Comments on: Does PETA kill animals? ‘Absolutely,’ says Newkirk

By: Stephen Knor

Stephen Knor — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:50:28 +0000

I’m a supporter of ethical treatment of animals, but I would have to say that the euthanasia statistics of PETA suggest to me that their rehabilitation skills render them unsuitable for running an unwanted-animal shelter.

By: True animal lover

True animal lover — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:16:00 +0000

Ever try to post anything on PETA’s website? The registration process (you can’t post without registering) takes forever - they probably have guerillas who check out your address and where your children are in case they need to “find” you.
Their responses to negative feedback border on pathological hysteria. But the WORST thing about PETA is that they exploit people’s love for animals to further their own political agenda. There’s only one word for that - EVIL.

By: CMav

CMav — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:47:53 +0000

PETA is a left-wing political organization hiding behind the guise of an animal-rights group. No true animal advocacy group would ever endorse PETA. If you’re looking for the real deal, check out Best Friends - they are a wonderful, compassionate organization that managed to place nearly all the Vick pitbulls - dogs that PETA wanted to destroy - into adoptive homes. PETA is all about hate. Best Friends is all about love and compassion. There’s a world of difference.

By: The OTHER Pat

The OTHER Pat — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:29:04 +0000

Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the outfit they’re going after:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primarily_Primates

Looks like PeTA feels that PPI is not taking good care of the animals in their charge.

Kettle, black anyone?

By: 2CatMom

2CatMom — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:14:28 +0000

Seems like Ingrid is looking to intimidate some ‘soft’ targets. And if she can shut them down and kill all the animals, that’ll really make her day.

Notice that she hasn’t taken up Wingrod on his dare to sue him. No, cause he’s an attorney and wouldn’t cost him anything but his own time to fight her.

One of these days, a lot of well-meaning animal welfare/rights people are going to wake up and realize that killing isn’t saving. That they’ve been duped and this women’s philosophies couldn’t be further away from what they thought than if she turned out to be the secret President of Meat Eaters Association.

I’m always amazed how people will hold on to supporting a belief rather than admit they made a mistake or were duped. Whether its Iraq was behind 9/11, business can self-regulate, or PeTA cares about animals, when the evidence shows your backing the wrong horse, for G-d’s sake, get off and find another bet.

There’s no virtue in holding onto a conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence that ITS WRONG.

By: JenniferJ

JenniferJ — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:21:58 +0000

OK, anybody know what this is all about??

http://www.examiner.com/x-4198.....anizations

By: 2CatMom

2CatMom — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:43:29 +0000

There’s a big difference between REAL Republicans (small government, fiscally responsible, mind your own businees) and what goes as a Republican today.

Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley are turning over in their graves.

By: JenniferJ

JenniferJ — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:41:01 +0000

RL may be a blowhard and certainly not anyone I make a point to tuning into, but there are plenty of republican pet owners out there with a big squooshy soft spot for their dogs and cats and birds and who are every bit as horrified by PETA’s stance and actions as us dems. I know plenty of them. One is a neat gal who started her own 501c3 rescue and won’t buy any meat eggs or fish if it’s not humanely or sustainably raised. Her husband is a sport fisherman who is big time into marine and coastal conservation and activism.

Let’s remember that people run the spectrum and there party affiliation is not the only thing to define them. There are many staunch republican citizens (not talking politcos who whore for votes here) who I may not agree with on a lot of things, but who can be allies instead of enemies in the arena of promoting animal welfare.

By: EmilyS

EmilyS — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:25:36 +0000

oh you can take it to the bank that RL is only attacking PETA because he assumes it’s a “liberal” organization. I doubt he cares about animals in the slightest.. or certainly not in the way we do. I bet he’d regard Gina’s chickens and the notion that dogs shouldn’t be raised as livestock (not to mention that LIVESTOCK shouldn’t be raised as livestock…) as ridiculous hippie liberal nonsense.

But anything that brings attention to PETA’s cruelty is OK in my eyes.

By: Anne T

Anne T — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:08:33 +0000

Gina, you scare me! Supporting the Constitution and every one of it’s amendments? Gosh! Terrifying!
Yes, the fact our plaids match is a nice touch, I thought.
And I am all for any erosion of PeTA, and if Limbaugh can help I’ll take it gladly!