Kerry on Gun & Animal Rights issues

[Muledeer4me]

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm


Gun Issues



("2003 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2003 in the House and 1991-2003 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a 10

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).")


Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues



("2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time .")

[ 05-26-2004, 08:42: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]

 

[Ithaca 37]

What was the legislation and preferred position? For all we know the legislation might have been to provide funds for animal shelters to spay cats and dogs. In which case I'd be for it, too.

Or the legislation might have been to increase penalties for terrorists attacking animal shelters.

Crap like MD4m's post doesn't tell us anything, unless we assume that anything the SPCA is in favor of is bad.

Would you be in favor of increasing penalties on persons convicted of attacking animal shelters?

 

[RockyDog]

Ithaca, you need to do less thinking and be more afraid. Do no think for yourself, somebody else can do that for you

 

[Bambistew]

Why would animal rights freaks attack animal shelters??? Kind of like sick and injured people blowing up a hospital!

Ithica, it doesn't matter if the funds were for helping stray dogs and cats or for having them spayed... If they get that money that means that they have that much more money to free up for fighting against our hunting. Any money given to the humane society and association is making it that much harder for us to hunt.

As far as I'm aware neither one of them is associated with having stray dogs spayed or nutered... They are looking out for the general welfare of the animals not runing shelters and such, those are local entites run by cities and counties!!! General welfare means NO HUNTING/FISHING/TRAPPING etc.

Its a no win situation if money of any ammount goes to these animal rights freaks.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Amazing! I just gave a couple of hypotheticals. We don't know what the legislation was that Kerry was voting on. Bambi is assuming it wasn't something he would agree with. I'm saying we don't know. For all we know it might have been something Bush supported also.

Bambi, How do you know that any of the bills would have been financially beneficial to any of the groups mentioned in MD's post?

MD4M's post is BS and anyone who draws any conclusions from it is an idiot. You need lots more info before drawing any conclusions about it( if you have a brain).

 

[Hangar18]

For the issues MD4M brought up, this might be a start. I didn't see any gun legislation information on this website. There was an earlier post by someone here that showed Kerry voted 21 for 21 with the position of the Brady Bunch, where Larry Craig (NRA board member) was 0 for 21.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Animal+Rights+and+Wildlife+Issues


I think MD4M's point is that many of the organizations listed are alleged to be anti-hunting. There is a post I made a couple of days ago with an alert from the US Sportsman's Alliance linking Michelin Tires with the American Humane Association, who are 100% anti-hunting and trapping.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Speculating about MD4M's point is as useless as speculating about a moth's behavior.

Here's some legislation sponsored by the ASPCA. Are you for it or against it?

"Dual-Purpose Legislation
Animal welfare and public safety in New York.


In 2004, the New York State Legislature has before it a number of proposed laws with a dual aim: improving the welfare of animals while making our communities a safer place for our family members—both human and animal—to live. Bills to stop the harboring of “exotic” animals as pets, to put more teeth into animal fighting laws and to ensure effective control of dogs are all on the plates of our elected officials—and at the forefront of the ASPCA’s legislative efforts.

Exotic Pets—Unhappy and Unsafe
A burgeoning exotic pet trade in the United States makes it as easy to purchase a monkey or a boa constrictor as it is to place an online order with L.L. Bean. Although they are inherently dangerous—as evidenced by the unsettling number of attacks, injuries and deaths caused by exotic pets—the market for wild animals remains largely unregulated. The captive breeding of wild animals and the keeping of them in environments so unlike their natural habitats is inherently inhumane. But the danger to those who own exotic pets, to the community at large and to all species of domestic and wild animals in New York State is perhaps the more pressing reason for legislation to ban the keeping of these animals as pets.

As government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control have long feared, the exotic pet trade brings with it the introduction and spread of diseases—including monkey pox, herpes, salmonellosis and Ebola Fever—that can be fatal to both animals and humans. In response to this disturbing public health and safety threat, the ASPCA’s Legislative Services department is spearheading legislation (Assembly bill 2684/Senate bill 905) sponsored by Assembly Member Paul Tonko and Senator Carl Marcellino to ban the possession of exotic animals as pets. The law would not affect the lawful possession of these animals by zoos, research facilities, humane societies, veterinarians and wildlife rehabilitators. A “grandfather clause” would permit those who own exotic pets at the time the law takes effect to keep their animals—as long as they comply with stringent animal welfare and public safety standards.

