People for the Eating of Tasty Animals (P.E.T.A.)

[TXlib]

Who wants to join?

[Smirnoff]

1. What's up with that?

Not funny.

[TXlib]

7. Hey, just a joke on a whim

I do like what PETA does, but sometimes I think they go overboard a bit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. You do know there is a site with that name

That had the domain peta.org? And the original PETA wrestled the domain away from them in the courts?

http://mtd.com/tasty/editorial3.html

[sistersofmercy]

42. I heard about that and....

I thought it was hilarious! People for Eating Tasty Animals!

[RebelOne]

13. I agree. Not funny to this vegetarian.

[Demonaut]

14. animals dont feel pain

they feel agony and dispair, industrial farming is wrong.

[roughsatori]

2. Here is a more appropriate site to post that

www.freerepublic.com

[Shrek]

3. I'm in!

Fire up the grill!

;-)

[Kolesar]

4. just what we don't need, a flame war on the morality of industrial farming

[latebloomer]

5. Well, I think it's funny!

Even tho I'm not much of a meat-eater.

[IronLionZion]

6. Count me in

throw some more steaks on the grill TXlib :toast: I'll bring the beer!

[TXlib]

8. You bring the steaks

I brew the beer I drink.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Two words: Rodízio Barbecue

A totally Brazilian invention. It makes me proud.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Rodizio!!!!

Food of the gods!

My neighborhood is largely Brazilian, and rodizio pits are all over the place.

And, ummmm... you know there's a place around here that cures Presunto...

Brazilians eat good.

[curse10]

10. This might be funny

if it hadn't been said millions of times before

:eyes:

[Lady Freedom]

11. leave off Punxsutawney Phil!!!!

If you want to eat the one to blame for the weather, go eat a weatherman!!!!

[TheMightyFavog]

15. Did somebody say steak?

I'll have mine done medium well, please, I'll have the baked potato with all of the fixings, some steamed Asparagus on the side, and a bottle of Pauliner, please.

[beyurslf]

16. I happened to have the tastiest boneless ribs last night

during the game. YUMMY!

[MadHound]

17. Well, as you folks chortle and smirk, remember one thing

PETA(the real org.) is out there right now fighting to make the meat you eat disease free, tastier, raised and slaughtered under more humane circumstances, and that the workers who do this have a better working enviroment. There have been noted successes in these regards with businesses such as Burger King, McDonalds, and KFC among others.

I find it sad that folks who are supposed to be concerned about these issues are instead laughing at and slamming the one organization who is having success in combatting them. What an enlightened group:eyes:

[TXlib]

20. Details?

What did they do at Burger King, McDonald's and KFC?

[MadHound]

23. Quick and dirty

PETA has been responsible for improving the living conditions of animanls destined for these fast food giants, improving the slaughter methods used(making them more humane), removing various anitbiotics and other addivtives in animals destined for these fast food giants, and stop the use of various GM veggies used by the fast food corps. These measures make the animals healthier, tastier, and safer for human consumption.

Some links:

<http://wildecology.ifcnr.com/article.cfm?NewsID=290>
<http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/pressreleases/2003-January/004002.html>
<http://www.kfccruelty.com/11403.html>
<http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20030929/007400.html>

It is a good start on reigning in the out of control agriculture business. So while PETA does perform some over the top protests, they also do a lot of good. PETA fills the same role in today's animal rights debates that Socialists performed in the Great Depression debate seventy years ago. They are out there and over the top, but their involvement moves the ground further left, a compromise is reached, and the US is a better place. If it wern't for the Socialists we wouldn't have such things as minimum wage or Social Security. Without PETA we could be doomed to being force fed sick and unhealthy meat. But fortunately PETA is out there and moving the debate along in the right direction.

[TXlib]

28. Interesting

Thanks for the info.

I didn't realize PETA did that kind of thing; I thought their position was simply anti-meat, with no compromise.

It's good to know they are able to work out compromises as baby steps toward their larger goal.

[Smirnoff]

24. yeah!

Props to you! :)

[kiahzero]

27. They're also responsible for scarring thousands of little kids

They don't want to make the meat we eat "disease free, tastier, raised and slaughtered under more humane circumstances"... they want to eliminate meat from most people's diets.

