I.... err... agree with fox.

[sandinista]

...and? or...so?

So... nothing. It's a total non-story, something guys like Carlson exploit to get people talking about them. Does he really think Obama is supportive of dog-killers? Of course not, even Carlson's not that dumb. But the media and the blogosphere will wank over this for a couple days.

Is anything on fox NOT a non-story? What is wrong with supporting "dog killers" anyway? People support animal killers every day. More cruelty goes on behind the closed doors of factory farms than in all the dog fighting "rings" on the planet.

I don't disagree. I'm not even taking sides in the debate. I'm just pointing out that Tucker and his cohorts at Fox do a better-than-most job of intentionally getting people agitated, and they do it as a business strategy. And of course people play into it, discussing and debating the non-story until they're good and pissy about it, and then they can't wait to hear what ol' Tucker says next.

Anyway, I think I'll go get a cheeseburger.

Enjoy, I'm going to go "hunting"...ie. there is a cat in the alley I've been meaning to kill with a bat.

[anna09]

It takes a certain kind of person to do what he did. I don't know of anybody personally who could do that and if I did, I'd turn them the fuck in. Just because he spent a short time in prison for it doesn't mean he's changed or that he's "recovered". It's not like he got caught with pot or anything, he took pleasure and enjoyment out of torturing and slaughtering dogs!

He only stopped because he got caught and now he's trying to save his career by saying he's "very very sorry".

Fuck him!

[sandinista]

It takes a certain kind of person to do what he did. I don't know of anybody personally who could do that and if I did, I'd turn them the fuck in. Just because he spent a short time in prison for it doesn't mean he's changed or that he's "recovered". It's not like he got caught with pot or anything, he took pleasure and enjoyment out of torturing and slaughtering dogs!

He only stopped because he got caught and now he's trying to save his career by saying he's "very very sorry".

Fuck him!

ahhh, bullfighting, cockfighting, dogfighting, slaughtering animals en mass for "food", hunting, circuses, leather, all the same shit, different animals. I feel the same way about Vick as anyone who participates in the killing and torturing of any animal.

[JimC]

It takes a certain kind of person to do what he did. I don't know of anybody personally who could do that and if I did, I'd turn them the fuck in. Just because he spent a short time in prison for it doesn't mean he's changed or that he's "recovered". It's not like he got caught with pot or anything, he took pleasure and enjoyment out of torturing and slaughtering dogs!

He only stopped because he got caught and now he's trying to save his career by saying he's "very very sorry".

Fuck him!

ahhh, bullfighting, cockfighting, dogfighting, slaughtering animals en mass for "food", hunting, circuses, leather, all the same shit, different animals. I feel the same way about Vick as anyone who participates in the killing and torturing of any animal.

A complete nonsense. Animals killed for food are not deliberately subjected to prolonged torture for the sake of kicks. If there are cruel aspects to modern factory farmimg, that is a separate argument; the point is that it is perfecly possible to rear animals in a relatively pleasant environment and kill them quickly and painlessly.

The bullfighting, cockfighting & dogfighting examples are in a totally different category, and you know it. Quite rightly, there are severe penalties for those who engage in this behaviour in civilised countries (Spain being the barbaric exception); and it would not just apply to animals that humans have emotional bonds with, like cats and dogs.

As to the OP, of course it is over the top to suggest execution. The guy served a jail term, let's move on. I would still bar him from owning an animal for life, though...

[Hermit]

You don't have to own an animal to be cruel to it. One of my neighbours told me about three men who used to trap cats in the area, declaw them and then use them in lieu of hares at illegal greyhound meets. After they got caught and convicted, all three of them found out very quickly how unhealthy it had become to stay in town, and left.

[JimC]

You don't have to own an animal to be cruel to it. One of my neighbours told me about three men who used to trap cats in the area, declaw them and then use them in lieu of hares at illegal greyhound meets. After they got caught and convicted, all three of them found out very quickly how unhealthy it had become to stay in town, and left.

People have been known to do that with possums in Melbourne. Same penalty if convicted, so it is not a matter of pet owners being over-emotional, or that pets are privileged over non-pets...

[sandinista]

It takes a certain kind of person to do what he did. I don't know of anybody personally who could do that and if I did, I'd turn them the fuck in. Just because he spent a short time in prison for it doesn't mean he's changed or that he's "recovered". It's not like he got caught with pot or anything, he took pleasure and enjoyment out of torturing and slaughtering dogs!

He only stopped because he got caught and now he's trying to save his career by saying he's "very very sorry".

Fuck him!

ahhh, bullfighting, cockfighting, dogfighting, slaughtering animals en mass for "food", hunting, circuses, leather, all the same shit, different animals. I feel the same way about Vick as anyone who participates in the killing and torturing of any animal.

A complete nonsense. Animals killed for food are not deliberately subjected to prolonged torture for the sake of kicks. If there are cruel aspects to modern factory farmimg, that is a separate argument; the point is that it is perfecly possible to rear animals in a relatively pleasant environment and kill them quickly and painlessly.

The bullfighting, cockfighting & dogfighting examples are in a totally different category, and you know it. Quite rightly, there are severe penalties for those who engage in this behaviour in civilised countries (Spain being the barbaric exception); and it would not just apply to animals that humans have emotional bonds with, like cats and dogs.

As to the OP, of course it is over the top to suggest execution. The guy served a jail term, let's move on. I would still bar him from owning an animal for life, though...

nonsense...no. same...same, and you know it.

[Hermit]

nonsense...no. same...same, and you know it.

Once again displaying your intellectual prowess, I see.

