Dallas Safari Club pulls support for BLM pick

[brocksw]

I’ll take a stance against someone with radical history like this, all day, everyday.

I don’t give a shit if she hunts or not.

Agreed, sending a letter is pretty radical.

 

[260madman]

I just want to know where all the pictures are of this “avid hunter”. Shes a high profile .gov employee with social media and there aren’t any. Seems odd. DSC thinks so too.

 

[Btaylor]

I’ll take a stance against someone with radical history like this, all day, everyday.

I don’t give a shit if she hunts or not.

Radical history, it was one isolated event of a 20 year college kid. She has an entire body of work in her career as an adult that clearly suggest she is qualified and better than I actually would have expected as a nominee form this administration.

I hope you use a mirror while you cut your nose off.

 

[Dos Perros]

Let’s not compare sending a letter to literally killing 3000 people. Beyond that, marking and warning loggers about the spikes refutes any idea that their intent is to kill or injure.

Isn’t that the entire point of confirmation hearings? She was already going to have to answer for her past. That isn’t what anyone is asking for. What they are asking is that she be disqualified outright and that all organizations withdraw their support immediately.

I'm comparing the method of trying to minimize an event of history to fit your perspective. You could have just as easily said she "took part in organized criminal activity," but you didn't.

I don't know who "they" is; myself, as a supporter of several organizations of the long list that voiced support for her (read: lazily signed onto a letter because someone told them to), I want them to either withdraw support with a statement, or stand firm with a statement justifying their position. Doing nothing is not an option for any organization with integrity, IMO.

 

[Dos Perros]

The problem is values. This woman values some trivial things above human life. Seems to be the case for her husband, too. That's troubling to me.

 

[brocksw]

I just want to know where all the pictures are of this “avid hunter”. Shes a high profile .gov employee with social media and there aren’t any. Seems odd. DSC thinks so too.

You're telling me she doesn't have any hunting photos on her social media account and she says shes a HUNTER!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? Do you think she even knows that unless you post hunting photos on insta you're not technically a hunter? Who wants to tell her?

 

[brocksw]

The topic is coming up more and more....the descent of Rokslide into tribal internet authoritarians who know best and know all. If you question them, If you're different than them, if you're associated with someone different than them, if your perspective or point of view is different than theirs....you will be attacked, ridiculed, and all ability for you to have any reasonable discussion will be erased and cancelled. Welcome to Rokslide, where dehumanization and overblown political bias is called criticism, glossing over inconvenient facts comes standard, and name-calling is only ok if you're talking about BHA and liberals. How's that for American?

 

[cuerro viejo]

The topic is coming up more and more....the descent of Rokslide into tribal internet authoritarians who know best and know all. If you question them, If you're different than them, if you're associated with someone different than them, if your perspective or point of view is different than theirs....you will be attacked, ridiculed, and all ability for you to have any reasonable discussion will be erased and cancelled. Welcome to Rokslide, where dehumanization and overblown political bias is called criticism, glossing over inconvenient facts comes standard, and name-calling is only ok if you're talking about BHA and liberals. How's that for American?

Recent Historical precedents show liberals actually persecuting; conservatives, Christian religion, 2nd and Hunting.

I can’t image way some are so firm on their opinions on nominations that has an eco extremist past, that typically goes against same things I just mentioned above.

If preservation of freedoms is tribal so be it. Just My personal thoughts.

 

[cuerro viejo]

You're telling me she doesn't have any hunting photos on her social media account and she says shes a HUNTER!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? Do you think she even knows that unless you post hunting photos on insta you're not technically a hunter? Who wants to tell her?

Are we talking about great big game Hunter Yvon Chouinard? Lol

 

[gelton]

The topic is coming up more and more....the descent of Rokslide into tribal internet authoritarians who know best and know all. If you question them, If you're different than them, if you're associated with someone different than them, if your perspective or point of view is different than theirs....you will be attacked, ridiculed, and all ability for you to have any reasonable discussion will be erased and cancelled. Welcome to Rokslide, where dehumanization and overblown political bias is called criticism, glossing over inconvenient facts comes standard, and name-calling is only ok if you're talking about BHA and liberals. How's that for American?

I've looked over the thread again and I don't see anyone being dehumanized and the only name-calling (if you can even call it that) was from you labeling others as lawyers giving legal advice.

And the only glossing over of inconvenient facts that I see is that of Stone-Mannings past.

I for one am glad Rokslide isn't an echo chamber, you can find that on almost any other platform where the majority of "conservative" voices have been banned, censored, erased, and canceled much to the satisfaction of "liberals".

It seems like projection to me.

Edit - BTW what part of ND are you from? I lived in the small town of Hazen for a couple of years, my dad helped start up the coal gasification plant near there.

 

[Ten Bears]

The topic is coming up more and more....the descent of Rokslide into tribal internet authoritarians who know best and know all. If you question them, If you're different than them, if you're associated with someone different than them, if your perspective or point of view is different than theirs....you will be attacked, ridiculed, and all ability for you to have any reasonable discussion will be erased and cancelled. Welcome to Rokslide, where dehumanization and overblown political bias is called criticism, glossing over inconvenient facts comes standard, and name-calling is only ok if you're talking about BHA and liberals. How's that for American?

If it’s that bad here maybe you should leave. You clearly can’t handle people thinking different than you.

 

[WCB]

I like all the talk about her being a good pick because "she is a hunter"...well there are A LOT of "hunters" that would sell hunting down the river in a heart beat for personal interest or ideals. Just like the "well I am a gun owner" crowd that would have no problems with the 2nd Amendment going away.

