Sunday, August 19, 2007


I have been wondering what it is that eludes some people about the crime of dogfighting. It isn't an act of Fine Southern Culture or a Basic Right of Southern Life.

The problem and confusion over the crime stems (possibly) from some deep-seated confusion over what dogfighting is and what it isn't. State Rep. Stacey Campfield provides a glimpse into the confusion with this statement:

Dog fighting is cruel and inhumane. But if Vick could have figured out a way to pit two unborn babies against each other in a fight to the death, maybe we'd outlaw killing children as quickly as we rushed to enhance penalties for crimes involving our pets."

Honestly, what the hell does the above even mean? It's pure crap.

Try sticking to the issue at hand rather than playing a miserable game of bait-and-switch politics. Shameful, really shameful Mr. The Rep.

(hat tip to Aunt B. for pointing out Campfield's nonsense)

SEE ALSO: The dogfighting in Morristown takes place in the middle of town, less than half a mile away from the Sheriff's Dept.


  1. I read Campfield's abhorrent post last night, and I was too disturbed by its idiocy to respond.

    The fact that he resorts to name calling only enforces the fact that he is petty and juvenile. This man has no business representing a constituency. I'm still surprised anyone would vote him back into office.

  2. An aside:

    LA-B is watching the pre-season Sunday Night Football game and I just heard the sports commentator say that the NFL isn't so concerned with the fact that Michael Vick was involved in dogfighting per se, it's the illegal gambling that makes them mad.


  3. Asshats are pretty much a worldwide phenomenon these days.

  4. Anonymous5:11 PM

    If we fight unborn babies instead of dogs, what position will their mothers have to assume to make this possible?

    No wagering, please ... this is merely a demonstration sport.