PDA

View Full Version : Consumer Group defends Beyonce; PETA responsible for animal cruelty


jd4eva
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:08 AM
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060621/dcw023.html?.v=61

Consumer Group Defends Beyonce Against PETA Ambush
Wednesday June 21, 10:12 am ET The Center for Consumer Freedom Tells Beyonce: 'Don't let PETA Puppy-Killers Get Away With Their Attack'

WASHINGTON, June 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the Center for Consumer Freedom jumped to the defense of singer and movie star Beyonce Knowles, the latest celebrity to be attacked by the radical animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), saying: "PETA has some nerve going after Beyonce considering its own disgusting record on animal cruelty."

Knowles had generously donated a dinner with fans at a posh New York sushi restaurant for a charity auction. Her philanthropy was rewarded with hostility when the auction winners turned out to be two PETA operatives who ambushed Beyonce for using fur in her clothing line. PETA secretly videotaped the exchange and released the tape on the Internet where, thanks to the widely viewed Drudge Report and other websites, the video was seen by millions.

"PETA's underhanded exploitation of celebrities like Beyonce is deeply hypocritical," said David Martosko, Director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. "To fight back, Beyonce need only know three words: PETA KILLS ANIMALS."

Martosko continued, "Two of PETA's own employees each currently face 22 felony animal-cruelty charges for euthanizing 18 dogs and puppies in a van and throwing their bodies in a dumpster. Beyonce should direct her so-called 'animal rights' detractors to PETAKillsAnimals.com."

Visitors to http://www.PETAKillsAnimals.com (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/) can see statistics derived from documents obtained by the Center for Consumer Freedom from the state of Virginia. These documents show that between 1998 and 2005, PETA killed more than 14,400 dogs, cats, and other animals. The group killed nearly 80 percent of the pets it took in for adoption during this seven-year period.

To see detailed numbers related to PETA's massive euthanasia program, and to read more about the PETA arrests, visit http://www.PETAKillsAnimals.com (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/)

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

Sam L
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:19 AM
Firstly, let me remind everybody that celebrities with real talent like Charlize Theron and Joaquin Phoenix and Martina Navratilova actually support PETA. It's not PETA vs. celebrities.

Secondly, Beyonce is a talentless whore who has made homophobic comments in the past.

Thirdly, people will anything to distract the work of PETA and defend blindly their whores who "entertain" them by flashing their boobs and pussies on stage like Beyonce.

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:47 AM
firstly i think most of the things peta does are down right nutty.

but that is NO excuse for turning to the tobacco industry

Through a whistleblower, the Center for Media & Democracy has obtained a list of financial contributors to the "Center for Consumer Freedom," a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and liquor industries that represents itself as an advocate for consumers' rights. Highlights of the list, which we have added to the group's profile on our Disinfopedia, include $200,000 apiece from Coca-Cola, Excel/Cargill, Monsanto, Tyson Foods and Wendy's International; $164,000 from Outback Steakhouse, and $100,000 from Pilgrim's Pride Corporation.

Web Note: One of the most vicious corporate front groups in America is the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom, which specializes in attacking the organic movement and public interest groups opposed to genetic engineering and industrial agriculture.

The Organic Consumers Association and our allies have been frequent targets for the CCF over the past few years. OCA's public interest ally PR Watch

has published an excellent expose of CCF and its founder and chief propagandist, Rick Berman. Among CCF's major funders are Coca-Cola, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Monsanto.

See http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

Center for Consumer Freedom From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture ‹ the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' " CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman.

Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. The group actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists. "We always have a knife in our teeth," he said. Since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine," his strategy is "to shoot the messenger. ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons." In a May 11, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle article, CCF spokesman John Doyle responded to questions about nationwide radio ads put out by the group.

He said the ads were meant to attract people to their website and "draw attention to our enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group , chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry."[1] (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/05/11/MN119037.DT L) Personnel CCF is registered as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

The IRS Form 990 filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 by CCF (then calling itself the Guest Choice Network), listed the following officers: € Richard Berman, executive director. € Ray Kraftson, director € Dixie L. Berman, secretary/treasurer € Dan Popeo, director (Popeo is also chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation, a corporate-funded right-wing think tank which paid him $301,593 in salary and benefits in 2000.) € Allison Whitesides, director (Whitesides has also worked as a public relations representative for Coca-Cola North America and Outback Steakhouse.. In November 2001, she went to work as a legislative representative for the National Restaurant Association.) The CCF also has an advisory panel. In 1998 it included the following individuals: € Dave Albright, National Steak & Poultry € Jane Innes, Perkins Family Restaurants, L.P. € Steve Bartlett, Meridian Products Corporation € Robert Basham, Outback Steakhouse, Inc. € John F. Berglund, Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association € Lou Chatey, Sebastiani Vineyards € [[H.A. "Andy" Divine]], University of Denver € Timothy J. Doke, Brinker International, Inc. € Richard Fisher, Tetley USA, Inc. € William L. Hyde, Jr., Ruth's Chris Steakhouse € James Spector, Philip Morris, USA € Michael Middleton, Cargill Processed Meat Products € Daniel J. Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation € Richard G. Scalise, Armour Swift-Eckrich € Daniel Timm, the Bruss Company € Carl Vogt, Fulbright & Jaworski € Richard Walsh, Darden Restaurants, Inc. € Terry Wheatley, Sutter Home Winery In addition to these officers, several Berman & Co. employees and associates have appeared in news stories as CCF representatives: € Mike Burita has worked for a variety of conservative causes, including Republican election campaigns, Phyllis Schlafly, Frontiers of Freedom, and Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. € John Doyle, communications director for Berman & Co., also doubles as a spokesman for the CCF, the Employment Policies Institute and the American Beverage Institute. € On February 24, 2000, the Washington Post reported that Tom Lauria, "who helped peddle the tobacco industry's message at the Tobacco Institute before the lobby group was dismantled last year as part of an agreement with the states," had been hired as director of communications for CCN (then named the Guest Choice Network). Lauria left Berman's employ sometime in 2001. € David Martosko has been described in news stories as CCN's director of research.

Affiliated Organizations In addition to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman & Co. sponsors several other organizations and web sites, including the Employment Policies Institute (which fights to keep the minimum wage low and opposes mandatory health insurance for workers), and the American Beverage Institute, which opposes restrictions on drinking and driving. History Berman launched the Guest Choice Network in 1995.

Its initial funding came entirely from the Philip Morris tobacco company. "I'd lke to propose to Philip Morris the establishment of the Guest Choice Network," Berman stated in a December 11, 1995 letter to Barbara Trach (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/berman600k.pdf), PM's senior program manager for public affairs. "The concept is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists. ... I would like to solicit Philip Morris for an initial contribution of $600,000." The purpose of the Guest Choice Network, as Berman explained in a separate planning document (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gcplan.pdf), would be to enlist operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice.'"

