PETA unhappy with Obama

[MikeK]

Shouldn't this be on the onion?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...55H4Z220090618

[k-dogg39]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Shouldn't this be on the onion?

Yes it should.

[Dean]

PETA can buzz off.

Seriously, every PETA member kills millions of bacteria and microorganisms every day as they eat their macrobiotic tofu and such, not to mention the ants they accidentally step on, etc. Where do they draw the line?

When the common house fly is on the endangered species list, give me a call.

PETA, Darwin; Darwin, PETA...

Now go back to making sexy fruit and vegetable ads if you want to change our lifestyles or get us to pay any attention to you.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Seriously, every PETA member kills millions of bacteria and microorganisms every day as they eat their macrobiotic tofu and such, not to mention the ants they accidentally step on, etc.

Not to mention all those dogs and cats they kill.

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Year Received† Adopted Killed Transferred % Killed % Adopted
2008 2,216 7 2,124 34 95.8 0.32
2007 1,997 17 1,815 35 90.9 0.85
2006 3,061 12 2,981 46 97.4 0.39
2005 2,165 146 1,946 69 89.9 6.74
2004 2,655 361 2,278 1 85.8 13.60
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.03
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.25
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.18
2000 2,681 624 2,029 28 75.7 23.27
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.39
*1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.10
Total 25,112 3,083 21,339 446 85.0 12.28

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» skeptical? click here to see the proof


On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us.

[Kevin M]

Is PETA ever happy with any sane person?

[100_Percent_Juice]

I don't see why it was such a big deal for him to kill a fly in the first place.

[cody]

Well, it starts with flies, and before you know it, he's killing babies.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by cody

Well, it starts with flies, and before you know it, he's killing babies.

I'd kill a baby that's flying around me and landing on my arm over and over. 'Cause that'd be some kinda mutant freak baby.

[Jeikun]

You wouldn't want to keep it in the fly catcher PETA supplied you with and release it into the world?

I think a baby with wings would cause quite a stir and would be infinitely more entertaining than just killing it...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Jeikun

You wouldn't want to keep it in the fly catcher PETA supplied you with and release it into the world?

I think a baby with wings would cause quite a stir and would be infinitely more entertaining than just killing it...

But if it landed on my arm, I'd still kill it with fire.

[knucklesplitter]

PETA definitely takes it too f-ing far and perhaps does more harm than good. The idea that animals we hold, eat, and use for whatever purpose - the idea that they should be treated with some - *some* measure of decency and respect for their suffering - I personally am all for that. Go check out the PETA hidden videos if you want to see the extent of the suffering and disgusting conditions your food goes through before it gets to your mouth. And it's not just the awfulness of it all for the animals but the putrid shit-laden condition that factory farm animals wallow in. It's disgusting for them, for us (because we ingest them), and for the environment (because we live in it too).

Originally Posted by sperry

Not to mention all those dogs and cats they kill.

I think this is likely very unfair. My assumption is PETA kills (euthanizes) a percentage of the animals it has because of the same reasons that *all* shelters/pounds/animal controls/veterinarians kill (euthanize) a certain number of animals. Reasons like overpopulation, disease, old age, extremely bad temperment, etc. The article does not address this, so I have no reason to assume differently. Would you call your vet. a "slaughterhouse" because of all the animals he euthanizes?

Before I get flamed too much I will quote myself:

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

PETA definitely takes it too f-ing far and perhaps does more harm than good.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Someone needs to do a remake of that video. "THIS IS SPARTA!" and then he kills the fly.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Someone needs to do a remake of that video. "THIS IS SPARTA!" and then he kills the fly.

I though he says, "Red sauce on pastaaaa!".

YouTube- Red Sauce on Pasta

YouTube- Red Sauce on Pasta

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

I think this is likely very unfair. My assumption is PETA kills (euthanizes) a percentage of the animals it has because of the same reasons that *all* shelters/pounds/animal controls/veterinarians kill (euthanize) a certain number of animals. Reasons like overpopulation, disease, old age, extremely bad temperment, etc. The article does not address this, so I have no reason to assume differently. Would you call your vet. a "slaughterhouse" because of all the animals he euthanizes?

Before I get flamed too much I will quote myself:

The reason we give PETA shit for euthanizing is that they're PETA. They claim it's the equivalent of nailing Christ to the cross to kill any living thing, and a crime to even treat an animal poorly... yet they euthanize animals because they're running out of room to keep them. It's the hypocrisy, not the act itself.

[doubleurx]

Peta? It's all a marketing scam so they can sell that dry bread!. Oh don't eat animals - eat the bread. Man that crap sucks! WTF!

[100_Percent_Juice]

Peta Pit is actually pretty dang tasty. Thanks for the reminder.