Donald Trump signs animal cruelty bill

[bigheadfred]

I don't understand @bigheadfred .  Are you mocking me for my steadfast support of President Trump on this issue or my strong opposition to animal cruelty?

You, sir, are hilarious.

That ? has me rolling on the floor LMAO.

Some would say steadfast support for President Trump IS animal cruelty.

I enjoy your posts. Sometimes, I will enjoin them.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

You, sir, are hilarious.

That ? has me rolling on the floor LMAO.

Some would say steadfast support for President Trump IS animal cruelty.

I enjoy your posts. Sometimes, I will enjoin them.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

I appreciate you saying so @bigheadfred
That fact that we read and respond to each other indicates we see something worth reading, but it always nice hear a compliment and a superb way to get others to want to listen to what you say.  Thank you for your kind words.

I like to hear people laugh, and I like to laugh with them.  I'm glad I brought some mirth to your day.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I'd venture to say he meant your above-board honesty.

Thanx for your response @IsailedawayfromFR It sounds like you are having a hard time believing I support President Trump signing a law to greatly penalizing animal cruelty videos, or I condemn animal cruelty for entertainment.   Let me assure you that I both support President Trump signing this law and I strongly condemn stomping baby chicks.  I'm not afraid of taking the hard stands in the face of brutal opposition of the Fake News or the Deep State. 

[bigheadfred]

I appreciate you saying so @bigheadfred
That fact that we read and respond to each other indicates we see something worth reading, but it always nice hear a compliment and a superb way to get others to want to listen to what you say.  Thank you for your kind words.

I like to hear people laugh, and I like to laugh with them.  I'm glad I brought some mirth to your day.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

I will and do compliment the admins, @mystery-ak , @Cyber Liberty  and Medusa, for running a FORUM.

LOL at you calling the "mods". Hell, half or more (not better) are mods. "cat" mods", technical, advisory, what the hell ever.

I will explain it this way. The wife and I went and did some grocery shopping tonight. Dreading that we hadn't done it earlier. Coming in they had 20/30 frozen shrimp in a 5 lb. bag for a good price. It wasn't on the list but I put one in the cart. A bit later my wife is looking at those 2.3 oz. "tuna" sized cans of shrimp for her salad. I told her we had FIVE pounds of shrimp in the cart. She looked at me and I waited until the wheels turned and locked.

People see what they want to see. I ain't so much different. But I try.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I will and do compliment the admins, @mystery-ak , @Cyber Liberty  and Medusa, for running a FORUM.

Indeed.  While we don't always see eye to eye, I have almost always seen @mystery-ak and @Cyber Liberty as fair of judgement.  This is a unique forum that doesn't shy away from asking tough questions, and is comprised by the smartest most observant political minds across this great nation.  Even the ones I disagree with.  Sorry I don't know who Medusa is.

LOL at you calling the "mods". Hell, half or more (not better) are mods. "cat" mods", technical, advisory, what the hell ever.

I will explain it this way. The wife and I went and did some grocery shopping tonight. Dreading that we hadn't done it earlier. Coming in they had 20/30 frozen shrimp in a 5 lb. bag for a good price. It wasn't on the list but I put one in the cart. A bit later my wife is looking at those 2.3 oz. "tuna" sized cans of shrimp for her salad. I told her we had FIVE pounds of shrimp in the cart. She looked at me and I waited until the wheels turned and locked.

I'm sorry I have no idea how to read this, can you elaborate please.

People see what they want to see. I ain't so much different. But I try.

Agreed.  same.

[Smokin Joe]

Thanx for your response @IsailedawayfromFR It sounds like you are having a hard time believing I support President Trump signing a law to greatly penalizing animal cruelty videos, or I condemn animal cruelty for entertainment.   Let me assure you that I both support President Trump signing this law and I strongly condemn stomping baby chicks.  I'm not afraid of taking the hard stands in the face of brutal opposition of the Fake News or the Deep State.

I am against both being cruel to anyone or any critter for entertainment, and I condemn the idea of those videos being made.
BUT, who defines what is cruelty?
Is medical dissection of euthanized lab animals "cruelty"?
Is a filmed hunt of lawful game a "Cruelty video"?

Well, that would depend on who you talk to. In New York City, bringing down that Bull Elk with an arrow might be considered harsh and cruel by people who only know about deer and elk from watching Bambi, where in other parts of the country, hunting is still a way of life. Even shows on television that include disclaimers like "hunting is a way of life and graphic content may not be suitable for all audiences" might be banned under possible sweeping interpretations of what constitutes cruelty, driven by urbanites who wouldn't know squat about living in the woods.

For this reason, that people who know nothing of how the rest of America lives, who huddle in their urban enclaves and likely will (if they don't already) outvote the rest of us can define what we can or cannot do by simply redefining "cruelty", I am dead against this being done on a Federal Level.

