trapping
kids

pcsoutdoors


Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: Mira Trapper] #1130145
01/16/09 09:04 PM
01/16/09 09:04 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
thrstyunderwater Offline
trapper
thrstyunderwater  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
That article is dumb. They don't provide sources. Google Cass Sunstein. He doesn't have a priority to screw farmers, hunters, ect over. Please someone show me a source besides this one article showing this guy is some crazy bunny hugger.


Originally Posted by Ole Hawkeye
Pat, as usual, you are right....

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: thrstyunderwater] #1130197
01/16/09 09:31 PM
01/16/09 09:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 794
AR
C
Crowkiller Offline
trapper
Crowkiller  Offline
trapper
C

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 794
AR
OK Thristy check this out:

Why the Obama White House May Go to the Dogs
(and the Cows, and the Deer, and the Lab Rats)

Forget about Barack Obama's income tax-challenged Treasury Secretary or the conflict of interest controversy at the State Department. The most outrageous Obama appointee just might be Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who's flying under everyone's radar and into a job that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Cass Sunstein is slated to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He's going to be America's chief "regulatory czar." And shocking new research from the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that he's a dedicated animal-rights zealot.
The 8 Biggest Celebrity Financial Mistakes

Hold on to your sirloin.

The anti-meat nuts at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the anti-hunting lobbyists at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) used to think that putting Dennis Kucinich in the White House would be their best hope of wielding real power in Washington . But even they didn't see Cass Sunstein coming. Sunstein has the legal mind of Chief Justice John Roberts and the animal-rights agenda of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk.

We're not talking about animal welfare---the idea of making sure we don't cause animals unnecessary suffering when we use them for food, clothing, entertainment, or lifesaving medical research. Sunstein believes in animal rights---the notion that people shouldn't "own" or "use" animals at all, for any purpose, no matter what the stakes are for mankind.

Cancer research? Not if lab rats are used against their will.

Hunting? Absolutely forbidden, especially if it's for sport.

Leather jackets? The cows need their skin more that you do.

Seeing-eye dogs? They're nothing more than slaves.

And that T-bone steak? Fuhgeddaboudit! If animals have any "rights" at all, the right to not be your dinner is at the top of the list.

All of this makes perfect sense to Cass Sunstein, who organized the "Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles" at the University of Chicago. He will soon have the political authority to push for a radical overhaul of the way the federal government regulates everything Americans do with animals.

How radical? Sunstein supports making sport hunting illegal, and completely phasing out the consumption of meat. And if that's not nutty enough, he's actually in favor of giving animals the legal right to sue people.

Think we're joking? Think again. Here's what Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:

"[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

Conservative commentators have been openly fretting that Barack Obama may try to turn welfare entitlements and single-payer healthcare into a new Bill of Rights. But Cass Sunstein threatens to expand the whole concept of "rights" to include the rest of the animal kingdom.

That fish wriggling at the end of your hook could soon be a federal offense (if the fish doesn't file a lawsuit first). Don't say we didn't warn you.

Find out more at ConsumerFreedom.com.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: Crowkiller] #1130204
01/16/09 09:35 PM
01/16/09 09:35 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Animal Rights
Current Debates and New Directions Edited by Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum Add to Cart ISBN13: 9780195305104
ISBN10: 0195305108
paper, 352 pages Oct 2005, In Stock Price:$19.99 (01) Shipping Details Description Reviews Product Details Author Information Table of Contents Description
Millions of people live with cats, dogs, and other pets, which they treat as members of their families. But through their daily behavior, people who love those pets, and greatly care about their welfare, help ensure short and painful lives for millions, even billions of animals that cannot easily be distinguished from dogs and cats. Today, the overwhelming percentage of animals with whom Westerners interact are raised for food. Countless animals endure lives of relentless misery and die often torturous deaths.

The use of animals by human beings, often for important human purposes, has forced uncomfortable questions to center stage: Should people change their behavior? Should the law promote animal welfare? Should animals have legal rights? Should animals continue to be counted as "property"? What reforms make sense?

Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum bring together an all-star cast of contributors to explore the legal and political issues that underlie the campaign for animal rights and the opposition to it. Addressing ethical questions about ownership, protection against unjustified suffering, and the ability of animals to make their own choices free from human control, the authors offer numerous different perspectives on animal rights and animal welfare. They show that whatever one's ultimate conclusions, the relationship between human beings and nonhuman animals is being fundamentally rethought. This book offers a state-of-the-art treatment of that rethinking.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130205
01/16/09 09:36 PM
01/16/09 09:36 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Animal Rights without Controversy

Jeffrey Leslie
University of Chicago - Law School

Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University - Harvard Law School

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130207
01/16/09 09:37 PM
01/16/09 09:37 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



DALLAS MORNING NEWS

Is Obama appointing an 'animal rights zealot' to high office?
11:59 AM Fri, Jan 16, 2009 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Jeffrey Weiss E-mail News tips
Perhaps discussion about the ethical treatment of animals is going to be higher on the new administration's agenda than one might think? On an average day my e-box is filled with partisan screeds from a broad spectrum. And usually I roll my eyes at the more extreme claims and go on with my day. For instance, how about a headline that claims "New Radical White House Appointee: No Hunting, Meat, or Medical Testing?" Laughably implausible, yes? As it turns out: No. Overstated, to be sure, but not as far as you'd think.

The fellow in question is Harvard professor Cass R. Sunstein, tagged by Obama to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is part of the White House Office of Management and Budget. A quick Google turned up a paper he published in 2002 titled The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer.

Head to the jump for excerpts.

On appropriate legal restrictions on the treatment of animals:


We should focus attention not only on the "enforcement gap," but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction.

Require low-suffering farming and ban recreational hunting:



If we focus on suffering, as I believe that we should, it is not necessarily impermissible to kill animals and use them for food; but it is entirely impermissible to be indifferent to their interests while they are alive. So too for other animals in farms, even or perhaps especially if they are being used for the benefit of human beings. If sheep are going to be used to create clothing, their conditions must be conducive to their welfare. We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation. (Should animals be hunted and killed simply because people enjoy hunting and killing them? The issue might be different if hunting and killing could be justified as having important functions, such as control of populations or protection of human beings against animal violence.)


Put animal cruelty in the same moral context as human slavery:


The problem is that most of the time, the interests of animals are not counted at all--and that once they are counted, many of our practices cannot possibly be justified. I believe that in the long-run, our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seem a form of unconscionable barbarity--not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.

To be fair, he also makes the case that medical experiments can be justified. And knocks down the idea that animals should be recognized as possessing the same kind of autonomy as people. And it's not as if he's been appointed as Secretary of Agriculture or Interior, where his animal-rights positions might be directly relevant.

But boy, howdy, I'd pay to see a confirmation hearing with this guy where some of these issues got aired.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130210
01/16/09 09:37 PM
01/16/09 09:37 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Had enough, Thirsty?

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: thrstyunderwater] #1130220
01/16/09 09:41 PM
01/16/09 09:41 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 794
AR
C
Crowkiller Offline
trapper
Crowkiller  Offline
trapper
C

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 794
AR
OK Thristy check this out:

Why the Obama White House May Go to the Dogs
(and the Cows, and the Deer, and the Lab Rats)

Forget about Barack Obama's income tax-challenged Treasury Secretary or the conflict of interest controversy at the State Department. The most outrageous Obama appointee just might be Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who's flying under everyone's radar and into a job that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Cass Sunstein is slated to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He's going to be America's chief "regulatory czar." And shocking new research from the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that he's a dedicated animal-rights zealot.
The 8 Biggest Celebrity Financial Mistakes

Hold on to your sirloin.

The anti-meat nuts at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the anti-hunting lobbyists at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) used to think that putting Dennis Kucinich in the White House would be their best hope of wielding real power in Washington . But even they didn't see Cass Sunstein coming. Sunstein has the legal mind of Chief Justice John Roberts and the animal-rights agenda of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk.

We're not talking about animal welfare---the idea of making sure we don't cause animals unnecessary suffering when we use them for food, clothing, entertainment, or lifesaving medical research. Sunstein believes in animal rights---the notion that people shouldn't "own" or "use" animals at all, for any purpose, no matter what the stakes are for mankind.

Cancer research? Not if lab rats are used against their will.

Hunting? Absolutely forbidden, especially if it's for sport.

