PETA is your local neighborhood crazy. They yell at you to fall in line and do things, then drink whiskey out of a pumpkin and try to sell you drugs. I’ve never liked them.
From advocating drinking human breastmilk, to throwing paint on people they disagree with, to telling parents not to bring their kids to the circus, to having Bill Maher, Jared Leto, and Andy Dick as prominent members, to having their leader say you can eat her when she dies, PETA, in general, blows. But here’s another reason. According to documents released today, they’ve killed 95% of the pets placed in the adoptive care program. How many did they place in homes? Seven. How many were taken behind the shed and read the riot act? 2,124. And I’m sure the seven placed were by some dreadlocked man telling his friends, “TAKE THIS DOG. I CAN’T KEEP TELLING PEOPLE I KILL ANIMALS FOR PETA.”
PETA has a $32 million dollar budget, and yet still has failed to build any sort of shelter to humanely house the pets in their program. More likely, the money is used to pay the salaries of their employees, so they can say ridiculous shiz, picket events and hand out stupid stickers with adorable chickens on it that say, “I am not a McNugget.” They’re like the town slut, boning everybody, then trying to shame them in church. Except this town slut aggressively markets to children.
Seriously, killing animals while advocating for treating them ethically is like hiring a bomb squad to disarm a bomb, then activating it in an orphanage.
Don’t support this practice.
Comments
Tim
September 30th, 2009 - 12:34:09 PM
I'm no fan of PETA, but come on - got a single source for anything you say here that isn't some other blogger with an obvious agenda?
Mark Lorenz
September 30th, 2009 - 12:51:40 PM
Yes. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258.
D
September 30th, 2009 - 1:11:00 PM
How ignorant. PETA is not an adoption program, so why would it build a shelter? They are an advocacy group. leave the shelter stuff to the Humane Society. each group has its purpose. They provide free humane euthanasia for people who cannot afford it, for animals that have no other choice. Allowing an animal to suffer its entire life just so it can "live" is no life at all and is inhumane. How many animals have YOU saved this year, Mark Lorenz? ...exactly. Instead of complaining about what a group is not doing, how about you work on changing things yourself.
D
September 30th, 2009 - 1:13:27 PM
Also, posting a link to consumer"freedom" is a sad "source". Everyone knows they are funded by all the major animal abuse groups in the united states and campaign against many valid groups, like MADD for christ's sake www.consumerdeception.com
cake
September 30th, 2009 - 3:54:54 PM
No. PETA may not be an adoption program, but they do run around constantly, getting in people's faces about how the animals are suffering. They're the largest animal organization with the most amount of money, and they're leading protests dressing up as bleeding seals and blocking traffic, when they're not dressing up as the KKK and comparing food to the Holocaust. It's all about the animals for PETA. Being against the use of animals in any way, PETA is against pets and the use of animals for medical testing. Alright, maybe experiments are unethical, but so many millions of people would be dead from epidemics and sh*t. PETA's president has stated that even if they found a cure for AIDS by testing on animals, they'd be against it. If they're so dedicated to animals, then why do they euthanize them? D, why do they kill these animals? D, why are you asking Mark Lorenz if he saved any animals, if he's not running around dressed up as Frita the Fish?
D-san
September 30th, 2009 - 5:55:32 PM
It doesn't matter if PETA is not an adoption program. It is an advocacy group that espouses very stringent rules about what constitutes proper and improper animal treatment. One of those tenets is not sacrificing the safety and rights of animals for those of humans. They blatantly violate their own maxims because they feel they are the only persons qualified to actually judge those violations. By living outside the normal cultural mainstream where animal welfare is concerned, they are convinced that the rules apply differently to them. Don't agree? From their website: "Every year, more than 3 million dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and other animals are euthanized because they were born into a world that does not have enough homes for them. For every one companion animal who lives indoors with a human family and receives the attention, health care, and emotional support that he or she needs, there are thousands just barely surviving. Millions of domestic animals never know a kind human touch and live hard lives on the street before dying equally hard deaths." Somehow euthanasia at the hands of PETA is more humane and respectful that euthanasia anywhere else? Bull. "It's alright, little puppy. I have a keen understanding of the plight you'll be facing if you continue to live, so just lay back and sleeeeeeep."
