I think we should all support Senator Lori Klein and her well-thought-out SB 1065. This bill would bring much needed liberty and freedom from oppression to dog guardians and the precious dogs they care for. I firmly believe that the current laws, and regulations of HMOs etc., concerning dogs, are full of tyranny and harsh persecution.
Shaynie Aero
Mesa
Masterrogue666 posted at 1:49 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
Geez, wasn't this covered once....
Dale Whiting posted at 5:33 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
Ya it was. Makes one wonder what lead to the decision by our editors to print this now, doesn't it!
My dog still walks off leash in my neighborhood park and the ladies all love him when he runs up to them begging for a scratch behind the ears. Boy does he have them well trained!
Dale Whiting posted at 6:54 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
P.S.
Mr. 666,
Tag, your it! Not seeing your response 8 days ago, and now not seeing where you asked me any specific question, in response to your woeful complaints, I have just now responded, issuing you a challenge.
Rich posted at 8:42 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
Basically, government starts as anarchy, then moves to tyranny. Tryants become kings and then are overthrown by democracy. Democracy deteriorates until it tries to regulate household pets. Then you're back to anarchy.
That is Plato's observation, not mine, you could look it up.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:54 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
Dale: Feel free to break the law, just don't whine about it when you get a ticket....
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:56 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
As for "Tag", I went back to those articles for several days, with NO COMMENT from you. Where have YOU responded. I provided two links, can you provide one?
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:40 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
Dale: No answer here: http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_7f659b7a-4dc0-11e1-a86d-001871e3ce6c.html - Which was the ORIGINAL STORY as I recall
Also, I did "Go for it" here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_fa404818-5cf2-11e1-a591-001871e3ce6c.html - When you dared me the FIRST TIME, and I answered.
I see, you're talking about this one: http://eastvalleytribune.com/local/mesa/article_ffbb40c0-5bff-11e1-bc04-0019bb2963f4.html - Would everyone please note that MY FIRST COMMENT was
1 hour and 13 minutes after your "last" comment. Later, you commented again, IN THIS ARTICLE ONLY over 5 DAYS after MY LAST comment (which was to someone else).
No Dale, you are the "woeful" one, and the FACTS I stated back it up. I don't always agree with Rich, but I respect his opinion. You've proven to me, time and again, that you don't deserve any respect.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:44 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
Just to keep Dale happy, I answered his question, even though he DIDN'T provide a link, whereas I DID (more than once I believe).
Happy Dale?
[beam]
Dale Whiting posted at 6:27 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
Mr. 666 [sign of the beast within you]
I'm not breaking the law. My park is private and the city ordnances do not apply to private parks. Furthermore, because my dog has been obedience trained and I have a leash with me, he is not considered to be "at large." So get to know the law before you judge others as being in violation of it !!!!!!
P.S. What question was that 666?
Dale Whiting posted at 6:33 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
Ok 666,
The first reference "http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_7f659b7a-4dc0-11e1-a86d-001871e3ce6c.html " is to the original dog leash article. You expressed your opinion, one based upon being attacked by a bunch of wild dogs in your youth, that all dogs belong on leashes. Now help me out here! wild dogs + leashes = safe dogs? Some how I don't see any leash law helping out with wild dogs. When I lived on the farm and we raised sheep, our protection from wild dogs was my .270 rifle with scope.
Now I'll have a look at the second reference.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:43 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
The next reference is to more complaints with multiple references. So I'll call the referencer http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_fa404818-5cf2-11e1-a591-001871e3ce6c.html as reference [2] and it's first sub reference [2.1].
[2.1] http://eastvalleytribune.com/local/mesa/article_ffbb40c0-5bff-11e1-bc04-0019bb2963f4.html is the discussion about Mormons giving rides to illegal aliens who apparently are also Mormons. Didn't you like my answer? I gave you one. I told you that Garcia was not a spokesperson for Mormons and explained that being inherantly charitable people, giving others rides is the pure love of Christ, asking that you join with us in helping solve the problem of making jobs in agriculture south of the border.
[2.2] http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_7f659b7a-4dc0-11e1-a86d-001871e3ce6c.html is the leash story again. I answered that immediately above.
Now have I covered your pressing needs for responses?
Dale Whiting posted at 3:29 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
Sign of the Beast
"Now have I covered your pressing needs for responses?"
It's been 32 hours since I answered your questions and asked you another question. I'll not complain that you did not address my questions. Rather I'll assume you are now satisfied that I have answered. In the future should you wish me to respond to your assertions, please so state. Most are not worthy of responses. So you'll have to be more specific.
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:27 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
First, let me state that I would rather have you put your comments in the appropriate article for easier verification, and understanding. It's what I REQUESTED time and again, and even included the link(s) to make it easier for you to do so. However, I'm fairly sure I know your reason for wanting your comments here. So be it.