According to a yearend 1995 budget (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/budget.pdf), Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for "membership marketing/materials development," $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a "60% to 70% smoking focus" (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gcplan.pdf)), $110,000 to create a "multi-industry advisory council," and $345,000 for "grassroots network development/operation." The tobacco company complied with Berman's initial funding request for $600,000 (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm600k.pdf) and pitched in another $300,000 early the following year. "As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now," wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated March 28, 1996 (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm300k.pdf). Aside from Philip Morris, there are no other publicly-known funders of Guest Choice until its public launch two years later, in April 1998, sporting an advisory board comprised mostly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries.

In November 2001, the Guest Choice Network launched a separate web site, ActivistCash.com, which purports to expose the "hidden funding" of various activist groups that support animal rights, food safety and smoking prevention. In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network renamed itself as the Center for Consumer Freedom. In early 2002, CCF ran national radio ads targeting studies on the link between food consumption and health. One ad referred to "red-faced picketers wielding pointed wooden sticks with signs that read 'eat tofu or die' on the way to your classic cheeseburger and fries."

Funding CCF is registered as tax-exempt nonprofit organization and is required to disclose some financial information to the Internal Revenue Service which is publicly available by inspecting their IRS Form 990s. Like Berman's other front groups, it does not disclose the identity of its funders, but some information about it has become publicly available thanks to the 1998 attorney generals' settlement with the tobacco industry, which required tobacco companies to release millions of pages of previously secret company documents. CCN claims to represent "more than 30,000 U.S. restaurants and tavern operators."

However, the IRS Form 990 which it filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 (under the name of "Guest Choice Network") shows that almost all of its financial support came from a handful of anonymous sources. Its total income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors. It received no income from membership dues. Some of its funding apparently came from one of Berman's other organizations, the American Beverage Institute, which "contributes monthly amounts to the Guest Choice Network to assist with media expenses."

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:53 AM
more on how the CCF is a bullshit corporate front.

Center for Consumer Freedom: Non-Profit or Corporate Shill?

July 1, 2005

Wayne Pacelle testifying at a hearing
©The HSUS 2005 Wayne Pacelle testifying at a hearing.

By Bernard Unti

For more than a quarter century, The HSUS has been critical of individuals and organizations that resort to intimidation, vandalism, or violence in pursuit of animal protection goals. The violence of such people and such groups runs against everything The HSUS stands for, above all its core ethic of promoting compassion and respect for life.

Despite this unequivocal stance against extralegal tactics—or, perhaps, because of it—a self-described consumer group that targets animal organizations on behalf of a corporate client base recently tried to associate The HSUS with lawless and violent tactics in testimony before a congressional committee. The occasion was a May 18 hearing of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, chaired by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). The subject was a matter of great import—domestic terrorism. The speaker was David Martosko, representing the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). In his statement, Martosko attempted to connect The HSUS, through a sort of "six degrees of separation" standard of who is a terrorist, with radical, pro-violence and extralegal activism as practiced by groups such as Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

The CCF is run by Richard Berman, a Washington lobbyist who represents the interests of the alcohol, tobacco, restaurant, and hospitality industries. Through his public relations firm, as well as through the CCF and several other tax-exempt organizations, Berman campaigns against reforms advanced by groups dedicated to the lowering of legal alcohol levels for drivers, smoking bans in public places, and the reduction of junk food consumption.

In recent years, the CCF has increasingly attacked organizations whose work includes a focus on animal agriculture and food industry reform. Martosko’s swipe at The HSUS during the congressional hearing was a continuation of this pattern, and follows in the footsteps of other opponents who have sought to discredit our good work by casting unfounded aspersions upon us.

The HSUS responded immediately to Martosko’s accusations, as staff members outside the meeting chamber told the media that the CCF’s claims were “outrageous.” The next day, The HSUS took further steps to address the mischief set loose by Martosko. HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle sent Senator Inhofe a three-page letter that corrected the record and communicated The HSUS’s decision to explore legal action against Martosko and the CCF. Pacelle’s letter addressed in detail the inaccuracies of the allegations, and underscored The HSUS’s longstanding commitment to non-violence. He also offered to respond to committee members’ questions.

Pacelle did not mince words in assessing Martosko’s remarks. The information provided by the CCF, he wrote, “is severely distorted and the suggestion that The HSUS supports any illegal action, or that it has ties to groups like the ALF and ELF that it has repeatedly denounced, is patently false and outrageous.”

The HSUS’s Commitment to Nonviolence

The HSUS was quick to condemn animal activists’ use of lawless and violent tactics when the phenomenon first surfaced in the 1980s. The animal movement entered its social protest phase during this decade, and The HSUS treated the question seriously even though organization executives believed then, as they do now, that such extremism is very limited and atypical within animal advocacy.

Long-serving former president John A. Hoyt explained The HSUS’s commitment to nonviolence in columns for the spring 1981 and summer 1986 issues of HSUS News. HSUS staff members such as Dr. Martin Stephens further clarified our position at congressional hearings, testifying that “The HSUS not only opposes arson, vandalism, theft, and threats and acts of violence against people, but also believes that such acts do not advance the cause of animal protection.”

Most notably, the preamble of our Joint Resolutions for the 1990s, a policy initiative developed in collaboration with the American SPCA and the Massachusetts SPCA, and published as a full-page paid advertisement in the January 29, 1991 edition of The New York Times, included a prominent affirmation of non-violence. The HSUS took additional steps to publicize this document, writing letters to newspapers and periodicals, including the journal Science. With our co-sponsors we solicited the support of several thousand animal organizations around the country, recruiting more than 100 of them as co-signatories.

More recently, in 2002, The HSUS permanently withdrew its support from an annual conference because some of the speakers had advocated violence or other law-breaking action. In March 2004, Pacelle and staff member J.P. Goodwin authored a magazine piece that specifically condemned such acts as a means for advancing animal protection goals. An August 2004 profile in The Washington Post of the newly appointed HSUS CEO noted that “Pacelle has been one of the most outspoken opponents of violence in the movement." Pacelle reaffirmed these values in an interview with Satya in June 2005. And since July 2002, The HSUS position statement on non-violence has been displayed on the organization's web site.

The CCF: Non-Profit or Corporate Front?