The Fight Against Fighting
Though it is a felony in New York State, the inhumane practice of animal fighting continues to grow in popularity here and around the country. Dogs bred and trained to fight are unwittingly recruited into a brief life of violence and bloodshed. This “sport” is not only unspeakably cruel; it also creates a laundry list of threats to public safety. Animal fighting is often accompanied by other illegal activities, including gambling, the possession of dangerous weapons and drug trafficking. Dogs trained to attack and fight may also endanger other animals and people living near them.

Legislation sponsored by Tonko and Senator John Bonacic (bills A 5172/S 8586) would strengthen New York’s existing law against animal fighting by adding a prohibition against breeding, offering for sale, selling or buying an animal for the purpose of engaging in animal fighting. The Internet has become a vast and fruitful resource for dog fighting enthusiasts; currently, one can shop online for a champion-bloodline fighting dog. The passage of bills A 5172/S 8586 would close the gap in the law that permits this flagrant violation of the spirit—if not the letter—of our current ban on animal fighting.

Animal [Out of] Control?
Laws that protect animal and pubic welfare cannot be enforced without the necessary resources. In New York, funds for animal control services come largely from dog license fees. Because only about 30 percent of New Yorkers license their dogs, there are inadequate funds for animal control services—and, therefore, an inadequate ability to ensure that dogs are inoculated against rabies, or that their owners comply with local leash laws.

Bill A 6509/S 2979, now pending in Albany, is designed to increase voluntary compliance with dog licensing, thereby infusing much-needed funding into local animal control services and into the state’s low cost spay/neuter program. By mandating “point of transfer” licensing for dogs who are adopted or purchased from shelters, rescue groups or pet stores, and moderately increasing license fees and increasing public education regarding their use, the passage of this bill will enable animal control officers to more effectively protect both animals and the public. AW

Stacy Wolf, Esq., is the director of Legislative Services for the ASPCA

Reprinted from ASPCA Animal Watch, Spring 2004, Vol. 24, No. 1, with permission from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 424 East 92nd Street, New York, NY 10128-6804

http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/animalissuesawareness/legalmatterspoliticalissues/1.39.24.txt

--------------------------------------------

Here's some more of their anti -American conspiracy efforts:

(New York) May 14, 2001 -- The ASPCA will host a press conference on Friday, May 18, 2001 at Detmold Park, 51ST and Beekman Place calling on New Yorkers to unite against pet overpopulation. Mary Tyler Moore will join ASPCA President & CEO Dr. Larry Hawk in announcing two pieces of legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Pete Grannis (D-NYC), that could reduce the pet overpopulation crisis in the state and bring much needed funding to state shelters.

The first piece of legislation spearheaded by the ASPCA known as the Dog Enumeration Bill (A.8382/S.4910) would provide better enforcement of dog licensing laws in New York State. Currently over half of the owned dogs in the state are not licensed resulting in a loss of revenue of approximately $14 million dollars a year. These funds would go directly to the care of homeless animals in our state shelters and to The Animal Population Control Program which provides state residents with low cost spaying and neutering.

The second piece of legislation, Spay/Neuter Bill (A.229/S.3556A) would require all state shelters and humane societies to spay and neuter before releasing animals to their newly adopted homes.

In addition to the proposed legislation, The ASPCA has launched an advertising campaign featuring the message - "NY loves K9s." The purpose of the ad is to urge New Yorkers to license their dogs and to alert them that doing so can help animals less fortunate. The ads will appear beginning on Friday, May 18, 2001 in The New York Times and will also be featured in the Albany Times Union.

Celebrity dog "Rags" from ABC's Spin City will be joining Mary Tyler Moore and The ASPCA to do his part in supporting the cause by assisting volunteers in their grassroot efforts of handing out dog license applications.

