OT: PETA van hits deer, they sue state

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Walosi
among or around the people who evolved into PETA who thought naked animals in the wild were indecent, and wanted the states to diaper them. Their offspring were probably driving the van, and will now insist the state provide condoms for the critters. I thought the original idea was great, if the originators were tasked with the responsibility of changing the diapers - first one free on, the state. The idea of some of these people confronting a griz wearing a loaded diaper intrigues me. :eek:

This is the sort of thing I mean - it doesn't have anything to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative', 'capitalist' or 'socialist', 'federalist' or 'centralist' points of view or issues. It's simply plain silliness.

But I agree with you - it would almost seem fitting if the state were to listen to their plea (trying to contain their laughter) and agree to such things so long as the plaintiffs are willing to oversee the execution of their scheme.....:D

B.
 
She was unbelieveably lucky to have chosen a hunter who respected women to that extent. I believe I would have shot her.

Yup. me too.

So basically this is it:

PETA:"Don't kill deer, or harm them or make them sad"

Dept of fish/wildlife: "ok"

PETA: "why didn't you kill more deer!?!?, why didn't you let them starve, now my CAR is suffering!"

Bullsh*t, all of it.
 
Sounds like they are taking what is clearly an embarrassing incident for them and trying to make political hay out of it. Not to mention going on a digging expedition in the pockets of the State of New Jersey. I don't think they really expect to win their lawsuit but just want to use it to attack hunters and the states wildlife management dept. for allowing hunting in the first place. Remember "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull poop". That's what's at work here.

Ben, I think the liberal labeling of the PETA people comes from the fact that you will find PETA members are predominately Democrats and that the Democrats will be the ones to advance issues for PETA locally and nationally. Democrats are of course the liberal party, and aren't ashamed to admit it. Hence the label comes from association. But you are of course right, it's just plain sillines.
 
Originally posted by CoalBlack
Sounds like they are taking what is clearly an embarrassing incident for them and trying to make political hay out of it. Not to mention going on a digging expedition in the pockets of the State of New Jersey. I don't think they really expect to win their lawsuit but just want to use it to attack hunters and the states wildlife management dept. for allowing hunting in the first place. Remember "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull poop". That's what's at work here.

The court could always decide to fine them for wasting its time with a frivilous suit though.

Originally posted by CoalBlack
Ben, I think the liberal labeling of the PETA people comes from the fact that you will find PETA members are predominately Democrats and that the Democrats will be the ones to advance issues for PETA locally and nationally. Democrats are of course the liberal party, and aren't ashamed to admit it. Hence the label comes from association. But you are of course right, it's just plain sillines.

From an international standpoint, the Democratic party is not very 'liberal' (at least, not in the right areas) - I would view them to the right of the Conservative party in the UK. There are roughly 3 types of political party system - one in which there are many political parties often with completely antithetic viewpoints (Italy, for example); one in which there are a few major parties (often 2), which share many of the same common beliefs/goals, but differ on some important issues (e.g. UK); one in which there are only 2 parties, which in actuality share the same political platform on all 'big' issues and only really differ on minor issues (USA). I'm paraphrasing from a source which I can't lay my finger on at the moment. I think people who think of themselves as 'liberals' in the United States often associate with the Democratic Party - but I don't think that really makes it a liberal party. What is 'liberal' party is exactly, I'm not sure in any case.

It would just seem to me that if the PETA people were really interested in preventing cruelty to animals they would go after the 'meat-factories', you know, the places that raise animals in close confinement and pump them full of strange chemicals, &c. Hunters kill animals who have 'had their freedom' in the natural way, just like mountain lions kill; and like our ancestors hunted - it is the natural scheme of things. 'Chicken factories' are not natural - they just make chicken cheaper. Campaigning against something like that would be something I could respect. Or they could campaign for issues on the environment, not cutting out the space programme, &c. - you know, something relevant and important....

It's silly on the one hand, but also a bit annoying on the other, when one thinks of it that way...

B.
 
I live in Ithaca, NY, home of Cornell University and Ithaca College. That means its a university town. Not to mention full of bleeding hearts. i believe it was beoram who said they are actually conservatives, and i agree. After spending my 18 years of life watching these people, i have come to the conclusion that they have tried to hard to be liberal and PC that they are now intolerantly conservative. As for PETA they are the same way, and i propose that if they have a problem with the hunters shooting things, but want them to be happy, that they dress up in deer suits, give the hunters wax ammo, and then cook their dinner for them once they are "shot." all parties are happy, no? basically, organizations like PETA are a small part of what is currently wrong with the United States. Too many people take the idea of "constitutional rights" too far. From my basic understanding of the constition and of the bill of rights, Washington etc. did not found this nation so that we could sue the hell out of one another so that we didnt have to work. Quite the contrary. The idea was that the constitution was there to protect us from the government becoming too powerful, and to ensure the rights of the people. I am yet to find the clause where it states "frivolous lawsuits which waste the money of the taxpayers and violence in the name of peace are encouraged to ensure the survival of the white tailed deer population."