The CCF casts itself as a public interest organization with a libertarian commitment to consumer choice, but to those it attacks, it is a classic corporate front group. The list of organizations and agencies targeted by the CCF is a long and honorable one, and includes Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Public Health Association, the Harvard School of Public Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CCF’s main activity is the publication of rhetorical blasts on its web site, in letters-to-the-editor, in opinion pieces, in an e-newsletter, and in press releases that are often warped and intemperate. By Berman’s own proud admission, there’s nothing subtle about his approach, which he described in a restaurant industry publication as “knife in our teeth” and “shoot the messenger.”

His approach is also lucrative. Since the 1995 launch of its predecessor organization, the Guest Choice Network, with a stake of $600,000 from major tobacco companies, the CCF has become a reliable source of income to Berman’s public affairs firm. The CCF paid Berman and Company $960,602 in 2002, and $1,137,070 in 2003 for services rendered to the non-profit.

Some question whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should have recognized the CCF as a tax-exempt public charity in 2002. Because of CCF’s 501(c)(3) charitable status, the business interests giving money to the CCF are entitled to treat their payments as tax-deductible contributions, and many of them presumably do so—although it is difficult to discern the charitable premise involved.

The reason for this difficulty is simple. The CCF’s activities, to a remarkable degree, appear to directly serve the business interests of the non-profit's contributors, under the guise of “educating” the public, which is one of the legitimate purposes of a 501(c)(3) organization. Not by coincidence, Berman’s public relations firm provides for-profit lobbying services for some of the same industries that support the declared consumer choice agenda of the CCF.

In November 2004, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson to revoke CCF’s tax-exempt status. CREW argued that CCF carries on substantial activities that are not charitable, that the compensation CCF pays to corporate insiders is “excessive” under IRS rules, and that CCF’s relationship with its founder’s for-profit firm raises issues of “private inurement,” which is prohibited under CCF’s tax-exempt status. (IRS audits of tax-exempt organizations are confidential proceedings, so the timing and existence of an IRS decision, if any, on CREW’s complaint—which raises many of the same issues that the IRS itself raised in its initial consideration of CCF’s tax-exemption application—is not known as of this posting.)

The CCF’s dealings have also been the subject of lively analysis by investigative journalists, watchdog groups, a story and editorial in The Washington Post, a feature in The New York Times business section, and an editorial in USA Today.

As a general proposition, The HSUS does not see the restaurant chains, food and beverage companies, meat producers, and other corporate interests that comprise the Berman client base as natural enemies. We see them, rather, as social and economic actors whose behavior and business practices can be reshaped in accordance with evolving public sensibility and preference.

Indeed, in recent years a number of corporations have adopted humane principles and practices, recognizing that such innovation serves their own interests as well as those of animals and the public. McDonald's, Wendy’s, Whole Foods, and Wild Oats are among the companies that have evinced their commitment to animal welfare through shifts in policy or conduct. But it’s also the case that some companies are either too complacent or obdurate to change practices even under critical scrutiny and public pressure. In short, they’d rather fight than switch.

Old Accusations, Easily Dismissed

One would not think that a group with the CCF’s funding structure and working style would be in any position to find fault with The HSUS. But that hasn’t stopped the CCF from trying. Its public assertions about The HSUS, whether focused on our founding, our structure and finances, our policies, our philosophy, or our campaigns, are error-laden, dishonest, and full of innuendo and “guilt by association” smears. None of these matters is a mystery, and anyone who really wishes to develop a true sense of The HSUS can do so by examining our web site, our annual report, and our financial filings.

The HSUS is the nation’s largest animal protection group, fully compliant with the charitable standards set by the BBB Wise Giving Alliance of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. Our nine million members and constituents make us one of the largest non-profit organizations of any kind in the country. This mainstream influence makes The HSUS a powerful voice against cruelty to animals—which is why, when they want to belittle the cause of animal protection, our critics typically are reduced to using second-hand libels, in whatever forum they can secure.

By far the most hackneyed of CCF’s erroneous public criticisms comes when it misconstrues our fundamental mandate by suggesting that “HSUS doesn’t help local humane societies save dogs and cats.” The HSUS has addressed permutations on this claim many times, especially as it has been promulgated again and again in the outdoor press. The HSUS does not run local animal shelters, but the National Rifle Association does not run local gun clubs, either, just as no single law enforcement agency runs all police departments.

We do, however, work to professionalize the entire animal sheltering and animal control field. We have long been committed to the promotion of best practices, to the passage of federal and state legislation that benefits companion animals, to the training of animal care and control personnel, to the pursuit of positive publicity for the cause, and to the direct care of animals through rescue and relief initiatives, accomplished through such programs as our Disaster Services and Rural Area Veterinary Services.

What’s more, we conduct evaluations for shelters to help them run better, and hold seminars for humane society boards of directors. We run a national conference where shelter personnel learn the latest innovations in the field, and publish Animal Sheltering, a magazine that serves the profession. Finally, we work closely with federal and state law enforcement officials involved in the investigation and prosecution of cruelty to animals.

The real concern of those who question The HSUS’s commitment in this way is not that we do nothing about dogs and cats, but that we do a great deal about many other things, challenging all kinds of cruelty in accordance with our founders’ determination that The HSUS be involved in “every field of humane work—everywhere.” If anything, many critics would prefer to see us occupied solely with homeless dogs and cats than paying attention to their connections to canned hunts, slaughterhouse cruelty, factory farming, animal fighting, sealing, whaling, cosmetics testing, and countless other arenas in which animals suffer.

Fighting Back

There are few reasonable people who would belittle the purpose of the hearing held by the Senate committee. But Martosko’s appearance was a cheap and tawdry spectacle. Senators even chided the witness for wielding such a broad brush in trying to associate The HSUS with organizations whose conduct it has specifically reproached. Not one senator, however, sought to pose an obvious question: What was this shill group for the hospitality industry—palming itself off as some sort of civil-liberties group—doing before the committee in the first place?

During The HSUS’s five decades of existence, a number of entities like the CCF have come and gone, frequently run by people with an agenda or profit motive tied in some way to the suffering of animals. They’re hard to keep track of, they usually make a lot of noise for a year or two, they publish a book or pamphlet best mailed out in a plain brown wrapper, and then they disappear. Normally, The HSUS does not spend too much time worrying about what these groups do or say. To a great extent, we have grown accustomed to their attacks, and we do not let them sidetrack our urgent work of helping animals.

If things are a little different this time, it’s because the CCF has crossed the line in its attempt to associate The HSUS with violence and criminality. Despite the flimsiness of these claims, we face the possibility that other critics—including a few who should know better—may take CCF’s sleazy allegations at face value, and pass them on. Such serious slurs and erroneous claims should not go unchallenged, and they won’t. The HSUS has come by its reputation honestly, and we will not surrender it to disingenuous attacks, now or ever.

