Well done California!

[Noir]

It has to be said there's light tonight to praise the state of Cali for, but here's hoping some other states follow their lead.


It’s July 1st which means the practice of force feeding (which is needed to produce foie gras) is officially banned in California! 🔨
I started @banfoiegras (http://web.stagram.com/n/banfoiegras/) on IG to raise awareness of this issue. If you spot a restaurant that is still selling foie gras is CA, please report it to The Animal Protection and Rescue League (http://www.aprl.org/) (APRL) You can notify their campaign director Danny via email at info@aprl.org.
For more information on the ban and the cruelty of foie gras visit stopforcefeeding.com (http://www.stopforcefeeding.com/) #vegansofig

For anyone who does not know, Foie Gras production involves force feeding Ducks, Geese and the like by feeding them through tubes that have been stuffed down their throats, over a period of weeks and under extreme agony to the bird this causes their livers to swell to over ten times their healthy size, at which point it is cut out of the bird and considered a delicacy...hm.

[cadet]

It has to be said there's light tonight to praise the state of Cali for, but here's hoping some other states follow their lead.



For anyone who does not know, Foie Gras production involves force feeding Ducks, Geese and the like by feeding them through tubes that have been stuffed down their throats, over a period of weeks and under extreme agony to the bird this causes their livers to swell to over ten times their healthy size, at which point it is cut out of the bird and considered a delicacy...hm.

Shame on Cali! that sounded delicious!

[jimnyc]

I hate governments telling people what they can and cannot eat - but I hate animal cruelty even more. They should find humane ways to get their food.

[red states rule]

Shame on Cali! that sounded delicious!

Given all the problems CA has - massive budget deficit, people and busines fleeing the state, and counties filing for bankruptcy

And this is an issue for the state to waste time on?

[PostmodernProphet]

Shame on Cali! that sounded delicious!

sounds French......

[aboutime]

Given all the problems CA has - massive budget deficit, people and busines fleeing the state, and counties filing for bankruptcy

And this is an issue for the state to waste time on?
Much more important than keeping people from leaving the land of Rising Taxes, where everything is being taxed.

It's a wonder. California isn't TAXING those animals for not being in compliance with the FIRST LADY'S Obesity programs that SHE doesn't honestly follow herself.

How important was this thread, prior to yesterday, when I really didn't concern myself with such things?

Shame on all of us here. Placing so much importance, and wasted energy on silly crap. "Which comes from Geese!"

[PostmodernProphet]

Much more important than keeping people from leaving the land of Rising Taxes, where everything is being taxed.

It's a wonder. California isn't TAXING those animals for not being in compliance with the FIRST LADY'S Obesity programs that SHE doesn't honestly follow herself.

How important was this thread, prior to yesterday, when I really didn't concern myself with such things?

Shame on all of us here. Placing so much importance, and wasted energy on silly crap. "Which comes from Geese!"


I expect it all stems from confusion.....some congressman heard people complaining that California was turning into another Greece, misunderstood and thought it would be a good idea to add to the protection of geese just in case it was true.....

[Noir]

Given all the problems CA has - massive budget deficit, people and busines fleeing the state, and counties filing for bankruptcy

And this is an issue for the state to waste time on?

Sorry everything that the state does isn't a 'big' thing to you, but stopping animal cruelty is a worthy venture.

Edit - Also just noticed the "there's light tonight" in the OP should read "There's little enough" damn autocorrect.

[red state]

I'm against animal cruelty BUT I am always reluctant to side with liberals because I've found them to be extreme and ill informed on most issues. Firstly, I wouldn't eat that crap whether it was animal cruelty or not, Geese and ducks are nowhere near as tasty as turkeys and chickens. Besides, liberals would probably ban or place fines on folks for over feeding their animals...much less force feeding them. Funny thing is how they are passionate about cruelty to animals yet THEY usually have no problem in starving the elderly to death or taking a baby's life before it has seen the light of day. Even then, most of THEM have no regards to taking a baby's life AFTER it has seen the light of day with partial birth abortion.

Yeah...if they are force feeding animals, that's not good but I've never known a duck or goose to STOP eating....like liberals, the eat and $#!T all day long while quacking about things that fall short in comparison to topics that are of REAL concern. Good job California, now put up a fence and keep those illegal aliens border invaders from coming over here and fighting man's best friend! :lame2: thread.....

[Noir]

I'm against animal cruelty BUT I am always reluctant to side with liberals because I've found them to be extreme and ill informed on most issues. Firstly, I wouldn't eat that crap whether it was animal cruelty or not, Geese and ducks are nowhere near as tasty as turkeys and chickens. Besides, liberals would probably ban or place fines on folks for over feeding their animals...much less force feeding them. Funny thing is how they are passionate about cruelty to animals yet THEY usually have no problem in starving the elderly to death or taking a baby's life before it has seen the light of day. Even then, most of THEM have no regards to taking a baby's life AFTER it has seen the light of day with partial birth abortion.

Yeah...if they are force feeding animals, that's not good but I've never known a duck or goose to STOP eating....like liberals, the eat and $#!T all day long while quacking about things that fall short in comparison to topics that are of REAL concern. Good job California, now put up a fence and keep those illegal aliens border invaders from coming over here and fighting man's best friend! :lame2: thread.....

...what in good grief does this have to do with liberals?

[red state]

Liberal State for one. I'll leave you to your ducks and let you cook your goose. This is not a thread that truly interests me....or others apparently. I merely posted cuz a respected member posted. That's all.


...what in good grief does this have to do with liberals?

[aboutime]

Liberal State for one. I'll leave you to your ducks and let you cook your goose. This is not a thread that truly interests me....or others apparently. I merely posted cuz a respected member posted. That's all.




This kind of topic has almost everything to do with Liberals, in one way, or another.
California is nearly, totally controlled, and now occupied by Liberal thinking, living, and even entertainment in some way.
Guess you wanted to ignore how the Liberalism of California makes it much more important to worry about how GEESE are force-fed, than the hundreds of thousands of People who are taking part in the Exodus to other LOW TAX states????

[Noir]

Liberal State for one. I'll leave you to your ducks and let you cook your goose. This is not a thread that truly interests me....or others apparently. I merely posted cuz a respected member posted. That's all.

So you're reluctant to support anti-animal cruelty legislation because the first state to adopt it is a liberal one? What an odd way that is to view thaw world of politics.

[Noir]

This kind of topic has almost everything to do with Liberals, in one way, or another.
California is nearly, totally controlled, and now occupied by Liberal thinking, living, and even entertainment in some way.
Guess you wanted to ignore how the Liberalism of California makes it much more important to worry about how GEESE are force-fed, than the hundreds of thousands of People who are taking part in the Exodus to other LOW TAX states????


Because its impossible to be concerned and act on both?