They also want to fund environmental terrorism.

Fuck PETA.

[TXlib]

29. Links?

I'd agree that their larger goal is elimination of meat from people's diets, but your second statement, "They also want to fund environmental terrorism", is so strong, it begs for supporting evidence.

[kiahzero]

31. A good thread on the topic

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.politics.animals/msg07249.html

There are also a bunch of RW sources that picked up the story, but I'd rather not source them.

[MadHound]

37. Sorry, your link isn't working

Therefore I'm not sure of what you are talking about. However I do know that usenet is a fairly rightwing board, and while that per se isn't a negative, it does make one wonder.

As far as "scarring thousands of kids" do you care to back that up? If you are referring to their campaigns outside of various theatres, then I ask you this. How is handing out those leaflets any more damaging than seeing violence on television, in theatres, or on the net? I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember growing up with the Vietnam War on every evening, and while that is MUCH more traumatic than leaflets, I think I came through that just fine. Plus I would ask you to provide some documentation on that notion from a qualified child pyschologist. Otherwise I think you're just talking out your ass, and hence don't know a thing.

Also, you mention that PETA funds enviromental terrorism. Care to prove that one? Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble and just give you a link to their financial statements: <http://www.peta.org/about/numbers.asp>. Gee, nothing about ALF, ELF, or any other eco terrorism there. Where are you pulling this garbage from? Do you have anything to back it up?

As far as PETA wanting everybody to be vegetarian, that's true, you got one right! However PETA is also pragmatic enough to realize that this goal is unachievable in the short run. Therefore they go after the animal abuses in the meat industry(and there are many many) and win. Hence due to PETA's actions the meat you eat is better for you, tastier, and our livestock is better treated. Gee, a win-win situation! What's wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are falling hook, line and sinker for the RW spin on PETA. Why don't you go over to their site and get the straight dope from them? Here: <http://www.peta.com/> And while you're there, you can check out how they're making the world a safer place for your pets too. <http://www.peta.com/f-lawsuit.html>

[EstimatedProphet]

46. One question then: why are they anti-hunting?

Hunting:
1) reduces animal population numbers for better management of herds (and everywhere in the US east of the Rocky mts. there is an overpopulation of deer, with associated disease from overpopulation rampant)
2) far more often than not results in healthier meat products to the hunter than if they were to buy meat
3) allows animals to live as "free range" their entire lives, rather than in crowded feedlot conditions
4) increases competition on agricultural meat production, forcing producers to "clean up their act" or lose those consumers who are concerned about meat quality
5) reduces consumption of agricultural vegetable crops intended for human consumption.

It would seem, that if PETA were indeed concerned about agricultural meat quality, they wouldn't be so anti-hunting, because these points dovetail perfectly with those goals.

[MadHound]

49. You like chasing your own tail don't you?

Yes, of course they're anti-hunting. As for as the answer to your straw man question, you couldn't sustain the quantity of deer or other game animals to feed our entire population.

However, you can grow enough crops to feed every everybody;) Gee, how novel, sustainable agriculture, what a concept.

As far as deer overpopulation goes, let's bring back some of the deer's natural enemies. You know, like wolves and mountain lions.

[EstimatedProphet]

55. I don't have a problem with bringing back predators

I am also not claiming that the population could be sustained by hunting, far from it. But if what they are truly "after" is healthier meat products, then why oppose hunting, especially to the point they do? Why should they "of course" oppose hunting, if it helps out secondary goals such as those? After all, I think it could easily be argued that an animal's quality of life is far superior when left in the wild rather than in an agricultural facility. Most hunting is humane (I grant there's poor shots, and poor hunters too); there are hunter education courses which do teach good targeting and aiming for those who are need the practice. Anyone who doesn't take marksmanship, and the desire to kill an animal in a way that minimizes suffering, shouldn't be out there hunting in the first place, and usually doesn't stay around for long after they find out what's going on (Cheney excluded).
As far as reintroducing predators, suits me fine. I'd love to see it. But explain to me how this is going to help manage wildlife populations effectively when so many of the problem animals are urban and suburban. hunting is a limited answer here; reintroduction of predators isn't one at all.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. ?

