- 17,675
- 7,963
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
Is Virginia's own DONE???
- Thread in 'MD/DC/VA' Thread starter Started by eyes of hazel,
- Start date
marcoxshabazz
Banned
- 18
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
Quote:
"I suppose your going to tell me the same thing that the person gets from the dog, but even still, how would you know that cause the communication lines between both parties are not understood. That's just how I see it"
Look up Koko the Gorilla and read about the pet cats he has kept. Also, I've always had pets and they definietly have a sense of loyalty, trust and comfort with their owners as opposed to Joe Blow off the street so obviously there is a connection, of some sort, made between animal and man that both profit from...
"I suppose your going to tell me the same thing that the person gets from the dog, but even still, how would you know that cause the communication lines between both parties are not understood. That's just how I see it"
Look up Koko the Gorilla and read about the pet cats he has kept. Also, I've always had pets and they definietly have a sense of loyalty, trust and comfort with their owners as opposed to Joe Blow off the street so obviously there is a connection, of some sort, made between animal and man that both profit from...
rockdeep
Banned
- 5,269
- 13
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
I wasn't comparing the Horse races to Dog Fighting.. as I mentioned.. it was a random thought.
Simply a random thought, I felt I could get some banter on regarding Animal rights Bruh.
Simply a random thought, I felt I could get some banter on regarding Animal rights Bruh.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gratuitus For Sale Plug: DS & VNDS Size 10.5 & 11XII's XIII's V's XIX XIX SEs 2K3s 2K4s VC's
- 362
- 129
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
You are aware that dogs have personalities and convey feelings and emotions very obviously correct?
A dog can form a bond and become as attached to an owner just as the owner can that dog.
BEE THHERREE!!
A dog can form a bond and become as attached to an owner just as the owner can that dog.
BEE THHERREE!!
- 614
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
*I stopped reading after half way through of page 6*
Dang yall are writing master's theses out here for posts. I know we all wanna be heard but i cant read all that.
Another one bites the dust!
Dang yall are writing master's theses out here for posts. I know we all wanna be heard but i cant read all that.
Another one bites the dust!
- 15
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
I wanted to stay out of this but oh well..........I'm on Vick's side also. I don't think he physically killed any animals. I believe his cousins and whoever else was in charge of Bad Newz Kennels fought and killed those dogs. Vick may have sponsored the Kennel and may have even watched a couple matches. And as far as them trying to put the dogfighting charges on Vick, thats just wrong. They already have the cousins who ran everything. Why not put the dogfighting charges solely on them? Why Vick too? Because he's a NFL player? Conspiracy and gambling is another thing. For those charges........I'd say guilty.
Dogfighting is a sport. Just like boxing, mixed martial arts, and wrestling. Its not intended for dogs to fight to the death and those who do it are ignorant to the real rules of the sport. Theres a couple different ways to score a match to determine a winner. Every dog fight is not to the death nor should it be. These types of dogfights usually hold a really high purse. Dogfighting is considered bad because of the attachments (drug dealers, drugs, and drug money). If there were sanctioned events it wouldn't be as bad as people think. I am no dogfighter nor do I fight any of my dogs, I am just a kennel owner who's concerned about the reputation of the breed I own (pitbulls) because I know a lot of states are gonna or already considering outlawing the breed. And if you've ever owned a pit you know it's the best breed of dog out there. Hands down. Post below are 2 of my best boys DIESEL and KOUNTRY. They both love kids and have the temperments of Golden Retrievers.
Dogfighting is a sport. Just like boxing, mixed martial arts, and wrestling. Its not intended for dogs to fight to the death and those who do it are ignorant to the real rules of the sport. Theres a couple different ways to score a match to determine a winner. Every dog fight is not to the death nor should it be. These types of dogfights usually hold a really high purse. Dogfighting is considered bad because of the attachments (drug dealers, drugs, and drug money). If there were sanctioned events it wouldn't be as bad as people think. I am no dogfighter nor do I fight any of my dogs, I am just a kennel owner who's concerned about the reputation of the breed I own (pitbulls) because I know a lot of states are gonna or already considering outlawing the breed. And if you've ever owned a pit you know it's the best breed of dog out there. Hands down. Post below are 2 of my best boys DIESEL and KOUNTRY. They both love kids and have the temperments of Golden Retrievers.
