[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 75°F  
River stage: 42.42 ft. Falling
Sunday, July 5, 2015

Speak Out 11/30/08

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Indian pride

WAY TO go, Jackson Indians. You should be proud of yourselves for a job well done.

Good choices

SO FAR, Barack Obama's choices for advisers and Cabinet members are brilliant. He has calmed all but the most psychotic conservatives with pragmatic choices while paving the way for them to implement progressive policies.

Dangerous owners

REGARDING THE "dangerous dog" ban in Perryville I've been reading about: What started the concerns was a pit bull chained to a tree in a backyard. Most people are overlooking the source of the problem, which is tying a dog to a tree. I have two rescued pit bulls that are babies, not dangerous dogs. Most dogs are a reflection of their ownership. Maybe we should ban "dangerous owners," the source of many pet problems.

Shopping-cart kids

THIS IS in response to a comment that it is unsanitary to put a child in the basket area of a shopping buggy. Where else would you suggest I put my 3-year-old? I have two children. I am aware that there are buggies that have an attachment on the front where two children can sit. Have you tried pushing one of these? They are quite heavy and hard to turn. I can assure you that if my child's shoes are the worst thing to touch the inside of that buggy, you should consider yourself lucky. It also may interest you to know that I wipe down the buggy before and after using it. If anyone has a better idea on how to shop with two young toddlers, I would be glad to hear it.

Downtown plans

OLD TOWN Cape has had multiple comprehensive plans. The DREAM plan is not the first. What has been lacking is execution of these plans. A core mission of Old Town Cape is to recruit new businesses and help existing businesses thrive. Is Old Town Cape partnering with the entrepreneur program at Southeast Missouri State University? It should be. Where are the new commercial activities to increase foot traffic downtown? More retailers are needed, not more bars.

Movie spending

I KEEP hearing about people being strapped for money. Then listen to the news about movies that have grossed more than $70 million. It doesn't sound like people are hard up for money.

All about teachers

WOW, JOE Sullivan, what a fantastic column (about teachers) in Sunday's paper. We can only hope that every parent and teacher would read it. I still think you ought to run for president.

Can't read, write

I RAISED three kids. One of my children didn't get an education in school. In first grade when the teacher should have been teaching writing, she was teaching weather reports. He failed to get an education. As a result he cannot read or write. That's what schools are paid to do: teach reading and writing. I saw on the Internet that a Washington, D.C., school official wants to take away teacher tenure. I can agree with that, because some teachers need to be weeded out.

Limit imports

I WAS reading a bit in the paper that says China approves only limited numbers of foreign films and recordings partly due to political concerns but also to protect domestic producers. That's what we should be doing instead of importing all this stuff. Why aren't we protecting our domestic producers of everything? We need to enact some laws that have us using American-made stuff and having only limited amounts of imports. That would help the economy immensely.

Education advice

THIS IS in response to the educator who thinks lay people should keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to public education. Since we're all funding public education through our taxes, we should definitely have a say in what happens. And if educators are the professionals, we've seen the job they've done. So they can definitely stand some advice from us.

South Hanover

I AM glad to see the attention your paper has been giving to the happenings on South Hanover Street. It is a shame Hanover Street has to have all this bad publicity. I have lived on the street many years. I truly appreciate the attention the police department gives to this street with their patrols. Most of the trouble that happens is started by people who do not live there. We get all this bad publicity that draws people to Hanover Street looking for drugs and to start trouble. Some of the teenagers have set up times to meet and start fights. Some residents who are complaining about shootings and drugs and people hanging on the street are not helping. From early morning to late in the day, they'll have a group hanging in front of their houses, using vulgar language and playing loud music. Clean up in front of your own house before complaining.

No more roads

MY PROBLEM with what Barack Obama suggests (regarding government jobs for public works) is this: Don't we have enough roads already? We're having trouble maintaining what roads we have. Unless these workers are put to use maintaining what we have, it seems ridiculous to build more. I agree that we need more creative ideas.

Blame our greed

OUR COUNTRY is financially on the rocks for one reason. The citizens of our nation have bankrupted it over the years with constant greed and politicians promising anything to get elected. Pork-barrel spending is out of control. Not many folks would vote to accept the pain of a balanced budget and a debt payoff. You couldn't carry one state if you had a platform to cut welfare or benefits for health care, senior citizens, education, foreign aid and thousands of government subsidies. The greedy voters and the politicians have done this.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.


While I do agree that there is a small element of truth to your rant, I am curious as to why you fail to blame the greed of Wall Street, Oil speculators, and corporations who far out way any petty greed that you allege by the people.

Either you are ill, or, not well informed, or, your intent is that of disinformation.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 3:15 AM


What the hell is Obama talking about when he stated that we need a national civilian security force, as well funded as our military? See and hear him opine.


The fact that Joseph Farah, one of the founders of World Net Daily dot com, was part Jewish was never an issue, until 9/11. Then, Farah sold interest in his hugely successful news collection website to Neocon interests, and it has never been the same since. Until now. Why is Joseph Farah bemoaning the creation of Obama's Civilian National Security Force, when creating it is a key feature of any police state wannabe group? Could Farah be having second thoughts of his cozy relationship with his zionist and neocon colleagues?

This sounds like the Joseph Farah of pre-9/11....the Joseph Farah that I truly admire.