Bernard Unti, senior policy advisor and special assistant to the president, received his doctorate in U.S. history in 2002 from American University. His book, Protecting All Animals: A Fifty-Year History of The Humane Society of the United States, is available from Humane Society Press.

Sam L
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:58 AM
Alright, time to close this thread. :lol:

jd4eva
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:01 AM
Firstly, let me remind everybody that celebrities with real talent like Charlize Theron and Joaquin Phoenix and Martina Navratilova actually support PETA. It's not PETA vs. celebrities.

Secondly, Beyonce is a talentless whore who has made homophobic comments in the past.

Thirdly, people will anything to distract the work of PETA and defend blindly their whores who "entertain" them by flashing their boobs and pussies on stage like Beyonce.

Firstly, let me remind you that these celebrities are more generally in support of animal rights not PETA per se.

Yes, Beyonce is a talentless whore and she has achieved nothing. :retard:

The most fundamental thing that an organisation like PETA needs to own when they take the approach that PETA does is the moral highground. It's not about defending anybody; but when an organisation purports to be fighting for the rights of all animals it needs to possess, above all else, an immaculate record in the protection of these animals. When their moral standards fall short, they cannot be taken seriously. Why don't we look at the facts next time before we start spouting vitriolic hate for somebody that you don't even know.

jd4eva
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:03 AM
Firstly, let me remind you that these celebrities are more generally in support of animal rights not PETA per se.

Yes, Beyonce is a talentless whore and she has achieved nothing. :retard:

The most fundamental thing that an organisation like PETA needs to own when they take the approach that PETA does is the moral highground. It's not about defending anybody; but when an organisation purports to be fighting for the rights of all animals it needs to possess, above all else, an immaculate record in the protection of these animals. When their moral standards fall short, they cannot be taken seriously. Why don't we look at the facts next time before we start spouting vitriolic hate for somebody that you don't even know.

And this applies to the CCF as well in their area of interest. However in this instance, it is not really relevant that they accept donations from certain organisations because the facts speak for themselves.

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:03 AM
Alright, time to close this thread. :lol:
:lol: :worship: my work here i done...

G1Player2
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:06 AM
She should be defended. PETA's ways of getting their point across is disgusting and them barrading Beyonce's privacy when she tried to do them a favor is ridiculous. It;s good to see a group criticising PETA.

"Sluggy"
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:07 AM
wow, PETA is happy-slapping like we do in FRANCE!

G1Player2
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:09 AM
Firstly, let me remind everybody that celebrities with real talent like Charlize Theron and Joaquin Phoenix and Martina Navratilova actually support PETA. It's not PETA vs. celebrities.

Secondly, Beyonce is a talentless whore who has made homophobic comments in the past.

Thirdly, people will anything to distract the work of PETA and defend blindly their whores who "entertain" them by flashing their boobs and pussies on stage like Beyonce.

This may be a bit off topic but what makes Beyonce a talentless whore and what makes the fact that she was ambushed by PETA inexcusable?

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:14 AM
And this applies to the CCF as well in their area of interest. However in this instance, it is not really relevant that they accept donations from certain organizations because the facts speak for themselves.
lucky for you, i have insomnia...

i don't know if you read your own post... it goes something like this...

The most fundamental thing that an organization like PETA needs to own when they take the approach that PETA does is the moral highground. It's not about defending anybody; but when an organization purports to be fighting for the rights of all animals it needs to possess, above all else, an immaculate record in the protection of these animals. When their moral standards fall short, they cannot be taken seriously.

so if what you say is true, "any organization that purports to be fighting for the rights of all animals it needs to possess, above all else, an immaculate record in the protection of these animals."

as we all know people are animals too, (homo sapiens to be exact) now i show CLEAR evidence that by YOUR own logic and definition CCS does not meet YOUR OWN STANDARDS that YOU, YOURSELF SET FORTH. is it me or are you suffering from one of the worlds most blatant case of massive hypocrisy.

*abby*
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:17 AM
im glad they showed beyonce what really goes on when she decides she wants a little bit of fur on her new design.
maybe now she will think twice!

G1Player2
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:20 AM
PETA activists are nuts. The are radicals and an over the top group. THEY place VERY little value on human life as well ironically. I remember one of the members saying that they believed an animal had the SAME rights as a retarded child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence of others. :retard:

G1Player2
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:22 AM
im glad they showed beyonce what really goes on when she decides she wants a little bit of fur on her new design.
maybe now she will think twice!

I am sure you have worn some animal garments and not even knew it. Do you eat meat? Do you eat eggs? Drink milk? So why criticise Beyonce while you are involved with this "animal cruelty" as much as she is.

jd4eva
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:23 AM
lucky for you, i have insomnia...

i don't know if you read your own post... it goes something like this...



so if what you say is true, "any organization that purports to be fighting for the rights of all animals it needs to possess, above all else, an immaculate record in the protection of these animals."

as we all know people are animals too, (homo sapiens to be exact) now i show CLEAR evidence that by YOUR own logic and definition CCS does not meet YOUR OWN STANDARDS that YOU, YOURSELF SET FORTH. is it me or are you suffering from one of the worlds most blatant case of massive hypocrisy.

You're statement isn't analogous in the slightest and you're dancing around the point with irrelevant semantics. The relevant organisation is PETA and they purport to seek to protect the rights of animals. Animals in this context is being used in its ordinary, common, popular meaning. These standards are not mine; but it should not be a point of contention that if you are going to lecture and preach about the rights of animals, they need to be rights that you (through your actions, not merely your words) respect and protect.

When you are guilty of moral shortcomings in the exact field that you seek to preach to others about you no longer have the right to expect that people will listen and subsume your views with respect. An erosion of your moral highground inevitably leads to an erosion of social credibility.

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:34 AM
You're statement isn't analogous in the slightest and you're dancing around the point with irrelevant semantics. The relevant organisation is PETA and they purport to seek to protect the rights of animals. Animals in this context is being used in its ordinary, common, popular meaning. These standards are not mine; but it should not be a point of contention that if you are going to lecture and preach about the rights of animals, they need to be rights that you (through your actions, not merely your words) respect and protect.

When you are guilty of moral shortcomings in the exact field that you seek to preach to others about you no longer have the right to expect that people will listen and subsume your views with respect. An erosion of your moral highground inevitably leads to an erosion of social credibility.

basically, you got caught being hypocritical by your own standards that you, yourselves set forth. and are too much of a coward to own up to it, (BTW, your ignorance of basic science & or English is no excuse! and even if it were (which it is not) your rules STILL apply, and if they didn't THAT would be hypocritical)

you hate peta, i get that, what i dont get is why you feel compelled to make a fool and hypocrite of yourself in saying that. like its 100 times easier to just say you hate peta rather than making yourself into such a hypocritical fool.

by the way: the issue is that you posted a bullshit article about a bullshit front organization (ccf), and are trying to act as if the fact that its a bullshit article about a bullshit front organization is a non issue. which is of course complete bullshit.

