Those Sick Animal Rights Hazmats

Update: Also Video here

In-freakin-credible.

I don't think I've ever seen anything else that makes it so clear, the animal rights crowd doesn't love animals nearly as much as it hates humans - and almost by definition, themselves.

At three months old, however, the playful 19lb bundle of fur is at the centre of an impassioned debate over whether he should live or die.

Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet.

"The zoo must kill the bear," said spokesman Frank Albrecht. "Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws."

The animals in this story aren't the polar bears. It's the nut jobs who think to prove you care for the animal, you have to put it to death.

As a side note - I guess this demonstrates that Liberals really do love all those aborted children, after all. They just don't want them raised by human beings. Maybe instead of abortion, we can split the difference and start abandoning babies in the woods.

Comments

[Legalize]

"As a side note - I guess this demonstrates that Liberals really do love all those aborted children, after all. They just don't want them raised by human beings. Maybe instead of abortion, we can split the difference and start abandoning babies in the woods."

You really need to put the glue down for a few hours.

[DANEgerus]

PETA has people on trial for dumping slaughtered pets. As exposed in Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit' they promised to find homes for pets, gathered up 14000, and slaughtered 80% of them when the local shelters had a successful placement rate of 3 in 4.

PETA is just a refuge for violent and elitist haters.

[djangone]

Dan, putting on his sequined leotard and attempting the breathtaking leap across to the other trapeze. Oh! He's down in the netting!

That last paragraph is why I wonder at your doing this writing thing. There isn't a freshman in any college in the country who'd put anything so blindingly stupid in a term paper seen by no one. Yet you, a grown man, air this halfwit, half-baked, half-intelligible, illogical leap in public. When the shame meter is broken, who knows what you'll do or say, Danny. Maybe it'd be best to set the keyboard aside for a bit, let your head cool and get some sunshine.

[Doc]

The real 'glue-sniffers' are the ones who think that the Constitution actually says that women have a right to hire someone to kill their unborn children. Also those who are unable to tell the moral difference between a baby and chimpanzee.

O well, I take some hope in the fact that most who make comments like the one above reproduce at a rate that is, shall we say, unfavorable. Abortion, one designer baby at 39, and/or homosexual relationships doth not a fruitful life encourage. Therefore the 'meme' of the left is doomed to die off, while those of us who reproduce more...vigorously (I have 4 kids myself) are likely to win the grandchild wars, especially if we homeschool our kids, thus not allowing the NEA to get their claws on their little minds. Just think of it as evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.

[yyy]

There is nothing in The Constitution about women voting, doctor/patient privilege or abolishing slavery, either. What's your point?

You don't have a cogent point, that's right.

Please, by all means, flood the country with millions of inbred, uneducated offspring. There are always plenty of low skill jobs in the service sector that need filling.

[Dan Riehl]

"There isn't a freshman in any college in the country"

Gee, no kidding. If a freshman did it, his pathetic lib prof would fail him just for presenting the idea. Sounds like what you really can't hack is having lib's lack of morality exposed for what it is. Did it hurt?

Good!

[Legalize]

Wow, Doc, you and Riehl should get together and pool your "ideas." Such egregiously spurious "thinkers" should not be kept apart.

"Gee, no kidding. If a freshman did it, his pathetic lib prof would fail him just for presenting the idea."

Probably because every time your warped mind comes up with absurd conclusions absent any credible support, this doesn't mean you should be handed a passing grade for your efforts just because you throw a tantrum. Will this be another instance in which you vomit up something incoherent and clueless, and you whine about free speech for being ridiculed?

[Phoenix]

Jaysus! Are all liberals so literal?

Dan, if you had the bandwidth you could post "A Modest Proposal" and make their heads explode.

What's with the brain disconnect in animal rights human units? They don't want that bear to suffer humiliation? They think the humiliation will lower his self-esteem or something? Maybe bear therapy will help the bear understand that he has no sense of self so everything's cool. That's the ticket....

[Phoenix]

I'm so tired of the nasty talk from the libs on this blog because it doesn't do a thing but show how stupid they are.

But, damn... Legalize, You are one stupid motherfucking moron. The proof to just how goddamned stupid you are is that you don't know it.

I'll be waiting for your 'genius' comeback, big guy.

[yyy]

Whoever this guy is, he's an idiot. He is taking a legitimate position: wild animals shouldn't be hand fed because it renders them incapable of living in the wild and/or it makes other members of their species reject them and putting it into a wrong context. The polar bear was born in a zoo, was never intended to be released into the wild and would most likely have died without the intervention of the zoo staff. It is ridiculous to kill this healthy bear because he was kept alive by humans instead of his mother.

I have to point out though, that using one nut in the animal rights activists to paint all animal rights activists as looney is kind of like, well, taking one criminal/lying/incompetant Republican and generalizing that all Republicans are criminals/liars/incompetants or even crack smoking boy prostitute paying folks.