I really like his line from the WHO's song, WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN...."Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss." Ain't it the truth.........



Meet the new boss ...

Exclusive: Joseph Farah shows how Obama's 'change' resembles same old establishment


Posted: November 29, 2008

1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah


Way back in 1971, the English rock band the Who had a hit song called "Don't Get Fooled Again."

It was an interesting song for the times – with the air of revolution wafting through America's campuses and streets. This was a song that said it was all futile – with the key lyric line being, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

That's kind of how I feel about the incoming Barack Obama administration.

This is change!

This is the same old, same old.

(Column continues below)

For the most part, Barack Obama's new prescriptions represent nothing but tired, old, discredited ideas that have failed every time they have been tried in history.

I'm not surprised. In fact, I predicted it.

I even got very specific last August 21 when I boldly proclaimed I knew who would be named defense secretary – no matter who won the election, John McCain or Obama. This week, I was proven right when it was announced Obama had picked the establishment's guy – Robert Gates.

Obama warned that a McCain administration would be Bush III. What we got instead was Clinton-Bush VI.

How did I know?

It all began with my curiosity over a few lines in a campaign speech Obama delivered July 2 in Colorado Springs.

Here's what he said that got my attention – and nobody else's: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama never fully explained what he meant by a "civilian national security force" with a budget equaling our current Defense Department. No reporters ever bothered to ask him. But I kept poking around. I began searching that phrase. I found it had been used previously in a series of speeches by someone else.

That someone else was Robert Gates.

I further discovered that Obama was a big fan of Gates. He told the Army Times in July: "I do think that Secretary Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the military generally."

I also learned McCain was a big fan of Gates.

It was about this time I got the idea to write my last book, "None of the Above: Why 2008 Is the Year for the Ultimate Protest Vote." I knew there was no substantive difference between Obama and McCain. Neither was going to lead America in a new direction. They were both going to take the nation down the same, old road.

I must note that people thought I was stark, raving insane when I made this proclamation.

I was told by my Republican friends that only McCain would protect America. Only he understood national security and defense issues. My Democrat friends told me there was no way Obama would ever choose a Bush guy to run his Defense Department. After all, he was the anti-war candidate and Bush was the war-monger.

I take no pleasure in being right about this.

I wish I were wrong.

I wish the American people had a real choice in 2008.

But we didn't. The fix was in. Either way, the "permanent establishment" was going to be running the government.

What you see happening with these Cabinet appointments is the proof of what I said.

And I'm still wondering what these guys mean when they talk about a "civilian national security force." I have a feeling no matter what it is, I won't like it.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. "

GIVE AMMO FOR CHRISTMAS... and CHANUKAH.....choo-choo trains and dreidels are so passe. Ammo is the gift of choice for Christmas 2008.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 3:26 AM

'No more roads'

What commrade? Do you object to joining Obama's Red Workers Brigades?

Notice that Obama refuses to even discuss the bringing of American factory jobs...BACK to AMERICA... He claims that we will have "green" jobs, and that makes every environmentalist wack job in America, wet in the nickers.

The "change" that he gives us the opportunity to grab a pick and a shovel and join others in a nice socialist revolutionary workers song.

I would like to believe in Obama. I would like to believe that he is the black JFK. I would like to believe that he is the hope for restoring America. I would like to do all that, but at this time, I cannot.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 3:35 AM

BUY AMERICAN? ....whatta about beer?

It really riles me when some dummy comments in Speak Out, or, on the Morning Journal on CSPAN TV, that we, the people are to blame, because we need to buy American made products.

There are no American products to buy. There are no American products any longer. No American CROCK POTS, no American Steam Irons, no American anything... now, there is a real challenge that we Americans are to face, especially, the "buy American dummies", who are dummies only, because their buy Ameican chant is a day late, and a dollar short. Maybe it was a good saying in 1993, when the Republican Congress and Democrat President Bill Clinton forced NAFTA, and later, the WTO through Congress, but now, everything is gone...

however... I have digressed.

How many of you pre-historic "buy American" chanters, will stop buying AB products? Anheuser-Bush was purchased over a week ago, but a Brazilian-Belgium company. (for the many, many dummies out there, geographically, Brazil is in South America, and Belgium is in Europe, somewhere around Germany and France. They speak French and something called Flemish, which mandates that they hock up loogies, or, flem, every third, or, fourth word)

"The new company, named Anheuser-Busch InBev, will be headed by InBev chief executive officer Carlos Brito and will be headquartered in Leuven, Belgium."

Will all you bad boys, driving your 4x4's, mudding, cage fighting, and boot scoot boogie-ing, give up your Bud Lights?

Naw, I didn't think so. You will continue to give your beer money to a guy named Carlos, and a company from Belgium.

Sad, sad indeed.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 3:52 AM

good choices

Obama has selected old white Clinton era has beens for his cabinent positions. I thought he campaigned on 'change'.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 8:35 AM

dangerous owners

Pit Bulls are a disaster just waiting to happen. Ban them.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 8:42 AM

can't read, write

Please get information about home schooling and teach your child to read and write.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 8:51 AM


Have you been around any pit bulls that have been family pets. I have one that is a pet pal that visits the hospitals and nursing homes! The people love her. She is my Diva Dog!

-- Posted by dpalmer on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:08 AM

Indian pride: Ahh, the good ole days. I remember when Southeast Missouri State University had Indian pride.

Good choices: "Pragmatic while paving the way to implement progressive policies" What a beautiful piece of alliteration.

Dangerous owners: PETA...*sigh* you folks are just plain scary.

Shopping-cart kids: I'm completely confuddled.

Downtown plans: I agree with the last statement of this callers opinion, "More retailers are needed, not more bars." However, while I think we need to completely revamp Broadway, I think we need to scrap Downtown as a tourist attraction and build West. Here's what I personally do when traveling: If I'm on a major highway (let's say I-55) I look for attractions immediately off that highway. (visually)

Now...If I come to an exit and it's attraction sign says, "World Famous Ever Lasting Gobstoppers" and the sign points me deep into the city another 3 or 4 miles, then I get back onto the highway and keep on moving.

Movie spending: a decked out Ford 250 pick-up...$50,000, (not to mention you're unemployed) a trip to Disney World for a family of five...$12,000, (not to mention you're unemployed) a trip to your local theater (using rent money)giving you a chance to get the blooming family out of the house, get the kids to shut their yappers, because they haven't went anywhere all summer, and the escape from the realism that you're unemployed, the rent payment is due, and your car is about to be repossessed....priceless.

All about teachers: *sigh*

Can't read, write: I can agree with this.

Limit imports: NSS, what gave you the first clue?

Education advice: Now this is funny.

South Hanover: I have to disagree with you. Forty years ago, me Gram lived on South Benton (very close to this area) During that time period, there was very little of this type of malarky going on. I mean "VERY" little. The yards were clean, and folks respected other folks. Then, it happened..."outsiders" started moving into the area. Bringing in drugs, blatant prostitution and general trash. (and I'm not talking about the type you throw on the ground) To scratch your head, blame it on folks who "don't even live their", and folks not doing anything is wrong.

We all KNOW what the problem is. It MOVED in about 30 years ago, and was left to manifest. Instead of dealing with the situation THEN, folks packed up, and moved to better neighborhoods.

Now the manifestation has over-run everything and taken control. This is what you get...when you wish for a "BIG" town, and don't have a plan to maintain the integrity of the community. In light of all the shootings, stabbings, breakins, and violent crime of the last year...I can see Cape's ship slowly sinking. It's starting to remind me of Cairo, Illinois in her most violent of days. Sorry for being so brutally honest, but the subject of Cape's degradation really gets me dander up.

No more roads: Actually, I think a nice direct highway West to Jefferson City would be most helpful.

Blame our greed: "OUR COUNTRY is financially on the rocks for one reason." Not exactly, there are several reasons, including the one you mentioned. You for got to mention...outsourcing jobs, moving factories and jobs overseas, lending billions of dollars to Pakistan, while they promote and create terrorist, the existance of credit card companies, and that stupid little thing called FICA.

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:08 AM

Babe, I agree...when someone gets a pit bull, it's just a beckoning for trouble. It's like the owner of the animal buys it just to prove a point. (Kind of like what they say about men and buying big expensive vehicles to make up for other areas)

I'm not blaming the animal, it's a creature of habit. On the contrary, it's these owners who choose to exploit their "Big Dangerous Dog" to show off and threaten their neighbors. I guess I'll have to go buy a wild grizzle bear and walk it around the block to prove my point.

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:17 AM

...Clinton deregulation policies started this big mess

we are in today ....perhaps BO is bringing them back

to fix the mess they created ...

pit bulls are attack dogs , it's in their nature ....

-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:19 AM


No, I have too much sense to be around a pitt bull. The stats don't lie about their unpredictable behavior and violent assaults. I am interested in what type of hospital allows visits from your dog.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:21 AM

Regarding the comment "Blame our greed" I do agree to some point with what this person is saying. We have become a nation of greed many expecting the government to hand out everything to them such as Wall Street, Corporations, and the public. A lot of our welfare system needs over hauled and restructured the waste in our welfare system is out of control and has been for some time. People that are able to work but refusing to accept a job but they choose to stay on welfare and "mooch" off of the law abiding citizens of our country and our government let's them get away with it. Some People that are frauding our unemployment insurance that are offered a job but refuse to take it because they choose to stay on unemployment benefits and they get away with it. Out of wed lock mothers having more babies just to have them so they can draw an additional welfare benefits and some even brag about it in the public, what happens our government let's them get away with it. Illegals going in to the local welfare office and receiving the same benefits as an american citizen receives and what happens our government let's them get away with it. What has happen in america over the years is "give me, give me and what can you do for me today. Many americans living way beyond their means all on credit. Then we all ask ourselves why are we broke, well it don't take much of a smart person to figure that one out.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:29 AM

Rick ..... deregulation?

Ah, sorry, but deregulation started after the son of George H.W. Bush's Texas friend, John Hinckley, Sr., attempted to murder Ronald Reagan. Me thinks that it was actually George H. W. Bush who was behind all of the deregulation during the Ronald Reagan adminstration, because much of what occured after they tried to kill Reagan didn't seem like Reagan, but like Bush.

Yep, lots of deregulation, and remember green mail, hostile take overs, the slaughter of TWA by that scumbag Ichan and his junk bond scheme? All occured under the Bush ran Reagan adminstration. Wall Street Junk Bond financing schemes of the 1980's were the fraud equivlant to "derivatives, MBS, CDS, and short selling" schemes of Wall Street today.

