On Jun 30, 8:54*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

On Jul 1, 12:01*am, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:54*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

hey rupert just wondering the statement from peta is "jessica Simpson
does not have the right eat what she wants" last time I looked she did
Am I missing something here?

On Jun 30, 9:06*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.
Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.
No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always pound sand up my ass.

Right.

It just never stops, does it, Ball? Now you're reduced to editing text
and you still won't give up. You never get tired of making me laugh.

On Jun 30, 9:11*pm, wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:01*am, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 30, 8:54*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

hey rupert just wondering the statement from peta is "jessica Simpson
does not have the right eat what she wants" last time I looked she did
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are. People don't have the right to eat what they want. I
don't have the right to kill you and eat you, that is not
controversial.

What people do and don't have the right to eat is a matter for
reasonable disagreement and there should be free and open discussion
of it in a free society. Expressing an opinion different to that of
the mainstream is not a form of bullying. Dragging people into court
for expressing their opinion and talking some rubbish about how they
have violated the Trade Practices Act is.

On Jun 30, 9:06*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.
Oh, yes, Rudy, of course it is an attempt to have a serious
conversation.
It was.

Rudy, I sincerely thank you

You're welcome, shit-4-braincell.

It's big of you.

On Jul 1, 12:14*am, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:11*pm, wrote:





On Jul 1, 12:01*am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 30, 8:54*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

hey rupert just wondering the statement from peta is "jessica Simpson
does not have the right eat what she wants" last time I looked she did
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are. People don't have the right to eat what they want. I
don't have the right to kill you and eat you, that is not
controversial.

What people do and don't have the right to eat is a matter for
reasonable disagreement and there should be free and open discussion
of it in a free society. Expressing an opinion different to that of
the mainstream is not a form of bullying. Dragging people into court
for expressing their opinion and talking some rubbish about how they
have violated the Trade Practices Act is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please cite the state or federal law that bans me from eating meat

On Jun 30, 9:18*pm, wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:14*am, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 30, 9:11*pm, wrote:

On Jul 1, 12:01*am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 30, 8:54*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway.. *You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

hey rupert just wondering the statement from peta is "jessica Simpson
does not have the right eat what she wants" last time I looked she did
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are. People don't have the right to eat what they want. I
don't have the right to kill you and eat you, that is not
controversial.

What people do and don't have the right to eat is a matter for
reasonable disagreement and there should be free and open discussion
of it in a free society. Expressing an opinion different to that of
the mainstream is not a form of bullying. Dragging people into court
for expressing their opinion and talking some rubbish about how they
have violated the Trade Practices Act is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please cite the state or federal law that bans me from eating meat

It is common knowledge that there is none, and I'm certainly not
making any effort to stop you. What of it? Neither PETA nor anyone
here ever made the lunatic claim that it is currently illegal to eat
meat. Someone did recently make the lunatic claim that it is time to
start shooting animal rights activists.

On Jul 1, 12:21*am, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:18*pm, wrote:





On Jul 1, 12:14*am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 30, 9:11*pm, wrote:

On Jul 1, 12:01*am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 30, 8:54*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

hey rupert just wondering the statement from peta is "jessica Simpson
does not have the right eat what she wants" last time I looked she did
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are. People don't have the right to eat what they want. I
don't have the right to kill you and eat you, that is not
controversial.

What people do and don't have the right to eat is a matter for
reasonable disagreement and there should be free and open discussion
of it in a free society. Expressing an opinion different to that of
the mainstream is not a form of bullying. Dragging people into court
for expressing their opinion and talking some rubbish about how they
have violated the Trade Practices Act is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please cite the state or federal law that bans me from eating meat

It is common knowledge that there is none, and I'm certainly not
making any effort to stop you. What of it? Neither PETA nor anyone
here ever made the lunatic claim that it is currently illegal to eat
meat. Someone did recently make the lunatic claim that it is time to
start shooting animal rights activists.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i do not support shooting anyone but to single out jessica simpson
( and i'm no fan except to look at her) is wrong considering millions
of Americans eat meat. I think it is publicity stunt from peta and
jessica who is a tax payer and commited no felonies, should be left
alone

On Jul 1, 2:23*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. *You
fatuous ****.
Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.
No. *You are incapable of clarification. *You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.
I always pound sand up my ass.
Right.