[MadHound]

69. Quality control, human control are both problems with hunting

There are starting to be many many diseases pop up in deer and other game animals. A relative of Mad Cow is starting to infect the US deer herds, along with Lyme disease and various others. Also, as you've said yourself, there are poor hunters out there(and probably a lot more than anyone would want to admit to), which doesn't make for humane killing. And contrary to what you've stated, introducing predators would help animals in the 'burbs. The reason deer etc. are going into the urban areas is because their natural habitat has been developed. Thin out the herds in the wild, the suburban deer could expand back out into the wild. Problem solved.

As far as subverting a groups primary goal in favor of a secondary goal goes, doesn't that sound a bit illogical? I'm sure PETA thinks so, which is why they probably wouldn't follow your suggestion.

[EstimatedProphet]

73. Nope, not even remotely close

Deer aren't being forced into urban areas, they LIKE it there. They do quite well in urban areas. Think that's your neighbor's dog rooting around in your trash? Think again...
Golf courses, parks, big suburban backyards are all home to deer. They reproduce like crazy there, and then get overcrowded, leading them to get run over by cars and starve. Putting predators out in the wild won't even touch this.
Also, I'd say that it would take a pretty bad hunter to be less humane than predators. Red wolves (traditional predator of deer in the eastern US) will get a deer down, then start tearing it apart. They don't make any attempt to ensure it's dead first; they take what they can get. If it's still kicking when they rip it's legs off, so be it.
Diseases like EHD, lyme disease, and bluetongue have been common in deer herds as long as they have been in existence. They, like all bacterial/parasitic/arboviral diseases, are positively correllated with high densities. So, cutting down the number of deer reduces the number of infected animals. Excessive numbers of animals leads to epizootics that kill off whole herds (especially with EHD and bluetongue). Reduce those numbers past a critical threshhold, and often there's no loss to disease at all.
Now, PETA may not believe in giving up their primary goal in favor of their secondary one. But given that, why should I support their pursuing their secondary goal (better meat production) knowing that it is a means to an end to their primary goal (completely forced vegan society)? I didn't support Bush's tax "cut" even though I liked getting the $300, because I knew that the end goal was to produce a smokescreen that would allow the superrich to get a huge cut, and damage the US budget.
And one other question: if you do agree that animals need to be controlled, as in the case of deer, why are you opposed to people benefitting from it?

[EstimatedProphet]

75. BTW I know you will want links, so here's a few:

http://www.brick.net/~deerhunt/magazine/urban.html

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7650138.htm

http://www.kaimin.org/Nov01/11-30-01/deerdubtruck_11-30-01.html

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-8276.00118/abs/
(this is a technical paper and requires a subscription)

http://www.deer-uk.com/urban_deer_2.htm

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/conmag/1997/10/5.html

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0920/deer.html

[kiahzero]

61. A few things:

First: Since when is USEnet a "right-wing" board? It's not a "board", it's a collection of thousands of different newsgroups.

As for scarring children, yes, I am talking about their leaflets in front of theaters. As well as their "Un-happy Meal" promotion, or whatever they called it, complete with manical Ronald McDonald covered in blood with a severed cows head.

Or, let's look at the leaflet they handed out to children at performances of the Nutcracker.
http://www.furisdead.com/mommykills300.pdf

This doesn't scar little kids? "Hide your pets from mommy, 'cause she'll kill them" doesn't exactly make for a comfortable family relationship, let me tell you.

As for funding environmental terrorism, it's harder to find non-RW sources. There is ConsumerFreedom.com, but they are an industry group, so you may not take their word. I understand that a representative of PETA admitted they did in fact contribute.

Here are a few links:
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000126.html
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000115.html

Finally: Why do I not "go and get the straight dope" from PETA?

Perhaps for the same reason that I don't go to whitehouse.gov to get the real information on the White House?

[MadHound]

71. Ahh, so you wish to remain biased and ignorant eh

Great way to make important decisions, great way to go through life, hmm.