G1Player2
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:36 AM
basically, you got caught being hypocritical by your own standards that you, yourselves set forth. and are too much of a coward to own up to it, (BTW, your ignorance of basic science & or English is no excuse! and even if it were (which it is not) your rules STILL apply, and if they didn't THAT would be hypocritical)

you hate peta, i get that, what i dont get is why you feel compelled to make a fool and hypocrite of yourself in saying that. like its 100 times easier to just say you hate peta rather than making yourself into such a hypocritical fool.

WOW :lol: You've been on a roll lately. You sure that they haven't been lacing that tea? :shrug:

*abby*
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:37 AM
I am sure you have worn some animal garments and not even knew it. Do you eat meat? Do you eat eggs? Drink milk? So why criticise Beyonce while you are involved with this "animal cruelty" as much as she is.

erm no i am not!!!
my actions dont result in animals being electrocuted and skinned sometimes while still alive just so i can have the most fashionable outfit!il never wear fur!
the fur industry is unneccesary, people dont need to wear fur therefore it is different from the food industry although i do agree that animals are kept in poor conditions. bottom line is beyonce neednt use fur!nobody has top, they just choose to to be "in fashion"

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:38 AM
WOW :lol: You've been on a roll lately. You sure that they haven't been lacing that tea? :shrug:
:o is that a good roll or a bad roll... :o :rolls:

laced tea.... sounds good!

G1Player2
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:44 AM
:o is that a good roll or a bad roll... :o :rolls:

laced tea.... sounds good!

:lol: I guess it is good and bad. The last few days you have been letting people have it, arguing, getting your point across, calling people out etc. It's been fun to watch. :wavey:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 08:49 AM
:lol: I guess it is good and bad. The last few days you have been letting people have it, arguing, getting your point across, calling people out etc. It's been fun to watch. :wavey:
:scared: this has been my new effort to be the kinder, gentler Jigglypuff. :scared:

but i guess i am getting my point across its good... but still :spit: :tape: :bolt:

Kunal
Jun 23rd, 2006, 09:46 AM
i support what they stand for...but i dont know what tactics they have used in the past...

and beyonce is not a talentless whore guys....

breakin my balls here

jd4eva
Jun 23rd, 2006, 10:16 AM
erm no i am not!!!
my actions dont result in animals being electrocuted and skinned sometimes while still alive just so i can have the most fashionable outfit!il never wear fur!
the fur industry is unneccesary, people dont need to wear fur therefore it is different from the food industry although i do agree that animals are kept in poor conditions. bottom line is beyonce neednt use fur!nobody has top, they just choose to to be "in fashion"

And she's made her choice. Like you've made your choice to eat meat. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty. Do you think it's any more humane that we kill animals for consumption? They aren't treated to a life of luxury before they are killed; they suffer in cruel and inhumane circumstances. There can be no distinction when it comes to the rights of animals; just because we have drawn social lines of the perceivably ethically acceptable use of animals doesn't legitimise the consumption of animals as meat more than as clothing.

jd4eva
Jun 23rd, 2006, 10:24 AM
basically, you got caught being hypocritical by your own standards that you, yourselves set forth. and are too much of a coward to own up to it, (BTW, your ignorance of basic science & or English is no excuse! and even if it were (which it is not) your rules STILL apply, and if they didn't THAT would be hypocritical)

you hate peta, i get that, what i dont get is why you feel compelled to make a fool and hypocrite of yourself in saying that. like its 100 times easier to just say you hate peta rather than making yourself into such a hypocritical fool.

by the way: the issue is that you posted a bullshit article about a bullshit front organization (ccf), and are trying to act as if the fact that its a bullshit article about a bullshit front organization is a non issue. which is of course complete bullshit.

1. My knowledge of the sciences or English is irrelevant. This article is about PETA. When PETA starts ambushing others for the rights of humans on the grounds that they too are animals then you can start criticising my use of the word animal.

2. I do not hate PETA. I merely do not agree with their tactics. I support animal rights and I definitely don't agree with Beyonce's use of fur however unlike PETA, I recognise that it is her choice and she is allowed that right. Other animal rights organisations do more important work than PETA, PETA merely operates as a sensationalist organisation and in my estimation stands in the way of animal rights because they propagate a perception of animal rights activists as, to put it bluntly, crazy.

3. The article has more to do with the hypocrisy of PETA rather than the organisation that has defended Beyonce. That is the importance of the article. However I can see how this may escape you.

I will, as futile as it is, try again to explain to you the point I am trying to make:

When an organisation uses a charitable situation to ambush an individual for certain choices they have made; they need to possess a moral highground in relation to the things that they seek to criticise that individual about. If you seek to lecture people about animal rights you need to make sure that you possess an admirable record in that field. If the CCF ambushed an individual about consumer rights then their track record would be of relevance. However it isn't in this instance because we are talking about an animal rights organisation ambushing an individual in relation to their use of fur. I hope this is sufficient however your wilful ignorance will likely render this attempt futile.

Sam L
Jun 23rd, 2006, 10:28 AM
And she's made her choice. Like you've made your choice to eat meat. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty. Do you think it's any more humane that we kill animals for consumption? They aren't treated to a life of luxury before they are killed; they suffer in cruel and inhumane circumstances. There can be no distinction when it comes to the rights of animals; just because we have drawn social lines of the perceivably ethically acceptable use of animals doesn't legitimise the consumption of animals as meat more than as clothing.
I'm sure abby is against factory farming too. Who are you to judge her. There are humane ways to raise animals and kill them for consumption. It's called organic farming.

And you're an idiot. Jiggly owns you. You come across as hypocritical and rabid hater of PETA. And you'll defend Beyonce blindly.

Sam L
Jun 23rd, 2006, 10:31 AM
1. My knowledge of the sciences or English is irrelevant. This article is about PETA. When PETA starts ambushing others for the rights of humans on the grounds that they too are animals then you can start criticising my use of the word animal.

2. I do not hate PETA. I merely do not agree with their tactics. I support animal rights and I definitely don't agree with Beyonce's use of fur however unlike PETA, I recognise that it is her choice and she is allowed that right. Other animal rights organisations do more important work than PETA, PETA merely operates as a sensationalist organisation and in my estimation stands in the way of animal rights because they propagate a perception of animal rights activists as, to put it bluntly, crazy.

3. The article has more to do with the hypocrisy of PETA rather than the organisation that has defended Beyonce. That is the importance of the article. However I can see how this may escape you.