Date: Friday, May 18, 2001

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some more!

"(NEW YORK) August 8, 2002 -- The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) applauds Governor George Ryan for enacting HB 5625 which makes recording acts of cruel treatment, aggravated cruelty, animal torture, cockfighting and dog fighting a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

The law was spearheaded by the ASPCA as a result of a cat torturing case in December 2001. Two Cahokia, Illinois youths tied a cat to a tree and threw firecrackers at the helpless animal while they videotaped their cruel acts. They then sold the tapes to classmates for $6 a tape. The two were apprehended by the Cahokia police department and charged with animal cruelty. Unfortunately, the judges in St. Clair County did not take their acts of cruelty seriously and the juveniles received a slap on the wrist - a $100 fine and 6 months court supervision.

By signing HB 5625 into law, the court must order psychological counseling for all juveniles convicted of this violation..............

http://www.aspca.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10400&JServSessionIdr011=b1121epm11.app5b

---------------------------------------

Read this!!!

http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=public/animalissuesawareness/animalcrueltyissues/1.37.20.txt

ASPCA ANIMAL CRUELTY FACT SHEET

What Constitutes Animal Cruelty? Acts of violence or neglect perpetrated against animals are considered animal cruelty. Examples include overt animal abuse, dog and @#)(# fighting and companion animal neglect where the animal is denied basic necessities of care such as fresh water and food or shelter. Many people who witness or hear about cruelty are not aware that legal action can be taken to help stop the problem. Companion animals are primarily covered by state animal cruelty laws, which vary from state to state and county to county. Animal welfare organizations across the country work daily to educate people about the proper care of animals and how to prevent animal cruelty. Animal cruelty can be divided into two general categories: neglect and intentional cruelty.

Neglect

Neglect is the failure to provide an animal with the most basic of requirements of food, water, shelter and veterinary care.
Neglect may be due to ignorance on the animal owner's part and is usually handled by requiring the owner to correct the situation. If the problem is not corrected, the animal may be removed from the neglectful person by law enforcement authorities.
Intentional Cruelty

Intentional cruelty is often more shocking than neglect and is frequently an indicator of a serious human behavior problem.
Intentional cruelty is when an individual purposely inflicts physical harm or injury on an animal. (The ASPCA and other organizations with cruelty investigation authority have arrested individuals who have deliberately maimed, tortured or even killed animals.)
Although many individuals are arrested for intentional cruelty, people who commit even the most heinous crimes against animals are often not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In states where animal cruelty is considered a misdemeanor, individuals who commit intentional cruelty crimes against animals can receive, at most, one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Often, perpetrators receive no more than probation.
Someone who is violent towards animals may be violent towards family members or others.
Animal Cruelty Laws (State-to-state)

33 states and the District of Columbia currently have laws that make intentional cruelty a felony charge, while the remaining states treat animal cruelty as a misdemeanor.
Many animal cruelty laws specifically exclude accepted animal husbandry practices involving farm animals, animals used in research, and lawful hunting and trapping of wildlife.
Many states now require the person convicted of cruelty to undergo psychological evaluation and counseling, in addition to paying a fine or serving a prison sentence.
An increasing number of states are instituting cross training and reporting programs that involve social service workers who are likely to see cases of animal abuse during the course of their work in domestic violence and child abuse cases.
A number of states provide civil and criminal immunity to veterinarians who report suspected cases of animal abuse to law enforcement authorities, as veterinarians are likely to be the first to come in contact with an abused animal.
Enforcement of animal cruelty laws can be carried out by local police or by humane or municipal agencies that are granted power from the state or local government.
Advice From the ASPCA