[DragonStryk72]

I hate governments telling people what they can and cannot eat - but I hate animal cruelty even more. They should find humane ways to get their food.

that's one of the problems, here. There is no humane way to get foie gras, so the only option to have it is to perform animal cruelty. Now, I'll kill a deer with a rifle, or a bow (did that once), and I'm good with beef, pork, chicken, etc., but there are lines. You can still treat your prey with respect. Generally, I dislike the government intervention, too, but here, they were right.

[ConHog]

that's one of the problems, here. There is no humane way to get foie gras, so the only option to have it is to perform animal cruelty. Now, I'll kill a deer with a rifle, or a bow (did that once), and I'm good with beef, pork, chicken, etc., but there are lines. You can still treat your prey with respect. Generally, I dislike the government intervention, too, but here, they were right.

Absolutely. That bullshit is right up there with dog figbting imo and needed to be stopped. Ill sign their oetition if they come to arkansas.

[logroller]

Liberal State for one. I'll leave you to your ducks and let you cook your goose. This is not a thread that truly interests me....or others apparently. I merely posted cuz a respected member posted. That's all.

Let me get this straight; you don't care for this thread, yet posted here only because someone else (whom you have respect for) posted here also. The way I, and others, see it is you have no respect for the thread nor any members in it. It's like this-- there's a restaurant that serves food you dont care for, eg goose and duck; but because your friend ate there you go in anyways....and take a dump on the table.

[red states rule]

Sorry everything that the state does isn't a 'big' thing to you, but stopping animal cruelty is a worthy venture.

Edit - Also just noticed the "there's light tonight" in the OP should read "There's little enough" damn autocorrect.

Noir, I am sure the folks who are unemployed, on the verge of losing their home, or the the business owner about to go out of business - can now sleep better at night knowing the libs in the State legislature found the time to solve this vital and pressing issue

[fj1200]

Noir, I am sure the folks who are unemployed, on the verge of losing their home, or the the business owner about to go out of business - can now sleep better at night knowing the libs in the State legislature found the time to solve this vital and pressing issue

:shakeshead: Doesn't mean that they can't take other actions that are a function of government. Besides, them doing less economically is probably a good thing.

[Abbey Marie]

Noir, I am sure the folks who are unemployed, on the verge of losing their home, or the the business owner about to go out of business - can now sleep better at night knowing the libs in the State legislature found the time to solve this vital and pressing issue

I'm surprised a cat lover like you would be callous to any animal suffering. :(

[Noir]

Noir, I am sure the folks who are unemployed, on the verge of losing their home, or the the business owner about to go out of business - can now sleep better at night knowing the libs in the State legislature found the time to solve this vital and pressing issue

You're a cat owner? Do you ever have days when things that are happening in your life are so important that you decide not to waste time feeding your cats? I mean with all the big, pressing issues that be affecting your life its not gonna make you sleep any better to go all out of your way for such a non-pressing issue?

To you it may be nothing, but to the animals saved its everything. Don't let the ego get in the way of doing what's right.

[red state]

let me get this straight; you don't care for this thread, yet posted here only because someone else (whom you have respect for) posted here also. The way i, and others, see it is you have no respect for the thread nor any members in it. It's like this-- there's a restaurant that serves food you dont care for, eg goose and duck; but because your friend ate there you go in anyways....and take a dump on the table.

no, actually, dumping on tables fits the actions of liberal occupiers. Go harp on someone else....i already have your number. Yes, this was a thread that does not interest me but i can post when and for what reason i wish to do so.

Here's a reply that is more in tune with this liberal thread. How about chickens who lay eggs in the tightest of areas, never see the light of day and live in an extremely abusive surrounding. Nothing from a liberal because they may or may not eat such eggs. I agree with dragon and with noire....but i simply can not side with them on the basis that they don't know when to stop or leave my rights alone. This thread, as indicated through others who have posted could go in so many directions...one of which is the liberal attack on business. Another could be the abuse that california places on its citizens who are forced to support the local border invaders.

You see, it is california that we will all be forced to support cuz they are broke and it is their priorities that has made them bankrupt....morally and economically.

that's all

[Noir]

How about chickens who lay eggs in the tightest of areas, never see the light of day and live in an extremely abusive surrounding. Nothing from a liberal because they may or may not eat such eggs. I agree with dragon and with noire....but i simply can not side with them on the basis that they don't know when to stop or leave my rights alone.


But this is not an issue of politics, or on what side of the political spectrum you put yourself.

As an aside, if it had been a 'red state' that first put a law like this into action, would you 'stand' with them?

[ConHog]

But this is not an issue of politics, or on what side of the political spectrum you put yourself.

As an aside, if it had been a 'red state' that first put a law like this into action, would you 'stand' with them?

Noir, to some people EVERYTHING is a political issue. Not everyone thank God. I mean damn I love me a good steak, but there's no reason to be cruel to a steer to get it (yes I realize that you personally believe just the issue of eating it is cruel, but that is pretty subjective)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let me get this straight; you don't care for this thread, yet posted here only because someone else (whom you have respect for) posted here also. The way I, and others, see it is you have no respect for the thread nor any members in it. It's like this-- there's a restaurant that serves food you dont care for, eg goose and duck; but because your friend ate there you go in anyways....and take a dump on the table.

What difference does it make why a member posts on this thread or even this forum for that matter? That should be pretty much their own business the way I see it. This is America , once the land of the free. Whether he takes a dump or not is irrelevant unless one thinks only certain supporting replies are sanctioned here! Respect for members in this thread and the thread itself is best served by one posting their honest heartfelt views not just posting just to join an amen chorus simply to please others! My honest opinion is that redstate voiced his honest opinion, if that be some great taboo here then this forum has a very big problem IMHO. Dissent being a key element of Freedom and Liberty!
If it is indeed such a taboo then it is one that perhaps Jim should address .. Just sayin'..-Tyr

[red state]

But this is not an issue of politics, or on what side of the political spectrum you put yourself.

As an aside, if it had been a 'red state' that first put a law like this into action, would you 'stand' with them?

YES, AND I DON[T STAND WITH CALIFORNIA....JUST BELIEVE THEY HAVE MUCH TO DO IN KEEPING THE ABUSE TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS DOWN FIRST. LOOK, MY VERY RED STATE HAS A FEW ISSUES BUT NOTHING LIKE CALIFORNIA AND I'D SUPPORT A LAW THAT PROTECTS ANIMALS (WE'VE DONE IT) BUT I DON'T SUPPORT AND WOULDN'T SUPPORT SMALL THINGS LIKE THIS WHEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD COME FIRST. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BAIL CALIFORNIA OUT, YET THEY DO CRAP LIKE THIS AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF IT IS A GOOD LAW....I HAVEN'T READ IT BUT I'M SURE IT IS FULL TO THE EYEBALLS IN ANTI-HUNTING, ANTI-BUSINESS AND ANTI-ANYTHING FREE AND/OR CONSERVATIVE. IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME BUT I HAVE TO GET TO WORK....I'LL CHECK ON THE LAW LATER ON OR WOULD APPRECIATE SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS OFF FOR THE 4TH VACATION TO DO SO. THANKS. I'M NOT A BETTING MAN BUT i JUST ABOUT BET THAT THERE'S CRAP IN THAT LAW THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR ANIMALS.

