The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Texas Governor is a monster
|
I love my fur babies dearly, but pets are property.
What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
(06-23-2021, 09:50 PM)Sneakers Wrote:(06-23-2021, 01:41 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: No. My dogs are too big to take anywhere, but I make sure they are taken care of. They have a big yard, I feed them safe food and I take them to the vet when they are sick or need medical attention. I'm just a typical dog owner who doesn't understand how anyone can veto a bill that says people shouldn't tie up dogs to a short rope or chain and leave them outside 24 hrs a day. How is this unhealthy? I think it makes me human. Maybe you are the one that should look in the mirror and do some self examining. It sounds like you either don't like dogs at all or maybe you are one of these people the law was going to target. Try again..... "State senate bill 474, dubbed the Safe Outdoor Dogs Act, aimed to ban the use of heavy chains to keep dogs tethered."
(06-24-2021, 08:15 AM)Dimson Wrote:(06-22-2021, 08:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Meh, he vetoed government overreach. The less government period the better, overreach just rubs salt in that wound. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! (06-23-2021, 08:21 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: As silly as that response is, the fact is that whatever label you give them they are still property. Animals most certainly are property. Throughout history and even present today, animals have had markings used to identify ownership. In the "Old West" they branded cattle and horses with the owners mark. Today for live stock you purchase, you receive basically a title for them describing natural marks specific to each animal. You have to buy a license for your dog and the license certificate you receive names you as owner of the dog you are licensing. When you go to the vet, they ask for owners name, they also ask in court if you own an animal if you are there under an animal charge. What do you say when people ask you if thats your dog? Do you say yes thats my dog? If you say yes, you just claimed ownership. When you get a dog do say, hey check out my new puppy aint he cute? If so, you claimed ownership. When you say thats my dog, you claimed ownership. |
Users browsing this thread: |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.