- 3,175
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
Quote:
They both love kids and have the temperments |I
marcoxshabazz
Banned
- 18
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
Quote:
"Dogfighting is a sport. Just like boxing, mixed martial arts, and wrestling. Its not intended for dogs to fight to the death and those who do it are ignorant to the real rules of the sport"
Uh...right...
"Dogfighting is a sport. Just like boxing, mixed martial arts, and wrestling. Its not intended for dogs to fight to the death and those who do it are ignorant to the real rules of the sport"
- 434
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
WASHINGTON ********
Super Bowl Champions: XVII:XXII:XXVI
- 15
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- 434
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
ScroogeMcBuckz
formerly aceboogie
- 5,476
- 932
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
I guess my only question is, since everyone knows the demeanor of pitbulls, and have known for decades now, why has no action been taken against this breed of dog. Seriously, 90% of pitbull owners i know don't have them for love and companionship. They're either for protection or aggression.
DONT HATE ME CUZ IM FRESH N SMOOTH ENOUGH TO PULL MODELS
HOLLA AT THE ACE!!!
WASHINGTONNATIONALS
DONT HATE ME CUZ IM FRESH N SMOOTH ENOUGH TO PULL MODELS
HOLLA AT THE ACE!!!
WASHINGTONNATIONALS
- 15
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- 15
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- 362
- 129
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
Boxing and MMA was a terrible comparison. Pie eating contests have time limits too. Dog fights are not like pie eating contests. When dogs decide they want to fight in an organized league, put wraps on their gums and put pads on their teeth before getting in the ring, then itll be like MMA.
As for anyone saying pits should be outlawed, or are bad dogs or whatever, @#%$ off. Pits are some of the best dogs you can own, they just carry a poor reputation perpetuated by ignorance and fear. Like DCsliksta has basically stated, a dogs behavior is a reflection of how its treated and raised
BEE THHERREE!!
As for anyone saying pits should be outlawed, or are bad dogs or whatever, @#%$ off. Pits are some of the best dogs you can own, they just carry a poor reputation perpetuated by ignorance and fear. Like DCsliksta has basically stated, a dogs behavior is a reflection of how its treated and raised
BEE THHERREE!!
ScroogeMcBuckz
formerly aceboogie
- 5,476
- 932
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
I hear ya'll opinions, I guess i'm biased because i've had one too many on my heels in the past.
DONT HATE ME CUZ IM FRESH N SMOOTH ENOUGH TO PULL MODELS
HOLLA AT THE ACE!!!
WASHINGTONNATIONALS
DONT HATE ME CUZ IM FRESH N SMOOTH ENOUGH TO PULL MODELS
HOLLA AT THE ACE!!!
WASHINGTONNATIONALS
- 1,988
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
Is Michael Vick sad because he realizes he did somehting wrong....or because he knows he's goinng to jail?
what produced the remorse?
YOU NIKETALK DUDES THAT KNOW ME...
WILL BE PROUD TO SEE HOW I DO THINGS.
what produced the remorse?
YOU NIKETALK DUDES THAT KNOW ME...
WILL BE PROUD TO SEE HOW I DO THINGS.
- 3,175
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- 17,675
- 7,963
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
For all you doglovers out there.......www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...81,00.html
Team
DC/MD/VA
DC/MD/VA
Cough up a lung..Where Im From!!
O.G. Member #5
- 1,126
- 113
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
^ Can you repost that link?
and i would like to say thank you to Gregg Easterbrook.... (Mr. TMQ, for those ESPN.com readers)
The disgusting thing about dogfighting isn't that animals battle and die -- after all, animals fight to the death in nature, tearing each other's flesh with heartless violence. The disgusting thing about dogfighting is that supposedly intelligent members of @#%$ sapiens add sadism to the natural equation by starving dogs to make them extra aggressive, filing their incisors to make the fights bloodier, and engaging in other acts unbecoming any man or woman of ethics. What Michael Vick confessed to Monday ought to disgust you, regardless of whether you are a dog lover. Include me. The Official Dog of TMQ -- a Chesapeake retriever, noble state dog of Maryland -- slumbers happily near my feet as I write this.
