Political Thread

[Philstorm91]

So you are saying that if someone shoots and kills your dog they should not be charged with a crime ? Does anyone on this board other than weatherfide actually think that it should be ok to intentionally harm a dog ?

As someone who has encountered more than my share of angry neighborhood dogs during my workout jogs, it would be nice to make some kind of Stand your Ground Laws for those being attacked by dogs with negligent owners, rather than getting charged with dog murder, should I ever be faced with that painful choice. And what about road kills?

I have never killed any pet that I know of. And I love dogs as much as anyone here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[weatherfide]

How about not continuing voting for those horrible choices. As long as people do it they will continue to put up those horrible candidates knowing you'll vote for them.

Realistically, because the voting pool is so large and populated with people that aren't really paying attention, it means one of the two bad choices will win. How come we are only presented with two bad options each election cycle? Sure, we could vote for a 3rd party, although that may make you feel better for awhile, but one of the other two main parties will get their candidate elected anyway. Then, all of us moral do-gooders will suffer the consequences anyway.

 

[Metwannabe]

So you are saying that if someone shoots and kills your dog they should not be charged with a crime ? Does anyone on this board other than weatherfide actually think that it should be ok to intentionally harm a dog ?

I try... try try try to stay out of this thread but fail miserably. Lol
I can't speak for @weatherfide but he did say that does not mean he supports cruelty to animals but rather strongly opposes it. Problem I have with this law and the scenario are two things: 1) the law will almost certainly get twisted by animal rights activist at some point to convict someone of killing an animal that has just cause (whether for food or self defense or protection of property), your example would need more context to debate and 2) we legalize the killing of unborn children in this country but will send a person to prison for killing an animal. Ok haters, fire at will....

 

[weatherfide]

As someone who has encountered more than my share of angry neighborhood dogs during my workout jogs, it would be nice to make some kind of Stand your Ground Laws for those being attacked by dogs with negligent owners, rather than getting charged with dog murder, should I ever be faced with that painful choice. And what about road kills?

I have never killed any pet that I know of. And I love dogs as much as anyone here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The owner should be charged with aggravated assault. If you kill the threatening dog, the human owner should still be charged with aggravated assault. In my eyes, you may be open to a civil suit for loss of or damage to property, but you have not committed a crime. Now, even if the dog is not threatening, just sitting at the side of the road, and you shoot it with your S&W .380 BodyGuard pistol, just cause you hate dogs, then you are still open to the civil suit, but should not have committed a criminal act. You should buy the owner a new dog and possibly pay some punitive damages for his loss, but it's not a life for a life thing.

 

[Bham 99]

I try... try try try to stay out of this thread but fail miserably. Lol
I can't speak for @weatherfide but he did say that does not mean he supports cruelty to animals but rather strongly opposes it. Problem I have with this law and the scenario are two things: 1) the law will almost certainly get twisted by animal rights activist at some point to convict someone of killing an animal that has just cause (whether for food or self defense or protection of property), your example would need more context to debate and 2) we legalize the killing of unborn children in this country but will send a person to prison for killing an animal. Ok haters, fire at will....

Good points. I hadn't thought about those.

 

[weatherfide]

I try... try try try to stay out of this thread but fail miserably. Lol
I can't speak for @weatherfide but he did say that does not mean he supports cruelty to animals but rather strongly opposes it. Problem I have with this law and the scenario are two things: 1) the law will almost certainly get twisted by animal rights activist at some point to convict someone of killing an animal that has just cause (whether for food or self defense or protection of property), your example would need more context to debate and 2) we legalize the killing of unborn children in this country but will send a person to prison for killing an animal. Ok haters, fire at will....

That is a good juxtaposition, Metwannabe. I don't like legalizing murder of anyone, especially the unborn. However, I do acknowledge there are rare times when killing someone in the womb may be justified (threat to the mother's life being the one that comes to mind). I think currently, that killing could fall under self-defense manslaughter, not murder. I absolutely don't want to prosecute any mother at all, no matter what she does to the life inside of her. I think we should throw abortion doctors in Alcatraz and throw away the key and burn all of the life-boats.They are the lowest of the scum of the earth.

Again, animals should not, categorically, have legal protection. Maybe when they evolve to a point where they can craft their own laws we can reconsider.

 

[Sandbar]

Yeah so what If Hitler, stalin got results their demeanor shouldnt have mattered.

I've asked for red lines. When is his demeanor too much for you personally? Jailing opponents? Freezing free elections? I mean as long as he is helping your pocket sounds like you'd accept anything?

How many people voted for Hillary again? You think Obama was some kind of Saint? When Trump actually crosses a line not blown up by Trump haters, the leftist media and the left in general I will start to listen. Until that day comes I am perfectly fine with him being an A-Hole. I learned through 12 combat deployments not to let my emotions get the best of me every time I run into someone or something that doesn't pass the smell test. Its ok to question ones motives but like most things in life that play out through tv, radio, newespapers and the internet, you get spoonfed half the story and your emotions are left to fill in the gaps.

 

[Wildboutsnow]

My point is when people are willing to look the other way and accept a presidents worst behaviors then this greenlights that behavior. You dont believe Hitler was putting millions of people to death because he had no support from his subordinates and atleast some level of the population?

It appears people have no desire to draw a red line for trump. He really could shoot someone and as long as that DOW is up who cares.

