Idaho's ban on undercover animal abuse videos struck down by federal judge

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus was a 'lib'. Full blown love your neighbor, condemn the rich, help the poor lib. Something you will never understand. Your morality is the same as Newt Gingrich or Dennis Hastert. You claim it, but it isn't real.

Leftists are stupid and childish, thus they try to apply their political motives to historical or mythological figures in the most inappropriate way.

 

[chikenwing]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

What an absurd twist of logic,these 20 k children die for many causes,not from a specific,easily preventable,just don't do it procedure.

What have you done today to help those children,your pretzel logic response will be interesting.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Some lefty friends got my wife and I to watch "Meat Inc." on Netflix. It was supposed to outrage me and make me hate the AG business, it didn't. In one scene at a Tyson plant, about 2000 chickens were led onto a platform and a grate with holes was slowly lowered forcing the chickens to put their heads in the holes to remain standing. Then a big blade came and cut all their heads off.

This was supposed to shock me. but I'm not five, nor am I a leftist with an IQ of five. I already grasped that chickens are killed before we eat them.

Yeah, Swift pushing a sick cow with a forklift was wrong, and they were shut down over it.

We humans are omnivors, we eat other animals - which means those animals die.

Welcome to reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good. That means Utah's is next.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Law to ban televising animal cruelty struck down. Law that bans what goes on inside abortion clinics held up. What is up with that?

 

[Camp]

Standards and regulations determine slaughter house procedures. Those standards and procedures contribute to the cost and safety of processing our food. When a slaughter house deviates or ignores one or more of those procedures they are cheating consumers and other slaughter houses by unfairly reducing their own cost. Undercover video's expose companies who are cheating all of us. Documentaries about standard practices and procedures are not what were being banned. It was those undercover video's of breaking laws and regulations to save money and unfairly increase profits that were being banned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, superdem.

 

[mudwhistle]

Great news! If conservatives think that a person has the right to torture a animal. Well, maybe they're evil.

Got it.... Animals have rights, kids don't.

As expected, one of the resident right wingers comes flying in trying to compare fetuses to intelligent, emotional, sentient animals.

Well,.....you had to dehumanize unborn babies first.......before you could murder them......cut them up......and sell the parts like cold-cuts.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, superdem.

Obama is stupid and so are :/-. Does that count?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, superdem.

Obama is stupid and so are :/-. Does that count?

See, I know you can try, even if not too clearly.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, superdem.

Obama is stupid and so are :/-. Does that count?

See, I know you can try, even if not too clearly.

I hope when you're in down town Logan a cow belches while taking a dump in a cattle truck as you drive by.

 

[Socialist]

As expected, one of the resident right wingers comes flying in trying to compare fetuses to intelligent, emotional, sentient animals.

Animals are sentient, but humans are not?

Just in case anyone wonders how you came to murder 200 million people in the 20th century....

Oh, and the ruling is right, it is a matter of freedom of speech.

Cutting the head off a chicken isn't torture.

Fetuses aren't sentient. 200 million? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you want to apply the same standards to judging deaths caused by capitalism? (The highest estimates are 100 million on "communism" deaths by the way, fuckwad.)

 

[Socialist]

Jesus was a 'lib'. Full blown love your neighbor, condemn the rich, help the poor lib. Something you will never understand. Your morality is the same as Newt Gingrich or Dennis Hastert. You claim it, but it isn't real.

Leftists are stupid and childish, thus they try to apply their political motives to historical or mythological figures in the most inappropriate way.

Yes, I suppose albert einstein was childish and stupid, same with nelson mandela.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

They think that a person deserves a chance to be born, i.e. "life". You creating a Standard of them having to save all other children's lives to claim the term "pro-life" is nothing more than trying to re-frame the debate, instead of debating the actual points.

Yes, I am reframing the debate to include all life, rather than a politically expedient subset.

Does pro-life mean all life, or some life.

it means what they want it to mean, and what the public accepts it to mean. And I doubt anti-abortion rights people (see i used the negative there) don't actively go out of their way to ignore the plight of poor children, many of the Churches they belong to probably do things for that. The fact is they see the plight of the unborn as more important, and there are plenty of people working on the plight of poor children at the same time.

"it means what they want it to mean" What they want it to mean is we are pro-life if that life is in the country they live in and isn't out of the womb. Otherwise they couldn't care less. And they can't claim their impetus is biblical because the Christian god and Jesus say all are gods children.

It is the cherry picking of the 'life' that is important and the 'life' that is ignored. Stop claiming biblical affirmation and high moral ground. Trying to save 55 million while watching 100 or 200 million die is not noble. Sorry, this circle cannot be squared. And anyone who DOES claim to be pro-life knows it. It is just a very very uncomfortable reality that they angrily deny because it lays bare the hypocrisy.

Actually they probably do care, they just focus on the life that is snuffed out via abortion. And this is still just a mental exercise by you and others like you to ignore the real argument over the killing of something living for the sake of convenience (in the case of non-therapeutic abortions only, of course).

It boils down to:

A: Abortion is wrong and I think it should be illegal, and I am willing to work towards that
B: How dare you think about that when there are living children suffering and dying out there!!!

Notice B isn't answering A, or retorting, B is just bringing up a separate, even if related point, ignoring A's view entirely.

Ok, lol, last post.

Abortion is legal and will remain so, so this 'effort' against it feels good but does nothing. There are REAL children that CAN be saved.

You and others ARE pro-choice on whether to let 20,000 more children die today.

Choose.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

What an absurd twist of logic,these 20 k children die for many causes,not from a specific,easily preventable,just don't do it procedure.

What have you done today to help those children,your pretzel logic response will be interesting.

And there it is. The "I won't help unless someone else does first" argument.

You are pro-choice. You can choose whether to let 20,000 children die today. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. Choose.

 

[Socialist]

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

What an absurd twist of logic,these 20 k children die for many causes,not from a specific,easily preventable,just don't do it procedure.

What have you done today to help those children,your pretzel logic response will be interesting.

And there it is. The "I won't help unless someone else does first" argument.

You are pro-choice. You can choose whether to let 20,000 children die today. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. Choose.

These children die, mainly, because of capitalism. Don't see right tards caring about that.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

What an absurd twist of logic,these 20 k children die for many causes,not from a specific,easily preventable,just don't do it procedure.

What have you done today to help those children,your pretzel logic response will be interesting.

And there it is. The "I won't help unless someone else does first" argument.

You are pro-choice. You can choose whether to let 20,000 children die today. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. Choose.

These children die, mainly, because of capitalism. Don't see right tards caring about that.

They are so disingenuous. They claim to be 'pro-life' but only for these lives over here, not about any other lives that would require actual effort and their own money.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fetuses aren't sentient.

Foolish claim.

200 million? What the fuck are you talking about?

You Communists slaughtered about 200 million innocent, peace time civilians, between your killing fields, purges, planned famines, cultural revolutions, etc.

Just pointing out that the contempt you have for human life is a clear insight into just how that came about.

Do you want to apply the same standards to judging deaths caused by capitalism? (The highest estimates are 100 million on "communism" deaths by the way, fuckwad.)

You know that isn't true, fuckwad. I already made you eat the UOH study on democide.

Oh, and show me these death camps of the capitalists?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, I suppose albert einstein was childish and stupid, same with nelson mandela.

Einstein claimed Jesus was a good Marxist, did he?

LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

These children die, mainly, because of capitalism. Don't see right tards caring about that.

Oh really?

The lies commies tell....