Who is the Humane Society of the United States?

Okay, just to recap. We've established that the Humane Society doesn't advocate cruel, inhumane treatment of animals, your jumbled protestations to the contrary. You've admitted that you have a fear of the democratic process and now you seem to be indicating that diversity is fine, as long as the diverse causes are vetted and supported by you first.

Any other lunatic, unAmerican points you care to bring up, or have you been ridiculed enough in this thread?

Is a vasectomy cruel and unusual?

The trolls have discovered that on boards that don't force you to begin reading from page 1, it is easy to bury a thread with their crap.

Just because someone bests you in an argument, doesn't make them a troll. Go and learn more about the topic, organize your thoughts, calm yourself and then return. Explain your thoughts clearly and logically. Find facts to back up your opinions. In short, try to carry on a discussion like a reasonable adult and not a spoiled child.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

Can someone define "troll" for me? Surely, it means something other than "someone who disagrees with me"...

Please go back and read my original post on page 1 and see what BS and friends are trying to prevent you from reading. Thank you.

There you go again with your wild accusations, bereft of fact. I am not Master of the Internet, or an A2K moderator. I have prevented no one from reading anything. I have only responded to your ludicrous assertions and baseless arguments. That's an easy enough job, given your lack of debating skills, but it IS time consuming, leaving me no time to concern myself with the internet browsing activities of others.

The problem appears to be that no one agrees with cjhsa on this thread. This is due to the fact, apparently, that the thread has been derailed by trolls. Am I understanding the thinking here?

absolutely

That would be the train of thought, yes.

Here's the 1992 law…
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/pl102346.htm

Here's the revised version…
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4239

I haven't the patience to read it too closely, but I'm not sure what the actual changes are.

Apparently (from http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=247941&party=rep), the revision broadens the net by which an act may be defined as "terrorism" to include actions against individuals or organizations linked to animal enterprises as well as actions against the animal enterprise itself.

Here is HSUS's stated objection to the bill (from http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/109_AETA_factsheet.pdf -- a abstract of this document has already been posted).



So there's that. I've got a beef with the HSUS simply because they receives donations from people who believe they are supporting a sheltering organization and personally have got some questions about how far their leadership might be willing to go to accomplish their goals behind the scenes.

Now, CJ has yet to support allegations linking HSUS to domestic terrorism (as it is generally and curiously defined) - allegations that may or may not have some merit. Instead, he's proceeded to attack them on ideological grounds, has essentially called them unAmerican (which, of course, would make it inherently bad).

CJ, you get challenged, and you huff and puff and run off on tangents instead of holding your ground and defending your opinions. Your behavior makes your positions look utterly undefensible - which is painful to watch, which they generally are not. I've read your posts long enough to know that you're no gunga or omsigdavid (not by a long shot; in fact, I generally like you when you're not flying off the handle, for whatever that's worth), but sometimes you come off like they do.

What of me saying that the HSUS isn't who or what they claim to be is indefensible?

Their name is a deliberate misnomer in that most folks automatically assume they are affiliated with the local animal shelter.

A good friend and hunter, his wife made this mistake. He couldn't figure out why they were getting all this anti-crap in the mail - he finally figured it out after I explained the difference. He was not happy with her, though her intentions were likely good. And therein lies the problem, and a huge source of income for HSUS.

I didn't say "are indefensible." I said "look indefensible." And you haven't provided any exampes of where HSUS might have been involved in domestic terrorism on the animal lib front -- you haven't even provided any specific examples of such acts. Your premise seems to be that HSUS is an ideologically extreme organization and therefore is a terrorist organization.

If they have no interest in domestic terrorism, what is their interest in what I posted on page 1? Getting their name in the paper? Maybe, but it sure seems like bad publicity.

I think the NRA should change its fundraising arm to be called the "GCSUS", aka. the Gun Control Socieity of the United States.

That would be fitting.

And cjhsa's definition of an ideologically extreme organization appears to be any organisation that works to ban hunting..

I posted a link with their stated reasons for opposing the amendment to the 1992 legislation. It might behoove your argument to discredit their arguments, or at least address them.

OK, they oppose the amendment because they are afraid of being labeled domestic terrorists, which they are. You want to give animals rights? Don't complain to me when you get sued by your neighbor on behalf the dead squirrel in your driveway.

I have a job, not enough time to argue with unemployed attorneys all day.

Here's some fodder for today. I don't always agree with Farbman, but he hits the nail on the head here (maybe someone else wrote this piece for him).


10/22/2006
Opponents of dove hunting want to eliminate all hunting
By David Farbman
On November 7, Michigan voters will be faced with the choice of accepting a state law that permits the hunting of mourning doves or limiting the rights of residents of this state. I support Proposal 3 for the reason that its opponents are threatening to eliminate the sport of hunting one species at a time.

The emotional appeal presented by opponents of dove hunting is a disguise for their ultimate goal of banning all hunting, trapping and even fishing. Anti-hunting groups are using this issue as a stepping-stone toward the complete eradication of hunters' rights. It is frightening when our society places a higher value on animal rights than human rights.


Since the beginning of time, mankind has hunted. By allowing anti-hunting groups to revoke this right, we become dangerously close to becoming a hunted animal ourselves, whose liberties are decided by others with self-serving interests. Whether or not one is a hunter, everyone should be concerned about the protection of civil rights and liberties and should be wary of any group that intends to abolish our rights.


Dove hunting can bring dollars to the state during this economic decline. Without dove hunting, Michigan hunters are forced to leave the state to hunt. By accepting Proposal 3, Michigan can retain its hunters while attracting hunters from out-of-state. The money spent on lodging, gasoline, food and supplies can have a positive economic impact on the state.


Data shows that mourning doves are one of the 10 most numerous bird species in the continental U.S. and are not in imminent threat of endangerment. Anti-hunting groups fail to mention that in the 40 states where doves are hunted, there is no significant effect on the population.


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services found that the harvesting of mourning doves "has not been considered detrimental to long-term population status," and that there is essentially no difference in population trends of the species among states where dove hunting is permitted and states where it is banned.


Anti-hunting groups use the emotional appeal of animal rights to gain support. Voters need to be aware that these groups are dangerous and threaten our rights as hunters and humans. Today, they are challenging dove hunting. Tomorrow it will be deer, then ducks and then fish. It won't end unless we stop them right now. Vote yes on Proposal 3.


David Farbman is commissioner of the World Hunting Association.

*****Reader's Comments Below!****
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17361895&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6

So C1, what do you eat?