That is just crazy talk. There is zero proof that Trump has done a thing wrong. You just don't like him. No crimes. No crystal balls to predict that he is going flip into some dictator. Actually, what do you think is going to happen and why do you think he would be going through all of this to try and "fool" people? For what? What is the outcome? Also, I can guarantee that if he hadn't been immediately hit by the establishment/media he would not do and say the things he does. He may not be all soft and fluffy and people may not like it, but if he gets punched, he's punching back. Unbelievable what he has went through just to help this country...I don't recall seeing severed head depictions, gruesome stabbing depiction signs, big balloons with a diaper on, antifa etc etc with any past President. Do you like that stuff? It's unacceptable and I guess I would fight like a cornered one-eyed dog too. Wouldn't you? When all is said and done justice for the corrupt will prevail and that is good for us all. The fear mongering about Hitler etc with people is so unfortunate. Most people are living fine and happy day to day..

 

[SoutheastRidge]

The owner should be charged with aggravated assault. If you kill the threatening dog, the human owner should still be charged with aggravated assault. In my eyes, you may be open to a civil suit for loss of or damage to property, but you have not committed a crime. Now, even if the dog is not threatening, just sitting at the side of the road, and you shoot it with your S&W .380 BodyGuard pistol, just cause you hate dogs, then you are still open to the civil suit, but should not have committed a criminal act. You should buy the owner a new dog and possibly pay some punitive damages for his loss, but it's not a life for a life thing.

You cant just kill a dog and buy the owner a new dog and expect everything to be ok. If you intentionally kill a dog that has not harmed or threatened you in any way, you should face at least 6 months in jail.

 

[Shaggy]

Realistically, because the voting pool is so large and populated with people that aren't really paying attention, it means one of the two bad choices will win. How come we are only presented with two bad options each election cycle? Sure, we could vote for a 3rd party, although that may make you feel better for awhile, but one of the other two main parties will get their candidate elected anyway. Then, all of us moral do-gooders will suffer the consequences anyway.

We could start by demanding that all parties represented on the ballot get the same government advantages. Do away with campaign contributions and afford each candidate government paid for time slots to sale themselves. One 30 minute primetime speech on domestic then another on foreign policies. Truly level the playing field.

 

[Bham 99]

We could start by demanding that all parties represented on the ballot get the same government advantages. Do away with campaign contributions and afford each candidate government paid for time slots to sale themselves. One 30 minute primetime speech on domestic then another on foreign policies. Truly level the playing field.

I agree somewhat. I'm not sold on the idea that a corporation counts as a person when giving money to political causes. I think of course businesses should be able to protect themself and give accordingly to support their cause, but there has to be a better way to do it.

 

[Shaggy]

I agree somewhat. I'm not sold on the idea that a corporation counts as a person when giving money to political causes. I think of course businesses should be able to protect themself and give accordingly to support their cause, but there has to be a better way to do it.

Companies giving money to protect themselves is what has screwed up.DC with the BS lobbying.

Ever see the Eddie Murphy movie "the distinguished gentleman"?

 

[Sandbar]

We could start by demanding that all parties represented on the ballot get the same government advantages. Do away with campaign contributions and afford each candidate government paid for time slots to sale themselves. One 30 minute primetime speech on domestic then another on foreign policies. Truly level the playing field.

So after the "I represent the loving people of the world" party candidate gives his speech then what? You are gonna leave it up to a largely uneducated voting public to decipher a 30 minute speech from umpteen candidates and then decide if that person is the right man or woman to lead the most powerful country on Earth? Like it or not politics is a business and in the end money talks. Its a simple concept that idea of yours, but not realistic in any way, shape or form......

 

[Bham 99]

Companies giving money to protect themselves is what has screwed up.DC with the BS lobbying.

Ever see the Eddie Murphy movie "the distinguished gentleman"?

I'm actually against lobbying and special interests groups. But I think it should be okay for corporations to give money to a candidate that they choose that best represents their ability to be able to do business.

 

[Arcc]

So you are saying that if someone shoots and kills your dog they should not be charged with a crime ? Does anyone on this board other than weatherfide actually think that it should be ok to intentionally harm a dog ?

If I have a stray or drop off come into my yard and I can’t coax it to move on, I’m shooting it. I have livestock that it will not have the chance to kill. I’m not feeding it and I’m not paying the insane vet bills for shots or to have it spayed or neutered. It’s hard to shell out the ridiculous costs for the pets I actually own.

 

[SoutheastRidge]

If I have a stray or drop off come into my yard and I can’t coax it to move on, I’m shooting it. I have livestock that it will not have the chance to kill. I’m not feeding it and I’m not paying the insane vet bills for shots or to have it spayed or neutered. It’s hard to shell out the ridiculous costs for the pets I actually own.

How about instead of shooting it try to find someone who actually wants it ? Maybe a friend or something.

 

[Rosie]

If I have a stray or drop off come into my yard and I can’t coax it to move on, I’m shooting it. I have livestock that it will not have the chance to kill. I’m not feeding it and I’m not paying the insane vet bills for shots or to have it spayed or neutered. It’s hard to shell out the ridiculous costs for the pets I actually own.

Ever heard of a rescue?

 

[weatherfide]

Ever heard of a rescue?

Better question is, has the person dropping the animal off or letting it go wild ever heard of a rescue? Why is it the land owner's responsibility to "rescue" someone else's bad decision?

 

[SoutheastRidge]

Better question is, has the person dropping the animal off or letting it go wild ever heard of a rescue? Why is it the land owner's responsibility to "rescue" someone else's bad decision?

Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, even if it is a little bit of an inconvenience.

 

[Arcc]

How about instead of shooting it try to find someone who actually wants it ? Maybe a friend or something.

Well since I’ve tried that and no one does and all the animal shelters are full with animals nobody wants because they are “no kill” and city shelters won’t take county animals, the most humane thing is to put it down.