2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I think that both campains have use misleading ads.  I would like to know the truth about the whole situation.  My question is: How can they justify the claims that they make?

Donald Davis

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

More and more I see people claming that their pets are service dogs.  As far as I know a licenced service animal has to wear a vest that shows that it is licenced.  My sister has trained therpy dogs and is licenced to train them.  When she takes her dogs to any function (Be it a handicapped camp or a hospital.) the dogs have to wear the service dog's vest.  I think that if the animal is not wearing the vest they should not be allowed into animal restriced buildings.  Some people have a fixed income and cann't afford to buy the vests, but there are outfits that will help them get the vest.

D Davis

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context