And the reason that I state that usenet is a RW board(or set of boards details details) is that I tend to encounter usenet sources over at FR and other RW sites, with the poster trying to pathetically back up their sorry ass with usenet. Every time I've been on usenet it seems to me to be a screaming RW shouting match, long on hyperbole and short on facts. As far your other two links go, gee, it seems like a tempest in a teapot. First off, your source there is definitively biased, to wit: "The revelation that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals donated $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front seems to have done quite a bit of damage to PETA's reputation and (hopefully) may even jeopardize its tax exempt status."
Just gotta love that little word in parentheses there "hopefully". Truly fair and balanced coverage there:eyes: Second, I'm sure if these days of Bushco, I think that if PETA was leaving itself open for attack like that this administration would be coming down on them with both feet. However what it looks like is a one time $1500 donation to ELF three years ago, and it may or may not have gone through official PETA approval. So perhaps it wasn't an official PETA donation, but something that someone inside PETA slipped to ELF on the side. In the scope of things, it is not all of that big a deal.

As far as the leaflets go, I would like some sort of backup source(child psychiatrist?) to back up your little claim of these leaflets scarring the kids. Like I said before children in our society are subjected to much greater psychological harm every day by watching TV than any PETA leaflet could impose. I think you dislike this campaign because it gets the little ones asking their parents the tough questions, the ones parents can't answer without looking like a fool or hypocrite. Tell you what, if you don't wish to be subjected to honest questions from your kids, don't where fur to the Nutcracker.

[kiahzero]

78. Way to keep the dialogue civil

I notice you didn't address my point - Do you go to the RNC to find out the problems with Republican ideology? Do you go to Phillip Morris to find out the problems with cigarettes? When you're trying to ensure honesty in mangement, do you simply go to the CEO and ask, "Hey, these numbers are OK, right?"

Of course not. So going to PETA.org, or a web site by PETA apologists, is useless for negative information on PETA.

First of all, I made no bones about the nature of the websites I sourced. The websites publishing the information are websites that don't like PETA very much... tell me, is it surprising to you that most of the negative information about Bush is found on websites written by people who don't like Bush?

Basically, you're asking me to find a source that ideologically supports PETA, but is still willing to discuss this. I don't think that's very likely.

So, we'll treat the funding of ELF as a disputed statement, since I can't find the IRS records discussing the payment. I can find a few more links discussing other donations, if you like, but I doubt you'll be swayed.

However, what about the statements of higher-ups in the PETA organization?

“It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow.”
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA Campaign Director, July 3, 2001

“I openly hope that it comes here.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, PETA Co-Founder, on her desire for a USA hoof-and-mouth epidemic

"Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA

Or take a look at some of the supporters of PETA in that thread? They should sound familiar - the zealousy that runs through the veins of crazed pro-lifers who feel it's OK to shoot up abortion clinics.

As far as the leaflets go, I would like some sort of backup source(child psychiatrist?) to back up your little claim of these leaflets scarring the kids. Like I said before children in our society are subjected to much greater psychological harm every day by watching TV than any PETA leaflet could impose. I think you dislike this campaign because it gets the little ones asking their parents the tough questions, the ones parents can't answer without looking like a fool or hypocrite. Tell you what, if you don't wish to be subjected to honest questions from your kids, don't where fur to the Nutcracker.


It's interesting, because the comparison between crazed pro-lifers and crazed PETA members continues to be apt. The leaflet accuses Mommy of killing pets, just like pro-lifers like to tell little kids that their Mommy killed their brother or sister, and is coming for them next.

Tell me... does TV tell little kids that they need to fear for their lives, and their pets lives, because Mommy's going to kill them? I must have missed that on the 6 o'clock news.

I don't "dislike this campaign because it gets the little ones asking their parents the tough questions"... I dislike this campaign because it's disgusting to use children as pawns in your ideological battle - the goal is to make the children terrified of Mommy and Daddy until they renounce fur (/ abortion, if you're still following the analogy), and "see the light."

[EstimatedProphet]

44. Since when?

PETA is NOT fighting for improving the conditions unde which animals are raised or butchered! They are fighting for an end to animal use whatsoever, or so their founder has always said. If they accomplish an improvement of animal welfare, that's good, but that doesn't change their goals one bit.

[MadHound]

47. Uh gee Wally, I dunno!

Did you even try any of the links I've provided. Check them out, posts 23 and 37. While you're at it, why not google PETA and Wendy's, KFC, Burger King, Applebee's, or McDonalds. Better yet, you could just go to the PETA website I've linked to and poke around there. You know, things About PETA, or the actions they have taken.

