Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:10 PM
 
410 posts, read 740,618 times
Reputation: 562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoBornSouthernBelle View Post
Take off your blinders.
You keep claiming to be informed.
So, you 'did the research', we hear that....
You made a decision,...we hear that....few, if any of us have a problem with either of those statements. So, is it necessary that we have to keep hearing that over and over?

It doesn't make your decision the right one for those of us who have different views, and it definitely won't change other's views. You seem to think the repetition that you have 'researched' this issue will brainwash the rest of us. You seem to think that makes you decision the best one for everyone else. It doesn't make you right. (This is trick radical groups like peta use to brainwash the public. One that Hitler used successfully, too. And when brainwashing didn't work, he merely destroyed those who opposed his ideas.)
I have posted 20 comments on this thread, only 3 of which I made comments that I 'did the research', and 2 of those were in direct response to someone questioning whether or not I had been fully informed. I would hardly count that as 'over and over', and it's absolutely a far stretch from trying to brainwash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoBornSouthernBelle View Post
Have you read all the statutes on the books before Prop B?
They cover everything...and they don't exempt any group or organization from having to follow those laws. Missouri needs more inspectors, not more laws.
Tell you peta/h$u$ friends to put the money where it will HELP, instead of putting it toward their agenda of "No human should own any animal, animals shouldn't be 'enslaved', beaten, tortured and mutilated". Prop B does nothing but start the slide down the slope of total control by government and groups like peta and h$u$ to control everything to do with animal ownership, it is not about the animals, but about their agenda, and about the money they accept from the public.
I have already said that I agree with those who think we need more inspectors to enforce laws that are already on the books. That doesn't mean that THIS law isn't a good step to further protect the dogs who ultimately will suffer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoBornSouthernBelle View Post
BTW, altering an animal is mutilation isn't it?
How many of our children do we alter like that? If animals should be considered to have the rights of humans, they should have the choice to be neutered or not....don't you think? Who says they should be altered???? Groups who want to control everything....groups who want to be in control of everything. Altering animals should not be forced upon owners like it is being done now. It should not cost the owner additional money to own an unaltered animal. But, the h$u$, peta and many other brainwashed groups think so, don't they?

Radical groups surround us, trying to limit everything we do.
They use devious methods to get money from people, and then use it to promote their views and against the public. Every one of these groups take money not to help the cause, but to achieve their goals and promote their agenda, and most people don't have any idea they are being misled. They are given sob stories and worse case scenarios.

How much money actually goes to research to cure disease, when we make donations???? Very little. Very, very little.

When obtaining money becomes important than the cause, the organization is useless.
I don't think there are any radical ideals behind this bill. Not even close. In my opinion, the bill was clear and to the point. The only issue that I see in the bill is the lack of funding to enforce the law. That alone does not take away the need for better regulation on breeders. I would much rather have a law already in place with more strict regulations and possibly have to wait a bit for funding to fall in place, than to have lesser value laws in the books. Do I wish that the issue of funding was included in this particular measure? Absolutely. But given the choice of this update to the law or no update to the law... I stand by my decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Missouri today...
98 posts, read 119,859 times
Reputation: 67
The more regulations, the fewer rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:28 PM
 
410 posts, read 740,618 times
Reputation: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoBornSouthernBelle View Post
The more regulations, the fewer rights.
You shouldn't have the right to neglect or make an animal suffer, and especially not one that you have claimed responsibility for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Missouri today...
98 posts, read 119,859 times
Reputation: 67
I don't think anyone is claiming a right or desire for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:47 PM
 
410 posts, read 740,618 times
Reputation: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoBornSouthernBelle View Post
I don't think anyone is claiming a right or desire for that.
The whole point of this bill is to protect and prevent those from suffering. If nobody is claiming a right to neglect or abuse, then why oppose the bill?

I haven't seen a good answer yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:52 PM
 
410 posts, read 740,618 times
Reputation: 562
... And to be honest, it really doesn't matter. Those of us who cared either way have already made our decision and turned in our vote. I accept the fact that neither of us are going to change the other's mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Missouri today...
98 posts, read 119,859 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jifwittle View Post
... And to be honest, it really doesn't matter. Those of us who cared either way have already made our decision and turned in our vote. I accept the fact that neither of us are going to change the other's mind.
You are correct, and I appreciate that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 07:33 PM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,628,933 times
Reputation: 5131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jifwittle View Post
You shouldn't have the right to neglect or make an animal suffer, and especially not one that you have claimed responsibility for.
Nobody's claiming one should have that right. No one has that right.

