There is a lot of information missing and I agree to an extent. However, the dog killed another farmers livestock and tried to bite her. I would definitely try to rehome them but I can also see needing to put the dog down. I was bitten by a dog when I was around 10 and the owners put the dog down the next day. They did it the "humane" way through the vet but they did put it down for one mistake. This wasnt a farm setting though.
So basically, to avoid hypocrisy on this matter you have to be a Vegan hippie in order to be against summary puppy executions? Interesting “logic”.
One example is content in school libraries. Yes, this is a conservative hot button item but I agree with them on this one. If you want your children to learn about alternative things in life at a younger age then most would even dream about, by all means live your life and expose them to whatever it is you feel will make them into a better, more intellectual or more thoughful person. Im all for it, but why is there a need for that content to be readily available at a school library? Leave that in the home or public libraries and keep it out of at a minimum Elementary and Middle schools. Some people say that simply saying these books shouldn't be in the SCHOOL library is trying to restrict their freedoms. I think people who demand them be available in school settings is pushing their idealogy onto other children.
The left isn't requiring anyone to read them. Think about it, the right routinely says what you can't do, the left is let me do me. Obviously criminal behavior shouldn't be tolerated but neither should, for the large part, moral beliefs or restrictions be forced on others. Not saying 14 year Olds should be drinking or marrying so there must be some moral based rules but the right wants to force their morals while the left asks that you not legislate theirs
If its in a school library, my child has nobody telling them they can or cannot read something. A lot of times these books don't make it home. So my child is getting taught about life changing subjects by an author of a book instead of allowing the parents to control how and when they learn about this kind of stuff. If you teach the basics in sexual education, sure, Im fine with that. However, they do not need to be subjected to some of the content I've seen in these books. Its simply not necessary to be in a school setting. There are plenty of book stores, libraries, apps, websites etc etc you can go to if you want your children to learn about this stuff at the age YOU think is appropriate. How am I to know my child is reading this and how do I have any say over the subject when its easily availabe for browsing in a school library? Does it really have to be in the school library? At the very least keep it out of Elementary and Middle schools. I feel like High schoolers are of age to start to be able to understand their sexuality in such a way to not be confused by what they are reading. By the way, I think people closest to the center on both sides (probably the majority of people) are more of the "do you, let me do me" types of people. The far right (mostly religious people) and far left are the ones that go to extremes with this kind of stuff. Republicans trying to ban the literature or culture of Gay and trans people is a far right idea and one I don't agree with. However, I think there is an age at which they should start learning about this stuff and I think its best for all parties involved to leave it up to the parents up until a certain age. I honestly don't think that is unreasonable.
You don’t seem to know much about farming, animals or people away from the libbie cities. Try more listening/reading…and less chatting/posting.
She might be a pompous, out of touch idiot. I don’t know for sure. My guess is she’s not as bad as the libbies want her to be. I’m not so quick to say the terrible things that many are deducing based on a snippet of her book.
True, she wrote about it in a book, but that does not necessarily mean that Democrats (and even some Republicans based on what I have read) are not leaving out essential details that provide context to the story. I mean they could have called her and asked about the incident before writing about it. That is what a good journalist would do. The details about the dog killing her neighbor's animals and the dog biting her...those things matter. A dangerous animal should be put down. These are details a journalist who does not have a political mission, and who is trying to do more than just write a hit piece would have picked up on. It will be interesting to see what the actual book says when it was released, what context details in the story were left out, etc.
That is sad what she did, but so is killing puppies like Dr. Mengele Fauci has done. Killing innocent animals for no reason is despicable.
God forbid a lazy dog killer is the victim of lax journalistic practices. The party of even the loser gets a trophy seems to always find a way to play the victim.
Yes, of course Donald Trump wants his face added to Mount Rushmore South Dakota Gov. Noem gave Trump mini Mount Rushmore with his face New York Times: White House reached out to South Dakota governor about adding Trump to Mount Rushmore
Sounds like she was just ingratiating herself to Trump. As I said, no way she meant it literally. Just dumb politics guys.
Even assuming that the dog had to be put down and my impression is that she had alternatives to killing the dog, what I find reprehensible isn't just the she shot her dog but that she was gloating about the act. Like her idol the defeated indicted former president she seems to be completely lacking in compassion and empathy.
Those details are in every article about I’ve read, and they’re pulling them as direct quotes from her book. They don’t need to call her to ask her for more detail about what she herself wrote. Just accept that she is, at a minimum, completely politically tone-deaf if she didn’t realize that she was torpedoing herself as a national candidate by writing it.