PETA=hypocrites
September 30th, 2009 - 6:57:50 PM
PETA are a bunch of hypocrites....they should be stampeded by wild animals....
Not_Guilty
September 30th, 2009 - 9:11:26 PM
It's a good thing this is posted on some terrible site and not a real news source, because my faith in journalism is already low enough. Regardless, though, it's disappointing to see anyone post something so out of context and pass it off like the whole truth. The reality is, PETA takes the worst of the worst animals, those that cannot go to shelters or homes, and it still tries to place them somewhere. In the end, those animals would all be destroyed anyway. PETA then uses its massive budget to euthanize these animals in a way that is far more humane than most shelters - shelters that often throw dozens of cats into gas chambers to claw each other to death as they are poisoned. But, hey, if you have to feel better about the fact that you cause the suffering of other living things daily by misleading a bunch of morons, feel free. If you REALLY want to post an interesting fact about euthanized animals, you might talk about the millions of cats and dogs that are euthanized every year at shelters and then sent to Rendering Plants to be turned into cattle and pig feed. Cows, natural herbivores, are then forced to eat peoples' abandoned, gassed and rotting pets until they are slaughtered and end up on your dinner plate. Enjoy!
Frank
September 30th, 2009 - 10:13:12 PM
http://www.PETAkillsAnimals.com
terri (from kalamazoo, MI)
September 30th, 2009 - 11:33:37 PM
no, cows are not forced to eat yadda, yadda, yadda. pigs, probably. they actually need protein. pigs will eat anything though. they use them as literal garbage disposals in other countries. (seriously. and now i'm waiting for plagues to hit egypt because they slaughtered all the pigs in a swine flu panic...apparently the garbage is getting pretty deeep.) however, cats and dogs do end up eating other cats and dogs that were euthanized-and besides that being icky, they really don't need the barbiturates-and there are detectable levels, that's how we know our cats and dogs are eating euthanized cats and dogs. but...back to PETA. when the whole michael vick dogfighting scandal broke, PETA bragged that THEY were responsible for making the NFL commissioner remove vick from the league. they actually advocated for the animals to be put down by way of explaining how damaged they had been, they would always be driven to attack, they had been ruined by man...and meanwhile, Best Friends quietly arranged to accept the animals at their compound, and the only dogs euthanized were those who could not physically be restored. PETA=blowhard hypocrites Best Friends=HEROES
D
October 1st, 2009 - 8:34:15 AM
Yes, Not_Guilty said it right. I too am glad this isn't from an actual news source. We are starting to see blabber like this pop up everywhere lately. Why? Because information about what is happening to animals on factory farms, in circuses, laboratories, and fur farms is getting into the hands of the public faster than ever before. What are most peoples reaction to this? One of two things 1- they do the research and change their ways for their own good and for animals 2- pretend it doesnt exist 3- mock groups that help animals by attempting to invalidate their common-sense logic in an effort to make themselves sleep better at night. Make all the excuses you want, but this issue isnt about PETA. Its about what we do to animals and the question of when will it stop, and how we will make it stop. end
Juan Aguilar
October 1st, 2009 - 9:30:10 AM
Why are all you assholes talking smack about this site not being a news source? We know it's not a fucking news source! Neither is Wikipedia, but it's the gospel truth to many. Fact is, PETA acknowledges its high number of euthanized animals, and does so humanely. It has also funded groups classified by the government as terrorists, asked towns to change their names to more humane names (like Hamburg -> Veggieburg) and is generally nuttier than a squirrel turd. There are less crazy animal rights advocacy groups.
Bruce
October 1st, 2009 - 10:07:10 AM
PETA is filled with nuts and perpetuated by loons but this article fails to present anything more than a headline to convince us of that. If you're going to blog, take a journalism class or two before doing it. You can't keep pulling the 'I'm a blogger' line and putting out inflammatory crap without merit or citation. Do you want to persuade people to a view point or whip them into a mindless rage to bang themselves bloody against the white walls of their metaphorical infirmary? While the bloody, nail and hair filled stew that remains might be great to look at, you've gotten nowhere and are now at least one return visitor further from where you were to start with. Sure, the next day you can write an article, lacking in research, about vaginal queeffing indicating that a vagina has finished digesting a man's load of sperm, to get back some readers. But really, is that what you want to continue to be? A frat boy / "bro" / douchebag newsletter?
