Liberal Flip-Flop over Pit Bulls

December 13th, 2006 at 7:23 pm by Mark
Tags: , , , , ,

     Back in the 1980’s, various liberal organizations began trying to ban people from owning “dangerous dogs.”  Pit bulls were quickly lofted to the first position as the most cantankerous canine.
     But when a six-week-old pit bull puppy chews four toes off of a one-month-old baby, liberal organizations all over the country call for volunteers to adopt the puppy.
     At least, that’s what I hear…

     “The puppy is too young to know what it’s doing!”
     “It’s so young, it may have been trying to nurse!”
     “Killing puppies is cruel!  No animal deserves to die!”

     So, umm… What did these same organizations want to do with all the pit bulls they tried to have banned?

     The story is simple, really.
     Two parents went to sleep on the floor their home.  Their one-month-old child stayed in her car seat on the floor beside them.  An impromptu “fence” was constructed to keep the dog from waking them up.
     Somehow, the parents didn’t wake up to the screams of their own child, screams which I’m certain would have been indicative that something was wrong.  Instead, they slept two feet away as the puppy ate four of her toes.
     Because, you know — it’s the parent’s fault, not the puppy’s.

     Clearly both were at fault.

     So let’s sit back and think for a minute…
     What if the baby had been killed?  Would the dog be saved, or would it be put down as a “dangerous dog?”
     And if the puppy had been a opossum instead?  There would certainly be no saving it.

Get $20 of bonus stock when you make a deposit on Stash!

5 Responses to “Liberal Flip-Flop over Pit Bulls”

  1. kanawa Says:

    “And now, liberal groups are organizing phone calls which are flooding Bossier City, Louisiana’s police department, courts and animal shelters — all to voice their opinion that the puppy shouldn’t be put down”

    Do you have some evidence to back that up?

  2. Mark Says:


    Yeah, I forgot … You’re right. It’s the “CONSERVATIVE” Media nowadays, huh?


  3. kanawa Says:

    Why Mark, what a unique sense of humor you have.

    I’m interested in dog bite prevention.
    The only info I have related to your claim is this…

    “Officials at animal control said Tuesday they have received about 15 calls and half a dozen e-mails from people wanting to adopt the dog. Police Department spokesman Mark Natale said officials will meet after the 10-day quarantine period and decide whether the dog should be offered for adoption, euthanized or returned to its owners.”

    I’m genuinely curious if you have some information that I am unaware of that points to an organized attempt by ‘liberal groups’ to save this puppy.

    I see you have a link to Malkin posted so perhaps you fancy yourself a conservative.
    You should know that conservatives back up their assertions with evidence.

    There are some other questionable comments in your piece but for now all I’m asking for is some indication of how you came to the conclusion that there is an organized effort by some unnamed liberal groups to save this puppy.

  4. Mark Says:

    Yes, I listened to CNN, Headline News and MSNBC at different times yesterday. It was all over the news, thus I said what I said.

  5. Sam Kelter Says:

    We all know “fancy yourself” is a slick term for “Cannuck” so “get stuffed”. Like you get any news in Canada anyway. Stop trying to sound so fucking superior.