But the punishment expected to be imposed on Vick -- one to two years in federal prison, and perhaps never playing in the NFL again -- seems out of proportion to his actions and his status as a first-time offender. The situation is confusing because the federal crimes to which Vick pleaded guilty turn as much on gambling and racketeering as dogfighting; gambling and racketeering concern federal prosecutors because of their relationship to organized crime. Racketeering can lead to jail terms even for nonviolent first-time offenders not involved with drug sales, such as Vick. The NFL, for its part, has very strong reasons to detest gambling, and elaborately warns players they will be harshly penalized for associating with gamblers. Yet I can't help feeling there is overkill in the social, media and legal reactions to Vick, and that the overkill originates in hypocrisy about animals.
Thousands of animals are mistreated or killed in the United States every day without the killers so much as being criticized, let alone imprisoned. Ranchers and farmers kill stock animals or horses that are sick or injured. Some ranchers kill stock animals as gently as possible, others callously; in either case, prosecution is nearly unheard of. As Derek Jackson pointed out last week in the Boston Globe, greyhound tracks routinely race dogs to exhaustion and injury, then kill the losers, or simply eliminate less-strong pups: "184,604 greyhound puppies judged to be inferior for racing" were killed, legally, in the past 20 years.
Hunters shoot animals for sport. They do so lawfully, while the manner in which Vick harmed his dogs was unlawful. But from the perspective of the animal, there seems little difference between a hunter with a state game license zipped in his vest pocket shooting a deer as part of something the hunter views as really fun sport, and Vick shooting a dog as part of something Vick views as really fun sport. In both cases, animals suffer for human entertainment. The animal-ethics distinction between Vick's actions and lawful game hunting are murky at best. A first-time offender should go to prison over a murky distinction?
Much more troubling is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who eat meat and poultry -- I'm enthusiastically among them -- are complicit in the systematic cruel treatment of huge numbers of animals. Snickering about this, or saying you're tired of hearing about it, doesn't make it go away. Most animals used for meat experience miserable lives under cruel conditions, including confinement for extended periods in pits of excrement. (Michael Pollan, who enthusiastically consumes meat and fowl, describes the mistreatment in his important new book The Omnivore's Dilemma.) Meat animals don't magically stop living when it's time to become a product; they suffer as they die. One of Vick's dogs was shot, another electrocuted. Gunshots and electrocution are federally approved methods of livestock slaughter, sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture for the killing of cows and pigs. Regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 give federal sanction to shooting cows or pigs, or running electrical current through their bodies. Shooting and electrocution are viewed by federal law as humane ways to kill animals that will be consumed. Federal rules also allow slaughterhouses to hit cows in the head with a fast-moving piston that stuns them into semiconsciousness before they are sliced up. Being hit in the head with a powerful piston -- does that sound a bit painful, a bit cruel? It's done to tens of thousands of steers per year, lawfully.
Don't say "eew, gross" about how meat animals are butchered, then return to denouncing Vick. If you're eating a cheeseburger or BLT or steak or pot roast today, there's a good chance you are dining on an animal that was shot or electrocuted. You are complicit. You freely bought the meat, you did not demand Congress strengthen the Humane Slaughter Act. Livestock can be calmed and drugged before being slain. A few slaughterhouses do this, but most don't because it raises costs, and you, the consumer, demand the lowest possible price for your meal. Now about your turkey sub or coq au vin. Federal slaughter regulations apply mainly to large animals, leaving considerable freedom in the killing of fowl. Many poultry slaughterhouses kill chickens by slashing their throats rather than snapping their necks. Snapping the neck kills the bird quickly, ending suffering, but then the heart dies quickly, too. Slashing the throat causes the bird to live in agony for several minutes, heart still beating and pumping blood out of the slash -- and consumers prefer bloodless chicken meat.
Further, the Humane Slaughter Act exempts kosher and halal slaughter. In both traditions, the cow or lamb must be conscious when killed by having its carotid artery, or esophagus and trachea, slashed. The animal bleeds to death, convulsing in agony, as its heart pumps blood, which is viewed as unclean, out of the slashed openings. The delicious pastrami we consumed at a kosher deli, or the wonderfully good beef we could buy at a halal butcher, comes from an animal that suffered as it died.