Deejeer
October 1st, 2009 - 10:17:30 AM
Peta has more concern for animals than humans? You do not abuse people who have a view different from your own, I still roll my eyes and shake my head when I remember how they dressed as KKK clan members to make a point. Get off the drugs PETA and see what reality is really like.
Mike
October 1st, 2009 - 10:36:51 AM
Deejeer- Of course PETA has more concern for animals: they are an ANIMAL organization! That's like complaining that the Breast Cancer Foundation doesn't do enough for AIDS...because that isn't their issue. duh. I hope you're vegan is you're telling people about "reality", because if not, you clearly do not know or care about reality and what happens in the world. People who do, know enough about it to make ethical, healthy choices to change. Juan- funding organizations classified as terrorists? Since when has that every been valid? Every non-right wing group in the country is pretty much considered "terrorism" under the recent Bush administration. Would you call the "radical" actions of Dr. King and Ghandi "terrorism"? How about Alice Paul and the sufferage women who won the equal right to vote. All we're considered "radical loonies" of their time.
Not as dumb as PETA
October 1st, 2009 - 12:57:16 PM
I mean i love animals and all but PETA is just as bad as Scientology ... There really REALLY annoying..and if i ever see one in real life i will eat a fucking cow right in there face! I really do not like how they act towards everyone but PETA supporters. Ive seen the bastards being annoying as hell in new york all the time..i wish you could just punch people and get away with it but USA is getting more pussified everyday. Fuck it i will anyways. Watch your back PETA!
Candy Pants
October 1st, 2009 - 1:03:02 PM
That's the trouble with pets! = http://bit.ly/O8vF2
b
October 1st, 2009 - 1:10:14 PM
Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on PETA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAt1z_TgPQ4
Gail
October 1st, 2009 - 1:17:19 PM
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. 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. 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.
Mike
October 1st, 2009 - 1:36:42 PM
All of the information is from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The PETA information is here as well: http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2006 In 2006 PETA had 9637 animals. 6575 were reclaimed by the owners, 2981 were Euthanized, and 12 were adopted. 2007 they euthanized 1815 out of 8632. with 6400 being reclaimed by the owners and 17 adopted. PETA is too "tin foil hat" for me....
jason
October 1st, 2009 - 1:45:31 PM
Oh no! Mike posted a link to a .gov site with proof. Now we need to make it seem like the government can't be trusted. If there were only a way....
PETA sucks
October 1st, 2009 - 1:47:57 PM
PETA are a bunch of dirty hippy protesting for stuff just to protest. They have no clue what there org. Does and should all be eaten by a bunch of mutilated chickens from IFC farms so when I eat the chicken I'm eating retarded PETA members to
king
October 1st, 2009 - 1:57:34 PM
Love PETA or hate them, they sure know how to make people talk about them. Which, I imagine, is exactly what they want. I think that a lot of their tactics are too outrageous, but they do advance the topic of animal welfare.
Jim Davis
October 1st, 2009 - 2:01:46 PM
Wow, Peta totally sux then dont they? LOL R Twww.complete-privacy.net.tc
Tim
October 1st, 2009 - 2:03:10 PM
The original document actually says that they euthanized 2369 of the 10016 animals that came through their facility last year. That's less than 24%. In addition, you can't make any assumptions about the condition of those animals and whether they were even adoptable. The truth is, an adult cat or dog in any animal shelter has very little chance of being adopted, and I don't see any evidence to show how these numbers compare to other shelters. This article is baseless propaganda.
