are you talking about dog fighting?
are you talking about dog fighting?
This logic makes Hitler the biggest tree hugger ever.
Just wait for the first person to say "ban marathons because it causes increased CO2 production from runners".
I don't like pets and don't really think it's worth the hassle to keep one. Walking, feeding, early death, medical expenses, etc. The return on your investment is pretty minimal. Dog wagging it's tail when you come home from work after being left in the house for 10 straight hours? I'll pass.
What I do think we should do is eat dogs (or cats or horses etc). There is a hunger problem in this country and animal shelters are overflowing with meat. Most people eat animals everyday. What do you care if your burger or sausage is ground golden retriever rather than ground Angus. You'd never know the difference. Get real people.
Ban bets? Like bets on dog races?
So, so interesting.
Pets aren't destroying the environment - pet owners are.
Yes let's ban people.
Just ban cats and create a bounty system for feral cats. Dogs are too awesome. Also, ban lawns while you are at it and mandate artificial turf (those things are a bane on the environment).
Exercise should be illegal.
All those burnt calories need to be replaced by food and the food is shipped and driven to you. What a waste
I'll take your bet and raise it.
jewbacca wrote:
(sigh)
Classic rojo....
Sure was, from start to finish. Misspellings, right wing agenda, mostly idiotic.
Hmm ... the equivalent of 13.6 million cars vs. about 350 million cars/trucks. Dealing with which one would be more effective?
Send all dogs to heaven, or Mars, along with Hilary Clinton supporters.
rojo wrote:
What's a good solution?
Tax pet owners like we do with cars, houses, etc.
If you are a poor person, your kids are likely to end up being a bigger drain on the society than my pets. If you are going to ban me from having a pet, you need to ban poor people from having kids.
The solution (which the current bought-and-paid-for administration is going to great lengths to ensure never happens) is that you punish the handful of giant multi-national corporations that bear most of the responsibility for polluting the environment. We don't need to ban Mr. Sparkles the the kitty. We don't need to live out of tents and ride bikes to work. We need to hold accountable the people who are reaping tremendous profits by avoiding regulation and dumping the byproducts of their work into the air and water we all need to survive.
There's nothing unreasonable about this idea, but the corporations shout, "but... jobs! tyranny!", and somehow convince average americans, who they don't give a damn about, that they're really all on the same side against the dirty, tyrannical, democratically-elected government.
I'd imagine what I did just ten minutes ago also isn't good for the environment
Rojo, how did you possibly f**k this up? The B and the P are nowhere near each other on the keyboard.
wasted a condom wrote:
I'd imagine what I did just ten minutes ago also isn't good for the environment
Threw out an unused condom? I suppose you had to respect the expiration date....