Leather jackets? The cows need their skin more that you do.

Seeing-eye dogs? They're nothing more than slaves.

And that T-bone steak? Fuhgeddaboudit! If animals have any "rights" at all, the right to not be your dinner is at the top of the list.

All of this makes perfect sense to Cass Sunstein, who organized the "Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles" at the University of Chicago. He will soon have the political authority to push for a radical overhaul of the way the federal government regulates everything Americans do with animals.

How radical? Sunstein supports making sport hunting illegal, and completely phasing out the consumption of meat. And if that's not nutty enough, he's actually in favor of giving animals the legal right to sue people.

Think we're joking? Think again. Here's what Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:

"[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

Conservative commentators have been openly fretting that Barack Obama may try to turn welfare entitlements and single-payer healthcare into a new Bill of Rights. But Cass Sunstein threatens to expand the whole concept of "rights" to include the rest of the animal kingdom.

That fish wriggling at the end of your hook could soon be a federal offense (if the fish doesn't file a lawsuit first). Don't say we didn't warn you.

Find out more at ConsumerFreedom.com.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130221
01/16/09 09:41 PM
01/16/09 09:41 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Here you go, Thirsty. In Sunstein's own words.

The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/30.crs.animals.pdf

Increased Regulation of Hunting, Science, Farming, and More
But I think that we should go further. We should focus attention not only on the
“enforcement gap,” but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In
short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments,
entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It
is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed
European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130223
01/16/09 09:42 PM
01/16/09 09:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 760
Ohio
N
newears Offline
trapper
newears  Offline
trapper
N

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 760
Ohio
I keep asking why the Obamaites voted for him and no one can answer, perhaps the antis I guess or those against gun rights. Now BO is trying to take credit for the jobs that were signed off from Bush. His first lie was using public funds and then used private funds. A man is as good as his word in my book.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: newears] #1130225
01/16/09 09:44 PM
01/16/09 09:44 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



I don't want to make this about Obama. He's gonna be President. But only a fool would pretend the records of his appointees don't exist.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130288
01/16/09 10:04 PM
01/16/09 10:04 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
thrstyunderwater Offline
trapper
thrstyunderwater  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
Look, this guy is no Ted Nugent. He still isn't the spokesperson for PETA. He's a philosopher on animal rights, not an animal rights activist. If you read nothing else below, read the conclusion. I don't think he's that far out there.

Guess what folks, only ~5% of Americans hunt and trap. The other ~95% of people out there deserve representation too.


Many people who urge radical
steps—who think, for example, that people should not eat meat—do so because they
believe that without such steps, the level of animal suffering will be unacceptably severe.

Of course a legal ban on meat-eating would be extremely radical, and like prohibition, it
would undoubtedly create black markets and have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects.
But the principle seems clear: People should be much less inclined to eat meat if their
refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.


Conclusion
Every reasonable person believes in animal rights. Even the sharpest critics of
animal rights support the anticruelty laws. I have suggested that the simple moral
judgment behind these laws is that animal suffering matters, and that this judgment
supports a significant amount of reform. Most modestly, private suits should be permitted
to prevent illegal cruelty and neglect. There is no good reason to give public officials a
monopoly on enforcement; that monopoly is a recipe for continued illegality. Less
modestly, anticruelty laws should be extended to areas that are now exempt from them,
including scientific experiments and farming. There is no good reason to permit the level
of suffering that is now being experienced by millions, even billions of living creatures.
I have also raised doubts about the radical idea that animals deserve to have
“autonomy,” understood as a right to be free from human control and use. In my view,
the real questions involves animal welfare and suffering, and human control and use may
be compatible with decent lives for animals. But the emphasis on suffering, and on decent
lives, itself has significant implications. Of course it is appropriate to consider human
interests in the balance, and sometimes our interests will outweigh those of other animals.
The problem is that most of the time, the interests of animals are not counted at all—and
that once they are counted, many of our practices cannot possibly be justified. I believe
that in the long-run, our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be
seem a form of unconscionable barbarity—not the same as, but in many ways morally
akin to, slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.


Originally Posted by Ole Hawkeye
Pat, as usual, you are right....