IF IT WER ALLOWED, I'D EVEN BET POST TIME HERE ON THIS SITE. IF MY SUSPECIONS ARE WRONG....I'LL PROMISE TO NOT POST FOR A WEEK....IF I'M RIGHT AND THERE'S ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO CHALLENGE THIS AND SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE WRONG, THEY WILL PROMISE THE SAME THING THAT I WILL HONOR IF I'M WRONG. IT IS NOT GAMBLING IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING TO BE TRUE BUT I AM TAKING A RISK CUZ I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BILL (JUST LIKE OUR DEAR LEADERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN OBAMACARE WHEN THEY PASSED IT AT MIDNIGHT)!!!!

[ConHog]

YES, AND I DON[T STAND WITH CALIFORNIA....JUST BELIEVE THEY HAVE MUCH TO DO IN KEEPING THE ABUSE TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS DOWN FIRST. LOOK, MY VERY RED STATE HAS A FEW ISSUES BUT NOTHING LIKE CALIFORNIA AND I'D SUPPORT A LAW THAT PROTECTS ANIMALS (WE'VE DONE IT) BUT I DON'T SUPPORT AND WOULDN'T SUPPORT SMALL THINGS LIKE THIS WHEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD COME FIRST. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BAIL CALIFORNIA OUT, YET THEY DO CRAP LIKE THIS AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF IT IS A GOOD LAW....I HAVEN'T READ IT BUT I'M SURE IT IS FULL TO THE EYEBALLS IN ANTI-HUNTING, ANTI-BUSINESS AND ANTI-ANYTHING FREE AND/OR CONSERVATIVE. IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME BUT I HAVE TO GET TO WORK....I'LL CHECK ON THE LAW LATER ON OR WOULD APPRECIATE SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS OFF FOR THE 4TH VACATION TO DO SO. THANKS. I'M NOT A BETTING MAN BUT i JUST ABOUT BET THAT THERE'S CRAP IN THAT LAW THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR ANIMALS.

IF IT WER ALLOWED, I'D EVEN BET POST TIME HERE ON THIS SITE. IF MY SUSPECIONS ARE WRONG....I'LL PROMISE TO NOT POST FOR A WEEK....IF I'M RIGHT AND THERE'S ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO CHALLENGE THIS AND SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE WRONG, THEY WILL PROMISE THE SAME THING THAT I WILL HONOR IF I'M WRONG. IT IS NOT GAMBLING IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING TO BE TRUE BUT I AM TAKING A RISK CUZ I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BILL (JUST LIKE OUR DEAR LEADERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN OBAMACARE WHEN THEY PASSED IT AT MIDNIGHT)!!!!


I doubt there is a single person here who isn't against riders. They are the stupidest thing politicians do when it comes to bills; but that has naught to do with the original bill itself being a good thing.

[DragonStryk72]

I doubt there is a single person here who isn't against riders. They are the stupidest thing politicians do when it comes to bills; but that has naught to do with the original bill itself being a good thing.

It sort of depends on how bad the riders are on that count. I mean, even Obamacare has some good points, but it's just mired up to it's neck in shit.

[ConHog]

It sort of depends on how bad the riders are on that count. I mean, even Obamacare has some good points, but it's just mired up to it's neck in shit.

Personally, I don't care how good the rider is. I think EVERY issue should be on it's own bill and voted on on its own merits.

[Noir]

YES, AND I DON[T STAND WITH CALIFORNIA....JUST BELIEVE THEY HAVE MUCH TO DO IN KEEPING THE ABUSE TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS DOWN FIRST. LOOK, MY VERY RED STATE HAS A FEW ISSUES BUT NOTHING LIKE CALIFORNIA AND I'D SUPPORT A LAW THAT PROTECTS ANIMALS (WE'VE DONE IT) BUT I DON'T SUPPORT AND WOULDN'T SUPPORT SMALL THINGS LIKE THIS WHEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD COME FIRST. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BAIL CALIFORNIA OUT, YET THEY DO CRAP LIKE THIS AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF IT IS A GOOD LAW....I HAVEN'T READ IT BUT I'M SURE IT IS FULL TO THE EYEBALLS IN ANTI-HUNTING, ANTI-BUSINESS AND ANTI-ANYTHING FREE AND/OR CONSERVATIVE. IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME BUT I HAVE TO GET TO WORK....I'LL CHECK ON THE LAW LATER ON OR WOULD APPRECIATE SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS OFF FOR THE 4TH VACATION TO DO SO. THANKS. I'M NOT A BETTING MAN BUT i JUST ABOUT BET THAT THERE'S CRAP IN THAT LAW THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR ANIMALS.

IF IT WER ALLOWED, I'D EVEN BET POST TIME HERE ON THIS SITE. IF MY SUSPECIONS ARE WRONG....I'LL PROMISE TO NOT POST FOR A WEEK....IF I'M RIGHT AND THERE'S ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO CHALLENGE THIS AND SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE WRONG, THEY WILL PROMISE THE SAME THING THAT I WILL HONOR IF I'M WRONG. IT IS NOT GAMBLING IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING TO BE TRUE BUT I AM TAKING A RISK CUZ I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BILL (JUST LIKE OUR DEAR LEADERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN OBAMACARE WHEN THEY PASSED IT AT MIDNIGHT)!!!!

You know I almost wasn't going to take you seriously, then I saw you'd posted all in caps, and realized a man of such eloquence can not be ignored...

So here's the full bill (Which i read before posting, when you decided not to) -

Senate Bill No. 1520
CHAPTER 904
An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed birds.

[Approved by Governor September 29, 2004. Filed with Secretary of State September 29, 2004.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST SB 1520, Burton. Force fed birds.

Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.
This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force feeding a bird, as defined. The bill would prohibit a person from force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another person to do so. The bill would also prohibit a product from being sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size. The bill would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
The bill would provide that these prohibitions shall become operative on July 1, 2012.

Until July 1, 2012, this bill would prohibit an existing or future civil or criminal cause of action for engaging in an act prohibited by the bill, from proceeding against a person or entity engaged in, or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this bill.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 13.4. FORCE FED BIRDS
25980. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose.

94 (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily. Force feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other device inserted into the bird’s esophagus.