Yes, Vick broke the law; yes, he arrogantly lied and refused to apologize when first caught; and yes, his actions before and after the dog killings indicate he is one stupid, stupid man. But Vick's lawbreaking was relatively minor compared to animal mistreatment that happens continuously, within the law, at nearly all levels of the meat production industry, and with which all but vegetarians are complicit. There is some kind of mass neurosis at work in the rush to denounce Vick, wag fingers and say he deserved even worse. Society wants to scapegoat Vick to avoid contemplating its own routine, systematic killing of animals. We couldn't all become vegetarians tomorrow: that is not practical. But American society is not even attempting to make the handling of meat animals less brutal, let alone working to transition away from a food-production order in which huge numbers of animals are systematically mistreated, then killed in ways that inflict terror and pain. We won't lift a finger to change the way animals die for us. But we will demand Michael Vick serve prison time to atone for our sins.
Legal note: Vick might be compelled to repay the Falcons a huge amount of bonus money, and will lose $25 million or more in endorsement income. I have no sympathy for his loss of endorsement income: Vick was hired to bring Nike and other companies he endorsed good publicity, and instead brought them bad. But think about the income loss in the calculation of overpunishment of Vick. One or two years in federal prison, and perhaps state prison time if state charges are filed as well; plus $25 million in lost endorsement income and, oh, $50 million in lost or returned NFL income. That's overkill! Often the indirect financial consequences of legal proceedings are worse than the official ones, in the same way that a speeding ticket might cost you $75 but add $1,000 to your annual insurance bill.
In effect, the federal indictment of Vick is resulting in him being fined around $75 million, which is far too much retribution. The legal hang-up is that since 1984, federal courts have been forbidden to consider monetary loss in private life as counting toward punishment. But a year of banishment from the NFL, a guilty plea with suspended sentence and probation (meaning the sentence is imposed if probation is violated), seems plenty of punishment for a first offense by someone who has not harmed another human being. Prison time and a $75 million fine? What Vick did was indecent, but now excessive punishment is being imposed, and two wrongs do not equal one right. Justice, after all, must be tempered with mercy. That's what you would think if you stood in the dock accused.
Hypocrisy note: Look who's advertising on a Web page extolling the cruel crossbow killing of animals for sport -- the NFL. Oh, that Michael Vick, he's evil, he's bad. But buy NFL Shop items to wear when you shoot deer with arrows so they slowly bleed to death!
Falcons note: I know Atlanta fans are desperate for non-Vick news. OK -- Atlanta had 11 draft choices, so Bobby Petrino practically starts off with a recruiting class.
and i would like to say thank you to Gregg Easterbrook.... (Mr. TMQ, for those ESPN.com readers)
The disgusting thing about dogfighting isn't that animals battle and die -- after all, animals fight to the death in nature, tearing each other's flesh with heartless violence. The disgusting thing about dogfighting is that supposedly intelligent members of @#%$ sapiens add sadism to the natural equation by starving dogs to make them extra aggressive, filing their incisors to make the fights bloodier, and engaging in other acts unbecoming any man or woman of ethics. What Michael Vick confessed to Monday ought to disgust you, regardless of whether you are a dog lover. Include me. The Official Dog of TMQ -- a Chesapeake retriever, noble state dog of Maryland -- slumbers happily near my feet as I write this.
But the punishment expected to be imposed on Vick -- one to two years in federal prison, and perhaps never playing in the NFL again -- seems out of proportion to his actions and his status as a first-time offender. The situation is confusing because the federal crimes to which Vick pleaded guilty turn as much on gambling and racketeering as dogfighting; gambling and racketeering concern federal prosecutors because of their relationship to organized crime. Racketeering can lead to jail terms even for nonviolent first-time offenders not involved with drug sales, such as Vick. The NFL, for its part, has very strong reasons to detest gambling, and elaborately warns players they will be harshly penalized for associating with gamblers. Yet I can't help feeling there is overkill in the social, media and legal reactions to Vick, and that the overkill originates in hypocrisy about animals.