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: thrstyunderwater] #1130299
01/16/09 10:09 PM
01/16/09 10:09 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Quote:
I don't think he's that far out there.



This is a quote from Sunstein. "Should animals be hunted and killed simply because people enjoy
hunting and killing them? The issue might be different if hunting and killing could be
justified as having important functions, such as control of populations or protection of
human beings against animal violence."

You can read much more here.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/30.crs.animals.pdf

You turning into an anti, Thirsty? Or are you just reluctant to admit the Messiah made a bad decision?

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130318
01/16/09 10:29 PM
01/16/09 10:29 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
thrstyunderwater Offline
trapper
thrstyunderwater  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
Have you ever met a philosopher?

"Should animals be hunted and killed simply because people enjoy
hunting and killing them? The issue might be different if hunting and killing could be
justified as having important functions, such as control of populations or protection of
human beings against animal violence."

The key would there is should. It's a question. We can answer that question with scientific data, showing that hunting and trapping IS defendable. Both do provide population control and protection of humans.

What about the rest of this guys background. Besides writing ONE working paper on animal rights what else has he done with his career? Has he spoken on PETA's behalf? Has he done a commercial for ALF? Is he even a vegetarian himself? And what about the rest of his career and his stances on every other issue besides animal welfare?

And why is it that Obama haters call him the Messiah? Really, I have no idea. I can promise you that I haven't ever mixed him up with Jesus. Have you?


Originally Posted by Ole Hawkeye
Pat, as usual, you are right....

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: thrstyunderwater] #1130322
01/16/09 10:31 PM
01/16/09 10:31 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Thirsty, his philosphy on animal rights is just as important as his past history on the issue.

And as far as other issues, this is an outdoor forum, and this discussion is about his PHILOSOPHY and his possible future impact on our outdoor pursuits.

But if you have sold your soul, there's nothing we can do to help you.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130327
01/16/09 10:35 PM
01/16/09 10:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
thrstyunderwater Offline
trapper
thrstyunderwater  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,755
Nevada
I can assure you that I haven't sold my soul yet, I'm still employed.

"I have also raised doubts about the radical idea that animals deserve to have
“autonomy,” understood as a right to be free from human control and use."

I'm not really to worried about this guy.


Originally Posted by Ole Hawkeye
Pat, as usual, you are right....

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: thrstyunderwater] #1130330
01/16/09 10:36 PM
01/16/09 10:36 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Of course you aren't. Despite his paper that you so easily dismiss sounds like it was written by Pacelle. But, you would NEVER criticize an Obama appointment, now would you?

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130343
01/16/09 10:40 PM
01/16/09 10:40 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



I have a feeling that if Obama appointed Ingrid Newkirk as Secretary of the Interior, you would defend his decision.

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: thrstyunderwater] #1130388
01/16/09 10:56 PM
01/16/09 10:56 PM

B
BuckNE
Unregistered
BuckNE
Unregistered
B



Quote:
Besides writing ONE working paper on animal rights what else has he done with his career?


He has written MANY articles and blogs in support of the AR movement. This is from one of his articles in The New Republic.

"To be sure, animals are sometimes treated well and protected against suffering. But often they are not. In circuses, whips, chains, metal hooks, and electric prods "are all regularly used for training." About 40 million animals are killed each year so that their pelts can be turned into clothing. Many of these animals spend all of their lives in truly deplorable conditions"

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130440
01/16/09 11:12 PM
01/16/09 11:12 PM

2
2poor
Unregistered
2poor
Unregistered
2



Just more proof stupid people should not be allowed to vote !

Re: Another bad choice?? Times are getting more bleak. [Re: ] #1130476
01/16/09 11:22 PM
01/16/09 11:22 PM

H
Hupurest
Unregistered
Hupurest
Unregistered
H



Keep drinking the kool aid..
he hasn't done a thing he promised yet..
and he keeps backing off his promises..

he was all for gun legislation...he made stements about it in California about people in pennslyvania, remeber??
he has appointed some of the farthest left leaning people he could..
We are in for a world of crap.. seriously..
thirsty if you are such an animal lover, then quit killing pigs for $8 hr..
you haven't spoken one bad word about B. Hussein, ever, yet can't come up with a reason to support him or any of his cabinet picks...

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1