Ron Paul votes to squish small animals

[HeXploiT]

Ron Paul, Tom Graves and Paul Brown: Only ones to vote against Animal Crush videos bill.

On a rare show of bipartisanship that included Michelle Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi, the house voted today to make it a crime for anyone to "knowingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain sell or offer to sell, or distribute or offer to distribute, an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce". The final vote was 416 to 3, with 13 DNV's. The 3 members to vote against the bill were Republicans Ron Paul (TX), Tom Graves (GA) and Paul Brown (GA).

We reached Congressman Paul's office, and they advised examiner.com that Rep Paul found the bill to be unconstitutional.

Crush videos, are defined on the bill as "animal crush video" as any obscene photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, or electronic image that depicts actual conduct in which one or more living animals is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals under federal law or the law of the state in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution." It should be noted that the bill excludes hunting videos and veterinary procedures.

And yet, Paul, Graves and Brown could not vote for it? How far gone do they have to be to object to it? One has to wonder, what will animal lovers in the tea party, and who support these 3 Congressmen will think. Crush videos have nothing to do with expression. They are a evidence of a crime on video a perverted soul will watch to induce sexual gratification. If animal cruelty is a crime, then crush videos are a crime.

Source= Examiner

Clearly Ron Paul loathes small animals and wants to see them crushed.
Just look at the photo of this guy.

Wackjob wants there to be a small mammal holocaust and he supports the rich profiting while doing so.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm glad Congress can waste time will bills like this. While I have no problem with the law itself, there's better things for Congress to be focusing on, especially right now.

If I was a congressmen when the bill was brought up, I would have stood up and asked if we were still in two wars, a recession, and a debt crisis.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm going to file this rage under the "I don't care anymore" column.

Political spin is out of control.

 

[First]

What's sad is that he really believes it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

what is sad is that "knowingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain sell or offer to sell, or distribute or offer to distribute, an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce" could easily describe documentary-style videos of, say, an inhumane chicken or cow processing plant.

The federal government should only regulate our free speech when that speech is going to cause undue irreparable harm, such as child porn. Start steeping past that and you're going to get unintended consequences (or, rather, intended covert consequences)

 

[Lemon law]

Its always the silly season in Washington DC. Usually Ron Paul is the silly guy, but in this case he is on the right side. Just goes to show us, we can't rely on anything except for it always being the silly season.

 

[Sclamoz]

Its always the silly season in Washington DC. Usually Ron Paul is the silly guy, but in this case he is on the right side. Just goes to show us, we can't rely on anything except for it always being the silly season.

A woman local to where I live was busted making those a few years ago and they played some clips of that sick shit on the news, I don't see how anyone can be against outlawing it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

All inhumane treatment of animals should be illegal. If you let ideology (animals are no more than private property) get in the way of that you really are a POS IMO. Yes, even you Ron.

 

[Kappo]

So they voted that PETA cannot make videos of animals being slaughtered on their website so long as they have ads on their site that generate income?

 

[IronWing]

When the Fed starts crushing animals, Mr. Paul will change his tune.

 

[StageLeft]

He is consistent. If it's not in the constitution he votes against it. In some ways it's admirable, in most ways not. He basically doesn't think laws should be any different than they were 200 years ago, that nothing has changed in the world that would require a tweak of the justice system. And in this sense it's pathetic.

But I'm surprised this kind of thing isn't already illegal. Is it not? It must be.

 

[misle]

He is consistent. If it's not in the constitution he votes against it. In some ways it's admirable, in most ways not. He basically doesn't think laws should be any different than they were 200 years ago, that nothing has changed in the world that would require a tweak of the justice system. And in this sense it's pathetic.

But I'm surprised this kind of thing isn't already illegal. Is it not? It must be.

Animal abuse is illegal, probably on the state level. I don't really see why we need a federal law stating that if you record and publish that same abuse, you break another law.

 

[NoStateofMind]

But I'm surprised this kind of thing isn't already illegal. Is it not? It must be.

Animal cruelty?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Animal abuse is illegal, probably on the state level. I don't really see why we need a federal law stating that if you record and publish that same abuse, you break another law.

This law deals with the distribution or sale of abuse videos, not their creation.

 

[bamacre]

This law deals with the distribution or sale of abuse videos, not their creation.

Yes. That's why these issues should be handled by states.

Nevertheless, I'm glad Congress has time to deal with this issue. I assume then they've tended to all the other more pertinent matters.

 

[BoberFett]

Why should these "crush videos" be illegal? Isn't animal cruelty already illegal? Do we need laws that further criminalize something while treading into 1st Amendment territory?

 

[BoberFett]

What's sad is that he really believes it.

What's truly sad is that you don't understand why. You're ignorance is astounding.

 

[Sclamoz]

Yes. That's why these issues should be handled by states.

So should the legality of buying and selling child porn be left to individual states?

Why should these "crush videos" be illegal? Isn't animal cruelty already illegal? Do we need laws that further criminalize something while treading into 1st Amendment territory?

Because this is porn of women torturing small animals to death? How about why shouldn't these videos be illegal?

 

[Kappo]

The real problem is that somewhere, some idiot needs this law to know that distributing the torture of animals for money is wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

How about why shouldn't these videos be illegal?

Because you won't stop there.

 

[IronWing]

So they voted that PETA cannot make videos of animals being slaughtered on their website so long as they have ads on their site that generate income?

This could be the real target of the law. Agribusiness trying to stop folks from publicizing industry practices.

 

[Kappo]

This could be the real target of the law. Agribusiness trying to stop folks from publicizing industry practices.

Well it pretty much kills off any documentaries in the livestock industry and lets people be blind to what it is that they are eating.

Make no mistake, I will eat just about anything that used to have a face pretty much regardless of how it makes it to my plate. However, stopping the public from being educated about how things work is never a good idea.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Such videos are evidence of a crime. It should be illegal to profit from the crime. Pretty simple logic to me.

Suggesting that slaughterhouse video used for reporting purposes falls into this category is silly since it depicts no crime.

And why did this pass when there are so many other pressing issues? Because the Republicans have been impeding every thing else of importance.

 

[HeXploiT]

All inhumane treatment of animals should be illegal. If you let ideology (animals are no more than private property) get in the way of that you really are a POS IMO. Yes, even you Ron.

Inhumane treatment of animals IS illegal.
This bill has nothing to do with the treatment of animals and everything to do with freedom of speech and poorly written government legislation to regulate therein.
I don't hate gerbils. Some of my best friends are gerbils.

 

[Moonbeam]

All this is just a warm up for thirty years in prison for tying your shoe. Either that or I'm completely deranged.

Anybody remember when Mommy and Daddy made the rules. Now there was some real insanity. After a few beatings you learned what to pay attention to. I got a real aversion to being told what to do. You?