Comments | tsukikuroi: Dog Racing is WRONG.

tsukikuroi

Dog Racing is WRONG.

Nov 04, 2008 12:42

I hope that when everyone voted today, or earlier with their absentee ballots, that everyone votes yes on question three. My own boyfriend was stupid enough to not, because he chose to support the people who aid in the cruel acts performed on these dogs, rather than saving those poor and tortured animals ( Read more... )

Comments 44

(The comment has been removed)

tsukikuroi November 5 2008, 04:42:19 UTC

First off, Go to hell.
Now that that's out of my system...
I did look at both sides.
The fact is, this wouldn't take place till 2010, giving these people over a years time to find new jobs and establish themselves in new places.
Also, those people work in jobs where they regularly witness the abuse first hand done to those poor dogs.
Those people work in a corrupt industry that results in 11,000 dog deaths A YEAR.
Yeah, 11,000. That's a little statistic for you. 5,000 or so are pups that they determined not good enough to race. And the rest? Dogs that were either to old to race, or to injured to race.
Don't forget, that's just one year.

So Christopher. DON'T EVER EVER CONDESCEND TO ME LIKE THAT. AND DON'T TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK I'M 'BETTER' THAN. YOU CLEARLY DON'T KNOW AND CAN FUCK OFF.

guynamedude November 5 2008, 05:09:04 UTC

dont forget, that as much as we should help those in need, i'd have to go with toph and vote against it. yes dogs die, thats a sad fact. but our state also gains revenue from gambling addicts. you cant pass up money like that.

This could end up making college even more expensive (if you go to a state school) or fuck up the education and town services. our state is in horrible financial condition and we need as much revenue as we can, even if it is from dog tracks.

dont blame me, i didnt vote (i knew that what i wanted to pass or not pass was going to, and it did).

the dog's lives are something to be considered, but at the same time, we also have to look at the effect it will have on the millions of people in our state that need state funding for all sorts of things.

guynamedude November 5 2008, 05:13:40 UTC

Lets make a compromise, if we get rid of the dog tracks and save the dogs, we need something to balance that out, so create two casinos in the state and that way we save the dogs, save their jobs and replace the dog tracks with casinos to save the revenue too.

there, we all win (and thats when i wouldve voted for the saving of the dogs, but theres not enough to make up for what we lose by letting it pass).

politics is like marriage, you need to learn to compromise

Thread 16

sweetcoal November 5 2008, 06:22:55 UTC

just a question? where did you get your facts?
dog racing was on it's way out anway, it is not as popular as it once was. why should we help people become jobless sooner?
also, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt be so rude and childish towards my boyfriend, telling him to fuck off, when he was, like you, just pointing out facts and voicing his opinion. nobody told you to fuck off when you posted this, why should you do it when someone replies? i dont see anything condescending at all about his reply.
every industry is corrupt, some just vary in how bad they are
and dont tell people that they are stupid, or anything else degrading for voting for what they believe for, isn't that the point of america? to be able to choose what you believe in?
i voted no on that question too.

tsukikuroi November 6 2008, 14:51:56 UTC

I got those fact from the united states Humane Society, you know, the one GOVERNMENT FUNDED. They have the most legitimate facts and on the web site they also stated the the dog races weren't even bring in enough revenue which was why the state agreed to let that question fly in the first place, because they knew it wouldn't be that much of a loss anyways.

(The comment has been removed)

tanitsuki November 7 2008, 04:38:05 UTC

Actually they do cause they lose their funding (Which is Death Row for them) if they twist the facts.. look that up haha

Thread 20

wilderebellion November 7 2008, 23:03:19 UTC

And this is the entire reason why ballots are supposed to be confidential.... >.>

sweetcoal November 8 2008, 12:57:05 UTC

yes, because people who are suposedly "friends" are so quick to condemn you to hell if you didnt vote the way they wanted you to. because their way is the only way that matters.

(Bri, this is no hostility towards you, please understand that)

tsukikuroi November 10 2008, 05:11:20 UTC

Yes, obviously all the hostility is pointed at me. Sorry for being firm in my beliefs.

tanitsuki November 10 2008, 19:02:06 UTC

nahh its just that people dont really care about what they dont understand or really care for... hence for not really caring..

Really how many people here are really against killing animals for no real reason?

sweetcoal November 11 2008, 05:45:34 UTC

fiona, the hostility was towards the fact that you (or anyone else) could condemn everyone who doesnt think like you do.
and the fact that it's perfectly ok for you to be firm in your beliefs, but everyone else who doesnt agree, and is firm in their own beliefs deservs to be told to fuck off.

tsukikuroi November 11 2008, 06:13:57 UTC

I don't think anyone who supports dog racing can honestly be a good person. And I stand by my statement that people who support it are going to hell.

guynamedude November 12 2008, 06:12:03 UTC

what if we dont believe in hell? do we still go? will a meal be served on the plane down? do i still get my windowseat for laughing at so many horrible jokes and fark?

its good to disagree on something, but to blindly condemn is something different. just accept their opinion. its not like they're forcing it on you or else you're some horrible person, the same should apply to your opinions as well.

since we're talking about going to hell: "Judge not lest ye be judged" remember, karma's a bitch and everytime you point a finger, you have three more pointing back at you.

son_goku November 29 2008, 04:57:36 UTC

If you have something to say about me you can say it directly to me, and not say it to Kailee. There's no reason to get her involved when she doesn't ask for it. This is between you and me; not you, me and her.

You fly off the handle because I disagreed with you (and partially agreed) and you have the audacity to call me immature? Because I didn't want to be friends with someone who told me to fuck off and go to hell and who acted irrationally, I'm immature?

Explain this to me, please I'd love to hear how you've reached this conclusion.

`v(^-^)+ tsukikuroi November 29 2008, 06:12:48 UTC

First off, I didn't say anything to Kailee. Second, I did not 'fly off the handle' I acted strong about something I strongly believe in and YOU faulted me for it. I still stand by the fact that dog racing is wrong and I still think that those who supported it, NO MATTER THE FORM, were still in the wrong ( ... )