Donald trumps Sons hunting photos

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I believe you nailed the stereotypical hunter to a tee.......your ",my pee-pee is bigger than yours" attitude shines right through.

nah. It's probably a great deal smaller. I need a magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers just to empty myself in the mornings.

Look folks. We (at least I) am not knocking hunting. Kill all the animals you want to make you feel like your penis is growing (hint...in reality it is not).

I've not noticed it making anything grow, but it's kept my belly from growling, and in at least two cases kept my kids from being lunch.

What I am knocking is the slaughter of endangered (or near endangered, near threatened, threatened etc. etc. ..... for those with semantic issues) animals under the guise to "protect" them or to "feed the locals" like the locals can't feed themselves without the help of Trump brats.

There was no slaughter of "endangered" or "near endangered" animals. That sort of activity is frowned upon by nearly every government on the planet, and they sure as hell won't license you to do it. I could give a crap about some silly internet page that makes it's money from promoting some "cause" - I'll trust the judgement of the locals as to what goes on in their own back yard.

And yes....had it not been the Trump brats and them printing the pictures in some hunting magazine then people probably wouldn't have known and/or cared as much. It's the smuggness of it all that gets to people.

Yeah, well, why look at them if they upset your delicate sensibilities? Are folks running short on things to whine about like little girls these days, so that they have to hunt stuff down to whine about?

Maybe they're just jealous that they can't do the same, because their giant Willises drag track in the dirt and get in the way....

Also, don't give me the crap line of doing it yourself. I come from farm country. I've seen it first hand. Nothing like a chicken running around for a few minutes without a head to brighten the day and cause your stomach to growl.

Bullcrap. I'm a farm boy, grew up with farm boys. Never met one who'd done it first hand that was so squeamish. As far as chickens go, out of all the chickens I've killed, I've yet to see the first one run. They flop all over creation, but I've never seen one run. It lasts a few seconds, NOT a "few minutes".

I can't imagine any one who's ever gutted a beef getting all girly and squealing "those bastards KILLED something!" Not even the girls are that girly in farm country.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by TKDRL

 

I'm not the one who was posting about how big his bow was.

Touche. hahaha
It's not fighting really it is debating. I have fun here, or else I wouldn't bother logging in

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

You are the one that keeps bringing up penises. Do you really think that is going to hurt people's feelings or something?

That kind of childish insults only bother boys, and insecure men(prettymuch boys mentally). Have fun talking about penises though

Nah, he was just trying to point out that he's not the ONLY one with a penis fixation - evidently scientists like to poke at them, too!

He can't hurt my feelings - hell, he probably can't even find them!

Unless he's got a magnifying glass, a pair of tweezers, and a lot of time on his hands... I think he's already established a strong desire to search...

reply to post by nenothtu


I have to say I do like your sense of humor. Your last two posts had me in stitches.

Also, I am not squeemish at all. I have eaten dear, bear, rabbit, squirrel, pheasant.....and I think that is it so far either killed by myself or friends whom I was with at the time and eaten. Well...the bear was killed by my uncle.

Anyway, if the animals are not in danger then I say "what the hell"......I concede.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

But, let's not fight here. Like I said. Kill as many animals as you want. As long as they are not protected or encroaching on having to be protected.

Here's the deal - hunting ain't about the killing part. If any just wants to kill, they can raise victims to kill on a farm, and no one will say BOO! - they'll just smile and bite that burger again. Hunting is about a lot more than the killing, which lasts only a matter of seconds at the end of the line if you do it right, and might go entirely the wrong direction if you don't.

I've never been into killing for sport - I always did it for the freezer - but I can't deny that there's a certain amount of "sport" involved in just seeing if you can find the thing you intend to do in. I used to know two Indian brothers who hunted bears with bowie knives. Now THAT is sport! They'd take a bow in case they had to knock one out of a tree so they could fight it on the ground, but they went in for the kill with those big-asses knives, and stood about the same chance as the bear. Even then, the sport was in the tracking and trailing and trying to out-think the critter in habitat that it knows intimately - and likely better than the visitng team.

The knives were just to make it a fair fight, since they didn't have three inch claws or two inch teeth.

reply to post by TKDRL


Yeah, if I want to fight I go to a bar. If I want to think and cause thinking, I go to ATS.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I have to say I do like your sense of humor. Your last two posts had me in stitches.

You're not the first to tell me I'm a little twisted, and probably won't be the last. I had someone tell me once that I had a "British" sense of humor, but I thumped him for insulting Brits like that!

Also, I am not squeemish at all. I have eaten dear, bear, rabbit, squirrel, pheasant.....and I think that is it so far either killed by myself or friends whom I was with at the time and eaten. Well...the bear was killed by my uncle.

Anyway, if the animals are not in danger then I say "what the hell"......I concede.

Fair enough. I've eaten all that and such oddball things as snakes, turtles, woodchucks (had to kill 'em for the farmers so that the cattle didn't break their legs in the den holes, and refused to waste them after I'd gone to the trouble of killing them) and "grampuses", which look like giant spring salamanders and live in rivers - they call them "hellbenders" in some places. I wasn't kidding when I said that I'd eat anything that didn't eat me first.