Thousands of animals are mistreated or killed in the United States every day without the killers so much as being criticized, let alone imprisoned. Ranchers and farmers kill stock animals or horses that are sick or injured. Some ranchers kill stock animals as gently as possible, others callously; in either case, prosecution is nearly unheard of. As Derek Jackson pointed out last week in the Boston Globe, greyhound tracks routinely race dogs to exhaustion and injury, then kill the losers, or simply eliminate less-strong pups: "184,604 greyhound puppies judged to be inferior for racing" were killed, legally, in the past 20 years.
Hunters shoot animals for sport. They do so lawfully, while the manner in which Vick harmed his dogs was unlawful. But from the perspective of the animal, there seems little difference between a hunter with a state game license zipped in his vest pocket shooting a deer as part of something the hunter views as really fun sport, and Vick shooting a dog as part of something Vick views as really fun sport. In both cases, animals suffer for human entertainment. The animal-ethics distinction between Vick's actions and lawful game hunting are murky at best. A first-time offender should go to prison over a murky distinction?
Much more troubling is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who eat meat and poultry -- I'm enthusiastically among them -- are complicit in the systematic cruel treatment of huge numbers of animals. Snickering about this, or saying you're tired of hearing about it, doesn't make it go away. Most animals used for meat experience miserable lives under cruel conditions, including confinement for extended periods in pits of excrement. (Michael Pollan, who enthusiastically consumes meat and fowl, describes the mistreatment in his important new book The Omnivore's Dilemma.) Meat animals don't magically stop living when it's time to become a product; they suffer as they die. One of Vick's dogs was shot, another electrocuted. Gunshots and electrocution are federally approved methods of livestock slaughter, sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture for the killing of cows and pigs. Regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 give federal sanction to shooting cows or pigs, or running electrical current through their bodies. Shooting and electrocution are viewed by federal law as humane ways to kill animals that will be consumed. Federal rules also allow slaughterhouses to hit cows in the head with a fast-moving piston that stuns them into semiconsciousness before they are sliced up. Being hit in the head with a powerful piston -- does that sound a bit painful, a bit cruel? It's done to tens of thousands of steers per year, lawfully.
Don't say "eew, gross" about how meat animals are butchered, then return to denouncing Vick. If you're eating a cheeseburger or BLT or steak or pot roast today, there's a good chance you are dining on an animal that was shot or electrocuted. You are complicit. You freely bought the meat, you did not demand Congress strengthen the Humane Slaughter Act. Livestock can be calmed and drugged before being slain. A few slaughterhouses do this, but most don't because it raises costs, and you, the consumer, demand the lowest possible price for your meal. Now about your turkey sub or coq au vin. Federal slaughter regulations apply mainly to large animals, leaving considerable freedom in the killing of fowl. Many poultry slaughterhouses kill chickens by slashing their throats rather than snapping their necks. Snapping the neck kills the bird quickly, ending suffering, but then the heart dies quickly, too. Slashing the throat causes the bird to live in agony for several minutes, heart still beating and pumping blood out of the slash -- and consumers prefer bloodless chicken meat.
Further, the Humane Slaughter Act exempts kosher and halal slaughter. In both traditions, the cow or lamb must be conscious when killed by having its carotid artery, or esophagus and trachea, slashed. The animal bleeds to death, convulsing in agony, as its heart pumps blood, which is viewed as unclean, out of the slashed openings. The delicious pastrami we consumed at a kosher deli, or the wonderfully good beef we could buy at a halal butcher, comes from an animal that suffered as it died.
Yes, Vick broke the law; yes, he arrogantly lied and refused to apologize when first caught; and yes, his actions before and after the dog killings indicate he is one stupid, stupid man. But Vick's lawbreaking was relatively minor compared to animal mistreatment that happens continuously, within the law, at nearly all levels of the meat production industry, and with which all but vegetarians are complicit. There is some kind of mass neurosis at work in the rush to denounce Vick, wag fingers and say he deserved even worse. Society wants to scapegoat Vick to avoid contemplating its own routine, systematic killing of animals. We couldn't all become vegetarians tomorrow: that is not practical. But American society is not even attempting to make the handling of meat animals less brutal, let alone working to transition away from a food-production order in which huge numbers of animals are systematically mistreated, then killed in ways that inflict terror and pain. We won't lift a finger to change the way animals die for us. But we will demand Michael Vick serve prison time to atone for our sins.