[Hard Right]

This explains why PETA euthanizes the vast majority of animals it "rescues".

[SDN]

The answer to libtards like yyy and legalize is to use the referrer logs etc to track them back and publish the real world addresses for attention by whatever good elves would find them useful.

I may start a blog for just that purpose.

[yyy]

The vast majority of animals that are taken into shelters end up being euthanized because there is no one to adopt them.

People have different ideas on whether or not no kill shelters are really a good idea.

I personally think that if the animal is doomed to live for several years in a tiny cage with little to no human or animal interaction then it's better to euthanize them than keep them alive in a veritable prison.

There are a few, very few shelters that have dog runs and common rooms where the animals are able to walk around, etc. but even these have limitied numbers they can house.

So, once again, the criticism is disingeniouis to say the least. What is PETA supposed to do with thousands of animals?

[Zifnab]

"I have to point out though, that using one nut in the animal rights activists to paint all animal rights activists as looney is kind of like, well, taking one criminal/lying/incompetant Republican and generalizing that all Republicans are criminals/liars/incompetants or even crack smoking boy prostitute paying folks."

That's entirely unfair. Those high ranking Republican politicians were just bad apples. This one, lone nut in Berlin is clearly the spokesman for all animal-rights activists everywhere.

So next time you put on a fur coat made of baby seals or shove firecrackers up the ass of a neighborhood cat, just remember that you're not doing anything worse than your run-of-the-mill polar bear murdering PETA bastard.

[yyy]

The answer to libtards like yyy and legalize is to use the referrer logs etc to track them back and publish the real world addresses for attention by whatever good elves would find them useful.
------------------------------------------------

Is that a threat? God you people are really dangerous, aren't you. Can't stand what some anonymous person says on a 12th tier blog, threaten to out their identity to keep them quiet.

Hail the glorious fatherland.

[Zifnab]

I can totally see SDN driving cross-country in a pick-up truck with rubber hose, a mallet, and a BB-gun wearing a wig and diapers, with some vague intention of showing random blogs that he's just crazy and unemployed enough to throw a punch to make his point.

But please, bring it.

[yyy]

My analysis of Dan's previous polar bear related postings would indicate that Dan should actually be against the zoo personnel having kept the bear alive. He's on record as supporting the view that the bears can take care of themselves without any human interference or protection.

Thus, a consistent position from Dan would have been to criticize the zookeepers for intervening at all, by that reckoning should have been allowed to die if his mother wouldn't take care of him.

[Moose]

Dan, you are full of shit.

I am a liberal animal rights activist and I would never, ever, kill a healthy animal.

[yyy]

I'd also venture to guess that if anyone asked Dan back in the day what he thought about animal cruelty laws he would have scoffed and opined how these laws were utterly ridiculous and a waste of time and resources.....if somebody wants to drag his dog behind a truck for a few miles, beat it to death, or set a cat on fire for kicks it's his god given right as an American to do so.

[Phoenix]

yyy,

Do you have a split personality. You did it again. You make valid commentary above - you are right-on about leaving an animal in a cage.... better off put to sleep, and you note that one person doesn't make up the whole - which is odd coming from you as you constantly say what dumb morons we are here. But you just had to do the personal thing with your last comment.

What is your problem? For all the asinine comments from the libs here, you, at least, make your points clearly and frequently give pause for thought. Why in the hell can't you lose the attitude and stop with the blame crap and the personal crap against Dan?

I'd like to agree with you often enough, but you just trash that desire with your attitude.

[Dan Riehl]

"Moose: I am a liberal animal rights activist and I would never, ever, kill a healthy animal."

Well, when I hunted, I would never kill a sick one, I guess we're even. BLAM! BLAM!

[yyy]

Dan is a total hypocrite. Which is funny of course because he likes to lambast liberals, especially Al Gore and people who want to save the polar bears as hypocrites.

He blogs about how horrible it was for the animal rights group(s) to use a photo of polar bears in an emotional plea about global warming, because the ice was taken out of context, or some such other nonsense. Then, when it suits him, when he wants to bash the animal rights groups he does exactly the same thing by giving us a picture of an adorable little polar bear that apparently one guy thinks should be killed on principle.

The sum total of Dan's posts on polar bears, animal rights activists and environmentalists indicate to me that he doesn't give a god damn about polar bears, animal rights or the environment for the simple reason that he perceives these as LIBERAL causes, and so he is against them.

He's also against them because protecting the animals or the environemnt might cost money and might deprive someone, somewhere of a couple of bucks, and the animals can take of themselves anyway.

Then lastly, he links animnal rights to abortion in what he thought was a super clever swipe.

Dan is a jerk, a hypocrite and a liar.

