Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Is this not more proof the Teabaggers are NUTS???

So I ran across this article:

Yes, that's right, the Tea Party is taking on the friggin' HUMANE SOCIETY! Because you know... puppy mills can't really be all THAT bad, right.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, these people are nuts. And anybody who backs them, or votes for one of them, is equally nuts. Taking on an organization that is working to improve the quality of life for innocent animals, really???


Asked by Anouck at 12:30 PM on Oct. 6, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 25 (23,484 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (40)
  • Yeah Anouk.I agree.
    It just boggles the mind when we read about the "Truth Alliance".
    Animal Humane societies and Animal Rescues are both valuable. They are anti-puppy farms. My daughter and I have adopted dogs from Rescues and the Animal Humane groups ....they do a fine job of saving dogs and finding families to adopt them.
    I can't imagine why those Tea Partiers and "Joe the plumber" would find a problem with either one.They must be desperate for a cause. Maybe they should start DOING something instead of just squawking and bashing.
    Maybe they should adopt some doggies? No, on second thought,I don't know if I would trust those precious pups with the nutcases.

    Answer by gertie41 at 12:57 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • Haha....we NEEDED more proof???

    Answer by jenellemarie at 12:31 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • They're a good example of the blind leading the blind.

    Answer by SabrinaBean at 12:38 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • LOL need I say more? The first poster hit the nail right on the head.

    Answer by mommy_of_two388 at 12:39 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • Glen Beck has balls? This is news to me...

    Answer by jenellemarie at 1:40 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • I suppose I'm not a "libtard", "socialist marxist communist", "democRAT" etc either, but I still get called that. So turnaround is fair play.

    Some of us that support the tea party dont think its ok to call people those names either, and I just dont see how name calling from one justifies name calling from another. Its called being the better person. But thats ok, you have every right to say whatever you want. But I do think when people use these derogatory terms it says to me more about who they are then anything else.

    Answer by -LovingMamma- at 2:25 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • ok before making complete judgments I think that it would be important to read the proposition that they are trying to pass. I did not read anywhere where the people said that they agree with puppy mills, but that they disagree with what is in the proposition. There is a good chance that there may be more to it then the puppy mills. when I was in school, a proposition was trying to be passed to give teachers a raise. If you werent behind this proposition you were evil. The thing is the way it was written there would be no cut off point on the percentage increase. It turned out the reason behind this was because our superintendent was stealing money from the school and wanted to be able to get more. The point Im trying to make is that just because it sounds like something good from the outside, doesnt mean that it really is. There could be a lot more to this proposition. until I read it, I will not make a judgment.

    Answer by -LovingMamma- at 12:52 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • ALL "Tea Baggers" are Nuts?

    Good thing I'm not one of those.

    Answer by sopranomommy at 1:26 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • Yes, because no Democrat or Republican ever stood against legislation someone else thought was worthwhile. It's definitely only a tea party flaw. *eye roll.

    No, what is shows is the bigotry that's rampant in politics. You can't accept someone else has different beliefs than you. You have to right away belittle them and call them nuts.

    And NO, your highly biased and derogatory article doesn't PROVE anything about anyone's mental capacity. How about coming up with a source that doesn't scream "leftist commentary?"


    Answer by lovinangels at 1:53 PM on Oct. 6, 2010

  • Okay, I just read the article and the bill and I don't see what the big fuss is. This is pretty straightforward. The "teabaggers" aren't saying that animals shouldn't be provided those things, they're saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate HOW MANY breeding animals a breeder has. Why does it matter if a breeder has 100 breeding "covered" dogs, if they're all well-provided for. THIS is what the tea partyers that are against it have a problem with. Not that breeders will have to "start" (as if they don't already) providing adequate care, it's that the government is going to regulate how many breeding dogs those breeders can have.

    What is the purpose of putting a cap on how many dogs you can have? Wouldn't it be sufficient enough to say that if you have breeding dogs they MUST have this adequate care? then if a breeder can only provide that for less than 50 dogs, they won't have more.

    Answer by Laura2U at 2:20 PM on Oct. 6, 2010