If you witness or hear about animal cruelty taking place, report it to your local humane organization or call your local police.
Learn about animal-friendly legislation pending in your state from the ASPCA's Government Affairs & Public Policy department. Visit the ASPCA at www.aspca.org and follow the "Lobby for Animal Welfare" link.
Become a member of the ASPCA Legislative Action Team and take an active part in passing legislation. E-mail all inquiries to [email protected] or call the Government Affairs & Public Policy department at 212/ 876-7700 ext. 4550.
Teaching future generations to respect animal life will make our society more humane. Make sure schools in your town include humane education as part of their curriculum. E-mail the ASPCA at [email protected] for classroom resources.
If you want to adopt a pet, go to your local shelter first. To search the Internet for animals available for adoption, visit the ASPCA's online adoption partner PetFinder.com at www.petfinder.com.
If you own a pet, be responsible and provide it with annual veterinary check-ups and preventative medical care; spay or neuter your cat or dog to reduce pet overpopulation and urge your friends to do the same.
Support your local animal rescue organization or shelter with donations of money, food or supplies. Volunteering your time or fostering a shelter animal is a good way to make a difference. Fostering helps socialize abused or frightened animals before they are adopted.

================================================

Want more?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's some legislation endorsed by the Doris Day group MD4M is so terrified of. Would you be against it?

Antifreeze Safety Act (H.R. 1563)
Summary: Endorsed by the American Kennel Club, Consumers Union, Pet Food Institute, Children's Defense Fund, American Veterinary Medical Association and the World Wildlife Fund, this bill would require the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze to render it unpalatable to animals and children. Several states already require it, and others are considering similar legislation, but only federal legislation will ensure uniform compliance across the nation. Get factsheet (pdf). Status: Active. Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Position/Action: SUPPORT.

Send an Action Letter to Congress!
Charitable Pet Trusts Act
Summary: Allow animal guardians to establish a "charitable remainder trust" to care for their animals. After the animals pass away, the remainder of the trust goes to a specified charity. Get Factsheet (pdf). Status: Not yet introduced. Position/Action: SUPPORT.

Send an Action Letter to Congress!
Puppy Protection Act (H.R. 3484)
Summary: To further protect animals raised in commercial breeding facilities and sold through pet stores. Read an Editorial by Rep. Ed Whitfield Status: Active Sponsor: Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) Position/Action: SUPPORT.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's some of what the American Humane Association does. What a bunch of communists!!

Calling it a critical issue in how communities protect children, the American Humane Association (AHA) today announced it will conduct the first national study of the use of law enforcement to respond to and investigate cases of child abuse and neglect. Through a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation AHA, the national leader in child and animal protection issues, will address the effectiveness of using law enforcement personnel to handle reports and investigations of child abuse and neglect.

"Traditionally, the role of reporting on and investigating charges of child abuse has fallen on social workers," said Paul DiLorenzo, Director of AHA's Children's Services. "If a charge is made, it is the responsibility of a local social service agency to determine whether abuse or neglect has occurred, and then what to do to ensure the safety of -children. Over the past few years, we've witnessed a change where some communities are handing that responsibility directly to law enforcement agencies."

DiLorenzo pointed to four counties in Florida and the state of Arkansas as recent examples where the investigation of child abuse cases is handled by law enforcement agencies. In Colorado, the Governor's Task Force on the Welfare of Children has recommended further study of a proposal to take similar action statewide.

"Honestly, this is a hot button issue. Strong arguments have been made in favor of involving law enforcement agencies in investigations, and strong arguments have been made for keeping this under social service agencies. What hasn't been done is a balanced national study of this issue to determine.....
http://www.charitywire.com/charity9/00144.html

 

[Ithaca 37]

As I pointed out earlier, anyone who draws the conclusion that support of anything the organizations in MD4M's first post endorse is bad would have to be an idiot.

 

[Bambistew]

Do I want some more??? What are you trying to prove? Are you are an anit-hunter???

IT you just proved to me (again) how stupid you really are!!! You argue just to try and save your ass because you know you're wrong... money, legislation, or anything that goes toward helping the humane society/association is bad for all hunters period! That just frees up fund to fight against your quail hunting...

I can't belive you are standing up for the Humane Association... Here's what your friends have to say.

Hunting

American Humane (association) opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or for simple sport. American Humane believes that sport hunting is a form of exploitation of animals for the entertainment of the hunter and is contrary to the values of compassion and respect for all life that inform American Humane's mission.