[Gene Cole]

yyy sez "There is nothing in The Constitution about women voting, doctor/patient privilege or abolishing slavery, either. What's your point?"

Actually:

Women Voting: 19th Amendment guarenteed women the right to vote: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Abolishing Slavery: 13th Amendment abolished slavery: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".

I think ol' yyy has been suckin' on that hash pipe a bit too much.

[Frederico Vasquez]

"So, once again, the criticism is disingeniouis to say the least. What is PETA supposed to do with thousands of animals?"

Here's an idea: Treat them Ethically.

I've never seen so many dope smoking liberals idiots in one place before. The analogy at the end of the initial post makes perfect sense if you haven't taken three bong hits before reading it.

[Love Animals = Kill Animals] = [Love Babies = Kill Babies]
It is the definition of a logical analogy. These libs that have half a dozen or more attempts at arument on this page are the ones who need a clue. Reminds me of Joe in Team America: "Oh Yeah?! You Wanna Go?!?" Preposterous.

[Phoenix]

I figured you at least able to get his irony, but I guess not. You've been coming here as long as I have and you should know what he's doing.

It pisses me off that I can't give you the credit I want to, yyy. But if you honestly believe what you just posted, there is no way. You waste an awful lot of energy by not getting it.

[syn]

If liberals are going to encourage their contrived concept that euthanasia is the humane answer to solving life's problems then perhaps liberal animal activists should join hands with liberal abortion activists to design a method of sticking a tube into the animals neck, suck it's brains out and collapse its skull.

At least then liberal activists would be consistent on principle.

One of these days liberals will progress to the point of sticking tubes into frail and helpless elderly necks, suck out the elderly brain and collaspe the eldery skill all for humane purposes of course.

[yyy]

Treat them Ethically.
--------------------

I'd love any information that PETA doesn't treat animals in it's care ethically.

PS...It would have seemed obvious my post about the constittion was about the orignal constition as it was drafted by the founding fathers, which included not a word about women's rights, women voting or slavery being illegal.

[Greg W]

yyy "flood the country with millions of inbred, uneducated offspring"

That's right, millions. There are millions of pro-life people in America, probably the majority of Americans, in spite of the liberal court rulings and media bias. So just how are their children inbred? Perhaps you're the uneducated one, after all.

And why is such an enlightened one as you reading a "12th tier blog" anyway? Just to inflict your simplistic Nazi allusions ("Hail the glorious fatherland.") on everyone? If anyone here resembles Goebbels, it's you. Deception and distortion were his methods too.

[yyy]

Blah, blah, blah.

The public hasn't changed its mind on abortion in almost 40 years. There are millions of people who are anti abortion. Great. Then they shouldn't have abortions.

Could you direct me to any leaders in the modern era who were home schooled? Anyone? Dubya went to Harvard. Rummy went to Princeton. If you think that a bunch of morons who were homeschooled that the earth is 6,000 years old, jesus christ is their personal savior and anyone who doesn't believe it is going to hell, adam and eve were real people, evolution and science are the work of the devil would ever be able to hack it anywhere outside of Wal-mart feel free to keep on breeding.

[Scott]

Dear yyy,

"There is nothing in The Constitution about women voting, doctor/patient privilege or abolishing slavery, either."

Actually, it has very specific things to say about 2 of the three items. Doc/patient privilege is an accepted standard in most civilized nations (read: democracies), and there are constitutional amendments for women voting, and abolishing slavery.

I am unaware of any such ammendment for abortion.

[Andrew]

12th tier blogs like this make for good reading. Angry, idiot right-wing clowns talking about civil war and 'victory' in Iraq is truly funny stuff.

[Zifnab]

"I am unaware of any such ammendment for abortion."

Very well, there is no constitutional amendment allowing the government to regulate air travel, and yet the FAA exists. Is the FAA unconstitutional? Discuss.

[Greg W]

yyy You sound irate. Are you angry because your mother either chose not to abort you, or just didn't have the opportunity? Get over it. Life's too short to be bitter, we'll all be dead soon enough anyway.

I see you're scornful of (your version of) Christianity. So what do you believe? It would be interesting to see a couple of paragraphs telling us what life is really all about. Don't be modest. What's it all about, Alfie?

[Zifnab]

Shorter Greg W: "I'm pro-liberal abortions, just like my best friend Jesus."

[yyy]

I see my error in trying to give a short handed explanation of why strictly constructionism, e.g. abortion isn't mentioned in the constition so it should be illegal, is not the best basis on which to found an argument.

You would think that conservatives, historically fans of limited government, would be absolutely behind the implied right to privacy, but apparently not.

I could give a long, long list of institions and laws that have no basis in the constition, and thus, under the strict constructionist viewpoint would have been struck down as unconstitional, but I am pretty sure it would fall on deaf ears.

