User Profile: DytchWytch

DytchWytch

Member Since: June 05, 2011

Comments

  • September 19, 2013 at 2:12am

    in 2010, how many people were killed in home invasions, because they did not have the means to protect themselves?
    in 2010, how many people were killed in the streets, by muggers and thugs, because they were not adequately armed?
    i’m pretty sure the number is greater than 606.

  • July 22, 2012 at 4:16am

    sadly, you cannot embarrass those who do not have shame. :/

  • November 21, 2011 at 3:32pm

    for such a small minority, these atheists surely seem to be given the power to derail every bit of public observance of traditional religious holidays, for the rest of us. poor them! …discriminated against, my a$$. they’re accommodated, left and right, until our holidays don’t resemeble what they are!

  • October 4, 2011 at 7:21pm

    the rosary is a catholic symbol of faith, and it isn’t intended to be work as a “necklace”. people who go around wearing these, many of whom have no idea how to even say the rosary, just look like fools.

  • September 24, 2011 at 10:47am

    (cont.)…because you are such an excellent and responsible trained dog owner. tell me, do plott hounds comprise the majority of fatal dog attacks and dog maimings in this country? if they did, then they would be better known like, oh, say, PIT BULLS! no matter how you feel about the nurture vs. nature arguement, the majority of people who own those type of dogs are never going to get any specialized behavioral training for their dogs, so the whole point of your arguement is pretty much moot.

    peruse these statistics, if you like. observe, the pit bull excells in areas beyond those attributes you praise them for; maimings are included in the report, also killings:

    http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/8689-dog-bite-statistics-breed.html

    you can shut your trap. i’ve owned plenty of dogs; rescued shelter dogs, not bought and bred dogs, and my dogs have always been well behaved. you can snap at everyone who disagrees with you, like a little purse dog, all you want.

    In reply to the story Should Certain Dog Breeds Be Banned?

  • September 24, 2011 at 10:45am

    well, sasquatch08, you certainly are proud of your dog, specifically bred for power and aggression, you can mock whomever you choose, on this forum, and pretend none who disagree with you has any education or great gobs of reason, to match the intellectual gifts you seem to think you have, but if something ever happens with one of your uber-dogs, you certainly aren’t going to want to be responsible. suppose your dog mauls a little kid. would your first concern be “why you??”.

    i’ve met a lot of people who have owned pit bulls, over the years, and plenty of them have never bothered with any kind of dog behavior training. its not a requirement, for ownership of those kinds of dogs, and it certainly isn’t a guaranteed safeguard against attack. the ones who have bothered with any kind of specialized training, specifically kept those dogs to fight. one of my parents’ a**hole neighbors had about five of them chained up in his yard, and bragged about how he fed them raw meat and gun powder, to make them mean.

    you brag that you could feed your dog “purse dogs” as snacks, and your dog can kill a fully grown human in under a minute, IF IT DECIDES TO. you sound pretty proud of those attributes, and just a tich, oh, i don’t know…arrogant. i hope your ego doesn’t get someone unfortunate enough to live near you killed, because you’ve got to have a tank dog, and you think it will always observe your wishes; because you are such an excellent and responsible trained

    In reply to the story Should Certain Dog Breeds Be Banned?

  • September 24, 2011 at 5:52am

    i don’t have any use for pit bulls. people can argue nurture over nature, and prattle on about how “its how you raise them…”, etc.; but in my opinion, they are only good for one thing. its dog fighting that has made the breed what it is, today; weaker dogs were culled out, and only the strongest and most aggressive were bred to perpetuate the breed. those dogs have been bred for stamina, tolerance for pain and aggression. if one get on you, you won’t be able to hurt it enough, to get it off of you. you’ll have to kill it, if you’re lucky.

    some people say they are good hog dogs, whatever those are. i think that’s pure bull crap with no chicory, and that most of those “hog dogs” are bought and trained for fighting.

    the thing is, when your darling family pet snaps, and kills some poor kid or some elderly person in the neighborhood, you aren’t going to want to be responsible; and trust me, you will never have enough money to recompense, if some tragic, fatal, dog attack should unfold, and someone i love is harmed, maimed or killed. maybe a pound or two of your flesh might do; but nothing less.

    any dog can turn on it’s owner, or people in general, but a chihuahua can’t kill you. its not an accident that pit bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks. it makes me unhappy to know that my well being could hinge on some idiot redneck’s faith in his dog’s good behavior. “oooh, sorry.” will never be good enough, after something bad h

    In reply to the story Should Certain Dog Breeds Be Banned?

    Responses (1) +
  • August 30, 2011 at 10:40am

    perpetuate, don’t you mean?

  • June 18, 2011 at 6:15am

    where was this ever published, if not publicized?? not that it would harm the anointed one, as he’s never held accountable for his words, deeds, policies, practices, etc. just curious about the source, so i can re-post it on my forums.

  • June 18, 2011 at 5:45am

    why would this guy and his administration think they are bound by law and the constitution of the united states, which they all swore to uphold? after all, he lies about his birthplace and his eligibility to hold the office of the president of the united states (that birth certificate is a fake), he lies about his faith because it seemingly would have affected his popularity as a candidate. he stole half of the michigan qualifying votes for the party nomination; that is, howard dean decided to award (reassign, that is; as in, redistribute other peoples’ votes at his own discretion, which at the very least, is unethical, if not outright illegal) half of michigan’s votes to him, instead of to hillary, who won that state, and that bum in the white house sat back and graciously accepted those votes, as if they were his due. does anyone remember acorn, and their illegal activities, and how much “help” he received from them, before they were defunded, due to fraud? why weren’t they punished, for breaking the law, by the way? why on earth would this guy, and his administration made up of non-elected, appointed officials think the constitution of the united states and the law prove any sort of obstacles for him and his bunch of thugs? the whole land is sitting back, and letting him do as he wishes, with no repercussions. disgraceful.