Yes, PETA would like to have each and every one of us eating veggie instead of killing animals. However they are also pragmatic enough to realize that this is an impossible goal, at least for the short term. Therefore they are taking large steps in making the enviroment that slaughter animanls are raised, killed and processed in are as healthful as possible for those animals. This naturally leads to the fact that an animal that is raised is a free space, not fed additives(like hormones and antibiotics), and killed in a quick and humane matter is going to be healthier and tastier for humans to eat. If you do not understand this, then you understand NOTHING about raising lifestock, for these are some basic principles that have been around since the dawn of animal husbandry(like that old saw about an upset cow and sour milk). And it is also interesting to note that a lot of the improvements that PETA is pushing for on the killing floor will also benefit the workers who sweat and toil under intolerable conditions. A slower line not only means healthier meat, it also means that some poor soul gets to keep his finger(or hand, arm etc) that would have otherwise been sliced off.

Gee what a win-win situation for everybody, what do you have against that? Would you prefer that PETA not be around, and you get to eat unhealthy burgers instead:eyes:? For that is exactly what would be happening without PETA, for there is no other group out there doing what PETA is doing.

And by the by, PETA has been taking this kind of action since they've started, around twenty years ago.

[EstimatedProphet]

48. Nope, sure didn't

Lag kept your link posting from showing up until after I had posted. so, I would refer you to my second post instead.

[MadHound]

52. Still didn't answer my question though.

What do you have against a win-win situation, even though it involves PETA? We get healthier, tastier meat, livestock get to live and die more humanely, and PETA keeps on going. Win-win. What's wrong with it?

[EstimatedProphet]

56. Actually, I don't have anything at all against that

I haven't addressed that because I haven't had time to look up the links.
If indeed PETA is helping out the whole process of meat production, making it safer for the consumer, more humane, etc., OK. My point originally though is that is not what their end is in itself. Their founder originally stated that the ultimate goal is about ending all animal use-meat consumption, animals-as-labor, pets, etc. That IMO is unrealistic. there's too many strains of animal species out there that are far too removed from wild conditions to live if released. What do we do with them?

[madrchsod]

18. sign me up

i really like to have an elk burger or a nice deer roast, some sweet corn,and yellow potatoes. i`ll take a bottle of point beer and a couple of glasses of cranberry wine. good eat`n...

[SmileyBoy]

19. I do!!! Me me me me me me me me!!!!!!

I had a bacon, egg and cheez biscuit with a side of sausage links for breakfast!!!!

MMMMM-MMMMMMM, animals!!!!!

[Smirnoff]

26. You guys are horrible.

:spank:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. tee hee hee (EOM)

[trof]

25. You are BAD to the BONE!

And God's gonna gitcha for that.
:evilgrin:

[TXlib]

30. B-b-b-b-b-baaaad!

[Mr. McD]

32. Count me in.

I smoke up 5 chickens and a pork shoulder this weekend. Good eating. Yum.:-)

[EV1Ltimm]

33. I've got the catch phrase!

"If god didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?"

[toddzilla]

34. a lion is inherently evil when it eats a wildebeast..

didn't you know? you can just see it in their eyes, how they have no caring or sympathy for the antelope they ate last week. heartless bastards!!

[jus_the_facts]

36. ROFLMAO......

.....that Jesus in your sig line....that expression on his face made me imagine I'd hear him speak and he'd sound just like Billy Crystal sayin' "you look MAAAAVELOUS!" :evilgrin:

[Blue_Chill]

50. Aren't you made out of meat?

Perhaps we should hang you upside down, cut your arms off, and skin you.....all while you are awake because we didn't knock you out because the machine that does that is broken and no inspectors are allowed in here so they can't make us fix it.

Oh yeah and we'll be sure to make fun of those pansy liberal groups that say what we are doing to you is cruel.

[EV1Ltimm]

59. just so long as i'm cooked to a crisp, golden brown

and topped with country gravy, i won't have any complaints.

Mashed potatoes and fried okra on the side to boot.