I won't bother endangered animals, either, unless they bother me first. Keep in mind, however, that a lot of animals listed as "endangered" in one listing or another are more endangered by the protection than they are by the hunters, because of the lack of natural enemies created by various imbalances - some times over-hunting of predators, sometimes encroachment of farming destroying habitat, that sort of thing. Vegetarians do their part to insure deaths of species the same as hunters do, because them veggies have to be grown on land that was once habitat for something else.

What is endangered "here" may not be endangered at all "over there", and may in fact constitute a nuisance and a danger - to it's own and to other species.

Balance must be had, and one way or another balance WILL be had, either through starvation or a bullet.

ETA: I'll give an example of what I mean by "over protection". My dad grew up in West Virginia. When he was growing up, it was extremely rare to see a deer around there. Through really tight conservation laws, the deer population rebounded. Now you can't hardly throw a rock off of your front porch without hitting one. I go visit there every few years, and never fail to see 15 or 20 over any ten mile stretch of road. I can recall laying on my belly in the woods and watching a herd of them for 45 minutes or an hour, and counting 34 deer in that one herd. I've seen as many as 20 grazing in someone's YARD in broad daylight. Paradoxically, WV is still hell on wheels on their conservation laws with strict limits, hard penalties, and the like, and there are few or NO natural predators left to cull those herds. Panthers are a rarity still, and Fish and Game - or whatever the equivalent is up there - claims there are NONE, in spite of the occasional sighting. Whatever, there are not nearly enough - whether none of just damned few - to cull the herds. I've also found does and yearlings laying dead of starvation in low mast years. That balance I spoke of will be reached, one way or the other. I have to think that if it weren't for the poachers, the problem would be much worse - and that if WV would revisit their laws, there might not be such a need for poaching to begin with.

Over-protection and fear of endangerment can kill just as surely as a bullet, but it does it more slowly, and with more suffering.

reply to post by nenothtu


I agree. I once had to do a debate in high school many many years ago on the subject but I was given the con side of hunting to debate. It was hard as I actually agree with the need for hunting.

Hopefully, another race of superior beings won't feel the same way about us and this planet some day though.........

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Hopefully, another race of superior beings won't feel the same way about us and this planet some day though.........

Well, if they do, I'm sure they'll find the human race a game one.

Was that a pun, or just 2/3 of a pun - a P-U- ?

reply to post by lacrimaererum


wow they are real men.....really though they should have been sent out butt naked to fight the leopards or the crocs if they really want to prove themselves... pussys...

reply to post by HandyDandy


What about us girls? Gonna claim it's penis envy?
All three of my boyfriends were all hunters, they had no problem in the package department

reply to post by tallcool1


There's really no difference, you are still killing an animal.

reply to post by milkyway12


It's a lose-lose situation for the animal being unnecessarily killed...

reply to post by mwood


Since when does "legal" constitute "right"?

reply to post by Golf66


Being "legal" doesn't make something automatically ethically right. Slavery was "legal" 150 years ago...

reply to post by olliemc84


Meat isn't the only food source, in fact it's the most unhealthy. Fact.

reply to post by PatriotAct


There is no difference; it's wrong either way. Just because both are "legal" doen't make it right. People go their whole lives without eating meat, and usually don't have a pot-belly to show for it.

reply to post by havok


150 years ago I was free to enslave another human based on the color of his skin; being "legal" doesn't make anything ethically right.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by buster2010

Safari hunting is nothing but one big canned hunt and is an embarrassment to real hunters. All it does is make people who can't hunt think they are some big time hunter.

I happen to agree - the hunts are staged for the most part. However, that aside why should we care what Trump Jr. is doing with his time and money. Doesn't make it illegal - stupid and lame not illegal.

Why to people think because something is "legal" it's ok? That is the most absurd statement ever repeated for justifying it.
Based of of statements made by the person in question via twitter, here's a little rebuttal to his "justification": Instead of hunting animals for fees that go to "preserve" them, how about donating the money to preserving them? That would fare a little better in keeping species alive. Simple logic. And donate to help establish sustainable farming practices for the indigenous population. Oh, wait that's too boring for him. And pointing it out doesn't make someone wrong, even if they don't have countless $$ at their disposal to take inter-continental vacations that involve murdering other species in the name of "preserving animals and habitat." "Over population" of a species is subjective; try putting those millions in his family where his mouth is and buying up and preserving the land to help prevent the government from feeling the need to cull any species. Now that would be really "preserving animals and habitat." If he really "loves wildlife", he'd show it by protecting it, not destroying it.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
id be a vegetarian if i werent addicted to bodybuilding. if it were ten thousand years ago, yeh..kill everything in sight. thats survival. killing big cats and elephants isn't about survival or even about being self sufficient. it's psychopathic, but accepted.

There are bodybuilders who are vegan; animal protein is not essential for muscle maintenance or building, or any form of athletic body conditioning. All essential amino acids are found in plant foods, and usually more accessible by the body.