I don't have a beef with punishing people who mistreat animals, but if being cruel to animals is so important, then why don't we have data bases to register murderers and drug dealers? And naturally, there's a tax on the people who aren't animal abusers to pay for the ones who are. All this crap starts in California and eventually makes its way to your states and towns.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section...id=7292221

Quote:People who abuse animals could soon be treated the same way as sex offenders in California. State lawmakers are considering a bill to create an online registry for people convicted of animal cruelty, similar to the sex offender database.

Quote:"The payment of this registry will be through the creation of if you will, a pet fee, pet food fee. We are debating whether that should be three cents or two cents," says Florez.

They should have a registry for people that propose stupid laws.

(02-23-2010 12:22 PM)I45owl Wrote:  They should have a registry for people that propose stupid laws.

+1. They could pay for it with a "politician's tax."

(02-23-2010 12:24 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 12:22 PM)I45owl Wrote:  They should have a registry for people that propose stupid laws.

+1. They could pay for it with a "politician's tax."

Once again, there should be a tax on states based on how many members of their bars.

Every time someone says...."There should be a law"...you can be sure that people that have nothing to do with that issue will be stolen from to pay for the bureaucracy that will follow. Why isnt the SPCA setting up this registry and financing it through private donations. I would have no problem donating to that cause voluntarily. I do however reject the idea that I should be stolen from to support it or ANY OTHER cause.

Just compare public outrage at 110% with Michael Vick vs. the outrage pegged at nil with Donte Stallworth's Miami DUI that killed a man.

Priorities, priorities.

I like animals, I really do. I read books and watch nature specials on them. But if they're going to make a law like this the least they can do is have it paid for by private groups that are interested in having the law, instead of having everyone pay for it. Agree about the whole Michael Vick thing, I thought that was way overplayed. I mean how many chickens and cattle are murdered so we can have omelets and cheeseburgers?

(02-23-2010 02:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 12:24 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 12:22 PM)I45owl Wrote:  They should have a registry for people that propose stupid laws.

+1. They could pay for it with a "politician's tax."

Once again, there should be a tax on states based on how many members of their bars.

Why do you think there are those tax stamps on liquor bottles?

(02-23-2010 05:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I like animals, I really do. I read books and watch nature specials on them. But if they're going to make a law like this the least they can do is have it paid for by private groups that are interested in having the law, instead of having everyone pay for it. Agree about the whole Michael Vick thing, I thought that was way overplayed. I mean how many chickens and cattle are murdered so we can have omelets and cheeseburgers?

You're not supposed to see where this line of reasoning is headed...

Of course, you could argue that the registry is already in place ... it's just called Zagat.