Quad
 
I believe that "dress the animals" thing later turned out to be an intentional hoax/stunt. I don't recall the details, but one of the urban legends de-bunkers investigated this a couple of years back.

Beo, we do have "third parties" in the U.S. None of them, except Ross Perot's former outfit, has ever been able to mount a serious challenge for the presidency to the best of my knowledge (although they have been blamed for the losses of two presidential candidates within the past decade - Bush Sr. and Gore). Alternative parties have, in recent memory, held at least one seat in Congress.

It is the way the electoral system works over here (I'm referring to the so-called "first past the post" principle) that gives the advantage to large political parties. So, we end up with two biggies. Since they're large, they have to espouse an ideology (or non-ideology)that appeals to the widest audience.

S.
 
PETA= Domestic Terrorism and and Extortion

Terrorism fits quite well particularly if you know somebody who works in a laboratory that they've hit....several years of somebody's life can go down the flusher.:mad:

BTW, another alternate acronym origin I've seen is:

"People Enjoying T & A":D
 
I think it was the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front that did the terrorism to the labs. Didn't the FBI label them as the most active terrorist group in the US? These people are dangerous, I don't see why they haven't gone after them. :mad:

Do the vegans among these groups force their pets to abstain from meat too?
 
Do the vegans among these groups force their pets to abstain from meat too?

I was wondering that myself...Good way to end up with a really sick dog or cat.

I believe that "dress the animals" thing later turned out to be an intentional hoax/stunt.

Sounds likely, and if so, it was brilliant....too bad the point has apparently been made.(Check out the short story "Welcome to the Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut on a similar theme). The best hoaxes seem to become more believable the more you think about them (both pessimistic and optimistic ones) and have a surprisingly long lifetime. 10/10 for that hoax.
0/10 for the environment that led to it's viability.
 
These people are dangerous, I don't see why they haven't gone after them.

Because they are more than likely white, and voters, and probably wealthy or upperclass people who have nothing better to do, and wealthy people have more political clout.

Terrorists are brown and wear turbans, don't you know that:rolleyes: ?
 
I don't hunt anymore due to religious considerations and I'm against killing as a "sport" but I defend anybody who wants to go out into the woods and shoot a deer for food.
 
While I am a hunter (deer, and fowl) I actually prefer shooting skeet. Skeet is more reliable, time of year doesn't matter, and there is no chance of wing shots (see: gut shot for deer). Any thing I shoot I eat. That is actually why I don't fish, I probably wont eat it (at least the way my dad always cooks it).

As for PETA (PITA, sorry but I had too) I regard them almost as low as a domestic terrorist group. The only real differance in my eyes is what they are "fighting" for and how they "fight". Full fledged terrorists attack and destroy for a political statement. PETA distributes propaganda to kids outside of schools, they attempt to use the law against people who are entirely within the law, and they support attacking people who just want to kill what was intended for food.

A note on the vegans. I don't have much of a problem with the people who abstain meat for health concerns. I personally don't believe that the health concerns are valid but oh well. My ahem... beef... lies with people who eat food that grows in a field (in place, not walking) but refuse to support industries that kill animals. Combines kill dozens of fuzzy little nusiances every harvest (per field). Just some "food" for thought.
 
NOTE:
THIS THREAD IS OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS OLD!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

I'm sure it's all been settled in or out of court by now.;)
Very Old News!!!!:rolleyes:
 
Bill Martino said:
I don't hunt anymore due to religious considerations and I'm against killing as a "sport" but I defend anybody who wants to go out into the woods and shoot a deer for food.

Those are also my beliefs.

However there was a time when I would rather hunt than do anything else in the world. When I first went to college, I made beer and tobacco money by trapping muskrat. I think I got about seventy five cents a pelt.

I still love to fish, and my cats are really happy about that.
 
Yes, there are PETA vegans that make their CARNIVORE pets eat vegetarian diets. Read it in their own psycho newsletter ~ scared the hell out of me! :eek: They should be sued for cruelty to animals :grumpy:

There is a land locked park here that is over run with deer. The game wardens used to shoot them at night to keep the herd in check; the meat was given to homeless shelters. The public went nuts, PETA et al sued and they stopped. They were forced to round up the deer and release them in a wilderness area 20 miles away. The biologists said that it would strain the resources where they were put, and the deer would be pushed into marginal areas by the indigenous deer. They also said that the deer were too tame and had no awareness of predators. They attempted to relocate about 30 deer at $10,000 a piece. About 10% dried from stress during the roundup. The majority of those that were released were found eaten by mountain lions within a month (They had tracking collars on). This is what happens when folks that don't want to see the big picture call the shots.
 
wow, sorry for the necro post. After looking around in the "back" history in the browser I see that instead of clicking the ">" to go back one page I accidently clicked "Last >>"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top