usual suspect > wrote in message news:<qITjb.36161

> his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's

Yes it is. It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever
the hell he
wanted. It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want
to air.
If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel.
Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people
complained
about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in
situations which THEY did not ask for. You would defend every action
of
promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse
animal rights people of trying to "censor" you.

Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus
deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced
stop? There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment"
in doing that. Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus
stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store.

You are just jealous because his books are so popular.

> According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
> in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.

What polls? You may be true, and I hope you are, but it is
ridiculously
naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country
struggling
to build itself out of the ruins of a war.

> above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
> you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
> action in Iraq.

That is false, at best. Polls are not scientific, because they do not
answer
the questions people wish to ask. You are SO hung up on opinion
polls, like they mean ANYthing.

And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the
correctness
of one's argument.

I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military
action
against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most
notably,
Peru) and elsewhere. I would be all for war if it meant freeing
billions
of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other
countries!
But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly
against the violence on one side.

> Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have.

That is just YOUR opinion. Many humans believe they DO have rights.

> No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
> breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
> fertilization?

Non-sequitur. I never said animals have a will before, or even after,
fertilization. HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose
to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the
animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the
animals.

You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming
the child if the child shoots themself. After all, YOU did not choose
to make the child shoot themself. But, would you argue that children
have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of
deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)?