<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Senate &amp; House Pass Atrocious Puppy Mill Defense Bill</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:26:48 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Miles &#38; Mama</title>
		<link>http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-4946</link>
		<dc:creator>Miles &#38; Mama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:14:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/#comment-4946</guid>
		<description>I read the text of the bill this morning and some of the sites opposing it.

The sites opposing it seem to be all hung up on the words &quot;profit loss&quot; when those words aren&#039;t in the bill.  It says it&#039;s illegal to cause &quot;property loss&quot;.  2 different things.  It&#039;s always illegal to cause property loss, but I&#039;m assuming (not having researched all of the Federal Code) that it&#039;s not a federal crime. 

So, most of the critics are just wrong.  I don&#039;t like the bill, but I&#039;m with Patch&#039;s Mom - read it before you opine on it.  Don&#039;t believe everything you read on the internet.  There are too many special interests slanting things their way.

I don&#039;t like the bill because I believe the federal government is stepping into something they have no business in, and I think the use of the word terrorist is ridiculous.

I also don&#039;t like PETA - there I said it!  In my opinion they&#039;re more concerned about themselves than any animal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read the text of the bill this morning and some of the sites opposing it.</p>
<p>The sites opposing it seem to be all hung up on the words &#8220;profit loss&#8221; when those words aren&#8217;t in the bill.  It says it&#8217;s illegal to cause &#8220;property loss&#8221;.  2 different things.  It&#8217;s always illegal to cause property loss, but I&#8217;m assuming (not having researched all of the Federal Code) that it&#8217;s not a federal crime. </p>
<p>So, most of the critics are just wrong.  I don&#8217;t like the bill, but I&#8217;m with Patch&#8217;s Mom &#8211; read it before you opine on it.  Don&#8217;t believe everything you read on the internet.  There are too many special interests slanting things their way.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t like the bill because I believe the federal government is stepping into something they have no business in, and I think the use of the word terrorist is ridiculous.</p>
<p>I also don&#8217;t like PETA &#8211; there I said it!  In my opinion they&#8217;re more concerned about themselves than any animal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patch's mom</title>
		<link>http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-4934</link>
		<dc:creator>Patch's mom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/#comment-4934</guid>
		<description>Doesn&#039;t anyone READ anymore?  Yeah, it&#039;s not going to make it easier to get rid of puppy mills, but the current laws on the books already protected them.  I pulled up the ACTUAL TEXT of the bill on GovTrack and it has this in it:

   &quot;(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed--
          ``(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
          ``(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
          ``(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.&#039;&#039;.

I HATE puppy mills, but I also HATE alarmists who EDIT the truth for their own purposes, and don&#039;t have the GUTS to give the WHOLE truth to the public and let them weigh the pros &amp; cons for themselves! I&#039;m an American, I&#039;m NOT STUPID, and I&#039;m sick of ALL sides treating me like I AM!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t anyone READ anymore?  Yeah, it&#8217;s not going to make it easier to get rid of puppy mills, but the current laws on the books already protected them.  I pulled up the ACTUAL TEXT of the bill on GovTrack and it has this in it:</p>
<p>   &#8220;(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.&#8211;Nothing in this section shall be construed&#8211;<br />
          &#8220;(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;<br />
          &#8220;(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or<br />
          &#8220;(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.&#8221;.</p>
<p>I HATE puppy mills, but I also HATE alarmists who EDIT the truth for their own purposes, and don&#8217;t have the GUTS to give the WHOLE truth to the public and let them weigh the pros &amp; cons for themselves! I&#8217;m an American, I&#8217;m NOT STUPID, and I&#8217;m sick of ALL sides treating me like I AM!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bigfanx</title>
		<link>http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-4717</link>
		<dc:creator>bigfanx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:43:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/#comment-4717</guid>
		<description>I agree that AETA is less-than-crystal-clear about &quot;legal&quot; activity.  But since this legislation that was approved on the  fast track by both Houses and will be signed into law, we will have to watch our Ps and Qs from now on.

Maybe we can just put duct tape on our mouths and walk by the businesses without placards or leaflets. 

Is this the new face of animal supporters?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that AETA is less-than-crystal-clear about &#8220;legal&#8221; activity.  But since this legislation that was approved on the  fast track by both Houses and will be signed into law, we will have to watch our Ps and Qs from now on.</p>
<p>Maybe we can just put duct tape on our mouths and walk by the businesses without placards or leaflets. </p>
<p>Is this the new face of animal supporters?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve mccoy</title>
		<link>http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-4423</link>
		<dc:creator>steve mccoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/#comment-4423</guid>
		<description>Roger that! Puppy mills are hideous, repulsive, criminal enterprises which should be banned. I wonder if the imbeciles in the house will pass a resolution forbidding the 1st amendment altogether. 

As far as breeding is concerned, I believe only licensed and professional breeders with impeccable credentials should be allowed to breed Animals. That means backyard breeders who make a grand or two a year with their Dogs should be banned also. That would eliminate, or at least greatly reduce many of the hundreds of thousands of poor Animals who are killed each year!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roger that! Puppy mills are hideous, repulsive, criminal enterprises which should be banned. I wonder if the imbeciles in the house will pass a resolution forbidding the 1st amendment altogether. </p>
<p>As far as breeding is concerned, I believe only licensed and professional breeders with impeccable credentials should be allowed to breed Animals. That means backyard breeders who make a grand or two a year with their Dogs should be banned also. That would eliminate, or at least greatly reduce many of the hundreds of thousands of poor Animals who are killed each year!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Swerbo</title>
		<link>http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-4367</link>
		<dc:creator>Swerbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.dogster.com/2006/11/15/us-senate-house-pass-attrocious-puppy-mill-defense-bill/#comment-4367</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know enough about this to really opine, but surely this proposed law is unconstitutional. Why pass it if the courts are just going to overturn it? This seems like an obnoxious waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know enough about this to really opine, but surely this proposed law is unconstitutional. Why pass it if the courts are just going to overturn it? This seems like an obnoxious waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