25981. A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size, or hire another person to do so.

25982. A product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size.

25983. (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this chapter.

(b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation continues. The civil penalty shall be payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court proceedings.

(c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred.

25984. (a) Sections 25980, 25981, 25982, and 25983 of this chapter shall become operative on July 1, 2012.

(b) (1) No civil or criminal cause of action shall arise on or after January 1, 2005, nor shall a pending action commenced prior to January 1, 2005, be pursued under any provision of law against a person or entity for engaging, prior to July 1, 2012, in any act prohibited by this chapter.

(2) The limited immunity from liability provided by this subdivision shall not extend to acts prohibited by this chapter that are committed on or after July 1, 2012.

(3) The protections afforded by this subdivision shall only apply to persons or entities who were engaged in, or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this chapter.

(c) It is the express intention of the Legislature, by delaying the operative date of provisions of this chapter pursuant to subdivision (a) until July 1, 2012, to allow a seven and one-half year period for personsi — 3 — Ch. 904 or entities engaged in agricultural practices that include raising and
selling force fed birds to modify their business practices.

...see you in a week?

[ConHog]

You know I almost wasn't going to take you seriously, then I saw you'd posted all in caps, and realized a man of such eloquence can not be ignored...

So here's the full bill -


...see you in a week?

3553

[red state]

A bit cocky are we? Who said that you had the upper hand or was the one who decided who left for a week or stayed?

The law is far too vague! I don't want a law that is the size of ObamaCare with all kind of $#!T in it that doesn't belong BUT this law opens CA citizens up for too many pencil necked paper pushers who have little to NO common sense. Who's standards are Californians to comply with? We all know that you liberals see abuse whereas conservative see life. Working or working animals is not abuse, We work just as hard as our animals. Feeding our animals? Yes, if it is obvious that and animal is too weak to stand, that animal is being abused. If it is left out in the sun without water ALL DAY that animal is being abused. I dare say that just because you can see ribs on an animal doesn't mean it is being abused so I'll ask again, by who's standards is the animal considered as being abused. In West Memphis Arkansas, they outlawed the running of dogs and devastated the gambling sector in that region. A business that has been around for decades, ruined just because a few liberals deemed that the dogs were being abused. The fact of the matter is, those dogs LOVED to chase that fake rabbit. I agree with you that tube feeding an animal just to fatten it up is wrong but this law was and is over stepping some major ground of not only free trade but individual privacy. Now, getting back to the thread and, specifically, the law that has had this bird law increased and added to the existing law....it has too many holes.

I had to read only the first line or so to realize that I'm against it. Too many holes and possibilities of "standards" that are liberal and liberally ridiculous. My Red State has laws protecting animals but we've had a few bills try and sneak past us that had hidden agendas and questionable "standards". Dad once raised prized Beagles that were sought by many across America and he was once confronted by one of the pencil necked paper pusher who came and said that he was not treating them humanely. I needn't tell everyone what he told that sissy boy but he never came back. HA! Of course, that was over 30 years ago (when we, as a Nation) wasn't over run with insane, anti-American liberal agendas/policies. I'll continue to read but when I saw the wording, I knew this was just another CONTROL legislation similar to laws that prevent parents from spanking. Heck, this law would put some of our local loggers out of business....you know, the ones that still "work" horses. Of course, liberals don't believe in working animals because it is "abusive". Liberals need to work more and get out of mommy's basement. Work hasn't killed anyone that I know of but the thought of it kills many.

Still, I am a man of honor and if a majority of those reading this thread feel that this law is a good one I'll see ya'll in a week. If, however, a majority here feel that this law is far too vague then I will have to say that it is you who will be visiting US in a week.

Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.

This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force feeding a bird, as defined. The bill would prohibit a person from force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another person to do so. The bill would also prohibit a product from being sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size. The bill would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
The bill would provide that these prohibitions shall become operative on July 1, 2012.

[red state]

3553

Well, we seem to have our first vote (like it was a surprise). We all knew who Con would vote for...his own.

[red state]

And how are they supposed to regulate State lines and determine if this liver is simply from a big bird or an ILLEGALLY force fed animal? Hell, I'm all for the law if they can regulate and enforce their borders that well with "documented" birds (IF) it'll put them in the RIGHT direction to regulate/enforce undocumented border invaders! Give me the vote (however the mods do this and I will comply with whatever the members or the board comes up with). It is just a week and as a gentleman, I will be the first to congratulate you. If, however, you are the one to leave, I'll be the first or try to be the first to welcome you back when your week is up. I always lend my hand to those I've had a simple disagreement with (after I had knock him on his arse. After all, I'm a Southern Gent.

[Noir]

A bit cocky are we? Who said that you had the upper hand or was the one who decided who left for a week or stayed?

The law is far too vague! I don't want a law that is the size of ObamaCare with all kind of $#!T in it that doesn't belong BUT this law opens CA citizens up for too many pencil necked paper pushers who have little to NO common sense. Who's standards are Californians to comply with? We all know that you liberals see abuse whereas conservative see life. Working or working animals is not abuse, We work just as hard as our animals. Feeding our animals? Yes, if it is obvious that and animal is too weak to stand, that animal is being abused. If it is left out in the sun without water ALL DAY that animal is being abused. I dare say that just because you can see ribs on an animal doesn't mean it is being abused so I'll ask again, by who's standards is the animal considered as being abused. In West Memphis Arkansas, they outlawed the running of dogs and devastated the gambling sector in that region. A business that has been around for decades, ruined just because a few liberals deemed that the dogs were being abused. The fact of the matter is, those dogs LOVED to chase that fake rabbit. I agree with you that tube feeding an animal just to fatten it up is wrong but this law was and is over stepping some major ground of not only free trade but individual privacy. Now, getting back to the thread and, specifically, the law that has had this bird law increased and added to the existing law....it has too many holes.

I had to read only the first line or so to realize that I'm against it. Too many holes and possibilities of "standards" that are liberal and liberally ridiculous. My Red State has laws protecting animals but we've had a few bills try and sneak past us that had hidden agendas and questionable "standards". Dad once raised prized Beagles that were sought by many across America and he was once confronted by one of the pencil necked paper pusher who came and said that he was not treating them humanely. I needn't tell everyone what he told that sissy boy but he never came back. HA! Of course, that was over 30 years ago (when we, as a Nation) wasn't over run with insane, anti-American liberal agendas/policies. I'll continue to read but when I saw the wording, I knew this was just another CONTROL legislation similar to laws that prevent parents from spanking. Heck, this law would put some of our local loggers out of business....you know, the ones that still "work" horses. Of course, liberals don't believe in working animals because it is "abusive". Liberals need to work more and get out of mommy's basement. Work hasn't killed anyone that I know of but the thought of it kills many.

