This genesis of this bill was the slaughter, for human consumption, of the Kentucky Derby winner, Fernando. Obviously this generated lots of outrage.

No it isn't a good bill. But you have a very emotional base for the bill and it will pass.

I agree that animals are property, have no rights and the private property rights of their owners should be fully respected. If those owners wish to slaughter for human consumption, that too should be fully respected.

animals are indeed property, but they are not the same as a car or a painting. They're alive, and while they dont have rights in the human sense, they deserve to be treated humanely no matter what their ultimate fate is. One of the worst experiences I've ever had with a "libertarian" was some "libertarian" robot who claimed that pet animal owners have every right to torture and starve any animal they owned with impunity.

I dont support the "rights" of people to club, knife, shoot, or starve their animals to death when a for a trip to the vet and a very tiny fee they can be euthanized without pain and suffering. If this makes me less libertarian than thee, I'll get over it, believe me.

Libertarians that can't tell or dont care about the differences between living creatures and inanimate objects and apply blanket LP litmus tests to both instances resemble humans a lot less than monkeys, gorillas, or horses do.

I was talking particularly about PETA and the nut-jobs who ascribe rights to animals. No I do not advocate cruelty and people should exercise humane standards in slaughter of animal stock. There is a difference in exercising humane standards and ascribing rights to animals.

Yes, the comment was not targeted at you Mark - you just reminded me of the pervert I had the run in with so I related the experience. I should have said so. He really did think that advocating cruelty to animals made him more libertarian somehow. He was proud of his opinion.

While my gripe is not material to the thrust of your post, I do wish libertarians would stop commenting on the problem of the budget deficit. The deficit is not the problem; wasteful government spending is.

If we focus on the wrong economic problems, we are sure to get the wrong economic solutions.

Congress cannot solve the big problems....or they dont want to for whatever reason. So they do this horse slaughter thing to make it look like they are doing something.

I agree that animals should be legally protected from cruel treatment, but humane slaughter is OK.

I would want to point out that if folks wanted to truly do something good, they would change their consumption preferences on eggs and poultry. This is the one field of agriculture where I think humanity is lacking. Most chickens live their lifes out under inhumane conditions.

The solution for this is NOT government, mind you. This is a case for consumers expressing their preferences via purchasing power. Buy the organic free range poultry and eggs. More expensive, but if enough people do it you send a message to producers.

The beef, lamb and pork industries are humane for the most part. A few bad apples, but these are few and far between.

The Congress should be protecting this nation. They should be getting together on concentrating on the following:

1. Protecting U.S borders by increasing border patrol and putting military troops to back them up.

2.Protecting U.S. Ports from attack.

3.Making sure emergency first responders and other medical personnel have the equipment they need in case of emergencies,terrorist or otherwise.

4. Making sure federal law enforcement have what they need to connect the dots when a terrorist attack occurs.

5.Making sure the military is well equipped and trained.

6. Making sure the states have what is needed to protect those residing there.

7. Making sure that the federal justice system, courts and others are equipped to meet emergencies.

8. Making sure Federal Air Marshalls are on every plane.

9. Making sure the U.S. intelligence gathering is streamlined and made more effective

10. Making sure that the U.S. has sufficent amounts of troops to meet any emrgency here at home.

The Congress should be concentrating on this and not horses.

I'm sorry, Alex. I don't agree with some of your sentiments.

While I agree Horses are not a concern of government: local, state, or federal regardless of how full or empty their plates are, neither is ensuring that federal air marshalls are on every plane.

Planes are private property and the security of its passengers are the responsibility of the airlines.

As a consumer, I would not travel by means I felt were unsafe or uncomfortable and if airlines wanted my business, they're responsible for making sure I'm safe and comfortable.

States are soverign, and their security is also their primary responsibility. The union was formed for protection against common enemies. So yes, if anyone attacks one state, they attack us all, but it's our job to protect ourselves.

I'd also like to see emergency responses privatized, at least in the health care sector if not most sectors (including law enforcement).

The only thing the federal government and its branches need to focus on is securing our borders to ensure no criminals or terrorists enter, maintaining and improving our armed forces, spying on other nations to forewarn us of attacks, and otherwise ensuring that no one strips the people of their natural rights against their will.

People are able and should be left to provide for themselves.

Well, aint this dandy? We're gonna send a few more good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas all in the names of some stupid ethics crusade.

And to the guy above me wanting to privatize the cops: thanks, but no thanks.

Animals do have rights. They have a right to a fork, a knife, and some good Kansas City Bar-b-q sauce. They have a right to a place on your plate, at least equal to vegetables.

But seriously folks...

As an avid ETHICAL hunter and conservationist, I always ask one question from the PETA types: If animals have RIGHTS, what are their RESPONSIBILITIES?