GOLDNSQUID
October 1st, 2009 - 2:30:44 PM
Are those of you that are defending PETA really thinking about what you are saying? This group holds protest and calls people like the ones that work in animal control and in shelters horrible names and pays for and supports acts of violence towards other humans for doing the exact same thing they are doing. Watch the Penn & Teller BullS**t episode on them. It is season 2 episode 1. The person running PETA is taking drugs that we acquired through animal testing while paying for the defense of people who firebombed these testing facilities. If she was so righteous she would not take the medication but ya'll support her anyways. LOL I wondered why Obama's approval rating had not fallen father then 50% and now I understand.
GOLDNSQUID
October 1st, 2009 - 2:36:30 PM
father = farther in the post above...sorry grammar police :D
afeub
October 1st, 2009 - 2:43:01 PM
Mass "murder" (as it is or is not) still makes no sense. No they are not an adoption program, but they care about adoption programs. Right? Send them to adoption centers maybe? Yes it costs more to take care of them than to kill them. They are animals, even some that are adopted could potentially be entered into a form of imprisonment. Hmmm... A better solution. Set the animals free! They are not human, they don't live by "humane" standards. Set them free let them be in the wild! Nature may not be fair to them. But when was it ever fair to anyone or anything? When was it ever "fair" to domesticate animals that become urbanized and "humanized"? For a group that advocates care for animals... Murder under the guise mercy is a glaring hypocrisy.
Mike
October 1st, 2009 - 2:53:40 PM
$32 million isn't any amount of money whatsoever to do anything. I don't even care if this is money being spent to holocaust all of humanity the people with access to such budgets can do nothing. Do you even want people to stop eating cow meat? No domestic animal is going to survive in the wild if we don't use it for something. You're basically advocating the eradication of an entire species. You're not even trying to think about the problem at all much less propose any solutions worth mentioning. Do you honestly think you're going to get people to stop eating all meat to begin with? If we could convince people to stop doing retarded things on such a stupidly large scale we wouldn't be such a failure of a species. I mean if you think this is entertaining.. Fine.. English isn't a language even worth knowing if you want to "fix" these problems.
anon
October 1st, 2009 - 2:55:47 PM
PETA is for ignorant fucks how believe all the bullshit the supposedly stand for, it´s just like anything else someone trying to get rich using the excuse of animal cruelty. I´ve seen a bunch of videos of PETA members protesting and shit and they all look like mentally challenged and brainwashed fucks.
BOB
October 1st, 2009 - 3:02:53 PM
LOL at Not Guilty for saying that peta takes in the worst of the worst of animals and that is why they kill them. If you read the report, a HAMSTER was even on it. PETA KILLED A FREEKING HAMSTER, how bad can a HAMSTER be. lol. PETA just sucks all around, do not support the peta nutbags
HowAboutSomeFacts
October 1st, 2009 - 3:28:32 PM
According to American Humane Association's website, 64% of animals brought to shelters nationwide are euthanized. According to documents posted on petakillsanimals.com, the kill rate at the PETA shelter is 20-30%. You can question some of PETA's tactics but it hurts your argument when you lie about what PETA is actually doing. Really, how are they hurting you?
Not_Guilty
October 1st, 2009 - 3:52:21 PM
@terri, You can find information about rendering plants in plenty of places online and in literature. They certainly do feed euthanized cats and dogs to cows and other "cud chewers". At the end of the day, though, if you're going to eat a dead cow, I don't suppose you care that it has your neighbor's dead dog in it. @BOB, I'm not a huge supporter of PETA - just a huge supporter of animal rights and truth in journalism. This article is a distortion of the truth to the point of being completely false, and you have no idea what the condition of that hamster or any of the other animals were. For all you know, it was diseased or injured beyond repair. Maybe if you spent as much time reflecting on your own behavior and its contribution to worldwide suffering as you do researching ways that PETA killed hamsters, you might find it in your heart to do half as much for others as the majority of PETA volunteers do.
kbk
October 1st, 2009 - 4:00:05 PM
PETA is an evil organization. Watch Penn and Tellers Bullshit.
