Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
I haven't heard much support for this witch puzzles me, all I have heard is David complain about his life being tough enough as it is and Crazymama nit pick words and pretend that their could be some sinister reasons for this bill, and frankly it insults her intelligence since I know she can read and compute the words/phrases.


Rusty as I said I can understand that you are happy that something is being done for your cause. I too love animals very much and would love to see every disreputable animal caretaker and Puppy mill taken down and closed.

What i have is an issue with those nit piky words, words mean something and not just necessarily what you or I may want them to mean. Words matter, especially words that are law.I also take issue with the government granting groups, especially special interest groups, no matter how well intentioned, the right to inspect and violate private property rights with out just cause and a warrant.

Please do not mistake this as a soft on animal abusers at all, just hard on law makers. We need to make them accountable and think about what the practical implications are of they laws they pass, not just the intention or spirit of the law they are passing.

Make no mistake one does not necessarily equal the other.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Please do not mistake this as a soft on animal abusers at all, just hard on law makers. We need to make them accountable and think about what the practical implications are of they laws they pass, not just the intention or spirit of the law they are passing.

Make no mistake one does not necessarily equal the other.
Indeed - I would argue that rarely does the result equal the intention. I certainly share your concerns about granting such powers to a group like the SPCA, noble though their purpose may be.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quincidently a man in Quebec (today or yesterday) who tried to kill a dog by leaving it in a car for 14+days got fined $100, the dog lost 55% of it's body weight and almost died. Sure glad I did not have to pay that ginormous fine. :roll:
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crazy mama asked about...
Quote:
- Creating new provincial offences including causing or permitting
distress to an animal


Actually mean? What is the definition of distress? <My dog gets distressed when I cool a roast on a counter to high for him to steal it. Just who gets to define what distress means anyhow? Ambiguity/open to interpretation sucks the big one.


Well hopefully this story qualifies as causiing destress to animals, I sure hpoe you don't do anything like this crazy mama.

http://www.torontosun.com/news.....98221.html

before this law was made this man would have got a $50 fine, how anyone can say this is a bad law is beyond me and speculating how this law could be misused does not cut it.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I will certainly not be voting for Dalton McGuinty in 2011,
I can tip my hat to the government moving in the right direction when it comes to this issue.

Its a good first step, its something that is long overdue, and I am glad that it is being addressed.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mean while back at the out house the coffee is starting to brew:

http://www.classicalvalues.com....._with.html
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazy mama wrote:
Quote:
Mean while back at the out house the coffee is starting to brew:

:?


http://www.classicalvalues.com....._with.html
I don't follow why the activists were angry but here a quote from the article that defines my point (because it was a pure bread?, that's not what this bill comes close to addressing and you know it)...
Quote:
What ordinary people tend to forget is that animal rights activists have increasingly been put in charge of animal law enforcement.
Its true because the s.p.c.a. gets no government funding and since there aren't laws to punish animals abusers anti vigilantism gets involved. The government should run the s.p.c.a. not volunteers. The government needs to take a more active role like how mcguilty has.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty you need to re read the entry.

When you give people with an agenda power you empower and embolden those with an agenda. they can over reach and use these powers to harass those that were not with in the spirit of the original intention. Can you not see the possible implications of what Dolton has done here?
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When you give people with an agenda power you empower and embolden those with an agenda. they can over reach and use these powers to harass those that were not with in the spirit of the original intention. Can you not see the possible implications of what Dolton has done here?


Since when does the government care about animals, shouldn't you be less worried if the government is in charge of the s.p.c.a then if a bunch of good people who care about animals are? (yes them being good is irrelevant but still) aren't the volunteers more fanatical then the government?

re-entry?
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crazy mama check out the poll on the right of your link! I voted roasted on a grill.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


McGuilty has gone from zero to hero =)

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB