Jackson Jambalaya

Waide apparently believes the goal of this law is to, quote, “destroy meat animal production so that we all become vegetarians,” then “start working on the vegetarian side so that we have to depend on imported food.”
We can add this paranoid drivel to the long list of idiotic things Waide has said, which includes but is not limited to:
"This will impact things that you don't think of, like corn and soybean production"
and:
we should not make animal cruelty a felony because having a felony conviction "creates a problem for that person to ever be employable again."
Make up your mind, Waide. Are you afraid of vegetarian world domination? Are you an advocate for felons? Are you a secret abuser of soybean plants?
What an idiot. Are the members of Farm Bureau really proud to have this fool representing them?

Waide really does invent his own reality, doesn't he?

If the only person talking to the farmers of the state, though, is saying that those of us who support anti-cruelty legislation are PETA nuts, then that's all they'll think. Time for sensible, meat-eating, pet-loving people to start talking to these farmers directly.

MFB doesn't list all their members online, but here's some people to get in touch with:

Mississippi Cattlemen: http://www.mscattlemen.org/mississippibreeders.aspx

Mississippi Horse Breeders: http://www.equinenow.com/mississippibreeding.htm

There also ought to be a way to get in touch with non-Waide MSU Ag graduates.

I'm still stunned about Waide. He's reached the delusional stage of "cranky old man-ness."

The comments are too stupid to even comment on.

Signed,

Meat Eater

What's beyond "Whacked Out?" I think he's passed it.

I will add that his unwarranted assault on eminent domain rights threatens to undercut all the economic development gains made in the past 10 years.

Mr. Waide is supporting a third-offense bill for animal cruelty. Mr. Waide, just answer this question and we will all stop asking for a bill like this to be passed: If abusing an animal hurts meat, corn, and soybean production the first two times they do it, why doesn't it hurt meat, corn, and soybean production the third time? Signed, Kim Wolford

2:36, be careful about using logic -- Mr. Waide will surmise you must be one of those tofu-eating, Commie-pinko PETA hippies, obfuscating the issue with your fancy reasoning.

Any lobbyist will go to great lengths to make his client believe the "nose under the tent" danger, whether it's abortion, gun control or animal cruelty. Waide, and any other Farm Bureau member, should be ashamed to not support stronger animal cruelty laws, and hopefully his replacement will have more of an open mind. My wife and I rescue abused horses, and there can't be anyone who would condone some of the things we've seen. Mississippi needs to step up, and the Farm Bureau and others who fear all of us animal rights wackos need to shut up and let it pass. Bill Billingsley

Sorry, what was I thinking??????

Waide needs his own bunker and lots of .22 ammo, BUT,

you folks need to know that there aren't enough resources at present to prosecute people that KILL PEOPLE and arm rob people and arm carjack people, etc.

the prosecutors don't need the burden of having to add a "dog and cat team" to the staffs.

Waide's comments are the most asinine statements I have ever heard. First off, those who are concerned about animal welfare are predominantly meat eating (including myself), grassroots Mississippians who not only want to protect the dogs and cats from such heinous acts of cruelty, but also the people of this state. Research shows 44% go on to commit violent acts against people so to overlook these situations is ludicrous! I certainly do not want these type individuals working with our elderly, children, vulnerable adults or even with myself. The dangers they can inflict on those who cannot speak or defend themselves are immense! It is time for MS people to stand their ground and say "NO MORE will we succumb to the wrath of such idiots such as David Waide!"

What a low browed Neanderthal!He doesn't get this isn't about ANIMAL RIGHTS, this is about the rights of people who own animals and those who want pschopaths identified and off the streets!

Unfortunately, 6:22 brings a practical consideration to the discussion. Without going off on an unintended thread, some sort of fast tracking of people like this -as well as many deserving others - needs to be implemented to keep the courts from being clogged and our taxes from going up. BB

Waide and Stokes are just about two of a kind. Dumb and Dumber. Am glad I don't have anymore Farm Bureau Insurance and my daughter doesn't work there anymore.

I put Mr. Waide in the same catagory as Mr. Stokes, DUMB and DUMBER, am glad I no longer have my insurance with Farm Bureau and that my daughter who worked there a lot of years, no longer does.

6:22pm:

Isn't there overlap between the people who think torching fluffy is fun and the people who think dragging innocent purse wearing humans behind cars a good time? Hm?

7:12, the solution offered to the FB was that these offenders, once identified, was to have them wear an ankle bracelet so as not to clog the system. And I am one of the people that helped to craft last year's bill and I eat meat, not tofu (does anybody really eat that stuff???). Waide is beyond ignorant, he is deceptive and untrustworthy. The FB should be embarrassed that this jackass led them for 20 years.

Kingfish, every time you post one of these, we get the best comments.

By the way, I am adamantly opposed to making animal cruelty a felony. Normal people should know right from wrong.

The thing that makes our country great is that Christian morality needs no law to signify right from wrong. I wish that "Progressives" had not made it necessary to put laws on the books like the one proposed.

Mr. Mitchell, "normal" people don't abuse animals. That is why 46 other states have these types of laws. Study after study shows that these sick people move on to abuse, rape, murder normal people. That is why we are pushing for this law. How would you feel if you wife or daughter were raped by an individual that started their criminal career as an animal abuser? I would bet that you would then support a felony bill.

Paul, I wish we could trust that everyone knew right from wrong. I think experience tells us that our trust in humanity is mislaid.

We already have a felony bill for rape, so that is a strawman.

I am for limited government. Sorry, I'll never be for this one, but that doesn't make animal cruelty right in my mind.

I am also for rolling back the number of other laws we have on the books.

While I sympathize with Paul on this re: limited government; I just disagree on this issue of Felony animal abuse. I attended the committee meeting and was surprised to hear that law enforcement on this particular subject made the point that it would be very limited in application, but would serve to help in heinous situations.

On this issue, while I agree that there are too many laws on the books, especially ones that should be enforced but are not, the issue of the abuse this type of law is meant to eradicate is well-founded and narrowly applied.

I pray that the final language is narrowly defined and is applicable to the situations current law enforcement "rarely" face; but when they do, they are powerless to stop it.

And Paul, you know as well as I do, the definition of "normal" is a broad one.

KK, we can always hope that the government won't write legislation that is poorly worded and is limited in scope, but we are dumb for doing that.

You are right, Pandora cursed us.

And I could not even write a one sentence comment that was worded well.

Judging by what's posted here, Mr. Kingfish is about 50 IQ points below Mr. Waide.

OK. Esplain dat maff.

Re: 8:45 - is the moderation process suspended? Are we back to getting gratuitous, baseless personal attacks that are off-topic and don't advance the debate (i.e., discussing issues rather than ad hominem attacks from nitwits who seem to be consumed with personal animosity towards KF)?

Everyone associated with FB should be thoroughly ashamed to be linked to this moron (Waide) - please let us know if he really still thinks he could win a statewide election.

Paul Mitchell can't help it if his wiring isn't connected properly- it happens.
It is interesting that his profile shows his interests as "Not much of nothing." That says a great deal about his thought processes.

ANYONE who thinks animals don't have the RIGHT to be protected under law from intentional torture and abuse from humans needs to spend some time helping out at animal abuse shelters.

Humans who are sociopaths, perverts or just plain mean find that harming animals is often the easiest and safest way to satisfy their need to harm others until a better opportunity arises.
There is a need to remove these human predators from society-- for our sake and the sake of innocent animals.

Anon 8:00, sorry, I KNOW that animals do not have rights. That is silly to normal people.

What we are talking about actually, is if humans have the right to abuse animals. Clearly that is silly, too.

Kingfish, this is why this should not be a felony. Because of that ridiculous person that thinks as they do. The slippery slope is just too damned slippery.

Mr. Mitchell, the bills and laws are in no way about animal "rights," as you put it. It is about the long-term effects of when these abusers move on to people. As previously stated, study after study shows that eventually they are going to start in on people. These laws are put in place to prevent harm to not only domestic animals but people such as your family. To use your words, a "normal" person would have the intelligence to understand this concept.

8:27, are you narrowly defining "rights" as it relates to the political aspect?
I am using "rights" in the moral sense of being what is just, good, and proper.

To appease your rather strong belief that animals do not have rights, I would say that WE, as humans, should ALLOW animals, under law, protection from INTENTIONAL torture and abuse.

Anon 9:38, I am well aware, however there was an anonymous psycho that commented at 8:00am that thinks that animals HAVE rights. That is who I responded to. Again, that is the slippery slope that we are on. You and I can agree that to abuse animals is wrong, but there are some really dumb people that do not know that and take things to the crazy point that animals have rights.

Sorry, I am never going to change my opinion on this, I see that there are too many possibilities to get it wrong. As long as there are Democrats, passing any kind of legislation that can be misinterpreted is suicidal.

9:49, remember the old adage-"Never say never!"
I don't think anyone would attempt to change your "written in stone" viewpoint. Most are giving their reasons why they see this in a different light.
I suppose as you get older you, too, just might see it more clearly.
Waide hasn't, so that doesn't always hold true.

Anon 1:33, I am going to assume that you are addressing me since I was the only one to post at 9:49.

Being almost fifty years old, I am pretty sure that I am not going to change my opinion on whether or not I shall begin to trust government. When they have never given me a reason to do that EVER in my lifetime, I think I'll stick with what I know to be true, that elected officials are pretty much all untrustworthy.

Of course, if they do pass additional laws further protecting animals, I'll follow those, too, even though I have never been cruel to any animals. And I hate cats!

1:54 said "...that elected officials are pretty much all untrustworthy."
If you feel that way I have no doubt how you would hold up in a society governed by unelected officials.
The sound of Comrade Mitchell isn't pleasant to the ear, is it?

So, to you the opposite of trusting elected officials is endorsing Communism? Logic is a curious thing in your world, friend.

Paul Mitchell, No, that is not what I said.

Not trusting elected officials allows us to cast a vote against them and hopefully have enough votes to remove them in the next election.

You said previously that you have NEVER been given a reason to trust elected officials EVER in your lifetime.

I merely pointed out the alternative in which we are governed by UNelected officials.

Something tells me that you read words into statements that aren't there.
Could that possibly be your problem with this animal cruelty topic?

Either way, I find you to be an unreasonable person, and there is no way to reason with an unreasonable person.
Merry Christmas!

I eat meat, own a dog, and hate the actions of the PETA militants but you David Waide are a doofus!

Anon 8:36, I am uncertain why you think that I an unreasonable. I guess that gathering experience and making calculated decisions based upon historical proof and personal knowledge means that someone is unreasonable to you. Because that is what I took from what you commented.

Or maybe if someone doesn't agree with you, THAT makes them unreasonable? Sorry, that is unreasonable.

8:31 said: "I guess that gathering experience and making calculated decisions based upon historical proof and personal knowledge means that someone is unreasonable to you."

You have not presented any evidence of your experience or calculated decisions relating to historical proof based on your personal knowledge.
Most of what you have written relates to your extreme distrust of elected officials. You must have gotten in the cross-hairs of government at one time or the other. No? Okay.

Like it or not, our officials are elected. They serve us by enforcing law and making law.
Our government is based on this. Live with it!
You appear to have become paranoid just like Waide.

The animal abuse felony law should not be complicated nor deceptive if written precisely. Protection of animals from intentional abuse should carry stiff penalties for those who engage in such activity. That is a no-brainer.

Exercising your right to vote is about all you can do concerning you distrust of officials- unless you want to appear before a committee and voice your disapproval and distrust in person.

I've said all I have to say to you about this matter.
No doubt you will have the last word. Carry on...

Anon 11:27, I appreciate your opinions and respect them. I have stated on numerous occassions that I would abide by the rule of law because I am a law abiding citizen that has never been cruel to animals. However, there are just too many ways that any law can go awry. Witness DADT. There are countless other government policies and regs, too numerous to mention, that also fall under the failure column. Do you want me to point out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, one-way Capitol Street, Blue Laws, Jim Crow Laws...you know, HISTORY?

No, all of my opinions are not formed because I have had run ins with the law, I have watched politicians pander to certain constituencies and then turn around and do just the opposite. Or how about the Fourteenth Amendment being interpreted to mean that any Mexican that gets into the United States and has a child gets free everything?

Why must you attempt to berate me because I am more in the Jeffersonian Camp than you are? Personally, I think that my ideology is much more reasonable than someone who totally ignores history and wants to make laws that normal people do not need. Should we set about making laws to etch out the sentencing for people like Jeffrey Dahmer? Boy, and how that predetermined sentencing worked out, huh?

Sorry, I have no need for an animal cruelty law because normal citizens do not need anything like that to keep us from burning pets. But, what about potbellied pigs, raccoons, opossums, and squirrels?

"Sorry, I have no need for an animal cruelty law because normal citizens do not need anything like that to keep us from burning pets. "

Normal people don't murder each other either - should we therefore not have laws against murder? Laws are on the books because some loon, somewhere, sometime, has done or will do something that most people find revolting.

You missed the point of the last paragraph, Anon, it was about how the pet thing would lead to every animal under the sun. But nice the way that you equate animal cruelty to murder of a human being. That is certainly NOT a slippery slope.

I never knew that a proponent of the law would be the best debater against it.

Paul Mitchell I wish you were as wise as you think you are. My hopes for you someday is to end up in a position where you are unable able to speak or defend yourself and have to have home health or live in a nursing home being taken care of by a person who has gotten a nursing degree, therapy, etc, such as they guy in Natchez that burned his dog alive, take care of you. Then, when you can't speak or defend yourself and he or whoever who fits this prototype takes care of you, thus decides you are their next target!

Anon 10:46, what I wish for you is that you never meet up with anyone as utterly hateful as you appear. Wishing for a human being to suffer kinda contradicts your professed love of animals. Did you proof how hideous your comment was before you hit "Publish?"

yep, the man is unreasonable, and I'm way over 55. too hung up on semantics to see the damn point. or too afraid of peta people. and that is really pitiful.

The biggest problem I see with every version of the proposed law I'm aware of is that it far too broadly defines cruelty. It's not at all limited to torture, etc., but would also include the simple and humane killing of stray animals on one's own property. That is in no way cruel or felonious.