I will, as futile as it is, try again to explain to you the point I am trying to make:

When an organisation uses a charitable situation to ambush an individual for certain choices they have made; they need to possess a moral highground in relation to the things that they seek to criticise that individual about. If you seek to lecture people about animal rights you need to make sure that you possess an admirable record in that field. If the CCF ambushed an individual about consumer rights then their track record would be of relevance. However it isn't in this instance because we are talking about an animal rights organisation ambushing an individual in relation to their use of fur. I hope this is sufficient however your wilful ignorance will likely render this attempt futile.
OMG! You're an idiot. Jiggly just showed WHY CCF has NO CREDIBILITY. They're created by cigarette companies to make them look good.

CCF has NO CREDIBILITY. GET IT?

This means whatever they're saying agianst PETA is NOT true.

OMG! :shrug:

roarke
Jun 23rd, 2006, 01:21 PM
OMG! You're an idiot. Jiggly just showed WHY CCF has NO CREDIBILITY. They're created by cigarette companies to make them look good.

CCF has NO CREDIBILITY. GET IT?

This means whatever they're saying agianst PETA is NOT true.

OMG! :shrug:


Ignorant comment! No other way to say it. You are letting your hate for Beyonce cloud your thinking. She is not talentless, and she is not a whore. If you are going to condemn her for the way she performs on stage then you will need to judge the entire entertainment industry. Judge the actors and actress that go nude for movies. Judge the magazines and performers that pose nude or semi nude on the covers. Judge the models that prance around practically nude in the name of high fashion. Judge the teenagers and young women and men and whose "low rider outfits" give you a direct view of their personal areas. If you are so bent on judging Beyonce you must use the same yard stick to judge all members of society that behave the same way she does. You cannot single her out for your bashing while cuddling up to the the rest of society that does the same thing.

This I believe is the point the poster was trying to make. He made no defence of CCf or refute any argument posted against them. The point he has made is simple. If you are goig to stand on a certain platform and judge all others to that standard then your record, image, and reputation must be a shining example. You cannot be at fault for the same thing you are accusing others of doing. It's like telling the teacher about someone who has cheated on a test when you yourself has just finished cheating on one.

If PETA wants to help animals then it should but there are better ways to do it than ambushing and asaulting people. Using Beyonce's charity dinner as their forum took away from that charity. That was unfair to the charity.

There are millions of human beings living and exisiting in inhumane conditions, living with diseases, hunger and despair all over the world. Where is the outcry? Where is the moral outrage? Where is the ambush on people who can well afford to do something about it?

MinnyGophers
Jun 23rd, 2006, 02:24 PM
OMG! You're an idiot. Jiggly just showed WHY CCF has NO CREDIBILITY. They're created by cigarette companies to make them look good.

CCF has NO CREDIBILITY. GET IT?

This means whatever they're saying agianst PETA is NOT true.

OMG! :shrug:

Just because the CCF was created by tobacco companies doesn't mean that what they are saying about PETA isn't true.
It's more the pot calling the kettle black.

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:48 PM
Just because the CCF was created by tobacco companies doesn't mean that what they are saying about PETA isn't true.
It's more the pot calling the kettle black.
wow, some of you are like total retards.

ok i dont know how simple this can be: ccf is a bullshit front organization, nothing they say about anything has any credibility. period.

that was fucking simple enough for a 2nd grader to get.

i don't even know if i should bother with the more complex idea, that if you are a bullshit front organization your attacks one non-front organizations have no credibility.

and for like the one millionth time, it doesn't mean that what they say about peta isn't true, it means that they have no credibility to make accusations or to have accusations stand solely on their word.

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:59 PM
1. My knowledge of the sciences or English is irrelevant. This article is about PETA. When PETA starts ambushing others for the rights of humans on the grounds that they too are animals then you can start criticising my use of the word animal.

2. I do not hate PETA. I merely do not agree with their tactics. I support animal rights and I definitely don't agree with Beyonce's use of fur however unlike PETA, I recognise that it is her choice and she is allowed that right. Other animal rights organisations do more important work than PETA, PETA merely operates as a sensationalist organisation and in my estimation stands in the way of animal rights because they propagate a perception of animal rights activists as, to put it bluntly, crazy.

3. The article has more to do with the hypocrisy of PETA rather than the organisation that has defended Beyonce. That is the importance of the article. However I can see how this may escape you.

I will, as futile as it is, try again to explain to you the point I am trying to make:

When an organisation uses a charitable situation to ambush an individual for certain choices they have made; they need to possess a moral highground in relation to the things that they seek to criticise that individual about. If you seek to lecture people about animal rights you need to make sure that you possess an admirable record in that field. If the CCF ambushed an individual about consumer rights then their track record would be of relevance. However it isn't in this instance because we are talking about an animal rights organisation ambushing an individual in relation to their use of fur. I hope this is sufficient however your wilful ignorance will likely render this attempt futile.

ok, do me this favor. most of my friends are in the top 5 percentile IQ wise and its rare that i spend time with folks in your range, so do me this favor, next time you post an article like this give a simple warning, for example, "i, jd4eva, suffer from profound hypocrisy, serious intellectual weakness and extreme denial." this way, people like me, who might think there was a chance would know better.

i'm out.

*abby*
Jun 23rd, 2006, 05:39 PM
And she's made her choice. Like you've made your choice to eat meat. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty. Do you think it's any more humane that we kill animals for consumption? They aren't treated to a life of luxury before they are killed; they suffer in cruel and inhumane circumstances. There can be no distinction when it comes to the rights of animals; just because we have drawn social lines of the perceivably ethically acceptable use of animals doesn't legitimise the consumption of animals as meat more than as clothing.

erm....i said that i agree animal in the food industry are kept in bad conditions...can you not read?!?!?!
i try to only buy organic food (easier to do at uni when i buy my own food but when i home i have no control over what my mum buys) i am aware of the conditions the animals are kept in and that is why: i am against factory farming. i am against vivisection. i am against cruelty to animals.
obviously this wont wash with you but im sure a lot of ppl would argue that the food industry in neccesary whereas the fur industry is not!

MinnyGophers
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:08 PM
wow, some of you are like total retards.

ok i dont know how simple this can be: ccf is a bullshit front organization, nothing they say about anything has any credibility. period.

that was fucking simple enough for a 2nd grader to get.

i don't even know if i should bother with the more complex idea, that if you are a bullshit front organization your attacks one non-front organizations have no credibility.

and for like the one millionth time, it doesn't mean that what they say about peta isn't true, it means that they have no credibility to make accusations or to have accusations stand solely on their word.