Not that Clinton didn't do his part for his New World Order handlers, but he was not the one to start, or, agressively enforce deregulation. It was the Bush ran Reagan adminstration that began to sink us. Clinton and the Republican congress did harm to the economy by enacting NAFTA and the WTO.

And that is the way it was....

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:39 AM

just cause u believe otherwise doesn't make it so....

-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:46 AM

SWAMPY.... you are long on propaganda, short on truth...

You said...

"People that are able to work but refusing to accept a job but they choose to stay on welfare and "mooch" off of the law abiding citizens of our country."

Lots of dummies still say crap like that, and I used to even think that there was truth in it at one time, but times have changed.... this government, through successive adminstrations, all controlled by the same folks in the shadows, have liquidated our jobs, off shored them to communist countries with 30 cent an hour labor. So, to stand there and ridicule someone because they don't get a job as fast as YOU think that they should, seems to be a bit ignornant and ill-informed on the part of those of you who spew out such idiotic dribble. Their jobs were moved off shore, and, now, you have the balls to ***** like hell that the folks that lost their jobs aren't finding your non-existant jobs.

Oh, by the way... I found this statement to be as comical.... as it was stupid.

"mooch" off of the law abiding citizens of our country."

You used the term "law abiding" to describe the people whom you feel are being mooched. What the hell does being "law abiding" have to do with an economic situation? The person who has no job, can be law abiding, and the person whom you feel is being mooched, may not be law abiding. The term "law abiding" has noting to do with one's economic condition. It is not a statement of economic condition. It is a statement of one's adherence to assorted laws and regulations, most likely none of which have a **** thing to do with his employment status.

I found it quite odd that you would use it at all, and when you did, it had no relevance to your unfounded claims made about employment.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:54 AM

Oh, by the way, SWAMPY... all that "give me, give me"

crap that you tried to fix upon the unemployed, seems to be coming from all your a*shole buddies on Wall Street and Detroit. They are the ones who have been the recipients of our wages. They are the ones who your bush and that piece of low life crappy slime, Henry Paulson, has given our taxes to buy banks, expand their branches, pay dividends to shareholders, and pay BONUSES to their CEO's.

These bast*rds are the ones who have more than a trillion of our money and they got it without testimony from economists, or, anyone else qualified to give an honest opinion of the Paulson-Bush plan to steal our wages and redistribute our wealth to the filthy rich.

I noticed that you did not mention them in your "give me, give me" rant.

How come, why not, porque?

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:03 AM

Willy Makit.... what you said, Rick said....

Well, here is what Rick said. Note he said nothing about "relaxing" finance laws, he made the direct statement that CLINTON started it. Clinton did his part, but it started long before Clinton.

Here is what Rick said.... "Clinton deregulation policies started this big mess we are in today ...."

Nope, sorry, Deregulation policies DID NOT START WITH CLINTON.... now, that is a lie. It hain't the truth. Can't let a lie go by unchallenged.

Clinton was a player, he did his part for the New World Order, but he sure as hell did not start deregulation.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:09 AM

Dangerous Owners--

Couldn't agree with you more...but it's an uphill battle..ignorance abounds and many are all too willing to blame the breed rather than the owners who lack personal responsibility. STATS show you are more likely to be bitten by small dogs and golden retrievers percentage-wise at any given time.

However--I don't have time to beat this old dead horse with those here who still refuse to see the truth and have NO EXPERIENCE to base their ideas on.

Shopping-cart kids--

Don't let the advice givers get to you. Until they are doing it themselves..they just won't understand. I will say that I don't strap my baby's infant seat to the top of the cart..I sit it down inside the basket even when it's inconvenient because strapped up top can cause the cart to tip.

-- Posted by Super_Bethie on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:11 AM

Willy Makit... I agree.... when you said...

"You can't loan money to people who can't make the payments." The problem is, that when most of those people got the loans, they could make the payments. They had good jobs. No problem. It was the policy of this administration and that of the Clinton administration to off-shore American jobs. Hell, bush's chief economic adviser stated just before either the 2004, or, 2006 election that America wasn't off shoring enough jobs, that we should be off shoring Research and Development jobs. It has long been the advocation of that low life POS, Allan Greenspan that the government should bring in millions of SKILLED LABOR workers to drive down the wages of Skilled Workers and make their wages more in line with that of non-skilled labor. Now, how the hell do you fight such dumb-*ss govermental thinking such as that?

Just what jobs will be available for Americans? Don't give me that "education" crap, because that isn't working either. They are bringing in H1-B Visa workers, primarily from India, to either eliminate, or, drive down the wages of our technically edcuated workers, in IT, computer technology, and the like.

This is one giant scheme, dreamed up at several international conferences over the years, before they foisted the scam of "globalism" upon us.