Above Dale wrote: "Mr. 666 [sign of the beast within you]" -- Wow, you've actually lowered yourself to name calling and attempted insults? Whatever happened to the decorum that you requested, I believe, in a different article? Clearly, you do not lead by example, and all the while complain that others do what you just did!
As I recall, you mentioned you took Lucky on walks through alleys which caused other dogs to bark. That doesn't sound like a "private park" to me. However, the law we debated discussed PUBLIC locations, not private. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. As for having a leash on your person, but not attached to Lucky's collar, to me it's like trying to being in a sailboat without a sail. Control cannot be assured, whatsoever.
As to your comment above, posted at 6:33 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012:
I do recall the article. It's the one where YOU introduced a story that happened in Colorado. It's also where I ASKED: "I didn't see the report, so I need to know: How did the dog get loose in the first place?" However, you still have yet to answer that question (and probably more, but it's not worth going through each article to get them, HENCE your reason for wanting my answers contained here, IMHO)..
You commented about my story regarding a "bunch of wild dogs". I guess you didn't read my story very carefully. I NEVER stated they were wild. I VERY CLEARLY STATED: "A large FREE ROAMING pack of dogs". Or, in other words, where the animals are allowed to roam freely instead of being contained in any manner. They had owners, which I ALSO STATED VERY CLEARLY with this statement: "I wasn't mad at the dogs, I was mad at their IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS." Again, you compare apples to oranges.
As for your comments above posted at 6:43 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.:
Your answer is EXACTLY WHY I requested answers in the proper article. However, in reference to the Mormon church assistance with ILLEGAL ALIENS. You did indeed make statement posted at 7:12 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012. My reply was posted at 8:35 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012, well under two hours of yours, with a second comment posted at 8:43 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012. Not DAYS as you have claimed.
In fact, YOU where the one that answered (FINALLY, in the same article), which was posted at 6:48 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012. That would be 8 days, and about 10 hours after my second comment mentioned above. If fact, I actually debated with "TeaPartyPatriot" during that time, posted at 7:27 am on Thu, Feb 23, 2012.
In fact, if you do check my statement posted at 8:35 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012, I ended with the following:
"My brother in law and my sister follow the Morman believe, although they ARE against ILLEGAL ALIENS. I'm interested in seeing what they have to say about this....." -- I did indeed email them the link, and asked them. However, since they don't have internet connection where she lives (rural Washington State), they can't provide timely answers. In any event, it was directed towards a different poster anyway. However, I did copy/paste the majority of her answer, which was posted at 9:32 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012. It was about 15 hours after your last post. And, since you hadn't answered in any other article for over a week, I was no longer looking for an answer from you, and didn't see it.
However, because of your "challenge" above, I searched several articles again (since you DID NOT PROVIDE ANY LINK). That's when I saw your post almost 8 1/2 days after my last one (concerning you), and made another comment directed towards you. Then, you made another comment (there) a little over three hours later, which I answered a little over 5 hours later.
Somehow, you mixed up in your mind that YOU were the one that answers within a reasonable amount of time, and that I am the one whom does not. Of course, the FACTS clearly prove otherwise.
[beam]
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:17 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
Now I have to cover his last comment posted at 3:29 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
Where Dale states: "Sign of the Beast". Well, I think I've already covered your statements like this with what I wrote posted at 5:27 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012.
Now as to it being 32 hours, excluding my statement above, my last statement was posted at 9:44 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012. Your last statement was posted at 6:43 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012. As I'm writing this, it's March 2nd, approximately 6 pm. I'm not sure how you get 32 hours out of 24 hrs. Fast living? Besides, since you made me wait EIGHT DAYS, THEN COMMENTED IN A DIFFERENT ARTICLE ALTOGETHER, maybe you should show some patience. After all, I still had to wait some time even after you stated "Go for it".
Perhaps I was busy doing something I wouldn't pay an ILLEGAL ALIEN to do for me. [wink]
Dale Whiting posted at 7:21 am on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
Mr 666,
3:29 pm on Fri, Mar 2, 2012 less 9:44 am Thursday Mar 1? 24 + 7 = 32, at least this week it does!
Apparently I haven't seen your 9:44 am of March 1. It did post after mine! Does it have anything worthy of attention which you wish from me a response? My ignoring you, even unintentionally ignoring you does seem to upset your soul!
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:34 am on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
Excuse me, but whom stated "Go for it"? I've not "upset". You've only helped me prove the type of person you are. I couldn't have done it without your help!
[beam]
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:34 am on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
Darn typo- I've to I'm
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:36 am on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
Dale, did you make the meeting?
fake oakley posted at 9:05 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
replica oakley sunglasses is a brand that never sits still. All the products of this type owned the plastic
replica oakleys frame and leg and the colorful square high quality lenses
cheap oakley sunglasses . All these characteristics gained its popularity
cheap oakley sunglasses . We constantly strive to reinvent cheap oakleys , to push farther, to do the undone. The oakley sunglasses cheap in our New Release category represent the latest technology and freshest new looks to complement your lifestyle