Kieran Taylor
October 1st, 2009 - 4:43:03 PM
Whenever I see a PETA chick, I think of the lyrics //she don't like meat//but she sure likes the bone. PETA chicks are hot!! Who cares if they're crazy, everyone is crazy to some extent, and not everyone is hot...
noyb
October 1st, 2009 - 4:43:13 PM
i question this information "source." smells like BS to me. yes PETA gets nutty sometimes but their basic ideals are good - try not to cause the suffering of other living beings. @kbk - as far as penn and teller is concerned they are the biggest sacks of lying shit. fuck them.
Kieran Taylor
October 1st, 2009 - 4:43:32 PM
Whenever I see a PETA chick, I think of the lyrics //she don't eat meat//but she sure likes the bone. PETA chicks are hot!! Who cares if they're crazy, everyone is crazy to some extent, and not everyone is hot...
Sean
October 1st, 2009 - 4:53:39 PM
Thank you mark. i honestly dont understand why peta has any love in this country. i mean they asked phish to change their name to sea kittens. yes, things can be better as far as animal treatment in slaughter houses or whatever. but peta just wastes time and emotion with their lunacy. so dont give mark any BS about how if he can do it better he should do it, i f somebody doesnt criticize than there is no reason for it to get better. and im pretty sure anybody can do a better job of "saving the animals" than the emotional wrecks that comprise peta's membership.
Benji
October 1st, 2009 - 5:29:14 PM
They euthanize animals, you make it seem like they actually killed them, murdered them, tortured them. etc.
JRandomHacker
October 1st, 2009 - 6:38:46 PM
Look, I have a lot of problems with PETA. I think they actually hurt the plight of animals because of their sheer craziness and rabid rhetoric... But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...we should criticize PETA when warranted, but also listen to some of the things they have to say. Also I am disgusted by all the commenters saying "oh yea well PETA is evil, I know because I saw it on TV!" Bullshit! Is one of my favorite shows, but the entire point of the show is to LEARN TO THINK FOR YOURSELF. It's an entertainment show, and doesn't go very far in depth. P&T would be disappointed in the lack of critical thinking going on here. . The point of the PETA episode is basically that PETA is not what most people seem to think it is....but can you really blame PETA for that? Yes, They have some hypocrisy and A LOT of craziness in the organization, and views I don't agree with. That doesn't mean they don't have some valid things to say as well. What P&T would really despair of is the people linking to http://www.petakillsanimals.com... I'd never heard of the site until just now, but it only took me 5 minutes of research to find it's run by the "Center for Consumer Freedom" which is a front group for large corporations who have a bone to pick with PETA and other *actual* advocacy groups. It's obvious these corporations are afraid of PETA...the question is why? Juan Aguilar - You need to read what people say more carefully before you open your mouth and make yourself look like an idiot. Nobody was "criticizing this site for not being a news source"... They were being sarcastic and saying "Im glad this isn't a bigger site so people don't see this nonsense"....anyone with better than 5th grade reading comprehension can see that.... Also it's funny you bring up Wikipedia, because just like this article it's often inaccurate. This posting cites no sources, and as many people who ACTUALLY THINK instead of just believing whatever they read that confirms their opinions...the figures in this article need to be scrutinized. Again, I do not support PETA, but the sheer hypocrisy, lack of critical thinking, and pure arrogance rampant in this post and it's comments absolutely disgusts me.
pottzy23
October 1st, 2009 - 7:19:10 PM
I'd like to see PETA survive a nuclear holocaust with their attitudes. I am all for the inhumane treatment of animals, but PETA's message is mixed, just like scientology. They say one thing and do another. Why don't they be honest and state these facts, so people can make an informed decision. I love that they have a meat freezer, must be pretty empty in there, maybe they store there cash in it
whisperlove
October 1st, 2009 - 8:16:15 PM
..wtf ndo you expect??
Jonathan Sandusky
October 1st, 2009 - 8:16:57 PM
I think the article could use another analogy.
Vincent
October 1st, 2009 - 8:28:08 PM
PETA can't like animals if they kill so many.
lake
October 1st, 2009 - 9:02:50 PM
Ok. Let's put some thought into this idea. 5% of 100 is......5 so hmmmm lets think......there are (10) 100s in a =1000 and we have 2000 (relatively)........so how is it possible to get 5% of 2,174 as being 7? I fucking hate peta..........because they are idiots. But I also hate idiots in general. BTW there is this new thing.....ummm I think it's called critical thinking, you should try it out!
