What’s next? Dairy farmers being sued for enslaving their cattle?
One question I’d always wanted to ask these bunny huggers, if meat is murder, are eggs abortion?
I heard this PETA attorney interviewed on the radio yesterday. Even though his arguments were persuasive, they didn’t quite cover up the fact that he’s a raving moonbat.
I generally don’t resort to name calling, but in this case, he’s earned an exception.
Bet all these tinfoil hat moonbats support ron paul.
Ask those seals how much time in court they get before the killer whale eats them.
He Gives a good account of what is going on here. He even did a CSPAN Book Presentation. This tactic of suing in the name of the animals name is one of the tactics that he has described them trying to use.
Apparently, PETA doesn’t have enough to do.
Free Willie comes to mind. After at least 2 years of trying to reintroduce Free Willie to the wild, he was not accepted into any whale pod and died.
With liberal morons like PETA, it is the action and NOT the end result that counts!! They cause far more damage and harm to the animals they claim to protect than the organizations they sue!!
So if you keep a parrot in a cage, can you be sued for false imprisonment and denying the parrot its civil rights?
This isn't about the "rights" of animals but the privileges of "liberals."AfAIK no legislator has ever stood for election on the premise that animals have rights, and won. But then, only people vote, and only people are capable of understanding a vote or of counting a vote. This is all about "liberals" having the privilege to claim to speak for the animals - and if a whale, why not a porpoise, and if a whale and a porpoise, why not an ameba?
If it is self-evident that people shouldn't control whales, is it not equally self evident that whales shouldn't eat fish, or krill? And if whales are not to be permitted to eat krill, who enforces that edict against the whale, and by what right?
This isn't about the "rights" of animals but the privileges of "liberals."AfAIK no legislator has ever stood for election on the premise that animals have rights, and won. But then, only people vote, and only people are capable of understanding a vote or of counting a vote. This is all about "liberals" having the privilege to claim to speak for the animals - and if a whale, why not a porpoise, and if a whale and a porpoise, why not an ameba?
If it is self-evident that people shouldn't control whales, is it not equally self evident that whales shouldn't eat fish, or krill? And if whales are not to be permitted to eat krill, who enforces that edict against the whale, and by what right?