Still, I am a man of honor and if a majority of those reading this thread feel that this law is a good one I'll see ya'll in a week. If, however, a majority here feel that this law is far too vague then I will have to say that it is you who will be visiting US in a week.

Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.

This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force feeding a bird, as defined. The bill would prohibit a person from force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another person to do so. The bill would also prohibit a product from being sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size. The bill would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
The bill would provide that these prohibitions shall become operative on July 1, 2012.

Most of this is waffle, sad to say, a few things -

Are you happy to state (having now read the bill) that there are no riders attached?

I'm not discussing the 'staying/leaving' thing, it was merely a sarcastic quip (on my part alteast), to round off my post since you handily provided the wording in your previous post.

As for the 'who defines cruelty' - Many animal laws are contradictory, its true, however, if force feeding birds by shoving metal rods down their throats causing them extreme agony is not abuse, i'd have a hard time seeing what is.

Do you consider the method by which foie gras is produced to be abuse?

[Noir]

And how are they supposed to regulate State lines and determine if this liver is simply from a big bird or an ILLEGALLY force fed animal? Hell, I'm all for the law if they can regulate and enforce their borders that well with "documented" birds (IF) it'll put them in the RIGHT direction to regulate/enforce undocumented border invaders! Give me the vote (however the mods do this and I will comply with whatever the members or the board comes up with). It is just a week and as a gentleman, I will be the first to congratulate you. If, however, you are the one to leave, I'll be the first or try to be the first to welcome you back when your week is up. I always lend my hand to those I've had a simple disagreement with (after I had knock him on his arse. After all, I'm a Southern Gent.

...that 'big bird' would have to be ten-twelve times bigger than your average goose (assuming the proportions of their internal organs are roughly the same). What 'big bird' exactly were you thinking of that would have such a sized liver?

Anyways, i imagine that when an eatery is found to be using foie gras (or *insert the name of your big bird here* liver) The relevant authority can ask the eatery owner where they get their foie gras supplied from. That will enable them to deduce the legality of the food served. Simple, no?

[red state]

...that 'big bird' would have to be ten-twelve times bigger than your average goose (assuming the proportions of their internal organs are roughly the same). What 'big bird' exactly were you thinking of that would have such a sized liver?

Anyways, i imagine that when an eatery is found to be using foie gras (or *insert the name of your big bird here* liver) The relevant authority can ask the eatery owner where they get their foie gras supplied from. That will enable them to deduce the legality of the food served. Simple, no?

The portions served are small and could be delivered small so it would have to be a "caught red handed deal" the way it sounds. Still a lot of "IFs" in there.

Now, getting on your earlier comment:
ost of this is waffle, sad to say, a few things -

Are you happy to state (having now read the bill) that there are no riders attached?

I'm not discussing the 'staying/leaving' thing, it was merely a sarcastic quip (on my part alteast), to round off my post since you handily provided the wording in your previous post.

As for the 'who defines cruelty' - Many animal laws are contradictory, its true, however, if force feeding birds by shoving metal rods down their throats causing them extreme agony is not abuse, i'd have a hard time seeing what is.

Do you consider the method by which foie gras is produced to be abuse?

I'd like to say that the way you described this procedure above does not sound like abuse. We prescribe medication to our dogs and horses in much the same way. Now if the tube was permanent and the goose was so fat that you couldn't see its legs then that is dead wrong. like I've said and continue to say....too many ifs and possibilities of abuse from the gov. towards citizens.

Since you've been so pleasant and have asked good questions, let me ask one. Do you feel that raising mink for coats is abusive toward mink? I don't. I see it as just another use of an animal as God intended. I bow hunt, fish and will even lay down the law on my dogs if they get out of line. This isn't abuse....simply dominion. I use (not mis use) my God given rights as a caretaker of God's creation.

You do see my point in the law being too vague don't you. If so, I say that we both take a break from DP during the 4th of July. HA!!!!

[Noir]

The portions served are small and could be delivered small so it would have to be a "caught red handed deal" the way it sounds. Still a lot of "IFs" in there.

Personally if i lived in California i would as if foie gras is on the menu, if it was then i'd order it, once delivered to the table i could then take the evidence and inform local authorities. It is ultimately up to the public to ensure such a law is enforced.



I'd like to say that the way you described this procedure above does not sound like abuse. We prescribe medication to our dogs and horses in much the same way. Now if the tube was permanent and the goose was so fat that you couldn't see its legs then that is dead wrong. like I've said and continue to say....too many ifs and possibilities of abuse from the gov. towards citizens.



Since you've been so pleasant and have asked good questions, let me ask one. Do you feel that raising mink for coats is abusive toward mink? I don't. I see it as just another use of an animal as God intended. I bow hunt, fish and will even lay down the law on my dogs if they get out of line. This isn't abuse....simply dominion. I use (not mis use) my God given rights as a caretaker of God's creation.

You do see my point in the law being too vague don't you. If so, I say that we both take a break from DP during the 4th of July. HA!!!!

Okay, i'm really not one for 'shock videos' and such, but if you do not consider foie gras to not be a cruel industry then you have to watch this video, it describes the process much better than my words ever could.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8IWN8UGDyC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Compare it to nursing sick horses if you like, but such an argument is borderline imbecilic.

[fj1200]

Personally if i lived in California i would as if foie gras is on the menu, if it was then i'd order it, once delivered to the table i could then take the evidence and inform local authorities. It is ultimately up to the public to ensure such a law is enforced.

Did I miss something where serving​ foie gras is illegal?

[Noir]

Did I miss something where serving​ foie gras is illegal?

"25982. A product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size.'

The only way to make foie gras is to induce liver disease by over feeding.

[fj1200]

"25982. A product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size.'

The only way to make foie gras is to induce liver disease by over feeding.

It doesn't appear to be the only way but liver disease, yum...

[Noir]

It doesn't appear to be the only way but liver disease, yum...


I've never heard of another way, have you come across one?

And yeah, foie gras is the product of liver failure.


Foie gras, the French term for "fatty liver," is the product of extreme animal cruelty. It is the swollen, diseased liver of ducks and geese who are force-fed just up until the point of death before being slaughtered. Birds suffer tremendously, both during and after the force-feeding process, as their physical condition rapidly deteriorates. In just a few weeks, their livers swell up to ten times their normal size, and the birds can scarcely stand, walk, or even breathe. At this point, they are slaughtered, and their livers are peddled as a "gourmet" delicacy.