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=wh_where_stand_apsps_hunting

https://secure2.convio.net/aha/site/Advocacy?id=183&JServSessionIdr012=oz33t2rr11.app7a

and another

https://secure2.convio.net/aha/site/Advocacy?id=175&JServSessionIdr012=oz33t2rr11.app7a

some more

https://secure2.convio.net/aha/site/Advocacy?id=220


How about the humane society...

http://www.hsus.org/ace/12035

http://www.hsus.org/ace/12043

http://www.hsus.org/ace/12071

http://www.hsus.org/ace/12081


How do you think these orgs get their money for anti-hunting progams/legislation??? Donations, special intrests and through legislation. They help out some poor inocent little puppy and people applaud but when they propose legislation to stop hunting those same people (You) look the other way because they helped some phuging puppy... Where do you suppose the money came from to fund the legislation process?

Standing up for anything that those a-holes do is just helping to put an end to your hunting. You are obviously to stupid to figure that one out on your own...

I never thought in a milloin years that I would see a hunter standing up for anti-hunting orgs... Who's the real idiot here

Isn't you who is always saying that if its not helping hunting/wildlife/habitat then its not for you... Well none of those organizations that you're backing up are for hunting. SO what if they save a fugging puppy, they are out to put an end HUNTING.

So which is it Ithica... are you a hunter or are you an anti??? There's only two sides of the fence on this one. Kittens and puppies don't count in the hunting world...

 

[Bambistew]

Here anti-It

right off the the Doris Day web page are these good enough for ya...

http://www.ddal.org/legislation/federal/

WILD ANIMALS
Bear Baiting Act (H.R. 1472)
Summary: To prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on federal public lands in order to end the hunting practice known as "bear baiting" and reduce the number of dangerous interactions between people and bears. Status: Active. Sponsors: Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Rep. James Moran (D-VA) Position/Action: SUPPORT.

Steel Jaw Leghold Trap Ban (H.R. 1800)
Summary: Bans the commerce in furs obtained from conventional steel jaw leghold traps, which are designed to snap shut on the limbs of any animal unfortunate enough to come in contact with them. Cats, dogs, and endangered species are among the unintentional victims of these indiscriminate traps. Status: Active. Sponsors: Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) Position/Action: SUPPORT.

Yellowstone Buffalo Preservation Act (H.R. 3446)
Summary: To prohibit state and federal agency officials from hazing, capturing, or killing Yellowstone bison, until certain conditions are met. Status: Active. Sponsors: Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH) Position/Action: SUPPORT.

 

[Tom]

I would not want to give to some Islamic association any money, because some of their money was spent helping the needy, when I thought most of it was to support jihadist activities aimed at destroying our western values.

This is an example like that for me and I'm glad it was posted to learn about it some here.

 

[Hangar18]

Ithaca

Speculating about MD4M's point is as useless as speculating about a moth's behavior.

As I pointed out earlier, anyone who draws the conclusion that support of anything the organizations in MD4M's first post endorse is bad would have to be an idiot.

As Plainsman already mentioned, why don't you try to make your point without belittling others. You and EG do this to MD4M & Ten Bears constantly. I for one would be more inclined to give you some credibility if you just made your point without feeling a need to point out how idiotic you think others are. Sticking smiley faces at the end of these posts is hypocritical.

But I guess if you want to continue to jaw just to hear your head rattle, by all means continue.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I'm starting to get a full grasp, now, of what feeble minded individuals I'm dealing with here.

Try to understand this: Legislation is proposed by many groups, individuals and legislators. At that point the serious lobbying starts and other groups, individuals and legislators start taking positions. As the bill goes thru the legislative process positions change as amendments are made until, finally, there is a vote.

In the examples I gave there were pieces of legislation the groups mentioned in the first post supported. They didn't neccessarily sponsor them or create them and wouldn't profit from them or receive any financial benefit from. Let's use this one, again, as an example:

Antifreeze Safety Act (H.R. 1563)
Summary: Endorsed by the American Kennel Club, Consumers Union, Pet Food Institute, Children's Defense Fund, American Veterinary Medical Association and the World Wildlife Fund, this bill would require the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze to render it unpalatable to animals and children. Several states already require it, and others are considering similar legislation, but only federal legislation will ensure uniform compliance across the nation. Get factsheet (pdf). Status: Active. Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Position/Action: SUPPORT.