Legal note: Vick might be compelled to repay the Falcons a huge amount of bonus money, and will lose $25 million or more in endorsement income. I have no sympathy for his loss of endorsement income: Vick was hired to bring Nike and other companies he endorsed good publicity, and instead brought them bad. But think about the income loss in the calculation of overpunishment of Vick. One or two years in federal prison, and perhaps state prison time if state charges are filed as well; plus $25 million in lost endorsement income and, oh, $50 million in lost or returned NFL income. That's overkill! Often the indirect financial consequences of legal proceedings are worse than the official ones, in the same way that a speeding ticket might cost you $75 but add $1,000 to your annual insurance bill.
In effect, the federal indictment of Vick is resulting in him being fined around $75 million, which is far too much retribution. The legal hang-up is that since 1984, federal courts have been forbidden to consider monetary loss in private life as counting toward punishment. But a year of banishment from the NFL, a guilty plea with suspended sentence and probation (meaning the sentence is imposed if probation is violated), seems plenty of punishment for a first offense by someone who has not harmed another human being. Prison time and a $75 million fine? What Vick did was indecent, but now excessive punishment is being imposed, and two wrongs do not equal one right. Justice, after all, must be tempered with mercy. That's what you would think if you stood in the dock accused.
Hypocrisy note: Look who's advertising on a Web page extolling the cruel crossbow killing of animals for sport -- the NFL. Oh, that Michael Vick, he's evil, he's bad. But buy NFL Shop items to wear when you shoot deer with arrows so they slowly bleed to death!
Falcons note: I know Atlanta fans are desperate for non-Vick news. OK -- Atlanta had 11 draft choices, so Bobby Petrino practically starts off with a recruiting class.
Team49ers
XVI . XIX . XXIII . XXIV . XXIX
XVI . XIX . XXIII . XXIV . XXIX
teamaerialbots
We're SUPERION to you
Friday Night Lights is the best show on TV
- 362
- 129
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
The above article is completly all over the place. I dont know whether to tell that @#%$ to get off his high horse, agree, or shake my head at how dumb it was. I suppose I want to do all three.
Yes as a society, we are complete hypocrties about how we view and treat animals, and how we decide what is or is not acceptable. The article however came off very condescending as if he were exluding himself just but realizing this fact.
But this is the same lame argument that every idiot is using to support Vick- basically there are worse things than what Vick did so his punishment should be lighter. Just because people dont get caught, or do worse things doesnt mean anything.
My other problem with that article is how the author sometimes uses logic supporting the law, and sometimes treatment of animals (the idea that killing is killing regardless of rather its dogfighting or hunting) He jumps back and forth between these two ideas so often it becomes contradictory
In conclusion that dude comes off like just another average joe talking about Vick, with some decent things to say which are smothered by a bunch of ******ed @#%$ that he doesnt understand himself
BEE THHERREE!!
Yes as a society, we are complete hypocrties about how we view and treat animals, and how we decide what is or is not acceptable. The article however came off very condescending as if he were exluding himself just but realizing this fact.
But this is the same lame argument that every idiot is using to support Vick- basically there are worse things than what Vick did so his punishment should be lighter. Just because people dont get caught, or do worse things doesnt mean anything.
My other problem with that article is how the author sometimes uses logic supporting the law, and sometimes treatment of animals (the idea that killing is killing regardless of rather its dogfighting or hunting) He jumps back and forth between these two ideas so often it becomes contradictory
In conclusion that dude comes off like just another average joe talking about Vick, with some decent things to say which are smothered by a bunch of ******ed @#%$ that he doesnt understand himself
BEE THHERREE!!
- 1,263
- 12
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
Good looks, Diamond J. I forgot to check the new column this week.
As for the info and the points made, they all seem valid to me. Providing that I personally do not care how animals are killed to deliver them to my dinner table, it was interesting to see the government's stance on the issue. I will have to re-read it, but I can't see how that can't be called hypocritical.
As for the info and the points made, they all seem valid to me. Providing that I personally do not care how animals are killed to deliver them to my dinner table, it was interesting to see the government's stance on the issue. I will have to re-read it, but I can't see how that can't be called hypocritical.
- 3,175
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/06/bloom.pit.bull.attack.kron
But it was the trainers/owners fault, right?
But it was the trainers/owners fault, right?