This is not a Constitutionally delegated power of the Federal Government and should be an issue handled at the State Level, if for no more reason than keeping the likes of people in NYC and SoCal who never hunted in their lives from defining the lawful and skillful harvest of game and furbearing animals as "cruelty".
From Eskimo whale hunts to fur trapping to hunting whitetail deer, waterfowl, and upland game, to the taking of predators, all could be in peril because of this usurpation.

[bigheadfred]

I am against both being cruel to anyone or any critter for entertainment, and I condemn the idea of those videos being made.
BUT, who defines what is cruelty?
Is medical dissection of euthanized lab animals "cruelty"?
Is a filmed hunt of lawful game a "Cruelty video"?

Well, that would depend on who you talk to. In New York City, bringing down that Bull Elk with an arrow might be considered harsh and cruel by people who only know about deer and elk from watching Bambi, where in other parts of the country, hunting is still a way of life. Even shows on television that include disclaimers like "hunting is a way of life and graphic content may not be suitable for all audiences" might be banned under possible sweeping interpretations of what constitutes cruelty, driven by urbanites who wouldn't know squat about living in the woods.

For this reason, that people who know nothing of how the rest of America lives, who huddle in their urban enclaves and likely will (if they don't already) outvote the rest of us can define what we can or cannot do by simply redefining "cruelty", I am dead against this being done on a Federal Level.

This is not a Constitutionally delegated power of the Federal Government and should be an issue handled at the State Level, if for no more reason than keeping the likes of people in NYC and SoCal who never hunted in their lives from defining the lawful and skillful harvest of game and furbearing animals as "cruelty".
From Eskimo whale hunts to fur trapping to hunting whitetail deer, waterfowl, and upland game, to the taking of predators, all could be in peril because of this usurpation.

Joe. I am saying there is no peril here.

Peril means serious and immediate danger.

Global warming made the polar bears go extinct. I miss those bears.

Here is what I am getting at. About 999.0% of the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on ranching, etc. won't even know about this because no local law enforcement will f*** with them.

You DO know about how they control feral pigeons in the cities from shitting on the ivory towers? Poisoned bird feed on the roofs.

[Smokin Joe]

Joe. I am saying there is no peril here.

Peril means serious and immediate danger.

Global warming made the polar bears go extinct. I miss those bears.

Here is what I am getting at. About 999.0% of the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on ranching, etc. won't even know about this because no local law enforcement will f*** with them.

You DO know about how they control feral pigeons in the cities from shitting on the ivory towers? Poisoned bird feed on the roofs.

People in the cities will justify the poisoning of pigeons so they don't have to deal with the sh*t, but would decry shooting poor little Bambi with a bow and arrow or one of those mean fully automatic bolt action assault weapons with the explosive bullets like they think hunters use. These people are the masters of NIMBY, passing rules for others that will never conflict with their trip to the deli or the bistro down the block. D@mned skippy there's a threat! Put the masses in charge of things they are ignorant of, and there will always be a problem. These people invented unintended consequences, and the only way it would backfire on them is if someone claimed it was cruelty to kill all those poor rats and mice and cockroaches and bedbugs....(Then they'd pay to have them live trapped and dumped in the sticks by the truckload.)

[roamer_1]

(Then they'd pay to have them live trapped and dumped in the sticks by the truckload.)

... Where farmers and ranchers wind up doing what should have been done in the first place.
 

[Smokin Joe]

... Where farmers and ranchers wind up doing what should have been done in the first place.
 

I doubt even burning a field would get rid of cockroaches. Only Winter can do that.

[roamer_1]

I doubt even burning a field would get rid of cockroaches. Only Winter can do that.

Wouldn't know. we ain't got em. 

[Smokin Joe]

Wouldn't know. we ain't got em. 

Every now and then, some came in from down south with a family moving in during an oil boom. About the only way to really get rid of them is to blow down the plumbing and leave the windows open and the heat off in the building for a few days at -20 to -30. Winter works where modern chemistry fails.

They aren't indigenous, and don't make it from house to house here except in someone's gear or their belongings when they move. It's why I keep my field gear separate from my regular clothes, which stay home except for a traveling set I wear there and back. Between wells, the rig clothes stay in the van through summer's heat and winter's cold (I do my laundry at the wellsite). Never had a roach problem, and I don't want one.

[roamer_1]

Every now and then, some came in from down south with a family moving in during an oil boom. About the only way to really get rid of them is to blow down the plumbing and leave the windows open and the heat off in the building for a few days at -20 to -30. Winter works where modern chemistry fails.

Yeah, I have seen a house or two infested - same sort of thing as you are saying... But generally, they can't live up here. Suits me just fine.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah, I have seen a house or two infested - same sort of thing as you are saying... But generally, they can't live up here. Suits me just fine.

 

You and me, both, brother!

[Gefn]

I doubt even burning a field would get rid of cockroaches. Only Winter can do that.

Somehow I think they would survive that. They would survive the end of the world I think, and still feel fine.