Bush is a globalist. McCain is a globalist, and Obama sure as hell is a globalist. It is up to we the people to reverse the economic terror that globalism has brought to our land, by whatever means at our disposal.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:20 AM

Willy Makit... not only are you correct when you say that you cannot make loans to people who cannot pay, let it be known that "you can't sell anything to people who do not have money." We are learning that lesson now.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:22 AM

Babe, Meg, and Rick,

I know I'm arguing a moot point here, but pit bulls, as a breed, are not "instinctual killers". In fact, I've never been around one that wasn't really sweet. That's probably because I don't hang around people who fight them. They are used for fighting, as are boxers and rottweilers, because the muscle structure in their head is different than other dogs. The muscles that control their jaws wrap all the way up to the top of their heads (thus the wider "muscular" head) and they are able to lock down on something and hold on almost indefinitely for that reason. This is beneficial if a person is going to fight a dog, because you can actually kill them and their jaws won't necessarily release. Irresponsible pit owners play tug of war with their dogs and think it is cool to teach them to grab a high hanging rope and hang on for extended periods of time. Just as a herding dog enjoys it's work, a pit was bred with strong jaws and a propensity to clamp down, so it's fun for the dog to do so. When the owner gives positive reinforcement, the dog will do it a lot to please the owner. Do you ever wonder why you don't hear of a lot of dog fighter owners being attacked? Pits are really loyal dogs. They love people (no, not to eat) and are very friendly. They can easily be trained, as could any other dog, to be aggressive toward other animals but will fight and then immediately come up to the owner wagging its tail. They are looking for positive reinforcement and asking the owner, "Did I do a good job? Are you pleased with me?". When they get praise, it becomes a little thing called 'conditioned response'. Fighting dogs will sometimes attack kids because kids are smaller and the dogs have been trained to go after things that are close to their size. Pits actually make poor guard dogs sometimes because they are so friendly. Then you have the fight dog owners who feed their dogs gunpowder to make them go crazy and be mean. If someone fed Babe, Meg, or Rick gunpowder, they might attack someone too. Stupid people are the problem (meaning those who fight dogs, not the aforementioned people). I don't think pits will ever overcome the stereotype. People buy them, clip their ears and tails, and teach them to behave badly because they look scary and people think that is cool. Fluffy little dogs like Pomeranians and Schitzu(sp) are bought because they look cute and sweet, yet they can be just as ill tempered as any fight dog if they aren't taught obedience.

-- Posted by happy1a on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:25 AM

happy1 .... Thank you for a very enlightening post.

Everything that you said about those breeds like Pits and Rotties is ture, as far as their temperment, it is how people "train" them that produces the end result. I really learned a lot from you. Thank you.

-- Posted by Robert Goodbody on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:37 AM


The deadliest dogs

"Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:41 AM

Mizzou Defeated (But not down):


-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:42 AM

Good Choices: Your assesment of Obama's choices so far is spot on. I know I have been completely put at ease with the changes he has made. The people he has selected or named to date, will bring a fresh new perspective to the White House. Obama says he will be the visionary and it is his appointees responsibility to enact those said visions. I really hope his cabinet whole heartedly bought into his change montra, because that is exactly what they will have to do, to even come close to being a change from the past 16 years.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:46 AM


it's bad enough that Mizzou loses to Kansas in

basketball every year without losing in football too .

i don't hold much hope for Mizzou in the Big12 title


-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 10:51 AM

Mr. Goodbody,

You are welcome. I used to be a person who was afraid of pits, based on all the horror stories I heard. I'm also terrified of black bears, because my dad used to read Field and Stream stories to us about black bear attacks. The articles would always say that black bear attacks were uncommon, but they would always tell about those "unheard of" instances. To this day, I'm scared to go on a quiet trail in the Smokies! But you know, I have done it and I haven't been mauled yet. The study Babe cited was interesting, but I think I covered most of the reasons behind some of the authors claims in my previous post. Pit owners who play really rough with their dogs aren't bad people, they are just not well educated on the breed and are maybe a little irresponsible. To me, it is much like people who let their two year old tell the parent "no" and slap at them or laugh when the kid says a curse word. They think it is cute, and it is cute and funny when they are two. However, when the kid is 15 and cursing out mom and fist fighting dad, those same parents say, "I don't know what to do with him. I can't control him". If you have a bull breed, don't play tug of war, don't encourage biting, don't get the dog so riled up that he engages in aggressive behaviors. You can teach an old dog new tricks, but, my God, is it ever hard to unlearn the old ones.

-- Posted by happy1a on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:02 AM

Happy, I too thank you for your post about the "big dogs". It was informative and well written. As you said, it's a moot point. Either people love them or hate them, there seems to be no in between. I, myself, don't like German Shepherds--they scare me much more than a pit or a rott. Why? Because I had a friend whose father trained them to be attack dogs back in the Viet Nam era and I couldn't go in her yard without having to squeeze around the perimeter just out of reach of their snapping jaws. Does it make sense today for me to be afraid of a family's pet? No--no more sense than for Babe to be afraid of a breed she's never been near to.

It is somewhat amusing to me that a person can have a pit bull, leave it's ears and tail intact, not tell anyone what the breed is, and those who have never been exposed to a pit (and even some who have been) won't know what that sweet dog is they are playing with! Pits and Rotties ARE NOT MEAN DOGS!!! We've had two Rotts who were the biggest of babies and it was a sad day when they passed on. We have a pit/yellow lab mix who's the gentlest dog we've ever had. He doesn't lick, doesn't bark unless it's necessary, doesn't snap food out of the fingers of our grandchildren--he's a sweetheart. I don't have numbers and facts to back anything up, just wonderful pets who have shared our lives and who are sadly missed--or who will be one day.

I just had to have my say on this one. No dog should be banished or exterminated simply because it had the luck to be born as a breed that has a bad reputation. Period.

I will now step down off my soapbox and go to church. Thank you and have a nice day.