 

[Dos Perros]

The topic is coming up more and more....the descent of Rokslide into tribal internet authoritarians who know best and know all. If you question them, If you're different than them, if you're associated with someone different than them, if your perspective or point of view is different than theirs....you will be attacked, ridiculed, and all ability for you to have any reasonable discussion will be erased and cancelled. Welcome to Rokslide, where dehumanization and overblown political bias is called criticism, glossing over inconvenient facts comes standard, and name-calling is only ok if you're talking about BHA and liberals. How's that for American?

Just debate the folks that are engaging how you like then, and ignore the rest.

 

[Poser]

You're telling me she doesn't have any hunting photos on her social media account and she says shes a HUNTER!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? Do you think she even knows that unless you post hunting photos on insta you're not technically a hunter? Who wants to tell her?

To be fair, we are talking about DSC here. Is it even a “hunting photo” if there is less than 13 guys huddled around 1 dead animal?

 

[MattB]

Yeah, but private property is private property.

You are talking to a guy who is originally from the gulf coast whose families' homes have been partially destroyed multiple times in the last two decades...no one is asking for anyone to protect them or feel sorry for them. One of my family's beach cabins was totally destroyed (like nothing left) and in fact, it cleaned up the whole beach community, but now the prices are ridiculous because everything is virtually brand new.

You shouldn't need permissions or permits to clear or protect private property.

If the homes were partially destroyed multiple times, where did the funds to rebuild come from? Your comment leads me to believe it was all out of their own pockets (e.g. no insurance proceeds, no government program funding).

 

[MattB]

If it’s that bad here maybe you should leave. You clearly can’t handle people thinking different than you.

You grossly misunderstand the issue. When civil disagreement is met with labels like "libtard", it is not those who are civilly disagreeing who can't handle people thinking differently than them.

I voted for Trump twice and can't tell you how many times I have been called a liberal on this site because I don't 100% tow the tripe the conservative sheeple spew.

 

[Ten Bears]

You grossly misunderstand the issue. When civil disagreement is met with labels like "libtard", it is not those who are civilly disagreeing who can't handle people thinking differently than them.

I voted for Trump twice and can't tell you how many times I have been called a liberal on this site because I don't 100% tow the tripe the conservative sheeple spew.

Ok Bro.

I understand the issue just fine, a bad pick for an important post. That’s it.

How partisan was it when the NRA is brought up ? I’ll answer for you. It’s not. They get bashed for poor choices just like it should be.

 

[gelton]

If the homes were partially destroyed multiple times, where did the funds to rebuild come from? Your comment leads me to believe it was all out of their own pockets (e.g. no insurance proceeds, no government program funding).

The funds came from insurance which was paid out of their own pockets, which you are correct, became so sky-high in the last decade that FEMA had to subsidize the flood INSURANCE that is still paid for out of their own pockets. So I am not completely clear of what the point is.

Edit - because I can see where you are headed with this, it's important that you understand that there is windstorm insurance and flood insurance. Windstorm isn't federally subsidized and FEMA has subsidized flood insurance but only more recently.

Out of the half dozen or more hurricanes in the last 20 years, only two of them required flood insurance - Hurricane Ike and Harvey, For all of the rest there was windstorm insurance 100% paid for out of pocket. For Hurricane Ike there was no FEMA subsidy and for Harvey, there was but only for flood insurance.

Out of the dozen or more relatives I have still in the area, only two were required to use flood insurance and the only time it was subsidized (and only partially) by the loving government was for Harvey.

The truth is the free market increased prices on flood insurance to portray the risks of rebuilding, but the FEMA subsidy at least made it bearable to have flood insurance which is a requirement in the area if you have a mortgage.

So, the Capitalist approach actually mirrors the original commenter to this quote's mantra which is people shouldn't build there, and if they do they should be able to bear the consequences of either not having a mortgage so they don't have to have flood insurance or paying the premium for it. It was the government that didn't allow the free market to work. Proving once again that Capitalism trumps Socialism.

 

[Mike7]

When you consider all of the active lying criminals within the fed govt today who completely disregard the Constitution and have no integrity, I think the people here saying (whether so called "libtards" or not) that she may be the best choice available that "this" administration could provide, have a real point to be considered...
especially if she admits to and condemns past wrong doing. That alone would make her better than probably 1/2 of the senior bureaucrats.

 

[MattB]

The funds came from insurance which was paid out of their own pockets, which you are correct, became so sky-high in the last decade that FEMA had to subsidize the flood INSURANCE that is still paid for out of their own pockets. So I am not completely clear of what the point is.

Edit - because I can see where you are headed with this, it's important that you understand that there is windstorm insurance and flood insurance. Windstorm isn't federally subsidized and FEMA has subsidized flood insurance but only more recently.

Out of the half dozen or more hurricanes in the last 20 years, only two of them required flood insurance - Hurricane Ike and Harvey, For all of the rest there was windstorm insurance 100% paid for out of pocket. For Hurricane Ike there was no FEMA subsidy and for Harvey, there was but only for flood insurance.

Out of the dozen or more relatives I have still in the area, only two were required to use flood insurance and the only time it was subsidized (and only partially) by the loving government was for Harvey.

The truth is the free market increased prices on flood insurance to portray the risks of rebuilding, but the FEMA subsidy at least made it bearable to have flood insurance which is a requirement in the area if you have a mortgage.

So, the Capitalist approach actually mirrors the original commenter to this quote's mantra which is people shouldn't build there, and if they do they should be able to bear the consequences of either not having a mortgage so they don't have to have flood insurance or paying the premium for it. It was the government that didn't allow the free market to work. Proving once again that Capitalism trumps Socialism.

Are you suggesting they paid as much or more in premiums as their rebuilds cost, or did they do so on the backs of others?

My opinion is, if a property has had significant weather damage more twice, it shouldn't be insurable. At that point, you are just pissing away other people's money.