GOP Rep. Steve King defends dog fighting.

reply to post by randomname


Just curious if you support the idea of making toddlers fight to the death? How about the severely mentally handicapped or mentally ill? How about seniors that suffer from dementia?

If not, what is the difference in your mind?

This post is disingenuous and borderline libel.

Just because he's questioning if pit fighting dogs raise to the level of a federal offense does not mean that he is pro pit fighting dogs.

He's questioning why the federal government should have jurisdiction in these matters.

OMG, it gets worse



This guy is such an idiot. Does he seriously not thing rape, kidnapping, and coercion is not illegal?


And the amendment he voted against WAS TO PROTECT HUMAN CHILDREN.

King has led the fight in Congress to block legislation to crack down on the barbaric practices of dogfighting and cockfighting. During consideration of the 2012 Farm bill, King led an unsuccessful effort to defeat a McGovern amendment to make it a crime for an adult to attend or to bring a child to a dogfight or cockfight

WOW, he blocked an amendment that would make it illegal to bring children to a dog fight....If a dog got loose from the fight and the child made ANY sort of light pitch squeak, the dog would be triggered to attack the child until death occurred. This guy is a real scumbag...

King has led the fight in Congress to block legislation to crack down on the barbaric practices of dogfighting and cockfighting. During consideration of the 2012 Farm bill, King led an unsuccessful effort to defeat a McGovern amendment to make it a crime for an adult to attend or to bring a child to a dogfight or cockfight. A three-year study by the Chicago Police Department found that 70 percent of animal offenders had also been arrested for other felonies, including domestic and aggravated battery, illegal drug trafficking, and sex crimes. That pattern of behavior undoubtedly encouraged the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and nearly 200 law enforcement agencies from across the country to support the current effort in Congress to quash illegal dogfighting and cockfighting.

Every other federal lawmaker in Iowa – including Republicans Charles Grassley and Tom Latham – supported this policy of forbidding adults from bringing children to these spectacles of violence.

King also stood alone in Iowa’s delegation in opposing a previous upgrade of the federal law against animal fighting. In 2007, he was one of a just a small group of lawmakers to oppose H.R. 137, a bill to make it a federal felony to transport animals or cockfighting implements across state lines. Again, this legislation was designed to crack down on the national network of illegal animal fighters who routinely operate across state lines. The measure passed the Senate unanimously, and was approved by the House with a commanding vote of 368 to 39 (clerk.house.gov...). President George W. Bush signed that bill into law just days after Michael Vick’s horrible dogfighting crimes came to light.

King was part of a rogue group of lawmakers, in a vote of 349 to 24, to oppose efforts to include pets in disaster planning – this vote, coming in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the Gulf Coast, after so many people stayed behind and put themselves and first responders at risk because there were no plans to care for pets (clerk.house.gov...). Again, he was the only Iowa lawmaker in the House or Senate to oppose that legislation. Senator Thune also favored this bill, and President Bush signed it into law in 2006.

hsus.typepad.com...

Voted against an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for bear baiting on federal lands. (H.R. 2691)

If you don't know what bear baiting is, it's when people chain up a bear and let dogs attack it until it dies

Voted against an amendment to strike down provisions in an energy bill that would allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (H.R. 6)

Voted against an amendment to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from using tax dollars for the sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros.

^ Tax dollars, aren't republicans supposed to be against unnecessary spending? Bet you this guy would vote against foodstamps/welfare/ any social program.

Voted against an amendment to bar federal funding that permits the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada. (H.R. 2643)

Voted against a bill to assist conservation programs that protect rare dog and cat species outside North America and Europe. (H.R. 1464)

Yet he voted FOR using tax payer money to kill wild horses?

Voted against a bill to prohibit interstate and foreign commerce in primates for the pet trade. (H.R. 2964)

Yet he voted FOR using tax payer money to kill wild horses?

Voted against a bill to establish a more effective recovery program for the severely declining population of Southern sea otters.

Voted against a bill to once again prohibit the commercial sale and slaughter of free-roaming horses and burros, and make holding facilities more humane, effective, and fiscally responsible.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Again....not arguing right or wrong of any of these things... Why does it need to be at the federal level?

These things can and should be managed at the state and local level.

Why don't we just move all state and local violations of law up to the federal level?

reply to post by muse7


In people fighting, they have a choice to turn down the challenge/fight.

for animals, they are forced to fight.

that's the difference!

who the hell voted for this guy?

reply to post by 11235813213455


Well one of the laws dealt with transporting animals across state lines to fight, so that had to be federal.

And some federal laws are definitely needed at times, like the civil rights act, child labor laws, safety building codes etc.

Originally posted by randomname
how is putting two animals bred to fight like pitbulls cruelty.

they were specifically bred with fighting traits and it is what they naturally do.

its a question of one group imposing its morality on other people.

who are any of you to judge whether dog fighting, bull fighting or cock fighting is wrong.

its hardly even worth arguing about. you don't like it, don't watch it.

but don't start nagging and condemning or even persecuting another human being because two dogs bite each in a ring.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and suppose you subscribe to Conservative Southern Values
and believe that freedom is a zero-sum game [hint, it isn't].

Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- including lavish parties, games of fortune, predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse spectacles.

***

But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty.

***

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule. Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned, unrestrained right to turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and subjects.

www.alternet.org...

but even ignoring that, it's obvious you believe that any contracts can be made null and void when it's convenient, or when it gets in the way of your "fun" and "enjoyment"

and what contract is that?
the one humans and canines made for mutual aid and protection in prehistory
dogs for the most part, except in cases of rabies], i.e.,have upheld their end
breeding dogs for fighting is a violation of that contract as is dog-fighting as well.

and get a clue, pit- bulls are bred for strength of frame and jaw, they become violent due to "training"/conditioning
often perpetrated by those whose souls are at a stage of development lower than beasts: that of Anti-Life.

sports, for the most part, are sublimated forms of war, boxing being no different than roman gladiators or the aztec ball games, and only bring out the worst in those who participate and patronize such activities. one has only to pass by a bar with the big plasma screen on boxing night to observe the inhumanity of those that enjoy these things.

you are in essence arguing for the "right" to be left alone, in your pursuit and enjoyment of criminal, psychopathic and Anti-life behaviors, using the obscene "let's not judge" argument of post-modern moral relativism.

lol, and your playing the victim card is overruled: those dogs were set upon each other by "humans" and didn't just happen to start fighting at random.

reply to post by RealSpoke


awesome job exposing this POS
and knocking down any arguments that he's being libeled or misunderstood.
pity you didn't get more stars.

S&F for the OP as well, for digging up this can of worms.

At least the dude doesn't eat them unlike a certain guy in Washington we all know.

Really do love the elitist attitudes in this thread considering that the Pm forum is "dog fighting" and cruelty to other humans.

thanks have a nice day woof woof.oh yeah sorry I was late to the pity oops I meant Peta party.

Originally posted by neo96
At least the dude doesn't eat them unlike a certain guy in Washington we all know.

Really do love the elitist attitudes in this thread considering that the Pm forum is "dog fighting" and cruelty to other humans.

thanks have a nice day woof woof.oh yeah sorry I was late to the pity oops I meant Peta party.

edit on 22-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

thanks for confirming everyone's beliefs that you will stand up for the GOP no matter how ridiculous and psychopathic their beliefs are.

And no this wasn't a "PETA Party" this thread meant to expose Steve King's disdain towards innocent animals.

reply to post by muse7


So are you seriously sitting there saying 1 man represents the entire belief system of a party?

Is that what you are saying?

Remember now that is a two way street.

reply to post by neo96


I'll quite gladly repeat myself

From my previous post:

And no this wasn't a "PETA Party" this thread meant to expose Steve King's disdain towards innocent animals.

This will my my last reply to you, I don't really have the time to deal with party hacks right now.

a dog that loses but survives is commonly drowned by the owner and disposed of like garbage

that doesn't happen to often in boxing

what a despicable loser

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by neo96
At least the dude doesn't eat them unlike a certain guy in Washington we all know.

Really do love the elitist attitudes in this thread considering that the Pm forum is "dog fighting" and cruelty to other humans.

thanks have a nice day woof woof.oh yeah sorry I was late to the pity oops I meant Peta party.

edit on 22-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

thanks for confirming everyone's beliefs that you will stand up for the GOP no matter how ridiculous and psychopathic their beliefs are.

And no this wasn't a "PETA Party" this thread meant to expose Steve King's disdain towards innocent animals.

Wanna try agian?

thanks for confirming everyone's beliefs that you will stand up for the GOP no matter how ridiculous and psychopathic their beliefs are

Then said this:

And no this wasn't a "PETA Party" this thread meant to expose Steve King's disdain towards innocent animals.

Someone seems confused or the fact they are trying to have it both ways.

reply to post by neo96


Yawn, Neo pretending to be a partisan tough guy again.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

Again....not arguing right or wrong of any of these things... Why does it need to be at the federal level?

These things can and should be managed at the state and local level.

Why don't we just move all state and local violations of law up to the federal level?

Because it is a law that should apply throughoutt the unites states in a uniform manner. Is there a state you feel should have the option to opt out of this kind of law?

reply to post by wascurious


They'll cry about "big government", even if it is beneficial.

reply to post by neo96


Muse was only trying to have it one way but some Republican came in and conveniently gave Muse a second way to have it as well.
Then you turn around and blame her for having it both ways!
CLASSIC!

It is like reality and logic are balloons you try to see how far you can stretch before they pop but after they no longer retain any familiar shape.

Maybe what we could do is basically just strike a balance....

So what you do is let dogs fight humans and just do it that way like this....



Look she's got it in a submission hold.