-- Posted by Maxine_the_Magnificent on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:03 AM


We don't lose to them in football every year, in fact our football record is pretty good against them.

Did you forget last year's game, with the turf hanging on Reesing's helemt? Ah a classic.

I'm telling you, I've got a feeling about next week's game...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:16 AM


It is so true what you said about pits with unaltered ears and tail. People often mistake them for labs or lab mixes. We are in the process of adopting one of the Old Appleton pits that was rescued a couple of months back. I was apprehensive at first, because this is an unaltered (not neutered), adult, male pit mix. I didn't know what he had experienced before we got him, so I didn't know what might spook him. We had friends and their 4 children over right after we got him. The kids' dad couldn't stand to see him tied up with the kids able to run free in the yard, so he let him off his leash. I was very nervous because I didn't know how he was around kids. Even though I was going to have him tied up while the kids were outside, the dad wouldn't take no for an answer. Buddy, our dog, was excellent with the kids. Of course they were carefully supervised, never more than two feet from us when petting the dog, but if he didn't like what they were doing, he just slowly stood up and moved over a few feet out of their reach. We let the kids feed him treats and he took them so gently from the kids, almost as if he knew he had to be extra careful with little ones. The vet estimates his age at 4. For all I know, he was beaten as a puppy and I know he was half starved to death when we got him. If he were a killing machine by nature, there would have been four kid carcasses in my yard that day.

-- Posted by happy1a on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:18 AM


Your last statement may be true, but it is for the reasons I mentioned and has nothing to do with the breed itself. People whose dogs attack people often get intimidating looking dogs and train them to be aggressive for the sake of intimidation. There is a reason people don't use sheepdogs for junkyard guard dogs; they look too loveable. However, I could train a sheepdog to kill in a few weeks. It's the same reason gangstas might carry a Desert Eagle over a Daringer. They can both kill you, but a DE will scare the crap out of you before you die. I have to work on some homework, but I'll check back in later to check out any comments on this topic. I enjoy the discussion.

-- Posted by happy1a on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:29 AM

any dog can turn on a person for no good reason ...

and they smell when it rains ...

-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:39 AM


Yes, any dog can turn on a person for no good reason but Pitt Bulls do it more frequently than any other breed. And they are anatomically capable of doing much more damage than any other breed. For the latter reason, alone, they should be banned.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:47 AM

I have been bitten quite a few times by little dogs with very little affect, the big dog, not a Pit, is the one that put me down for several days, I will take the little dog bites even if there are more of them.

I have had problems with Pits, Rotweillers and Doberman, but they were trained to be that way; not a dog expert, just don't like big dogs with big teeth. Actually I don't care much for little dogs either come to think of it.

-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:54 AM

where would a person put all of these pitt bulls if

they were banned ? ...

-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 11:55 AM


Your statement about not picking one of those breeds raises a good point. A major problem with those breeds is there are far too many people breeding them. In-breeding and over-breeding, I feel, are major factors in the numbers everyone keeps quoting. These dogs are being bred in some of the poorest conditions, and by some of the most ignorant people you could imagine. Then they are sold to whomever will buy them, regardless of the situation. If you want a good dog, go to a breeder with credentials. Breeders are held to very high standards, and most take great pride in the quality of their dogs. This includes their temperment. I would be willing to bet, though I admitedly don't know any numbers, that most of the cases in which these dogs are cited as vicious animals, came from less than desireable situations. I understand that these dogs are not for every family, especially with the abundence of negative propaganda out there focused on them, but as to my own experiences I feel they have every ability of being great family dogs. On a side note, I belive it's DogInfo.com that rates every breed and its suitability to children, and the pit received a 5 which is the highest mark available. OK I'll shut up now.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:02 PM

Babe, you finally picked an avatar I like. (The Christmas lights) Happy1, no doubt an irresponsible owner can exacerbate the mood of a pet. That being said, it goes back to what I said previously, some folks like to buy the Pitt Bull/Rotti dog for the nostalgia that it's a dangerous animal, and thus they aggregate a beast which has been proven to be naturally agressive.

If most folks were just proud to be pet owners, instead of being enamored with owning an animal surrounded in violent prestige, perhaps the Rotti and the Pitt wouldn't have developed such a bad rap.

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:09 PM


That decision would be up to the owners. Actually, I think that more owners will voluntarily put down their Pitt Bulls as more insurance companies refuse to write homeowner policies if a Pitt or Rottweiler is in the household.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:11 PM

"Right"_of_Opinion per your 11:02am post. YES! I COMPLETELY concurr with your thoughts in this statement.

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:12 PM


...good luck getting that one pass PETA..

-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:15 PM


Thanks. I have always wished the powers would allow animated avatars as these lights are supposed to blink.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:17 PM

ANY dog that has proven itself to be dangerous should probably be "put down", but I would not be in favor of banning a breed of dog just because it "might" be dangerous. This could be a slippery slope indeed.

-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:17 PM


Do a quick Google search on PETA to see how many dogs they are responsible for killing.

-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:21 PM


"PETA’s Position on Pit Bull Bans

Legislatures across the country are increasingly seeking to ban pit bulls in an effort to crack down on dogfighting and prevent attacks by pit bulls. PETA supports legislation that bans the breeding of pit bulls, just as we support any spay/neuter legislation as the most effective way to combat the tragic companion animal overpopulation problem. We also support pit bull bans, as long as they include a grandfather clause allowing all living dogs who are already in good homes and well cared for to live the remainder of their lives safely and peacefully."