1. Do not call me a retard
2. Learn to read. My post had nothing to do with whether or not they are credible. It has to do with the fact that what they are saying isn't neccessarily untrue, like the quote I quoted from the poster above saying otherwise.
3. I DID NOT say that the CCF wasn't a bullshit organization, don't put words in my mouth

The CCF IS a bullshit organization, I agree with you on that. But PETA isn't exactly the perfect, model organization either, and that is what my "kettle meet pot" references to.

4. Finally, chill out. Go browse the Cute Animals Pictures Threads or something... :angel:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:15 PM
1. Do not call me a retard
2. Learn to read. My post had nothing to do with whether or not they are credible. It has to do with the fact that what they are saying isn't neccessarily untrue, like the quote I quoted from the poster above saying otherwise.
3. I DID NOT say that the CCF wasn't a bullshit organization, don't put words in my mouth

The CCF IS a bullshit organization, I agree with you on that. But PETA isn't exactly the perfect, model organization either, and that is what my "kettle meet pot" references to.

4. Finally, chill out. Go browse the Cute Animals Pictures Threads or something... :angel:
retard.
:yawn: :smash:

really, its my own fault for using such complex ideas :retard: . well you learn something new everyday.

harloo
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:20 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060621/dcw023.html?.v=61

"PETA's underhanded exploitation of celebrities like Beyonce is deeply hypocritical," said David Martosko, Director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. "To fight back, Beyonce need only know three words: PETA KILLS ANIMALS."

Martosko continued, "Two of PETA's own employees each currently face 22 felony animal-cruelty charges for euthanizing 18 dogs and puppies in a van and throwing their bodies in a dumpster. Beyonce should direct her so-called 'animal rights' detractors to PETAKillsAnimals.com."

Visitors to http://www.PETAKillsAnimals.com (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/) can see statistics derived from documents obtained by the Center for Consumer Freedom from the state of Virginia. These documents show that between 1998 and 2005, PETA killed more than 14,400 dogs, cats, and other animals. The group killed nearly 80 percent of the pets it took in for adoption during this seven-year period.

To see detailed numbers related to PETA's massive euthanasia program, and to read more about the PETA arrests, visit http://www.PETAKillsAnimals.com (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/)

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

:haha: :haha: Oh snap, it looks like the nutjobs have been caught with their pants down.

POT. KETTLE. BLACK :lol:

MinnyGophers
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:26 PM
retard.
:yawn: :smash:

really, its my own fault for using such complex ideas :retard: . well you learn something new everyday.


Okay, are you a member of PETA or are you seriously that much of a dumbass???

CCF IS A BULLSHIT ORGANIZATION, I GOT THAT. BUT WHAT THEY SAY EVEN IF NOT CREDIBLE IS NOT NECCESSARILY UNTRUE. I SAY "NOT NECCESSARILY" BECAUSE IT CAN BE PROVED UNTRUE. GOT IT???? THERE IS NOTHING COMPLEX ABOUT THAT.

For the mentally challenged:

Untrue: Definition 1. factually inaccurate or incorrect; false.
Credible: Trustworthy, believable.

"Nicer, calmer Jigglypuff", my ass.
Seriously, get that giant pole out of your ass and get laid woman. You might also want to lay off the crack.

I'm out of here. I don't even give a shit about PETA or the CFF.

ampers&
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:35 PM
retard.
:yawn: :smash:

really, its my own fault for using such complex ideas :retard: . well you learn something new everyday.
jeez, I can’t take it anymore.
Jiggly, you are one crazy bitch. go get some pussy or fuck a panda or play Nintendo or take some pictures or watch anime sex on your MAC computer.
PLEASE...

spare us all with your incoherent ramblings about having friends who "are in the top 5 percentile IQ wise." guess what: NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. and if you're in the top 5 percentile intellectually (which is quite doubtful based on how you’ve behaved the past few days), you are definitely in the lower range as far as maturity level. guess what: YOUR OPINION IS NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT ONE. you don’t agree with someone, fine, but there is certainly a better approach to dealing with them than being demeaning and offensive. you’ve been making a fool out of yourself, CONSTANTLY, for a while now. if you have had valid points in particular debates, trust me, they’re lost in your crazed gibberish. what happened these past few days? you running short on comic books or something? no new video game releases? are you lonely? it’s not too late to seek help. you have one foot over the deep end already, but you are not alone Jiggly. you are not alone…:awww: :retard:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:52 PM
Okay, are you a member of PETA or are you seriously that much of a dumbass???

CCF IS A BULLSHIT ORGANIZATION, I GOT THAT. BUT WHAT THEY SAY EVEN IF NOT CREDIBLE IS NOT NECCESSARILY UNTRUE. I SAY "NOT NECCESSARILY" BECAUSE IT CAN BE PROVED UNTRUE. GOT IT???? THERE IS NOTHING COMPLEX ABOUT THAT.

For the mentally challenged:

Untrue: Definition 1. factually inaccurate or incorrect; false.
Credible: Trustworthy, believable.

"Nicer, calmer Jigglypuff", my ass.
Seriously, get that giant pole out of your ass and get laid woman. You might also want to lay off the crack.

I'm out of here. I don't even give a shit about PETA or the CFF.

see i dont understand why you get mad when you get called a retard...

and for like the one millionth time, it doesn't mean that what they say about peta isn't true, it means that they have no credibility to make accusations or to have accusations stand solely on their word.

jd, just doesnt understand, you are just a retard, cause you do understand you just dont wanna read. see when you do stuff like that, dont get mad when you get called a retard.

maybe its my own fault. i dont know how to use simpler sentences and smaller words... :lol:

MinnyGophers
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:59 PM
see i dont understand why you get mad when you get called a retard...



jd, just doesnt understand, you are just a retard, cause you do understand you just dont wanna read. see when you do stuff like that, dont get mad when you get called a retard.

maybe its my own fault. i dont know how to use simpler sentences and smaller words... :lol:

There is no sense in trying to debate with you, since you have the maturity of a 7 year old who cannot understand simple posts, and doesn't have the intelligence to go beyond insults.
How about you go back to my very first post on this thread, and look who/what I quoted, and you may or may not notice that my original post wasn't referring to you. And then you can go and take Miching~Mallecho's advice. Something about a panda I think. :wavey:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:06 PM
jeez, I can’t take it anymore.
Jiggly, you are one crazy bitch. go get some pussy or fuck a panda or play Nintendo or takes some pictures or watch anime sex on your MAC computer.
PLEASE...

spare us all with your incoherent ramblings about having friends who "are in the top 5 percentile IQ wise." guess what: NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. and if you're in the top 5 percentile intellectually (which is quite doubtful based on how you’ve behaved the past few days), you are definitely in the lower range as far as maturity level. guess what: YOUR OPINION IS NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT ONE. you don’t agree with someone, fine, but there is certainly a better approach to dealing with them than being demeaning and offensive. you’ve been making a fool out of yourself, CONSTANTLY, for a while now. if you have had valid points in particular debates, trust me, they’re lost in your crazed gibberish. what happened these past few days? you running short on comic books or something? no new video game releases? are you lonely? it’s not too late to seek help. you have one foot over the deep end already, but you are not alone Jiggly. you are not alone…:awww: :retard:




