|
1-10 of 13 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.rexano.org/Federal_Canada/USA_worst_exotic_bills.pdf
USA: The WORST Federal Bills Against Private Ownership of Exotic Animals By Party Affiliation: 2000-July 2008
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm failing to understand the reason for that little tidbit of research. What I can only assume is, based on the fact that in the last 8 years, 54% of Democrats have sponsored anti-pet legislation as opposed to 23% of Republicans, we all should obviously only ever vote Republican? Who cares about the actual important issues afterall? It doesn't matter if our education system can't get the funds it needs to try to keep our kids on par with European and Asian countries (we're falling behind quickly), or the national debt keeps skyrocketing (cut tax and spend like crazy!), or we're facing the prospects of even more enormous military spending to show (shove?) our might around the world. Just as long as we can all continue keeping these animals captives here in the land of the free, all the rest can go to hell in a hand basket.
Of course, if this is not why you did the research, the previous text is null.
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I did it for the same reasons I do my other research, to get info and facts out there so people can make informed decisions based on facts. I have no time to do research on how school bills were sponsored.
It is up to individual people how and where they will use this info. Like I said in previous posts, if I had m choice, I would have libertarians like Ron Paul in the office, but when it comes to animal bills, Republicans are less of 2 evils, but not in NV, we have horrible AR tight with HSU$ republican Ensign.
So look at the individual candidate is my approach, but I can not pretend not to see the evidence/facts in front of me, that generally speaking it is Democrats who are banning our hobby
Z
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by MikeB on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well, as a general matter, Republicans tend to be more libertarian than Democrats, who more often opt for the government regulation pathway in addressing issues. So the data are not surprising.
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by FLherp on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It really depends on the issue, if it is the issue of birth control, privacy, etc. the republicans are not that libertarian - If it is issues of establishing a nanny state, the democrats are not...
also you have to sift the data to determine how many bills have been proposed, how many were co-sponsored, etc. Lies, damned lies, and statistics as they say...
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess the point I was trying to make is, to be a conscientious voter, one must really consider all the factors that are going to come into play in the next 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on what position you're voting for). I can't stand the fact that there are so many "one issue voters" out there: i.e., "I don't want gays to get married. I'm going to vote Republican." Or "I want to keep guns off the streets, I'm going to vote Democrat." I personally think this country would be in much better shape if the populous was willing to actually try to educate ourselves on many different issues, rather than just focusing on one. The media is largely to blame, sensationalizing minuscule matters just for the sake of ratings, while sending our country down the crapper at the same time.
I guess I just think there are far more important problems facing us today than whether I can continue to legally keep my reptiles. That's not to say I wouldn't let that influence my voting tendencies, by all means take it into consideration. But I would be ridiculously stupid to go to the polls with, for instance, the information you posted, and check all R's based solely on those facts. Look at the individual, not the party.
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chance wrote
<<I guess I just think there are far more important problems facing us today than whether I can continue to legally keep my reptiles. >>
EXACTLY! Then why the hell are Dems wasting time and tax moneys passing monkey bills if there are more important issues to deal with and address???
Also look at the stats on co sponsors, that is more scary than sponsors. If Dems truly care about other issues, then my advice to them is to leave aniaml issues alone. Can u make them do that???
Z
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Politicians are going to do what they think (or are paid for) is in the best interest of the majority of the population. It doesn't matter which side of the political aisle to which one subscribes, both get involved in things they probably shouldn't. Democrats aren't the only ones pressing for new animal legislation. Just look at the mess in Texas if you don't believe me there. If a Congressperson, Senator, or even the President feels enough heat from a large enough portion of society, or a large enough bank account from a lobbying group, that person is going to do what he/she needs to make people happy (aka, continue to be re-electable). Anyone would be sadly mistaken if he/she were to believe believe this happens on only one side of the aisle.
Again I'll reiterate my point: be an informed voter. But be informed on all the issues and let them guide your vote as a whole, rather than focusing on one thing. If more people would begin voting this way, things would begin changing in American politics. Hell, if more than 50% of population was even willing to walk out the damned front door and vote in the first place, this country would be better off. As it is, a politician knows he/she only has to woo roughly 25% of the constituency to stay in office. That's pretty sad.
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on July 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, to be fair, I added 2 more pages that list co-sponsors by name, party, in color, so you all know which R or D is the bad one
Z
http://www.rexano.org/Federal_Canada/USA_worst_exotic_bills.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: Worss federal bills against exotics by party
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on July 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Zuzana, your last post makes it quite clear that two times more Democrats are voting for bad wildlife laws than are Republicans.
And those Republicans who are voting for bad wildlife laws are from very liberal states like Vermont, California, and Kansas.
Not much surprise in those statistics.
Best Regards John Z
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