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:31 PM

wow...are u suggesting killing off the breed so

it's exstinct ? ..dunno about that

-- Posted by ..Rick on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 12:45 PM

Here's a great idea. Let's ban the breed and push all breeding into the criminal sector, (because we all know it won't stop) this should really raise the quality of dogs being produced. Since when has any kind of prohibition worked in making a product better, or solving any problem.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 1:10 PM

i.e. Clifton--

it says specifically ATTACKS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE STUDY. Now I wonder what attacks they chose not to include?

I ask those of you to look at FULL studies and compare. You are noting HOMICIDES related to biting...you aren't looking at the full scope of injuries. Otherwise you would see many other dog breeds have a much HIGHER propensity to bite even if it is not fatal when it happens.

I must say I <3 Happy1. I hope you enjoy your dogs. We've owned or had family own between 5-10 various pits, boxers, or rotties and they are very sweet dogs. We've never had one issue. However, as a younger child I was chased by our meth producing neighbors biting Chow-Chow every day after school...and I have personally been bitten by a little reject of a dog that looks like Benjji.

But what can I say...I'm conservative and I believe in personal responsiblity and that there is no need for any big brother level of government to pass any more ridiculous and unnecessary freedom-inhibiting laws on this topic.

-- Posted by Super_Bethie on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 1:31 PM

RE: Good choices

Brilliant indeed. Unconstitutional, but brilliant nonetheless.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 1:49 PM


I think we may be clones as I am also a Bethany and almost always agree with your opinions! I do enjoy my dog very much and we play and roll around in the floor, but the worst thing that has happened to me is getting licked in the mouth. I'm not a fan of that but with a tongue that big, he's bound to miss my cheek occasionally.


I agree that banning isn't an answer and we have too much government telling us what we can and can't do already. If we are going to ban something, I would rather ban people from having kids they can't control. Poorly raised people kill way more people each year than dogs do.


You are. Inbreeding is a huge problem and people are not near educated enough on breeds. I encourage you to get on your soapbox any time. Educating people is never wrong.

To sum it up, thousands of people die in car accidents every year because some people can't operate them responsibly, but I don't cringe every time I see a car. Unfortunately, many people who choose a large, intimidating dog, do it for ignorant reasons and then they ruin the dog and the breed's reputation. Each dog is different, just like each person is different and the dog is what it's owner makes it. I'm very sorry for anyone who has had a bad encounter with any dog and I wish the people who produced those dogs were smarter people. I will say if someone ever shot my dog because of the breed it was, without provocation, it wouldn't be a good situation for any of us involved.

-- Posted by happy1a on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 1:55 PM

How ironic that we are both Bethanys, Happy1.


My critique of studies wasn't poked at yours..it was at the Clifton study. I think that study is biased and is non-scientific and non-conclusive. There aren't a lot of studies out there...and unfortunately a lot of studies that do include small dogs don't include accurate numbers related to small dogs because events related to them are often under and/or unreported.

I still hold the stance that individuals should be required to be responsible..and that the government is not needed to create ridiculous and right-infringing ordinances.

Now..I must go to work.

-- Posted by Super_Bethie on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 2:16 PM

There are a few occasions that I agree with Peta and even the ACLU. You mistakenly try to paint all conversatives as sheeple.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 2:26 PM

There are a few occasions that I agree with Peta and even the ACLU. You mistakenly try to paint all conversatives as sheeple.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 2:26 PM


My 1:26 post was for you.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 2:29 PM


I know some "Liberals" who are more than willing to consider a wide range of opinions, one of which, Pups, use to post on here quite frequently. I also believe Me'Lange has shown herself to be open to this also a few times. I am sure there are others whose names escape me now.

I would be more than willing to listen to a "Liberal" position/viewpoint if I ever come across one that makes sense :-)

-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 2:57 PM


I agree with your last sentence. The problem is they have very few original ideas. If they (ie. the next administration, and even those that voted for them) would look into the history books, they would see all these "new" ideas they are proposing have all ready been tried, and for the most part, failed miserably. Libs wonder why we think they're insane. The definition of insanity speaks for itself.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 3:17 PM


I am inquisitive and read a varity of opinions from all political stances. But I must say that I find the liberals are the ones who, after giving their opinions, bang their heads on walls or stomp their feet if you still don't agree with them. giggle

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 3:23 PM


I am insulted when you tell me that I will compromise my vote for my own selfish special interest. You've made several innuendos about me voting for an issue just because it would benefit my needs. That is an outright lie and I'm calling you a liar.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 4:23 PM


There is a very easy way to determine whether someone is conservative or liberal. Just ask them to explain our constitutional rights. If our rights under the constitution are LIMITED by the constitution (ie. freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and seperation of chuch and state,) then more than likely they are liberal. If these right are simply given to us unconstrued, then you are more than likely speaking with a conservative. Liberals decifer the constitution in any way that fits their agenda. Conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, not inhibition.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 5:18 PM

Conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, not inhibition.

So that would make pro-choice a conservative stance?

I will go with hilleco on this one. Most who call themselves conservative are simply following the republican party line. They do not know what it means to be conservative. There was a time when being conservative was being an isolationist. Now it means being an imperialist.