Nothing solves the problem until there is enforcement and as things stand how, there will be little if any enforcement due to lack of funding. That means you have laws on the books that have no teeth in them - which makes them useless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 08:16 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
694 posts, read 1,349,092 times
Reputation: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoBornSouthernBelle View Post
The more regulations, the fewer rights.
Welcome to the forum MoBorn. I see since you joined 5 days ago you have had quite a bit to say, and I can not remember when I have seen someone make so many friends, quite so fast. You joined on March 9th and on March 11th your first forum entry starts "Well, I am a little surprised at the bullying that I experienced here. WOW...is that all some have to do? What pleasure could it give?" I applaud you mam. Two days! I really thought all the talk about this new medical condition called 'Narcissism Victim Syndrome' was a load of poo poo caw caw, but now I truly must wonder.

While you have had so much too say in so little time, I would like to ask you about your meaning of three little words you used in this thread. The response was "The more regulations, the fewer rights." Yes I can count, but it is the last three that I would like to question you about. "The fewer rights". Which rights are you willing to give up?

Firstly, I would like to clarify something. We probably share many of the same political positions. I do not disagree with much of what you have said, although maybe not for the same reasons, nor would I express them to total strangers like a bull in a China shop. If my handle were GrumpyOldBas---d, then one would most likely expect that any reply I shared would probably be something with a tinge of gruffness, and I would probably be forgiven if I were a tad rude. On the same hand, one might expect someone with the handle SouthernBelle, according to Wikipedia's description, to be young, single, polite and charming to the point of being simply nauseating. Again, I applaud you. A masterful ruse.

But I digress.

I also share your concern that more government interference in our daily lives thru additional rules, regulations, ie laws, is not to be desired. As can be read on this very thread, way back when it actually mattered, and before the people of Missouri had had a chance to vote on it, I thought this regulation was a waste of paper. I did not, nor do I buy the scare tactics of the left wing, nor did I, nor do I buy the scare tactics of the right wing. I am a simpleton you see. I read, I study, and make up my own mind on issues without allowing myself to become a parrot for party line demagoguery. That doesn't make me right, it just means I made a decision based off my own research, and not because a not for profit, or political party, or next door neighbor convinced me they were the holder of all truth. Missourians were given the opportunity to vote and they did, and as I had predicted, the majority did not agree with my opinion. Idiots!!

I am curious which of the rights you presently hold as an American do you hold most near and dear? Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion. Freedom of ...? Or maybe all of them. Not sure, but I am guessing most readers would say all of them and the devil to the person who tries to tamper with any of them. Everyone is arguing about the plight or the perceived plight of dogs here, and who is trying to control our canine raising, but is that really what is important here? Really? The Missouri Congress is telling Missourian's 'they' know better than the people they represent. Please think about that for a minute. The majority in the state Congress may agree with you today, because you think this law is stupid, but are you willing to hand them a blank check to overturn anything the populace has voted for? You may say yes because you are in agreement with their move today - but what about tomorrow? The Missouri legislature is today controlled by Republicans, but will they always hold control? Maybe the Democrats will regain control someday and decide Missourian's were not smart enough to know that carrying around hand guns is dangerous to their health. By surrendering to your party of choice a precious right, you set an incredibly dangerous precedent for the other party.

I am totally bewildered why Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, or Free Thinkers are not raising bloody Cain about why some of Missouri's elected officials think they know better than the people. If we allow them to get away with this, then we allow them to prove they truly are smarter than us.

Then again, I guess there are more important things to argue about on this thread. Like who is truly the worst - a PETA volunteer just trying to do what they think is best - or a dog breeder who is trying to pay some bills and feed the family!

Again, welcome to the forum MoBorn. Like your biggest fan Southward Bound has said - I wouldn't change a word. I mean, what would be the fun in that!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 10:33 AM
 
410 posts, read 740,618 times
Reputation: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound View Post
Nobody's claiming one should have that right. No one has that right.

Nothing solves the problem until there is enforcement and as things stand how, there will be little if any enforcement due to lack of funding. That means you have laws on the books that have no teeth in them - which makes them useless.
It seems like we've been through this several times on this thread, and I have already explained my position. I don't see the point in continuing to go 'round and 'round making the same points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top