It just never stops, does it,

No, rupie - regrettably, your fatuous bullshit never stops.-


Boobs, are you starting to understand yet that you are totally
incapable of having any kind of discussion with anyone?

If you weren't able to snip and alter the other person's post, you'd
have absolutely nothing you could possibly say in response that
wouldn't make you look stupid. Of course you look stupid snipping and
altering posts but you apparently can't comprehend that.

On Jun 30, 3:51*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" wrote:
On Jun 30, 6:07*pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists





wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:14*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" wrote:

On Jun 30, 10:20*am, Eat the rich wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:01 pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists

wrote:
It must have been inevitable for the PETA people to become Fascists
just like the MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists. *We can expect more
non-stop bullying until they get their way, like a bunch of cry-
babies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-rights-group-...

Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters

After helping to make fur coats taboo, campaigners at Peta are using
hardline tactics on A-list carnivores

By Rachel Shields
Sunday, 29 June 2008

Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns
against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from
celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of
animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta – People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-
wearers in red paint – has launched an attack on the singer Jessica
Simpson.

Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing
a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat", believed to be a
light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo's vegetarian ex-
girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might
have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to
eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some
people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political
correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really
doing is standing up for the status quo."

The animal rights group doctored a photo of Ms Simpson to read "Only
Stupid Girls Eat Meat", and listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat
meat".

In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for
admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China.

The Peta attacks are seen as a sign of the radicalisation of some
vegetarian groups. They claim eating meat causes environmental
destruction, damages human health and contributes to global hunger, as
well as inflicting suffering on billions of animals.

Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) claims that there
are currently between five and six million vegetarians in the UK but
estimates that as many as a third of population have significantly
reduced their meat intake.

"Vegetarians are still in a minority – most people eat meat. You're
sticking your neck out as a vegetarian, and so most are passionate
about it," said Annette Pinner, the chief executive of the Vegetarian
Society.

A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency
that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn
vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.

Paul McCartney, a veteran vegetarian campaigner, recently launched
"Meat Free Mondays" to encourage meat-eaters to eat vegetarian food
once a week, citing the UN's statement as a good reason to forgo
meat.

Yet there is evidence that the British public might be rebelling
against pressure to cut their meat consumption. Despite the cost of
meat hitting a 22-year high, British supermarkets actually report a
rise in sales. Waitrose has recorded big year-on-year increases in the
sale of most meats, while sales of Asda's "2p sausage" have gone up by
42 per cent.

Use another term besides fascist. *It doesn't fit the people that
you're describing.

Fascism:
1. *often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of
belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a
system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A fascist government can be all of the above and more but fascism in
and of itself consists of one thing only; "corporatism merged with
government."
That is the definition Benito Mussolini used to describe fascism.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey that's great Mr DummySkirt. *Words change meaning, and it's been
60 years. *Mussolini was a left-winger, Fascism was of the left then,
as it is now, but different with the bully Fascist protesters and
oppressing bully No Drill-ocrat Marxists. *Go outside and smoke a fag
and pretend the EnviroFascists don't care what harm it does to the
air.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fascism is nothing more than corporatism merged with government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LIES. Forcing unpopular issues by gathering a group of retards is
fascism. Basicly there's lobbying, which is civil and there's
bullobbying, which is fascism. Thanks for being stupid. Hope your
trailer park kicks that fly problem.

On Jun 30, 3:58*pm, charley wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:01*pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists





wrote:
It must have been inevitable for the PETA people to become Fascists
just like the MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists. *We can expect more
non-stop bullying until they get their way, like a bunch of cry-
babies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-rights-group-...

Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters

After helping to make fur coats taboo, campaigners at Peta are using
hardline tactics on A-list carnivores

By Rachel Shields
Sunday, 29 June 2008

Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns
against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from
celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of
animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta – People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-
wearers in red paint – has launched an attack on the singer Jessica
Simpson.

Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing
a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat", believed to be a
light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo's vegetarian ex-
girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might
have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to
eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some
people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political
correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really
doing is standing up for the status quo."

The animal rights group doctored a photo of Ms Simpson to read "Only
Stupid Girls Eat Meat", and listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat
meat".

In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for
admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China.

The Peta attacks are seen as a sign of the radicalisation of some
vegetarian groups. They claim eating meat causes environmental
destruction, damages human health and contributes to global hunger, as
well as inflicting suffering on billions of animals.

Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) claims that there
are currently between five and six million vegetarians in the UK but
estimates that as many as a third of population have significantly
reduced their meat intake.

"Vegetarians are still in a minority – most people eat meat. You're
sticking your neck out as a vegetarian, and so most are passionate
about it," said Annette Pinner, the chief executive of the Vegetarian
Society.

A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency
that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn
vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.

Paul McCartney, a veteran vegetarian campaigner, recently launched
"Meat Free Mondays" to encourage meat-eaters to eat vegetarian food
once a week, citing the UN's statement as a good reason to forgo
meat.

Yet there is evidence that the British public might be rebelling
against pressure to cut their meat consumption. Despite the cost of
meat hitting a 22-year high, British supermarkets actually report a
rise in sales. Waitrose has recorded big year-on-year increases in the
sale of most meats, while sales of Asda's "2p sausage" have gone up by
42 per cent.

PETA = left wing wackos- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, and must be buddies with these other no-drilling for oil
extremists, although their causes aren't on the same path. I think
PETArds will find a way to join the other whachos that are DICTATING
NO OIL DRILLING, 20 YEARS TO FANCY ALT FUELS, NO QUESTIONS, NO MIDDLE
EAST OIL.

Then there's Republicans, who believe DRILL UNITED STATES OIL, BURN
ENVIRONMENTALISTS (for fun or for fuel), GET OFF MIDDLE EAST OIL,
ALTERNATIVE ADVANCEMENT is working in the private sector, but has many
many years (5? 10? 20? Obama doesnt' know cuz he's phony)

The people that are stupid are obvious, and will be looking for horses
soon.

On Jul 1, 12:26 pm, wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:21 am, Rupert wrote:



On Jun 30, 9:18 pm, wrote:

On Jul 1, 12:14 am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 30, 9:11 pm, wrote:

On Jul 1, 12:01 am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 30, 8:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. You
fatuous ****.

Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.

No. You are incapable of clarification. You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.

I always expound on your shortcomings with piercing clarity which you
cannot endure, and you always snip and evade.

hey rupert just wondering the statement from peta is "jessica Simpson
does not have the right eat what she wants" last time I looked she did
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are. People don't have the right to eat what they want. I
don't have the right to kill you and eat you, that is not
controversial.

What people do and don't have the right to eat is a matter for
reasonable disagreement and there should be free and open discussion
of it in a free society. Expressing an opinion different to that of
the mainstream is not a form of bullying. Dragging people into court
for expressing their opinion and talking some rubbish about how they
have violated the Trade Practices Act is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please cite the state or federal law that bans me from eating meat

It is common knowledge that there is none, and I'm certainly not
making any effort to stop you. What of it? Neither PETA nor anyone
here ever made the lunatic claim that it is currently illegal to eat
meat. Someone did recently make the lunatic claim that it is time to
start shooting animal rights activists.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i do not support shooting anyone but to single out jessica simpson
( and i'm no fan except to look at her) is wrong considering millions
of Americans eat meat. I think it is publicity stunt from peta and
jessica who is a tax payer and commited no felonies, should be left
alone

