won," they complained, "five-against-one."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,025 Likes: 25
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,025 Likes: 25 |
ARM, the no -brainer is in the White House.
Bill Ferguson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,390 Likes: 107
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,390 Likes: 107 |
...Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time. If we can discuss absolutes, why pivot to climate change? How about sticking with Eagles, the topic of the converstaion? If someone were so concerned about the purity of science, why would you belittle people by bringing up the term denier? Wouldn't good science ask the question, why do Eagle lead poisoning 'research' organizations always link to antihunting groups under the guise of advocating for lead free hunting projectiles? Why do wildlife and land management agencies throughout the nation use these organiztions in their footnote references when creating policy? What prevents us from insisting that the same type of science that, for example, brings us a life saving medicine be used? A big pharma funded study can be key to bringing a medication to the market, but that is noted as a clear disclaimer, not woven into the research report as advertising. Would you want a loved one to do elective heart surgery based on a report with a handful of examples, the way we can consider infringing on all hunting based on xrays of a handful of gut piles? I know you're absolutely correct about the clown analogy. Brent told us flat out that the Eagles as a whole are not at risk due to lead hunting projectile ingestion, yet some vigorously defend the science brought to us by antihunting and antishooting advocates. No one ever said we had to fool all of the people, only enough to control the agenda, in other words a minority. I am sticking with eagles. Simply using climate change as a comparison. Scientists with credentials are in the climate change minority (since you don't like the word "denier", Craig). Where are the scientists who were in the minority when the lead ban on waterfowl was passed? It was controversial mainly because the alternatives to lead shot (early steel loads) weren't nearly as effective. Not because anyone was hauling out evidence to make their case that ingesting lead didn't kill ducks. And as far as eagles go, Brent is indeed correct in pointing out that on a population-wide scale, lead does not pose a danger. The unfortunate problem, however, is that the eagle is our national symbol. Thus, even one dead eagle is going to make news. And those who oppose lead ammunition will use the eagle as their poster bird. On our side, we can respond that we do not manage wildlife populations (unless they're endangered) based on the fate of individual members of that species. We manage them based on the health of the population as a whole. And that example makes "our side" a winner where eagles are concerned, when it comes to "good science". But we still end up losers because of the emotional tug one dead eagle can exert. I don't know whether a large number of vultures die due to ingesting lead. And the point is: Who cares? But people DO care about dead eagles, even if the population continues to increase in spite of all the eagles that die from all the various things that kill them. We win on science but lose on emotion. It remains to be seen how that battle will play out as far as our ability to shoot lead ammunition is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,776 Likes: 760
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,776 Likes: 760 |
ARM, the no -brainer is in the White House. Yea, but, leading the country in the best economic times it has ever experienced in history. You care to explain how the two hero’s of the left, Carter, and Obama, had better economies. Just for you, it is rhetorical. Save the answer for some idiot that cares. A vast right wing conspiracy like the Trump economy is something I can get behind, just like a wall. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
....The unfortunate problem, however, is that the eagle is our national symbol....
....But we still end up losers because of the emotional tug one dead eagle can exert. I don't know whether a large number of vultures die due to ingesting lead. And the point is: Who cares? But people DO care about dead eagles....
....It remains to be seen how that battle will play out as far as our ability to shoot lead ammunition is concerned. I think we're in complete agreement about the ineffectiveness of scientific arguement influencing agenda driven policy. As you know from the past, I've tended to question the emotional benefit enthusiastically handed to the antis, when they can count on some hunters and shooters graying the lines. If it's okay, I'd mix in thoughts about your comments. In this day and age, I think it's a mistake to think that some sense of nationalism is driving sympathy for the death of an eagle. In simplified terms, the eagle manages to be a useful tool for the antihunting agenda, not just the lead is a demon increment. Do any of the raptor advocacy organizations display the Stars and Stripes? When you ask who cares about vultures, shouldn't 'we'? Isn't condor the name given some species of vulture? Doesn't California policy pressure policy for the rest of the nation. Isn't the condor the sole reason legislation was introduced to ban lead projectile use in its range, which apparently has morphed into a hunting lead ban for the entire state? What remains to be seen, the inevitable? As to digging up studies, haven't we been on that merry-go-round before? Isn't there a tendency to either dismiss or ignore? For the purposes of antihunting and gun control legislation, can you produce any studies that show the emotion that you pointed out can be countered with science? 'We' might study how they play the game.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
ARM, the no -brainer is in the White House. Yea, but, leading the country in the best economic times it has ever experienced in history. You care to explain how the two hero’s of the left, Carter, and Obama, had better economies. Just for you, it is rhetorical. Save the answer for some idiot that cares. A vast right wing conspiracy like the Trump economy is something I can get behind, just like a wall. Best, Ted Caution Ted, he's very emotional about the jimmy-n-barack economies.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,092 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,092 Likes: 13 |
So many guns, so little time!
|
|
|
|
|