tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post4605840858237481425..comments2024-02-26T10:17:30.143-08:00Comments on Critter News: Members of Congress Who Support Animals Killing Each Other For Entertainmentmrbarkyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11790509969524237811noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-75061295613626245492007-08-02T06:43:00.000-07:002007-08-02T06:43:00.000-07:00Thank goodness people in Texas can influence the a...Thank goodness people in Texas can influence the all-powerful Federal Govenrment to prohibit local matters like same-sex union in places like San Francisco.<BR/><BR/>All hail Federalism!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-74366559114766234032007-08-01T13:33:00.000-07:002007-08-01T13:33:00.000-07:00Well, sometimes the Federal Government needs to st...Well, sometimes the Federal Government needs to step in on issues. You can't always leave things to the States because progress is slow and then you have unequal rights in different states.<BR/><BR/>We fought a civil war over federalism and the Federal Government won. Whatever anyone says, this war started over the the power of the Federal Government vs. States Rights and not over the abolition of slavery. <BR/><BR/>In this case, it was a very good thing that the Federal Government won because otherwise slavery would have continued in some states and not in others. Looking back, I think we all agree that the decision should not have taken as long as it did. But at the time, a major obstacle to stepping in was the protection of State Rights.<BR/><BR/>So, in other words, sometimes you can't just devolve issues to the States. On certain issues, you need to govern from the top. It's a matter of determining what those issues are.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-25597397413543880612007-08-01T01:24:00.000-07:002007-08-01T01:24:00.000-07:00Federalism is a cool concept that is outlined in t...Federalism is a cool concept that is outlined in the constitution and one that Ron Paul fervently supports.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we should pay attention to the Constitution? The states were given the power to pass laws against this kind of stuff for a reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-407699907135862552007-07-31T23:12:00.000-07:002007-07-31T23:12:00.000-07:00This is an issue for the states and not for the ge...This is an issue for the states and not for the general government (federal). Ron Paul ALWAYS votes against unconstitutional bills, no matter how noble they may be. If you want such laws, see your state legislature!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-80367935359238979522007-07-31T23:09:00.000-07:002007-07-31T23:09:00.000-07:00So if someone doesn't support the legislation he/s...So if someone doesn't support the legislation he/she is automatically FOR Dog / animal fighting.<BR/><BR/>Its that kind of logic that gets us into trouble in the US.<BR/><BR/>Either you are for/against abortion.<BR/><BR/>Either you are for/against flag burning.<BR/><BR/>Either you are for/against immigration policies.<BR/><BR/>Either you are for/against the poor<BR/><BR/>The list can continue ad infinitum. <BR/><BR/>If we want the federal government to be in charge of everything, lets just get rid of City Councils, County Comm./Parish leaders/aldermen, State Representatives and Governors etc.<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't that make everything easier? My goodness, these guys and gals can't do it without the Feds already interfering now, we just as well take them out of the loop.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, thats about as dumb as the feds interfering in states when it comes to animal fightingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-30814609446516183662007-07-31T22:35:00.000-07:002007-07-31T22:35:00.000-07:00Voting with Bill Sali against the Federal Animal F...Voting with Bill Sali against the Federal Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-5th CD), who like Bill Sali, won his primary race after being endorsed by the Club for Growth who slimed and smeared their opponents in the primary, and both of whom have been voting with the Club for Growth on legislation most Americans would take for granted as being prudent to support, not attempt to defeat. Take this as a partial example. Some in the Great Lakes area might say the only Colorado Congressman in favor of polluting the Great Lakes would be Doug Lamborn. This week, in House Congressional Resolution 187, Expressing the Sense of Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great Lakes, 6 of Colorado's 7 Congressman voted in favor of the resolution, with Lamborn being the only one voting against it. 162 Republicans voted for the bill. Only 26 Republicans voted against it, including Doug Lamborn. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-719 H. Con. Res. 187 recognizes the importance of the Great Lakes as the largest surface freshwater system on earth, and source of drinking water for 30 million Americans. The resolution also recognized the serious problem of ammonia pollution in the Great Lakes, creating dead zones and fouling lake beaches. Finally, the resolution called upon the STATE OF INDIANA to stop the plan of British Petroleum to dump 1,584 pounds of ammonia into Lake Michigan every day. Note that Bill Sali was "present" but did not vote on the bill. Why? I submit that he was not wanting to anger Congressman Mike Pence, a rabid Club for Growth Congressman from INDIANA, but Doug Lamborn was willing to vote openly against the resolution to curry favor with the Club for Growth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-892058329187808762007-07-31T21:51:00.000-07:002007-07-31T21:51:00.000-07:00"Idaho is one of the few states where dogfighting ..."Idaho is one of the few states where dogfighting is only a misdemeanor."<BR/><BR/>Sounds like an Idaho problem to me... You can't get the legislation passed at home so you need to add to the pile of laws at the federal level? sounds lazy to me.Dan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13006214095115568703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-40897313799170477892007-07-31T21:49:00.000-07:002007-07-31T21:49:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13006214095115568703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-30068475650589059382007-07-31T21:16:00.000-07:002007-07-31T21:16:00.000-07:00I ran against Bill Sali in Idaho and will do so ag...I ran against Bill Sali in Idaho and will do so again. He voted against this legislation for the reasons stated by some of these posters (why are they anonymous?) that he thought it was a state crime and the feds should butt out. Idaho is one of the few states where dogfighting is only a misdemeanor.<BR/><BR/>The reason for federal law in this case is the interstate nature of the crime, not only the crossing of state lines for the actual fighting or transportation of animals, but the gambling and gang-related violence that goes along with this kind of activity. The sheriff's association and many police organizations supported the bill. They want federal assistance in prosecuting this kind of cruelty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-7357727478209869892007-07-31T20:46:00.000-07:002007-07-31T20:46:00.000-07:00Isn't the act of actually fighting the animals alr...Isn't the act of actually fighting the animals already illegal? why do we need more laws? If there are still fights, isn't that an enforcement problem? Or is this another "War on XYZ" where we'll pile on legislation to give the illusion that we care about a problem without actually having to show any results?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-19457835309845102682007-07-31T20:45:00.000-07:002007-07-31T20:45:00.000-07:00Again, this is outside Federal jurisdiction. It s...Again, this is outside Federal jurisdiction. It should be left up to the States. You do understand the difference, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-90965344782152146492007-07-31T20:37:00.000-07:002007-07-31T20:37:00.000-07:00The question is not about entertainment, but about...The question is not about entertainment, but about animal cruelty. <BR/><BR/>As an analogy, surely you'd agree that it should be illegal to conduct a mass murder (which is unquestionably illegal outside the realm of entertainment) expressly for the purpose of filming it to put on television.<BR/><BR/>If you likewise agree that bloodsports constitute animal cruelty, how can it be acceptable if the purpose is for entertainment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1826080771236620079.post-31895945389688655992007-07-31T20:22:00.000-07:002007-07-31T20:22:00.000-07:00Entertainment is outside Federal jurisdiction. R...Entertainment is outside Federal jurisdiction. Read your constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com