Meateater sells a controlling stake to anti-gun Democrat?

Rthur

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
239
Like it or not abortion is legal. And quite frankly until the SCOTUS states otherwise it’s staying that way, despite what my or anyone else views on it is. So with that fact in mind it’s relevance to a candidate is pretty irrelevant.
So was slavery, doesn't mean it is correct.
I imagine voting for a gun grabber and abortionist would be the worst.

R
 

Trial153

WKR
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
8,250
Location
NY
I never said I supported it at any level. That was presumptuous of you. I said HE supported late term. Don’t support abortion at any level unless explicit medical reasons.

No you specifically stated late term. Making that distinction implies a difference. If he didn’t support late term abortions and only supported first term abortion would you think differently of him. No? Then why state late term. Quite the rabbit hole eh?


Don’t lecture me on how I should think of abortion or anything in regards to morality. The fact it’s that a politicians stance for against abortion is virtually meaningless for any practical applications. And I can give a rats ass if you don’t agree with me, because last I checked I get to decide how to vote based on my determinations
 

Trial153

WKR
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
8,250
Location
NY
So was slavery, doesn't mean it is correct.
I imagine voting for a gun grabber and abortionist would be the worst.

R

Yea and one day they might say the 2a isn’t an individual right. But you know what until they do, it is.


You get to vote based on what you think and feel is important and relevant, I would be an asshole to come on here and question your morality based on those decisions of what on your radar. Maybe you’d consider doing the same.
 

Dusty2426

WKR
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
345
Location
Texas
No you specifically stated late term. Making that distinction implies a difference. If he didn’t support late term abortions and only supported first term abortion would you think differently of him. No? Then why state late term. Quite the rabbit hole eh?


Don’t lecture me on how I should think of abortion or anything in regards to morality. The fact it’s that a politicians stance for against abortion is virtually meaningless for any practical applications. And I can give a rats ass if you don’t agree with me, because last I checked I get to decide how to vote based on my determinations

I would never lecture you. A Wise man once said “ argue 10 minutes with an idiot 9 of those are your own fault”
 

ODB

WKR
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
4,037
Location
N.F.D.
Like it or not abortion is legal. And quite frankly until the SCOTUS states otherwise it’s staying that way, despite what my or anyone else views on it is. So with that fact in mind it’s relevance to a candidate is pretty irrelevant.

Laws define the lowest level of acceptable behavior. Like building codes. Building codes do not tell you how to make the highest performing building, and laws do not define the highest level of ethical behavior.

Falling back on the law as the be-all end-all of how we should act is what gets us in a lot of trouble as a society.
 

*zap*

WKR
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
7,771
Location
N/E Kansas
Did anyone expect him to say he sold out? Bottom line is he signs the back of a check that comes from an anti gun agenda person. Will that effect his shows content? Time will tell.

He said he may host a dem politician if that politician owns guns and hunts.....but that same politician may vote to ban semi auto. I know people who own guns and hunt that want semi autos banned.....it is definitely a complicated situation. The anti gun people are well organized and use many different ways to get their message out. As far as fox news...Bill O'rielly made some statements on guns that concerned me at the time. The whole thing can go downhill fast. We really need to hold the line where it is.

Anyway....
 

ODB

WKR
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
4,037
Location
N.F.D.
The way the hunting community eats their own is disgraceful.


It’s because of how fragile guns and hunting are right now, or at least how it’s perceived. You have to appreciate that. We aren’t talking about chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream here. The larger picture includes topics that hit Americans very deeply - the very things that make us Americans: the constitution, freedom, autonomy, self-sufficiency, traditions, family, loyalty...it’s all wrapped up in one big sticky ball, and when stuff like this happens. It seems to rattle something that people felt was sacred.
 

*zap*

WKR
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
7,771
Location
N/E Kansas
Things are extremely fragile.....the new government in Mn. passed gun control laws within days of being sworn in.
 

TristanJH

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
145
Location
Oregon
I'm glad Rinella set the record straight, but I think we should also use this as a lesson. WAY too many of you dug in your heels on the basis of a perceived slight to your political ascription. Rinella said it as well as anyone could; "If we're going to protect the future of hunting and the shooting sports, we need to grow them beyond the same [shrinking] base that we currently have" That means being willing to ignore the sensational BS and acknowledge nuance. Especially as a social minority, entrenched thinking will only speed the erosion of our social and political capital, and that is not something we can afford.
 

*zap*

WKR
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
7,771
Location
N/E Kansas
Protecting the future of hunting and shooting sports does not mean that you are protecting the 2nd.

Hunting and shooting sports have nothing to do with the 2nd.
 
Top