Furthermore, liver function in foie gras birds is severely compromised. In medical terms, the liver is in a state of dysfunction called hepatic lipidosis or hepatic steatosis, meaning it can no longer perform its intended function. According to avian veterinarian Dr. Laurie Siperstein Cook, "The liver is there to clean out toxins from the blood stream. If the liver can't work properly, you've got all these toxins flowing through the blood, making them feel bad in various ways, so it can harm various organs as well as the brain."Dr. Castes of L'Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse describes this phenomenon further as "hepatic encephalopathy":


According to The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) report on the Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese, "the liver steatosis obtained by force feeding induced an impairment of hepatic function, as demonstrated from morphometric, biochemical, histological and pharmacological points of view.The reversibility of steatosis which is reported above for many birds which have been force fed does not mean that the changes in the liver are not pathological." The report further states that "because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological.

[fj1200]

I've never heard of another way, have you come across one?

And yeah, foie gras is the product of liver failure.

:dunno:

http://simplegoodandtasty.com/2010/04/24/can-there-ever-be-humane-foie-gras

But I've invested far more time in something I have/will never eat.

[red state]

Have you ever seen an abortion procedure....make this look like a picnic (and abortion is a humane being, not a duck).

I don't care for French foods (AT ALL) and I never cared for duck or geese. Turkey and chicken is more my taste. The waste of animals really boiled my temper BUT all in all, the facility looked clean and the way they killed the animals is much like how women once killed chickens by twisting the head off. It is quick and almost as good as chopping the head cleanly. Although I agree that this is something that is not in the best interest of the consumer (or the foul), I didn't see a great deal wrong with the procedure (other than the useless waste of the recourse). I was definitely not disappointed as the narrator is obviously biases on such things and truly over exaggerates many points. Still, it is a wasteful, dangerous process and I personally can't imagine why anyone would want to eat that crap. The French are very strange folks indeed and liberals are equally as foreign to me....SORRY but you'd probably call granny of the deep South some sort of villain after she would prepare Sunday's chicken dinner. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the main issue....those wasteful $#!Ts enjoyed what they did too much BUT the narrator needs to take a chill pill and grow a pair. Life has its cruelties and a slaughter house is both messy and philosophically burdensome.

Now, how about my question from yesterday...and the one above. Are you willing to open up as I have done (truthfully) on where I stand after viewing your video? To shed a bit more light on how I think and so that your tenderness doesn't view me as some indifferent monster. My dad skins catfish & flays bass one after another after a long day out on the lake. Now, while our technique in doing so is relatively the same, I feel compelled to kill my fish before flaying or skinning. In haste, my dad doesn't. I simply can't do that for two reasons. ONE, I respect the animal and TWO I believe the trauma taints the meat. In Jewish law, there are certain ways that an animal is to be killed and the way those guys were hanging the geese and slitting their throats was the wrong way. they should have held the hanging goose and severed the head completely, cleanly and quickly (as soon as they had been hung up). There's a right way and wrong way of doing things and although the producer/narrator of this clip over sold so-called cruelty on many levels, those folks were WRONG in wasting meat and being so indifferent to how they conducted themselves.

I have written this as respectfully as I can because you have been adequately respectful in our conversation (unlike a few others who chastised me for commenting on this thread out of respect to a poster). That twerp doesn't have a clue who I was talking about and they do not deserve any respect or should expect it from me.

I hope to hear your point of view in what I have asked but understand if you rather keep your thoughts to yourself. I am very open with my thinking and believe the world would be a much better and well informed place if more folks did the same.

By the way, my using ALL CAPS yesterday was not my yelling at anyone....just a way that I sometimes try to distinguish my writhing from what others have posted.

[red states rule]

I'm surprised a cat lover like you would be callous to any animal suffering. :(

Abbey, I am pointing out there are much more important thigs for elected officials in CA to woory about. And if the libs real goal was to end animal suffering why allow any restaurant to sell ANY meat at all?

We both know how liberals operate. Once they get their first demand, they will follow up with more and more. The people who keep electing these do gooder libs should save time and let them pass thier ultimate goal in all this

Show the nation as goes CA so goes the nation - and make all restaurants vegetarian and put an end to the suffering of animals

[red states rule]

Noir, to some people EVERYTHING is a political issue. Not everyone thank God. I mean damn I love me a good steak, but there's no reason to be cruel to a steer to get it (yes I realize that you personally believe just the issue of eating it is cruel, but that is pretty subjective)

and with some people there is no place like the middle of the road and taking both sides of every issue

[Abbey Marie]

And how are they supposed to regulate State lines and determine if this liver is simply from a big bird or an ILLEGALLY force fed animal? Hell, I'm all for the law if they can regulate and enforce their borders that well with "documented" birds (IF) it'll put them in the RIGHT direction to regulate/enforce undocumented border invaders! Give me the vote (however the mods do this and I will comply with whatever the members or the board comes up with). It is just a week and as a gentleman, I will be the first to congratulate you. If, however, you are the one to leave, I'll be the first or try to be the first to welcome you back when your week is up. I always lend my hand to those I've had a simple disagreement with (after I had knock him on his arse. After all, I'm a Southern Gent.

Just as one cannot tell from just a glance whether a child is abused or fell down the stairs.
You investigate if you have suspicions.

Are you against the law because you think it's vague, because it is from a liberal state, or because you feel we should eliminate every single human problem before we care about any animals? I've seen all of these arguments pop up here when another was shot down.

What really saddens me is when people think trying to alleviate animal suffering is somehow the tip of a liberal iceberg, so they are knee-jerk against any attempts to end it. It's like the stickers that says "Save the baby humans". I am sure it's clear here to anyone who knows me that I am totally against abortion. That I hate it. But I would never fault anyone for caring about other beings too. We do not have to limit what or who we care for. We humans can have compassion for lots of things at the same time.

Ditto California's problems. Why should we turn our backs on suffering because there are other pressing problems? And who exactly gets to decide which issues count more?

[red state]

abbey, i am pointing out there are much more important thigs for elected officials in ca to woory about. And if the libs real goal was to end animal suffering why allow any restaurant to sell any meat at all?

We both know how liberals operate. Once they get their first demand, they will follow up with more and more. The people who keep electing these do gooder libs should save time and let them pass thier ultimate goal in all this

show the nation as goes ca so goes the nation - and make all restaurants vegetarian and put an end to the suffering of animals

well worded and to the very point that i have stressed! Like children, you give them an inch and they always take a mile. They have hate laws that stifle free speech, they've "educated" the public at every venue, they've been 'accepted' within every corner of our society (even the military) and now they want to corrupt our faith by marrying the same sex. We've seen the same corrosion of the 2nd amendment and had it not been for some very wise and zealous men who saw this for what it was, we'd probably be in the same condition that the uk, australia and even canada find themselves in.

No, i believe they have taken enough....it is time for them to now listen to us and "tolerate" our beliefs for a 'change'. I just hope we're able to get real change in nov. Cuz the so-called change we currently have is nothing short of evil that infiltrated russia, germany, china, venezuela and cuba. It doesn't work and it isn't american.