It is a publicity stunt from PETA, yes, that is just PETA being PETA
and it's not necessarily the best strategy, it makes life a bit harder
for the rest of the animal rights movement actually and we wouldn't
mind if they tried a different approach to PR. Jessica is perhaps
entitled to feel a bit got at but she lives in a liberal democracy
where there is free and open discussion of ideas. No-one is harassing
her or subjecting her to threats of physical violence when she buys
meat at the supermarkets, when that happens she can call the police
and she will then be able to legitimately complain that she is being
"bullied" by animal rights activists. She could always try the
approach of making a bit of a joke about it, make some film of her
eating a steak and saying "Hey PETA, I love the taste of this freshly
killed corpse." Or she could attempt to have a serious discussion
about why she thinks it's morally acceptable to eat meat. Or she could
say "**** off and mind your own business", most people would probably
be behind her 100%, and that is probably the most likely outcome.

I would hope that we could all agree that the decision to eat meat is
something you should think seriously about, you should be aware of how
it is produced and make a considered decision. Plant-based agriculture
also harms animals, as people on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
constantly point out, yes, that too is a consideration but on the
other hand the production of meat requires higher levels of crop
inputs per calorie, oh but the crops produced for farm animals are
mostly unfit for human consumption and if you're not completely pure
then you're a hypocrite, blah blah blah, and the debate goes on and on
for years and years and frequently degenerates into childish ad
hominem abuse. That's what happens on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
you can join in the fun if you like. There's really nothing wrong with
trying to encourage people to have a bit of a think about the issue.
Animals don't have a lot of fun in modern farms. There are perhaps
more constructive approaches than PETA's.

Jessica will get by and continue to enjoy her steak. People should
support the right to free speech. It's not a form of bullying.

On Jul 1, 12:23 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. You
fatuous ****.
Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.
No. You are incapable of clarification. You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.
I always pound sand up my ass.
Right.

It just never stops, does it,

No, rupie - regrettably, your fatuous bullshit never stops.

You do have the option of not bothering to read it, you know.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists wrote:

It must have been inevitable for the PETA people to become Fascists
just like the MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists. We can expect more
non-stop bullying until they get their way, like a bunch of cry-
babies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...rs-856591.html

Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters

After helping to make fur coats taboo, campaigners at Peta are using
hardline tactics on A-list carnivores

By Rachel Shields
Sunday, 29 June 2008
.. . .
Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might
have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to
eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:20*pm, Eat the rich wrote:

So it's perfectly ok for a wolf or a hyena or a lion to kill an animal
and eat it, but PETA needs to SCREAM about hunters "being cruel" and
meat eaters "being cruel".

I've asked them if they thought it would be okay for humans to
eat meat if we terrified the animals, chased them to exhaustion,
then clamped vice like jaws to their throats to strangle them as
we begin ripping them appart while they're still conscious as non-
human predators do, often to baby animals. None of them have
really responded to that yet.

It's time to start hunting the PETA
members, and the stupid Environmentalists. They serve ZERO purpose.

And since it's perfectly OK for you dopey left-wing loons to go around
harassing people, then it's perfectly OK for the NRA to start
harassing PETA and the EnviroNut-Jobs.

It's every bit as okay.

Keep whining about the word "fascist" like its meaning hasn't
changed. The words "faggot", "gay", and "Democrat" had different
meanings once upon a time, but all mean something new today. And you
ought to know, since you liberals love to play word games, and take
shit out of context, and claim things are out of context when they
aren't.

These people hide beneath the gross mi$nomer "animal rights",
while they can't ever explain which rights for which animals. We
know they don't mean rights for domestic animals, since the
misnomer would mean the *elimination of* domestic animals, so
it certainly wouldn't mean rights or anything at all for "them".
How about wildlife? Since eliminationists contribute to the
deaths of wildlife in most of the same ways that everyone else
does, it seems that the misnomer probably wouldn't provide
rights for any of them either. So far the "best" we can even
consider that the misnomer might provide, would be more
suffering for wildlife who would die of starvation, disease and
non-human predation because human hunting and deliberate
population management would become illegal.