0 votes
by (120 points)

You wouldn't ban Thoroughbreds if you were against horse racing because there is no logic to this. So where is the logic in banning the Pit Bull? The answer of course, is that you don't need logic when you have power. The Pit Bull was banned because it threatened votes not voters. The politicians were fearful that political pressure would mean an end to their rein so they succumbed to their weakness and vanity and put politics before logic. The law's underlying purpose was to prevent the State from being sued. So like most laws passed today, which protects the State, this law was quickly passed. Is it wrong for the State to protect itself? No it isn't, and I guess the problem is that people always want to sue the government for everything that goes wrong, essentially backing them into a corner and asking them to act fast and make a decision. Then when they do make decisions under pressure, they make the wrong one - and we suffer.

Society needs to empower itself and not be so dependant on politicians to lead us like sheep. Had the entire dog owners community united and come up with a solution to our problem then we would not have had to shoot ourselves in the foot by letting the lawmakers decide for us. Lawmakers make laws with the self-serving purpose first and then sell you the idea that it's all about you. I believe the answer should have been to recognize that a dog needs to be categorized and managed accordingly. This means that an owner should do a course which teaches correct and suitable animal management for their categorized dog. This way the owner is aware of better handling and safety procedures. It's the same principle of doing a gun safety course. Will this stop criminals from doing what they want anyway? No. But neither will banning a breed. At least the entire nation doesn't have to suffer and the State has met its obligation by providing us with a reasonable solution. As dog owners we have to be responsible for our dogs and not let their future lie in the hands of our politicians. Is that so unreasonable? In Summary - As dog owners we definitely failed the Pit Bull - I have no doubt that this law was a mistake. Will dog owners make this mistake again? Yes - Probably. Let's see what happens when Politicians start adding other breeds of dog to the banned list.

Even though it appears that President Clinton lied under oath, which could be a high crime, proving perjury in a court of law is a highly technical legal matter not easily established. On the other hand, http://newsjunkie3.manifo.com/ a Senate trial would not require the same level of judicial proof, but it is unlikely the Senate will be able to assemble a working supermajority for any of the impeachment charges. The Ukraine Caucus called this press conference today to express our grave concerns regarding President Trump’s withholding of vital aid from Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he was "ready to buy more anti-tank missiles" and Trump immediately responded "I would like you to do us a favor though." A favor. This is our President explicitly expecting a favor in return for funds that were passed and appropriated by this Congress - funds meant to assist Ukraine in its defense against severe Russian aggression. Russian aggression that has killed over 13,000 Ukrainians, military and civilian, wounded over 30,000, and displaced upwards of 2 million Ukrainians. That abuse of power by our president undermines our national security.

On July 18, President Trump purposefully directed his administration to withhold nearly 400 million dollars in defense assistance for Ukraine from the State and Defense Department budgets, funds that members of the House have since pushed to release. Members of Congress were told it was part of an interagency delay. In reading the memo today, that does not seem to be the case. The President cannot make the release of funds passed and appropriated by the Congress of the United States, surely for national security, contingent on asking a foreign leader for a "favor" prior to the release of those funds. Congress must compel the release of the full whistleblower complaint as it was originally submitted to the Office of Inspector General. The document we were provided today was not a complete transcript of the conversation the president had with President Zelensky. It was about 11 minutes of a conversation that lasted upward of 30 minutes.

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Welcome to Newpost Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.