[sandinista]

nonsense...no. same...same, and you know it.

Once again displaying your intellectual prowess, I see.

meaning? or just going for a trollin'

oh, wait a minute, I should amend that. What you mean is, you don't agree with me and you figure the easiest way to show that is to attempt an insult. OK, makes sense.

[JimC]

nonsense...no. same...same, and you know it.

Once again displaying your intellectual prowess, I see.

meaning? or just going for a trollin'

oh, wait a minute, I should amend that. What you mean is, you don't agree with me and you figure the easiest way to show that is to attempt an insult. OK, makes sense.

What part of "same...same" refutes the clear distinction I made between deliberate, prolonged cruelty to animals, and the instant death granted to a food animal in any well-run meatworks?

If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, then marshall your arguments and let us examine them...

[sandinista]

nonsense...no. same...same, and you know it.

Once again displaying your intellectual prowess, I see.

meaning? or just going for a trollin'

oh, wait a minute, I should amend that. What you mean is, you don't agree with me and you figure the easiest way to show that is to attempt an insult. OK, makes sense.

What part of "same...same" refutes the clear distinction I made between deliberate, prolonged cruelty to animals, and the instant death granted to a food animal in any well-run meatworks?

If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, then marshall your arguments and let us examine them...

You made no clear distinction. You are arguing from a completely false premise that somewhere, somehow there is a slaughterhouse where there is no suffering. Absolute rubbish, fantasy world.

[JimC]

nonsense...no. same...same, and you know it.

Once again displaying your intellectual prowess, I see.

meaning? or just going for a trollin'

oh, wait a minute, I should amend that. What you mean is, you don't agree with me and you figure the easiest way to show that is to attempt an insult. OK, makes sense.

What part of "same...same" refutes the clear distinction I made between deliberate, prolonged cruelty to animals, and the instant death granted to a food animal in any well-run meatworks?

If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, then marshall your arguments and let us examine them...

You made no clear distinction. You are arguing from a completely false premise that somewhere, somehow there is a slaughterhouse where there is no suffering. Absolute rubbish, fantasy world.

Slaughter houses would not be pleasant, but animals cannot brood over their coming fate, like a man on death row... They may be uneasy, but the finale is very quick indeed, as opposed the the long periods of pain and suffering that animal cruelty cases often involve, even forgetting the issue of intent. If you are familiar with the writings of Temple Grandin, you would have a better perspective on methods of killing animals for food that are designed to minimise suffering.

Anyway, if you see absolutely no difference between the deliberate infliction of prolonged pain to animals, and killing them for food with at least a conscious attempt to make the process quick and painless, then you should either be agitating for jail terms for abbatoir workers, or zero penalties for the forms of animal cruelty which uniformly attract detestation in the civilised world

[sandinista]

Slaughter houses would not be pleasant, but animals cannot brood over their coming fate, like a man on death row... They may be uneasy, but the finale is very quick indeed, as opposed the the long periods of pain and suffering that animal cruelty cases often involve, even forgetting the issue of intent. If you are familiar with the writings of Temple Grandin, you would have a better perspective on methods of killing animals for food that are designed to minimise suffering.

Anyway, if you see absolutely no difference between the deliberate infliction of prolonged pain to animals, and killing them for food with at least a conscious attempt to make the process quick and painless, then you should either be agitating for jail terms for abbatoir workers, or zero penalties for the forms of animal cruelty which uniformly attract detestation in the civilised world

"Uneasy" "Better perspective" "a conscious attempt" civilized what a whole line of bullshit, wow.

[Hermit]

Another "No, it's not" member. Sheesh.

Come back when you have something to contribute, Sand.

[maiforpeace]

meaning? or just going for a trollin'

oh, wait a minute, I should amend that. What you mean is, you don't agree with me and you figure the easiest way to show that is to attempt an insult. OK, makes sense.

What part of "same...same" refutes the clear distinction I made between deliberate, prolonged cruelty to animals, and the instant death granted to a food animal in any well-run meatworks?

If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, then marshall your arguments and let us examine them...

You made no clear distinction. You are arguing from a completely false premise that somewhere, somehow there is a slaughterhouse where there is no suffering. Absolute rubbish, fantasy world.

Slaughter houses would not be pleasant, but animals cannot brood over their coming fate, like a man on death row... They may be uneasy, but the finale is very quick indeed, as opposed the the long periods of pain and suffering that animal cruelty cases often involve, even forgetting the issue of intent. If you are familiar with the writings of Temple Grandin, you would have a better perspective on methods of killing animals for food that are designed to minimise suffering.

Anyway, if you see absolutely no difference between the deliberate infliction of prolonged pain to animals, and killing them for food with at least a conscious attempt to make the process quick and painless, then you should either be agitating for jail terms for abbatoir workers, or zero penalties for the forms of animal cruelty which uniformly attract detestation in the civilised world

But it's not in the slaughterhouse where the suffering occurs...it's in the the battery cages, gestation crates, and feedlots. If the animal is sick, they are thrown into a pile to die a slow, agonizing death...it's too expensive to try to rehabilitate it. Chickens can't stand on their own legs, they are too breast heavy, and they can't stretch their wings and engage in their natural behaviors. Pigs are trapped in gestation crates and can't even lie down? Baby chicks are thrown alive into grinders...I could go on and on about the torture factory farmed animals suffer. If you were to really compare the two, factory farming is even more horrible than what Michael Vick did, because hundreds of thousands more animals suffer. Neglect is also a form of abuse, just not as obvious or in your face as forcing animals to fight to the death.