Now, who wouldn't be in favor of that? We all know that dogs will lap up anti-freeze and it will kill them. (At least I hope you all know that). Anti-freeze has a sweet taste and just about any animal will drink some of it. A child might also if they happened to crawl thru it and got some on their hands and tasted it.

So, the Doris Day group takes a position in favor of that bill( as does the AKC and American Veterinary Med. Assoc. and any other group with any sense that is asked to take a position). Other groups who might be against it are ones who would be concerned that the cost of anti-freeze production would go up by about one tenth of one cent per gallon if a bitterness agent had to be added.

Then Kerry says he's in favor of the bill also. He probably even votes in favor of it if it gets to that step in the process. In fact, for all you guys know there might be a unanimous vote in favor of it.

Then someone who's counting on idiots thinking that it's bad for Kerry (or any other politician) to vote in favor of a bill that the Doris Day group is in favor of posts the information and hopes it will influence the thinking of people who aren't smart enough to understand the whole process.

Do any of you have any idea how the Bush administration feels about the anti-freeze bill and if Bush would sign it if it passed? If Bush did sign it would you vote against him because he signed a bill the Doris Day group endorsed?

Please answer that question keeping in mind that Bush signs bills all the time that are endorsed by many groups you might not like.

All I'm trying to say is that MD4M's origional post is BS desined to influence the lack of thinking by idiots. Sounds like some of you fall for stuff like that.

For those other idiots that think I'm for Kerry, you're wrong. At this point I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

And for everyone here: What's your position on the anti-freeze bill and every other bill that Kerry was judged on in MD4M's post?

Plainsman, That question is especially for you. Get off your fat stupid ass and take a position and maybe we'll be able to see if there are any groups or politicians you don't like who take the same position.

Hanger, "As Plainsman already mentioned, why don't you try to make your point without belittling others. You and EG do this to MD4M & Ten Bears constantly. I for one would be more inclined to give you some credibility if you just made your point without feeling a need to point out how idiotic you think others are. Sticking smiley faces at the end of these posts is hypocritical.

But I guess if you want to continue to jaw just to hear your head rattle, by all means continue."

MD4M and Ten Bears have earned every bit of ridicule they get.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Hmm - a couple of quotes from the ASPCA policy statement shown above:

"Intentional cruelty is often more shocking than neglect and is frequently an indicator of a serious human behavior problem."

"Someone who is violent towards animals may be violent towards family members or others."


Wouldn't shooting an animal with a gun or bow be considered cruel or violent by the ASPCA? I think we know their attitude - funding them in any way helps them oppose hunting by freeing up or providing funds.

I know how Ithaca feels about MD4me - that is clouding his normally rational thinking!

 

[Ithaca 37]

Calif., How is taking the same position on the anti-freeze bill as Kerry going to fund the ASPCA or any other group that takes a position in favor of it?

When the NRA takes a position for or against any bill, does that mean they are going to be funded by it?

 

[Plainsman]

Ithaca, I think you have some serious control and self esteem issues. As far as the rest of your issues, I'm sure an ax murderer has some good qualities, but I won't be inviting one to dinner with the family any time soon.

Oh yeah, your antifreeze bill. I'm smart enough not to leave out any open containers of antifreeze for my dogs to get into.

 

[Bambistew]

So ANTI-It are you for or against the humane society??? They save puppies from anit-freeze and are willing to do anthing they can do to take away your hunting, and you praise their good intentions. You want to be associated with them?

I don't give a flying fugg if they are for saving inocent children from being run over with a dumptruck. They are against hunting. There will always be someone eles willing to save those same children and they won't have to take away my deer to do it.

Again who is the real idiot here?

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

It
You'd better stop drinking anti-freeze and put away your John Kerry blow-up doll before you piss these guys off anymore , they're about ready to hunt you down and take away your commi-card .