[Staying Anon for now...]

Wait a second, yyy actually has a point here.

“It would have seemed obvious my post about the constittion was about the orignal constition as it was drafted by the founding fathers, which included not a word about women's rights, women voting or slavery being illegal.”

That would have meant that none of the feminists would have ever stepped into the political field directly. They would have stayed behind a man, oh sure influenced them, but we wouldn’t have to deal with a Pelosi or Hillary either. They would have never voted for idiots like Clinton. And the Dems wouldn’t have the Black vote…

Damn, yyy your RIGHT.

We SHOULD go back to the original constitution, as was written by the founding fathers.

[Faciamus]

The hypocrisy of the animal rights wackos is mind blowing, but what else would you expect?

[Greg W]

Shorter Nifnab: "I don't understand sarcasm. Sarcasm is cruel."

[yyy]

FYI...The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to revoke the authority it granted the Bush administration last year to name federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation.

Bye bye Alberto.....

[Legalize]

"But, damn... Legalize, You are one stupid motherfucking moron. The proof to just how goddamned stupid you are is that you don't know it.

I'll be waiting for your 'genius' comeback, big guy."

Comeback to what? You want me to respond to another one of your asinine "positions" that assumes what it seeks to prove - again? Just because you mistake absurd trains of thought that validate your prejudices, doesn't really mean that said absurd trains of though (marked by a total lack of ANY REAL LIFE correlative or causative implications), should be entertained with a response. Arguing such an inane point only gives credence to the stupidity you embrace so gleefully.

If you support the proposition that because PETA did something deplorable to animals, this necessarily comes close to explaining why one might be in favor of permitting a woman to get an abortion, you really don't deserve a thoughtful response, because there is no fucking relationship.

I look forward to your further numb-fuck inquries.

[Legalize]

"We SHOULD go back to the original constitution, as was written by the founding fathers."

Just to be clear, you favor this because such a reversion would disinfranchize women and minorities, right?

[tim]

What a bunch of nitwits, both sides. Screaming babies...

[Staying Anon for now...]

Nope. I simply agree with your fellow lib in saying that it would be better to follow the original consititution.

[Gene Cole]

Zifnab sez:
"Very well, there is no constitutional amendment allowing the government to regulate air travel, and yet the FAA exists. Is the FAA unconstitutional? Discuss."

The ability to regulate interstate commerce would do it:

Article 1, Section 8

3. [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

triple-y sez:

"It would have seemed obvious my post about the (sic) constittion was about the orignal (sic) constition as it was drafted by the founding fathers, which included not a word about women's rights, women voting or slavery being illegal."

I re-read the original post. I submit "The Constitution" means the whole Constitution. I'd go back to my original statement about suckin' too hard on the ol' hash pipe.

[Moose]

Riehl: "Well, when I hunted, I would never kill a sick one, I guess we're even. BLAM! BLAM!"

That will probably be the last sound you hear.

You're a suicide waiting to happen.

[Legalize]

"Nope. I simply agree with your fellow lib in saying that it would be better to follow the original consititution."

...by making the argument that if not for the reconstruction amendments and womens' suffrage, we'd be in a better position as a country, as (a) women would have stayed behind men, thereby resulting in a lack of Pelosis and Clintons, and (b) blacks would not be voting for Dems.

Please clarify.

[Zifnab]

"The ability to regulate interstate commerce would do it:

Article 1, Section 8

3. [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

If I'm not mistaken, private aircraft are required to submit to government regulation as well. And of course, we can always make the arguement that the Commerce Clause has been beaten to death since Johnson, getting applied to literally everything.

[Legalize]

Zinfab, I don't think you are on solid footing with you commerce clause argument, as private aircraft travelling from state to state and abroad, necessarily implicate interstate commerce. Also note, just for point of reference that the Rhenquist Court significantly rolled back the Commerce Clause's applicability. See the Lopez and Morrison cases. I think you need to be making a 14th amendment argument to support your abortion position.

[Gene Cole]

Zifnab sez:

"If I'm not mistaken, private aircraft are required to submit to government regulation as well."

Since private aircraft use government supplied and supported airports, navaids, and comm assets, they can be regulated under this clause. Precedent was established early in the 19th Century with federal regulation of waterways. Kinda' like private cars are subject to federal regulation on interstate highways, even when joyriding.

"And of course, we can always make the arguement that the Commerce Clause has been beaten to death since Johnson, getting applied to literally everything."

Maybe, but the FAA was established in 1958 (5 years before Pres. Johnson took office), and it's predecessor, the CAA, was established in 1926. Both were established under Republican Administrations, and the first under a very conservative administration.

[ConserView]

Actually, the lethal injection should be given to those who would want to kill such a beautiful, innocent creature.