[Gefn]

I am against both being cruel to anyone or any critter for entertainment, and I condemn the idea of those videos being made.
BUT, who defines what is cruelty?
Is medical dissection of euthanized lab animals "cruelty"?
Is a filmed hunt of lawful game a "Cruelty video"?

Well, that would depend on who you talk to. In New York City, bringing down that Bull Elk with an arrow might be considered harsh and cruel by people who only know about deer and elk from watching Bambi, where in other parts of the country, hunting is still a way of life. Even shows on television that include disclaimers like "hunting is a way of life and graphic content may not be suitable for all audiences" might be banned under possible sweeping interpretations of what constitutes cruelty, driven by urbanites who wouldn't know squat about living in the woods.

For this reason, that people who know nothing of how the rest of America lives, who huddle in their urban enclaves and likely will (if they don't already) outvote the rest of us can define what we can or cannot do by simply redefining "cruelty", I am dead against this being done on a Federal Level.

This is not a Constitutionally delegated power of the Federal Government and should be an issue handled at the State Level, if for no more reason than keeping the likes of people in NYC and SoCal who never hunted in their lives from defining the lawful and skillful harvest of game and furbearing animals as "cruelty".
From Eskimo whale hunts to fur trapping to hunting whitetail deer, waterfowl, and upland game, to the taking of predators, all could be in peril because of this usurpation.

We don’t need to test cosmetics on animals anymore. This should be stopped in it’s entirety.

[catfish1957]

... Where farmers and ranchers wind up doing what should have been done in the first place.
 

I think people who are cruel to animals are some of the lowest of "low-lifes". Our English Bulldogge is family to us.

OTOH, legislating things like this, is just a way for leftest pukes like PETA to get a foothold into a mainstream way to push their whacko agenda.  Today cruel animal videos, 2030.....   Being able to hunt for a deer.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Somehow I think they would survive that. They would survive the end of the world I think, and still feel fine.

Cockroaches have been around an estimated 300 million years, or before the continents were formed.

I believe they can survive a fire or a cold spell again.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thanx for your response @IsailedawayfromFR It sounds like you are having a hard time believing I support President Trump signing a law to greatly penalizing animal cruelty videos, or I condemn animal cruelty for entertainment.   Let me assure you that I both support President Trump signing this law and I strongly condemn stomping baby chicks.  I'm not afraid of taking the hard stands in the face of brutal opposition of the Fake News or the Deep State.

I do not know where you gathered your thoughts.

Seems some interpret only negative meanings in a positive message.

[bigheadfred]

People in the cities will justify the poisoning of pigeons so they don't have to deal with the sh*t, but would decry shooting poor little Bambi with a bow and arrow or one of those mean fully automatic bolt action assault weapons with the explosive bullets like they think hunters use. These people are the masters of NIMBY, passing rules for others that will never conflict with their trip to the deli or the bistro down the block. D@mned skippy there's a threat! Put the masses in charge of things they are ignorant of, and there will always be a problem. These people invented unintended consequences, and the only way it would backfire on them is if someone claimed it was cruelty to kill all those poor rats and mice and cockroaches and bedbugs....(Then they'd pay to have them live trapped and dumped in the sticks by the truckload.)

Put the masses in charge of things they are ignorant of, and there will always be a problem.

That is the thing. You are a "masses". To them. They don't get that you are not ignorant, educated, intelligent...

[DCPatriot]

That is the thing. You are a "masses". To them. They don't get that you are not ignorant, educated, intelligent...

In early Colonial days, in New England...lobsters were thought of as junk fish.   Like today's Carp.

They were cheap and plentiful and were used to feed prisoners and slaves.

One person even got a law passed that would limit the number of lobsters a slave was allowed to eat each week...more than that was considered 'Inhumane'.     

[catfish1957]

In early Colonial days, in New England...lobsters were thought of as junk fish.   Like today's Carp.

They were cheap and plentiful and were used to feed prisoners and slaves.

One person even got a law passed that would limit the number of lobsters a slave was allowed to eat each week...more than that was considered 'Inhumane'.     

Remember my grandfather telling me 40-50 years ago that back in the '20's to '40's, beef and pork ribs was considered trash and unsellable, and given to the poor for food.  Now I often see them sold a higher price than the roast.

[bigheadfred]

@Smokin Joe

There is an underlooked thing here.

Bumper headlines about failed crops. By this I mean I understand the implications of this. Yeah. Instill outrage.  Throw in a couple of pov incidents.  Catapult a cow in to a building.

Do not be deceived.

Maybe it was a dream I had. Maybe it was some thing I read in a Book.

[Smokin Joe]

Remember my grandfather telling me 40-50 years ago that back in the '20's to '40's, beef and pork ribs was considered trash and unsellable, and given to the poor for food.  Now I often see them sold a higher price than the roast.

Chicken wings....samey/same.

[roamer_1]

Remember my grandfather telling me 40-50 years ago that back in the '20's to '40's, beef and pork ribs was considered trash and unsellable, and given to the poor for food.  Now I often see them sold a higher price than the roast.

They're starting to figure out us poor folks eat better than they do...