KingRing
October 1st, 2009 - 9:29:42 PM
I wonder if they went to the trouble (and expense) of giving em all their proper shots before wasting the poor things.
Jamie
October 1st, 2009 - 11:02:02 PM
this is made up by the same guy that says mecury in your fish is good for you that over tanning is good for you and corn syrup is good for you not to mention driving drunk is like, freedom.. peda is self righteous they would have babies with the panda if they could
Dr Alex Brattan
October 1st, 2009 - 11:24:48 PM
WOW !! An unjustified and un sourced article taking pot shots at an organisation run on a SHOE STRING budget that endeavours to improve the quality of all animals on this earth. Nice one DICK HEAD. Why not take pot shots at Sea Shepherd for 'only' stopping the fuck head whalers of the world from reaching their quota , by 36 whales ??? Or have a go at Amnesty for only saving the lives of of a couple of thousand out of the million or so human rights abusees ?? What have YOU done to improve the quality of life for those less fortunate than yourself ?? Get naked and go to a fur buyers conferance , boycott un farmed fish , lobby for no more caged chickens Or go do volunteer work for your local animal charity , then you will see the volume of silent , thankless , soul breaking and endless work that goes on behind the scenes of all animal rights groups , which try and stop short sighted , self obsessing , naive and ill informed joe publics from turning a blind eye to the needless suffering that is inflicted on animals in the name of commerce , science and fashion , go on light a candle Numpty
Isaac Bickerstaff
October 1st, 2009 - 11:52:20 PM
This has already been completely debunked. It was promoted by the exact same group that said indoor tanning is good for you and PREVENTS cancer, and that pregnant women should eat more fish because the mercury in them is harmless. They've also got websites saying that trans-fats CLEAN OUT your arteries. Anyone who believes a single word out of these guys doesn't deserve to live in a country with a free media.
Hello
October 2nd, 2009 - 12:09:19 AM
Come on. I believe in protecting animals as far as extinction and abnormality in behaviour (for example, breeding, hibernating and the like) is concerned, but sometimes, PETA seems like a joke. It's a good practice to lessen our animal food intake once in a while, as it does not help our health and now that we're populating, we're kinda disturbing the food cycle... but to advocate that we shouldn't eat animals at all is a little way beyond the line. Animal abuse is okay. I also believe PETA shouldn't be given the rights to file cases against well-known celebrities. This is truly absurd. Sometimes you have good intentions but you're building a bad reputation...and it sucks because all the messages you relay is just a reverb of how holed your causes are. They should promote responsibility. I believe the animals are a significant part of human welfare. I think they should change their image.
Mike
October 2nd, 2009 - 6:20:08 AM
I got some epic loligans out of this, yet still I don't know what side to take. Perhaps ignorance is bliss?
PatG
October 2nd, 2009 - 6:53:31 AM
PETA openly acknowledges that it has to euthanize a large number of animals that they take in and even explain this policy at some length on their website. Read PETA's story about their policies and practices regarding euthanasia of animals they take in here: http://h0p.in/13 Warning: That link includes graphic and disturbing images of injured and sick animals. After you have read that, then consider what they are doing and why people like Penn & Teller and Consumer Freedom are only giving you a very one-sided and small part of the story.
Skatty
October 2nd, 2009 - 9:45:25 AM
Brude Friedrich (of PETA) “blowing stuff up and smashing windows is a great way to bring about animal liberation.” You are really going to compare that to Ghandi or Dr. King? Lay off the Kool-aide simpleton, the Animal Liberation Front funded by PETA uses terrorism, don't be a jackass. Using something as awful as the Holocaust in your advertising shows a lack of sensitivity that is unparralelled. The Vice President Mary Beth Sweetland is a type A diabetic. She, on a daily basis, injects herself with insulin that was developed from biomedical research using DOGS. The point of the article was that PETA does not adhere to the maxims it wants to enforce on other people. When you are taking a stance not based off of a science or deductive reasoning(not that this is bad there are plenty of moral crusades worthy of fighting for) but one of Ethics, it is fundamental that you adhere to your own moral code or risk looking like fringe whackos with no valid argument. That is not ethical in anyones playbook. The president is quoted as saying she wants hoof and mouth disease to come to america. What planet are you from where you seriously want children to die to prove a point. I am generally against cruelty to animals, that being said I would never in a million years support PETA or any of its non-ethics,.