There was a time when liberal meant freedom of choice and liberty. Now it means big government and handouts. Neither party is very good at walking the walk. The things I care about rarely come to fruition under either regime.

-- Posted by shortwhitebaldguy on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 5:55 PM


You posted..."Conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, not inhibition.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 4:18 pm CDT

Let me guess, you swing right? laughing

-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 5:56 PM


Don't put words in my mouth, fool.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 5:56 PM

Whoa Babe...that was totally uncalled for!

Don't worry Melange, she often gets "testy" when she is losing a debate (argument, stance etc.)

-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 6:03 PM


Explain to me where in the constitution we are given the right to pro-choice, and I will agree with you. Unfortunetly that will never happen since it is impossible to find. The only way this position can be supported is by construing the meaning of certain rights to fit ones own agenda.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 6:16 PM


While your at it, why don't you explain to me, how a TRUE conservative, who is in favor of smaller gov. be an imperialist.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 6:25 PM


A TRUE conservative in favor of smaller government would not be. However those currently in charge have certainly mouthed conservative values while expanding the scope of government and at the same time trying to enforce it upon others around the world. Sounds like imperialism to me.

-- Posted by shortwhitebaldguy on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 6:33 PM


You are right, they have mouthed our values, but have done them absolutely no justice. Our current admin. is no where near being truely conservative. In fact they have more often than not been quite the opposite, as you stated. I just didn't agree with your matter of factness about conservatives, when you were basing it on the current admin. who in many aspects we are ashamed of.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 6:42 PM


Not meaning to ignore the first post just did not read it initially. By no stretch of the imagination am I a constitutional scholar. I won't debate the constitutionality of the abortion issue as in all likelihood we agree on this point. Merely throwing the point out that those who favor pro-choice would twist those words of yours.

My opinion is that neither the republicans nor the democrats truly want to see the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Now of course I am not talking about individuals but as a governmental party I do not believe the republicans want to truly deal with the issue. They like to brandish it out there like they are trying to do something but they do not want the political consequences (not to mention the possible social consequences...but that is for another day) of an overturn.

-- Posted by shortwhitebaldguy on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 6:47 PM


I somewhat grasped your intentions in that initial post and figured we were somewhat following the same path, but for the sake of debate I took the stance I did. You will have to forgive my frequent inability to articulate my views. I am farely new to public forums of any sort (public or on-line), and in expressing my views. I am still on a constant quest for knowledge, and figured this was a great place to gain experience in expressing myself and gain knowledge. I have a feeling we are going to have to be able to express our views in a professional manner to people of "authority" in the very near future.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:00 PM

BTW I recently went on the Heritage Foundations web site and had them send me a pocket sized constitution and Declaration of Idependence, so I can actually read exactly what was written by our founding fathers. I think it is a good idea for anyone who is in search of knowledge and the truth about what was initially spelled out for our country.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:09 PM


You posted..."Conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, not inhibition.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 4:18 pm CDT

Let me guess, you swing right? laughing

-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 4:56 pm CDT

This gave me the biggest chuckle...no offense Just, it would have been funny whomever was the blunt of the joke. LOL

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:13 PM


Don't put words in my mouth, fool.

-- Posted by BABE on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 4:56 pm CDT

This sounds suspiciously like Mr. T. Do we have a celebrity among us?

-- Posted by happy1a on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:16 PM


I don't generally engage in nastiness on this forum. I may have some smart a$$ remarks at times but always figured it is better to be a smart a$$ than a dumb a$$.

It seems to me that after an 8 year term many people are tired of the lame duck and want something new. Many were tired of the Clinton cirus after 8 years. We certainly will see what the next 4 bring.

-- Posted by shortwhitebaldguy on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:21 PM


I'm not sure I fully understand your last post. I never thought you were being nasty, unless that is what you were doing just now in calling me a dumb a$$ for my ignorance.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:26 PM

Theorist, you certainly have a naughty streak.

Crikey! Sounds like everyone is letting off some steam from their intensive holiday festivities. I must say, after the TG four day weekend...I often feel like I need another 4 days off to recover.

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:27 PM


Sorry for the vagueness. I was commenting on your "newness" to this forum. Some posters may get nasty. The smart a$$ dumb a$$ references were referring to myself and not to you or any other poster. I enjoy anyone who wants to debate without any ugliness. Don't worry you would have to go quite far to offend me. There was no offense intended in my previous post.

-- Posted by shortwhitebaldguy on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 7:47 PM


You posted..."Conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, not inhibition.

-- Posted by "Right"_of_Opinion on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 4:18 pm CDT

Let me guess, you swing right? laughing

-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 4:56 pm CDT"

And if someone did...would you be the first to condemn them for it?

Just curious. I've found that some of the most "open-minded" folks..suddenly aren't when it's an actual issue and not just a theory.

(also..I am reading this as in "you swing, right (correct)" not as in "you swing right (the direction)". So if I am misreading, please feel free to clarify.

-- Posted by Super_Bethie on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 8:18 PM

"Right" -

Your comment about the constitution lit off a near-Pavlovian response - the words of the preamble started going through my head set to music.

Ah, the curses of that pre-MTV music video series known as Schoolhouse Rock. Conjunction Junction and I'm Just a Bill weren't far behind - the silly melodies with a message that I now can't get out of my mind.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 30, 2008, at 9:32 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: