Missouri's Proposition B Relating to Dog Breeders (Troy, Belle: versus, assess)

[BoomBoxing]

By your logic, we should decide who becomes president merely by number of states he/she gets instead of balancing it by weighting states electoral votes with population. That makes no sense on any level if you believe in Democracy. As for your position that city voters were "uneducated" on the issue so therefore their vote is null, I suppose you think that all voters should be put through a litmus test before they are able to vote?

Either way, I am happy so many rural "real" Americans are showing their true colors - they do not respect democracy one bit. How would you feel if something YOU supported passed with a majority only to be overturned by politicians? You probably wouldn't like it but you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

[MoBornSouthernBelle]

Originally Posted by SW Missouri Dave

Because one does not agree with your view, may very well make them wrong (if it is the rare black and white topic), but when your attitude is to call them names for disagreeing with you, you make it much more difficult for that party to want to hear anymore you have to say on the subject. And offended people shift from arguing their point, to defending themselves against your personal attack.

Then again, maybe times are changing. When I took debate in high school, (yes we had phones back then - all of them were attached to a wall though) we were taught that when an opposing debater had to stoop to a personal attack, they were acknowledging they had nothing and were surrendering the debate but taking a final swing on their way to defeat. It was called a classless tactic back then, and could get you kicked off any respectable debate team. That is not to say you couldn't take a shot in debate. You had just better disguised it well enough that the other guy would be left wondering if they had been dissed or not, and the judges amused - not miffed.

How does it work these days when both sides apparently have surrendered?

Dave, you are right on.....I was raised this way, and debate was encouraged in our large family...and there were rules. If you couldn't carry your own weight in the debate, you lost. LOL, thanks for the reminder.

[MoBornSouthernBelle]

Originally Posted by Kings Ranger

103/114 counties with 80% voting NO
and the vote still passed?
It was close, but the cities have the other counties beat...


HSUS knew the cities could throw the vote, and considering city-dwellers don't exactly know what goes into farming or dog breeding as in depth as farmers do, they knew they had a large majority of people who could get this passed

This is exactly the case.

People who do not work with animals in an agricultural setting tend to romanticize and humanize animals. Too many generations have been too far from the farm to have any idea about animal husbandry.

We love them, without a doubt, but, it does not make them human, and this type of attitude sometimes causes our 'pets' to have a less than full life. Animals are animals, they are not human and it is unfair to treat them that way. They are not babies or our children, though people often feel a love and attachment as strong or stronger for their pets as they do any human.

I definitely fall into this category, but, I always remember that they are animals, different from humans, with different needs both physically and emotionally than humans have. I always respect my horses, dogs and cats for what they are and allow them the freedom to be just that.

This bill addresses care and control, but presented to the public that all animals out there were being abused, and mistreated. This bill was presented to the public as 'the puppy mill bill'. If peta and h$u$ were seriously concerned about animal care, they would have donated money to hire more inspectors - that would have paid a lot of salaries. Considering there were solid laws in place, this bill is about more control of animal owners not about animal care.

I have respect for other's views, but have no tolerance for others who are trying to puke their views down my throat. This is a very emotionally charged topic, made so by the name 'puppy mill bill'. This bill addressed much more than puppy mills, it addressed all owners of animals.

It also subtly promoted the idea that anyone breeding was a puppy mill, especially if they were doing it on a large scale, or not so large in the case of a hobby breeder. Radical activists want the public to believe that anyone making money on the sale of animals is unethical, and somehow evil.
ps....just so you know, I don't own a puppy mill, or breeding establishment, but I have seen too many cases of over-zealous attacks on animal owners...many times owners who were doing no wrong, but, owned more animals than someone thought acceptable. This could be a neighbor, a animal control official, or anyone who didn't 'approve'. Sometimes, the person didn't own many animals, but someone didn't like the him or her, or how the animal was living, even when it was receiving care as required by law.

I think that there should be a lot more offers to help and assist animal owners having problems with their animals, instead of making a crusade of presecuting these people, making a huge spectacle out of someone's troubles so they could pull in tens of thousands of dollars each time they pull off one of their 'raids'.

[latetotheparty]

and once the "donated" money ran out, how, pray tell, would the salaries of those newly hired inspectors be paid??

and REALLY??? exactly where in prop b is there provisions for control of ALL animal owners?? please enlighten us, because I sure didn't see that language.....

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by latetotheparty

and once the "donated" money ran out, how, pray tell, would the salaries of those newly hired inspectors be paid??

The same way that the salaries for the new inspectors (who would have to be added to enforce such a prop) would be paid -- out of taxes, of course.

[MoBornSouthernBelle]

Originally Posted by southward bound

The same way that the salaries for the new inspectors (who would have to be added to enforce such a prop) would be paid -- out of taxes, of course.

\/
I rate this post positively.
....and, peta and the h$u$ could continue to contribute all that money they collect for a good cause. Certainly, they bring in enough. But, of course, that would take cash out of their pockets, and lessen their impact with lobbyists and 'others'.

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by latetotheparty

and REALLY??? exactly where in prop b is there provisions for control of ALL animal owners?? please enlighten us, because I sure didn't see that language.....

They saw that language as an attack on keeping farm animals because they consider dogs to be farm animals, only for profit. They care about the horror and misery of the dogs' live as much as they care about pigs, chickens, etc., that is, not at all. It's only about money. We'd be correct in calling them dog farmers.

Their supporters here may or may not be dog farmers themselves; but they are part of the same brutish society.

[Kings Ranger]

Originally Posted by latetotheparty

and once the "donated" money ran out, how, pray tell, would the salaries of those newly hired inspectors be paid??

and REALLY??? exactly where in prop b is there provisions for control of ALL animal owners?? please enlighten us, because I sure didn't see that language.....

You must not understand, HSUS makes over $100 million a year... most spent on lobbying... I doubt $500,000 would hurt especially since they spend less than 1% on animal welfare...

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

They saw that language as an attack on keeping farm animals because they consider dogs to be farm animals, only for profit. They care about the horror and misery of the dogs' live as much as they care about pigs, chickens, etc., that is, not at all. It's only about money. We'd be correct in calling them dog farmers.

Their supporters here may or may not be dog farmers themselves; but they are part of the same brutish society.

That broad brush works really good, doesn't it.

Originally Posted by Kings Ranger

You must not understand, HSUS makes over $100 million a year... most spent on lobbying... I doubt $500,000 would hurt especially since they spend less than 1% on animal welfare...

The HSUS doesn't care about animal welfare. If they did, they'd share their millions with shelters and communities that need better enforcement. Always watch what they do, not what they say.

[MoBornSouthernBelle]

Originally Posted by southward bound

That broad brush works really good, doesn't it.

Some think the brush works well, but not for those who make it a point to be informed, and not believe every person that opens his or her mouth without any care at all about the truth, and are trying their best to use misinformation and drama to shock and scare people to their side...a form of emotional intimidation.

The HSUS doesn't care about animal welfare. If they did, they'd share their millions with shelters and communities that need better enforcement. Always watch what they do, not what they say.

"If.....
I suppose when pigs fly. LOL

Originally Posted by Kings Ranger

You must not understand, HSUS makes over $100 million a year... most spent on lobbying... I doubt $500,000 would hurt especially since they spend less than 1% on animal welfare...

Correct, again.
I rate this post positively.