Happy fourth everyone. I'm gonna have some coffee, take my girls to a youth retreat at church, get the ole grill fired up and try enjoying what may very well be one of the last 4th we have a free nation. God bless the usa....we probably don't deserve it but we're gonna need it!

[red states rule]

well worded and to the very point that i have stressed! Like children, you give them an inch and they always take a mile. They have hate laws that stifle free speech, they've "educated" the public at every venue, they've been 'accepted' within every corner of our society (even the military) and now they want to corrupt our faith by marrying the same sex. We've seen the same corrosion of the 2nd amendment and had it not been for some very wise and zealous men who saw this for what it was, we'd probably be in the same condition that the uk, australia and even canada find themselves in.

No, i believe they have taken enough....it is time for them to now listen to us and "tolerate" our beliefs for a 'change'. I just hope we're able to get real change in nov. Cuz the so-called change we currently have is nothing short of evil that infiltrated russia, germany, china, venezuela and cuba. It doesn't work and it isn't american.

Happy fourth everyone. I'm gonna have some coffee, take my girls to a youth retreat at church, get the ole grill fired up and try enjoying what may very well be one of the last 4th we have a free nation. God bless the usa....we probably don't deserve it but we're gonna need it!

Like a cobweb, liberalism will grow and grow unless knocked down as soon as it is seen

Look at Obabacre, the liberal media is saying what we have now is the "first step" but "mopre" needs to be done

I will give libs credit for one thing. they think very long term and are willing to take the time needed to enact their insane ideas into law then keep pushing until they get everything they want

[Noir]

:dunno:

http://simplegoodandtasty.com/2010/04/24/can-there-ever-be-humane-foie-gras

But I've invested far more time in something I have/will never eat.

Very cool video - Doing ethical farming right. (Though of course personally the whole killing them at the end bit ain't so good) and as mentioned in the video, this farm is a 'one off', sadly.

[Noir]

Like a cobweb, liberalism will grow and grow unless knocked down as soon as it is seen

Look at Obabacre, the liberal media is saying what we have now is the "first step" but "mopre" needs to be done

I will give libs credit for one thing. they think very long term and are willing to take the time needed to enact their insane ideas into law then keep pushing until they get everything they want

And so we go, again, from anti-abuse legislation to 'obamacare' and the poisons of big government etc.

Yourself and redstate seem to see the passing of one anti-abuse bill as a conspiracy that will tear down the liberties and freedoms of all americans, kinda sad really that you can't discuss and issue on its merits without regress to your political prisms. Added to that Red State genuinely believes the factories, conditions and proceeders that take place to be grand (with that i can't argue, its a personal opinion after all) i am only thankful that it clearly seems to be a minority view.

[red states rule]

And so we go, again, from anti-abuse legislation to 'obamacare' and the poisons of big government etc.

Yourself and redstate seem to see the passing of one anti-abuse bill as a conspiracy that will tear down the liberties and freedoms of all americans, kinda sad really that you can't discuss and issue on its merits without regress to your political prisms. Added to that Red State genuinely believes the factories, conditions and proceeders that take place to be grand (with that i can't argue, its a personal opinion after all) i am only thankful that it clearly seems to be a minority view.

As I posted before Noir IF the libs REALLY were worried about amianl "suffering" they would have banned all restaurants from selling ALL meat products

Do you deny libs always keep coming back for more and more and always want to expand their hold over the people with more government regulations?

[Noir]

As I posted before Noir IF the libs REALLY were worried about amianl "suffering" they would have banned all restaurants from selling ALL meat products

Do you deny libs always keep coming back for more and more and always want to expand their hold over the people with more government regulations?

Some people, like Jim, will happily eat meat, but whenever he found out the the process behind foie gras he said that he would never chose it from a menu, are you to say that Jim isn't REALLY worried about the "suffering" because he will still eat meat products?

And where does that leave you? I mean, do you care about animal suffering? Obviously you do since you have cats, yet surely if you were " REALLY were worried about animal suffering" you would want an end to all meat being sold in eateries, no?

Trying to argue against something on a moral irony that you also hold is a very week form of argument. (Because the only way your argument works is to take the stance that there is nothing that can be down to animals that counts as abuse, because as soon as something is considered abuse, then shouldn't all?)

As for the whole expanding government thing, save it for another thread.

[red states rule]

Some people, like Jim, will happily eat meat, but whenever he found out the the process behind foie gras he said that he would never chose it from a menu, are you to say that Jim isn't REALLY worried about the "suffering" because he will still eat meat products?

And where does that leave you? I mean, do you care about animal suffering? Obviously you do since you have cats, yet surely if you were " REALLY were worried about animal suffering" you would want an end to all meat being sold in eateries, no?

Trying to argue against something on a moral irony that you also hold is a very week form of argument. (Because the only way your argument works is to take the stance that there is nothing that can be down to animals that counts as abuse, because as soon as something is considered abuse, then shouldn't all?)

As for the whole expanding government thing, save it for another thread.

Noir, it is a fact God put some animals on Earth to be pets - to be oved - to be spoiled

and other animals were put on Earth by God for FOOD

For some reason that fact escapses people like you as well as liberal do gooders who want to impose their beliefs on the rest via the legislature

[jimnyc]

Some people, like Jim, will happily eat meat, but whenever he found out the the process behind foie gras he said that he would never chose it from a menu, are you to say that Jim isn't REALLY worried about the "suffering" because he will still eat meat products?

I admittedly eat meat, steaks and such, and admit I choose to remain ignorant to most of the processes. But I do believe these places try to be as humane as possible. Sort of like hunters, they choose to kill their prey and eat it, but they try for clean kills and such to limit suffering.

I am against ALL forms of animal abuse. Purposely making an animal suffer to make a meal is despicable. There's more than enough food to choose from out there without doing such.

Animal abuse, in pretty much any form, truly disgusts me. What probably amounted to a few hours of writing, and maybe a few more hours of debating and voting, doesn't bother me. I don't think this represents "liberals" or even "California" for that fact. I think it was a bunch of people who decided to put a stop to a horrible practice.

If it took years and placed too many things on the back burner, it might be an issue, but I think this was a clean kill in itself, and simply and quickly banned the practice.

[jimnyc]

Noir, it is a fact God put some animals on Earth to be pets - to be oved - to be spoiled

and other animals were put on Earth by God for FOOD

For some reason that fact escapses people like you as well as liberal do gooders who want to impose their beliefs on the rest via the legislature

I agree with that, but I don't agree those put here for food need to be tortured in order to feed us, there are far more humane ways to bring them to our plates.

[red states rule]

I agree with that, but I don't agree those put here for food need to be tortured in order to feed us, there are far more humane ways to bring them to our plates.