YOUTHINASIA
October 2nd, 2009 - 11:16:57 AM
I found a baby 7 day old kitten abandon by its mother and have been taking care of it for two weeks now. Apparently I should have put it out of its misery (according to PETA) Oh and it looks as though I have saved more animals by percentage than all of PETA combined. F*cking hypocrites.
aaa
October 2nd, 2009 - 12:24:07 PM
www.linhas-aereas.com
mikel
October 2nd, 2009 - 1:09:38 PM
Sad to say, but the kill rates listed on the VA web site are significantly lower than most shelters. And anyone involved in animal rescue knows that Consumer Freedom is a front. Mark Lorenz, don't try to fool people with shrill histrionics and disingenuous references. If you're too lazy to write well, don't.
egads
October 2nd, 2009 - 3:50:17 PM
Apparently their success rate at finding homes for animals was only .32% while the SPCA had a 70% success rate in the same state. http://trueslant.com/katiedrummond/2009/10/02/peta-anti-peta-animal-rights/
JMG
October 2nd, 2009 - 3:50:47 PM
PETA's ultimate message may seem virtuous, however; the fact of the matter is, PETA places the lives of animals above the lives of humans. To me, that is simply unacceptable. PETA gives the animal rights movement a very bad name.
haley
October 2nd, 2009 - 7:11:51 PM
Wow, I have never seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites than PETA in my lifetime! They talk about animal rights all day long and then turn right around and kill some perfectly healthy dogs and cats. I bet if they took some of that money they use for pointless advertisements, publicity stunts, and that crematory contract they have to burn all of their dead animals, they could actually afford to take care them!
thirteenburn
October 5th, 2009 - 8:31:11 AM
Excellent article. Sadly, those who dispute this evidence are typical of the uber-left - and PETA as well - "do as we say and not as we do." They cannot admit when their golden ox isn't so golden and in doing so, prove to everyone and without a modicum of doubt of their incredible disingeniousness as well having a mind numbing intellectual dishonesty that defies catagorization or comparison. PETA is, or was at one time, a viable and warranted organization but allowed itself to become compromised as well as co-opted by the knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, street-rat crazy arm of the uber-leftist Democrat Party and have sullied the original idea behind PETA beyond any recognition. Pathetic. Sad. But so very, very true.
Internet Comments Are Stupid
October 18th, 2009 - 4:54:14 AM
"You are really going to compare that to Ghandi or Dr. King?" - Malcom X is often compared to King. "Animal Liberation Front funded by PETA uses terrorism" - The American Civil War was terrorism to the English. The black struggle, universal sufferage, stonewall and basically anything that didn't involve Ghandi utilized rioting and fear to bring about a change in society. "A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase protection services against various external threats, usually violence or property damage." - The police are a well armed, funded and organised gang that kidnap and forcibly imprison you, bailiffs damage and steal your property if you do not pay your taxes. One mans terrorism is another mans freedom struggle. It's just a label applied by manipulative people to forcible coercion to ends with which they disagree and taken to heart by gullible people who need someone in charge to tell them what right and wrong is. Calling them terrorists is quite meaningless, they even have a degree of morality on their side. Does this mean I support the ALF and PETA? Well, I'll get around to discussing that after I finish my intensively farmed chicken drumstick.
Snozz
October 31st, 2009 - 10:04:27 PM
PETA does not operate an animal shelter. PETA is not an animal shelter. In 2008 3 animals were brought to PETA headquarters anyway, and all 3 were turned over to local animal control as required by law. PETA does not have permits to operate a shelter or kennel, and does not operate a shelter or kennel. 2 seconds checking and you'd know this supposed article is total bull shit.