1- i didnt say my opinion was always right, i didnt even say my opinion other than peta is usually full of nut jobs.
2- i will GLADLY fax you my results. and its not top 5, its top 3. thanx. :retard: (psst, back off on this, its a no win for you. and umm if you didnt give a shit why you on me about it. :smash: )
3- yes some people dont get it thats to be expected. not much i can do about that.
4- of course i am not alone, my friend amy and i are having a time laffing at some of you'll. :lol:
5- comic books suck ass. :wavey:

RVD
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:12 PM
:haha: This thread is really entertaining! *grabs a handful of Skittles*

Note: For the record, PETA is PETA's own worst enemy. :tape:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:16 PM
:haha: This thread is really entertaining! *grabs a handful of Skittles*

Note: For the record, PETA is PETA's own worst enemy. :tape:
:lol: :lol: i agree. :lol:

you know i got stick to posting facts around here, cause you never know when my opinion will be deleted. which in the old days of the less kind jigglypuff, i didnt really care, but i did alot of begging to get my v-cash at $1000, and since i dont gamble it would take forever to get it back... :bounce:

RVD
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:34 PM
:lol: :lol: i agree. :lol:

you know i got stick to posting facts around here, cause you never know when my opinion will be deleted. which in the old days of the less kind jigglypuff, i didnt really care, but i did alot of begging to get my v-cash at $1000, and since i dont gamble it would take forever to get it back... :bounce: :wavey: HIYA FEARLESS ONE!! ;)

Ya know, I've never paid much attention to v-cash. Do you think I should give all mine away. :devil:

harloo
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:36 PM
Firstly, let me remind everybody that celebrities with real talent like Charlize Theron and Joaquin Phoenix and Martina Navratilova actually support PETA. It's not PETA vs. celebrities.

Secondly, Beyonce is a talentless whore who has made homophobic comments in the past.

Thirdly, people will anything to distract the work of PETA and defend blindly their whores who "entertain" them by flashing their boobs and pussies on stage like Beyonce.

And what does your outright hatred of Beyonce have to do with these PETA nutjobs being caught in violation of the law? You have nothing else to say Sam L?:tape: :lol:

You call Beyonce a talentless whore but then support a whore like Nicole Kidman? Any woman that would play a role kissing a 10 year old boy acting like he is a man is a real whore.
:tape: :lol:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:39 PM
:wavey: HIYA FEARLESS ONE!! ;)

Ya know, I've never paid much attention to v-cash. Do you think I should give all mine away. :devil:
HOLY SHIT!!! i lost like fifteen dollars!! :mad: :mad:

grrrr....

any way, LOL you do need v cash for some things. like a sig and changing your avator.

vCash Perks:

You need a balance of $100.00 vCash to add or update a personalized "profile picture"
You need a balance of $150.00 vCash to add or update your "signature"
You need a balance of $750.00 vCash to add or update your "avatar"
You need a balance of $10000.00 vCash to change/update your "username"

Edit: you should also put some away in the back. i had to get 20 out of the bank today.

harloo
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:39 PM
1- i didnt say my opinion was always right

You don't have to say it Jiggly because trust if your ass is up in a thread you better believe that your posts are always the gospel truth. :lol: :o :rolleyes:

Who cares if anyone doesn't agree with you? The overbearing posts are kind of tired. You can't convice everyone that PETA is a totally legit organization because that is far from the truth.:o

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:41 PM
You don't have to say it Jiggly because trust if your ass is up in a thread you better believe that your posts are always the gospel truth. :lol: :o :rolleyes:

Who cares if anyone doesn't agree with you? The overbearing posts are kind of tired. You can't convice everyone that PETA is a totally legit organization because that is far from the truth.:o
:confused:

harloo
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:42 PM
:confused:

:o Cat got your tounge? That's suprising.:lol:

RVD
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:44 PM
HOLY SHIT!!! i lost like fifteen dollars!! :mad: :mad:

grrrr....

any way, LOL you do need v cash for some things. like a sig and changing your avator.

vCash Perks:

You need a balance of $100.00 vCash to add or update a personalized "profile picture"
You need a balance of $150.00 vCash to add or update your "signature"
You need a balance of $750.00 vCash to add or update your "avatar"
You need a balance of $10000.00 vCash to change/update your "username"Ahh HELL! Is that how it works?!
*smacks fo'head*
I honestly did not know all that. :lol:

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:52 PM
:o
i was confused, by what you were saying.. :confused: sorry.

are you saying people should or should not believe everything they say i right? i'm like straight up, if i know what i am saying is right, i stick to it, but you know you always have to open to the chance that you might be wrong (unless you have like irifutable proof, which is like .0003% of the time. )

plus i dont think anyone is saying that peta is "a totally legit organization because that is far from the truth". i think they are mostly a bunch of nut jobs. i dont think anyone is saying that. but i dont think they are a front organization, they are exactly as they are...mostly nutjobs.

Wigglytuff
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:53 PM
Ahh HELL! Is that how it works?!
*smacks fo'head*
I honestly did not know all that. :lol:
yeah someone posted a link to that site a while back and i desided to bookmark it.

http://www.wtaworld.com/vcash.php

Sam L
Jun 24th, 2006, 08:36 AM
And what does your outright hatred of Beyonce have to do with these PETA nutjobs being caught in violation of the law? You have nothing else to say Sam L?:tape: :lol:

You call Beyonce a talentless whore but then support a whore like Nicole Kidman? Any woman that would play a role kissing a 10 year old boy acting like he is a man is a real whore.
:tape: :lol:
Nicole has an Oscar. What does Beyonce have? Video music awards which probably got by sucking some record exec's dick. :haha:

And funny, I didn't even mention Nicole's name in here. Obsessed? :confused:

And your little comment to Jiggly doesn't make sense. He's not trying to convince people how good PETA is but how irrelevant and corrupt CCF is.

If you're going to discredit PETA, you're going to have to rely on some other source, sorry. CCF is not good enough.

JennyS
Jun 24th, 2006, 07:51 PM
PETA activists are nuts. The are radicals and an over the top group. THEY place VERY little value on human life as well ironically. I remember one of the members saying that they believed an animal had the SAME rights as a retarded child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence of others. :retard:

Try explaing this to some of them: animals eat animals! I wonder why they don't go out to the jungle at yell at the lions for eating other animals.