I agree Jim

And it gets back to by orginal points that if that was the intent then ban all meat from being sold

But also, there are much more important things for the local and state government in CA to work on then this

[logroller]

I agree Jim

And it gets back to by orginal points that if that was the intent then ban all meat from being sold

But also, there are much more important things for the local and state government in CA to work on then this
Your argument seems circular; that if it is the intent to end suffering all meat sales must be banne; but if that happens its just the intent of libs to end liberty instead of more pressing issues.

[red states rule]

Your argument seems circular; that if it is the intent to end suffering all meat sales must be banne; but if that happens its just the intent of libs to end liberty instead of more pressing issues.

I think most people want jobs while most libs want to advance their PC and feel good agenda

How this latest liberal do gooder idea will improve the local economy or put people back to world escapes me at the moment

[logroller]

I think most people want jobs while most libs want to advance their PC and feel good agenda

How this latest liberal do gooder idea will improve the local economy or put people back to world escapes me at the moment

Speaking of advancing an agenda...how your opinion on what a state, other than your own, implements within its own borders affects you escapes me at the moment. You should be thanking California for sendin all those jobs to other states.

[red states rule]

Speaking of advancing an agenda...how your opinion on what a state, other than your own, implements within its own borders affects you escapes me at the moment. You should be thanking California for sendin all those jobs to other states.


LR I hope the unemployed iN CA slppes so much better now that the libs took a giant step in solving the pressing problem of animal suffering

I am sure those who are about to lose their home will sleep better at the shelter knowing this issue has been resolved

The only problem with libs leaving CA is that the libs who flee CA and start their liberal crap in the new state they move to

Like a cancer, liberalism spreads throughout the body

[Noir]

Noir, it is a fact God put some animals on Earth to be pets - to be oved - to be spoiled

and other animals were put on Earth by God for FOOD

For some reason that fact escapses people like you as well as liberal do gooders who want to impose their beliefs on the rest via the legislature

Well done for not answering the question posed to you. Did you not reply by intention, or just forget to read my post before replying?

Shocking that I have to state this to an adult - but it is not a *fact* that god did anything, just an opinion. If this is the level at which you wish to debate, I'll not be bothering to reply further.

[red states rule]

Well done for not answering the question posed to you. Did you not reply by intention, or just forget to read my post before replying?

Shocking that I have to state this to an adult - but it is not a *fact* that god did anything, just an opinion. If this is the level at which you wish to debate, I'll not be bothering to reply further.

I did answer your questons about animals but I guess you are too busy looking down on people like me who call out libs on their worthles actions Noir

I know you hate people who believe in God and that is your right. Even in your country, people have the riught to act as stuipd and obnoxious as they want - but you do at times abuse the privilege

[Noir]

I did answer your questons about animals but I guess you are too busy looking down on people like me who call out libs on their worthles actions Noir

I know you hate people who believe in God and that is your right. Even in your country, people have the riught to act as stuipd and obnoxious as they want - but you do at times abuse the privilege

No, you spouted some nonsense about your gods meanings for animals, dispute the fact that there are Christains on this board, like Abbey, who would disagree with you on the fundamentals of what you know your god wants humans to do with animals.

And I don't hate people who believe in god, how ridiculous, what I do hate is people who are willfully ignorant. Which ofcorse includes anyone who states for a *fact* the existence or non-existence of god.

[red states rule]

No, you spouted some nonsense about your gods meanings for animals, dispute the fact that there are Christains on this board, like Abbey, who would disagree with you on the fundamentals of what you know your god wants humans to do with animals.

And I don't hate people who believe in god, how ridiculous, what I do hate is people who are willfully ignorant. Which ofcorse includes anyone who states for a *fact* the existence or non-existence of god.

Please go back and reread my post - and read slowly

You said I have cats and asked how I felt about animals being abused. I answered the question

Abbey and I agree to disagree on this issue. This is perhaps the first out of 100 issues we do not concur on

Noir, you have shown contempt for those who believe in God in many of your posts. You do look down on those people. I feel sorry for you and pray for your soul. You wil need it someday

And I thought you said this debate was over and you would not resond any further

[fj1200]

Please go back and reread my post - and read slowly

I don't think that's going to help like you think it will help.

[red states rule]

I don't think that's going to help like you think it will help.

True, I assume he can understand what he reads. I may be mistaken on that point

[fj1200]

True, I assume he can understand what he reads. I may be mistaken on that point

I have no doubt Noir understands what he reads.

[red states rule]

I have no doubt Noir understands what he reads.

If true, then he has a comprehension problem

[Kathianne]

I have no doubt Noir understands what he reads.

I agree, Noir along with a few others reads the links and posts that he chooses to respond to. I may not always agree with him, but he rarely posts nonsense or even just leftist points. We all know where his political leanings are, but he isn't married to them. Once in awhile he surprises me.

[fj1200]

If true, then he has a comprehension problem

I have no doubt Noir comprehends what he reads.

[Noir]

Please go back and reread my post - and read slowly

You said I have cats and asked how I felt about animals being abused. I answered the question

Abbey and I agree to disagree on this issue. This is perhaps the first out of 100 issues we do not concur on

Noir, you have shown contempt for those who believe in God in many of your posts. You do look down on those people. I feel sorry for you and pray for your soul. You wil need it someday

And I thought you said this debate was over and you would not resond any further

I assumed (embarrassingly) that I'd missed a post of yours that answered the questions I posted (like the one about your cats, or Jim's position relative you assumption of the 'true motives' behind the bill) but looking back I can see neither.

So your whole argument is based on the 'god given right to treat animals how you want'?

And I sit care about how many issues you and abbey agree on or don't, the point is we know that she, and Jim, and I have different areas at which we 'draw the line' when it comes to treatment of animals. To imply that the state is wrong to dare say there is a line at all is to say the same for individuals.

You're just creating a strawman, saying that if the state can define animal abuse then before long (or at least there intention is) it'll be impossible to buy/produce meat. Stupid argument is stupid.

[gabosaurus]

I suppose disgruntled Californians can move to rural Pennsylvania. Where are the truly stupid people reside. Providing they can fulfill the residency requirements of no advanced education, at least one inbred relative, pregnant teenage daughter or other illiterate children and minimum two cars up on blocks. Must reside in trailer with maximum value of $10,000.

[red states rule]

I suppose disgruntled Californians can move to rural Pennsylvania. Where are the truly stupid people reside. Providing they can fulfill the residency requirements of no advanced education, at least one inbred relative, pregnant teenage daughter or other illiterate children and minimum two cars up on blocks. Must reside in trailer with maximum value of $10,000.

Yes Gabby then those disgruntled Californians can move to another state, bring their liberal beliefs with them, elect like minded "smart" liberals, and drive their local town or even the state into bankruptcy like Stockton CA

BTW Gabby has the "smart" people of CA solved their $16 billion deficit yet?