[EstimatedProphet]

63. Sorry, but that beats what we do now

Pickling someone and dumping them in a non-decomposable coffin is just weird. What's the point? Why keep the nutrients from being recycled?
You might not like the implications of eating something, but that's the way ecology works. We're part of the system. Until we can divorce ourselves from the system, the point is moot.

[WoodrowFan]

35. can I oppress bees too by eating honey??

YUM, meat!

[Wonco_the_Sane]

38. A very disappointed meat eater

I went to Panda Express at the mall yesterday. Guess what? No panda. :(

I wonder if cows and chickens would thrive in nature without human help. Heh heh.

Eat them up yum!

[Terwilliger]

39. TASTY!

[TXlib]

40. Entrails is good eatin'!

[sistersofmercy]

45. What is that a picture of?

[Terwilliger]

58. a cow being taken apart

[VelmaD]

41. You could eaten tasty animals...

if you woulda showed up at the Super Bowl party at bearfan's house last night. Mmmmmmmmmm

[Odin13]

43. How about no for an answer.

I'm vegan, you suck!

[TXlib]

51. Welcome to DU, Odin!

It's no Valhalla, but feel free to pull up with a mazer of mead!

[tinnyguy1777]

66. Welcome Odin------Wanna go out

for a burger??????????

[MissMillie]

53. I've always been gleeful

about being near the top of the food chain.

[TXlib]

57. What's eating you?

What do you mean, "near the top?"

[EstimatedProphet]

65. Hey, we're all hosts for parasites...

Maybe roundworms should be the top of the food chain...

[TXlib]

68. Didn't Hobbes (of Calvin & Hobbes) comment that:

"Eventually, we're all food."

[maveric]

54. Anyone want a good VEAL recipe?

VEAL cutlets
VEAL chops
VEAL scallopini
VEAL parmigana

[He loved Big Brother]

60. Go for it.

I personally don't want to eat anything that shits.

[EstimatedProphet]

64. Well put!

I don't want to eat anything that grows in shit! (Mushrooms excluded...)
I have no problem with people electing to be vegetarian or vegan. I just have a problem with people electing that I should be that way. How is that any different than pro-lifers deciding that pro-choice shouldn't be allowed?

[NightTrain]

67. Mmm... Prime rib!

:9

[Djinn]

70. can you kill your own food?

I've always wondered at the sqeamishness most meat eaters will display when anywhere near an actual dead animal. I eat meat and don't think there's a problem with anyone doing so but if you couldn't ever bring yourself to shoot something or slit it's throat - which most people will never do - should you really be a meat eater? should you bang on about loving "tasty" animals, what we really love is a nice neat steak on our plate completely removed from the reality of slaughter? Another weird thing is the horror of most western meat eaters when someone mentions eating cats or dogs, not something I'd do myself either but if I'm OK with eating meat why differentiate between eatable and non eatable?

As for PETA, we know and they know that's it's HUGELY unlikely everyone will turn veg - but if the by-product of them trying to turn people off it is a spotlight on industrial farming (which is cruel there is NO way you could sensibly argue that it isn't) the poor working conditions in slaughterhouses, the problems of feeding ruminants other ruminants etc etc then I'm all for it.

If one is REALLY totally fine with eating meat then PETA showing you a picture of a slaughterhouse shouldn't put you off

[EstimatedProphet]

74. Quite a good point

I wonder about that too...I think it's a shame that so many people in this country seem to believe that meat comes from styrofoam containers in the store. I think that people in general are better off knowing indeed where it truly does come from, so that they will have an understanding of what it takes to get it to them.

[Hammie]

76. Yes.

I used to raise chickens at home. I know where meat comes from and I enjoy it. Bon Apetit!

[Djinn]

77. you raised them

but did you also kill them - having animals wasn't my point, being to personally kill them, was.

[tom_paine]

72. Probably get flamed, but hell YEAH I'll join.

Yum!

I'm still jonesing for a nice plate of beef, but the knwledge that the Beef Industry wouldn't give a shit if a thousand of us died so long as their sales remain solid combined with the fact that the Imperial Government does want as many Free Americans possible to be gone and given that all the people in charge of Beef Safety are now Bushevik Loyalists who also could care less if 1000s die...

...means I cannot eat beef for quite awhile yet.

[sleipnir]

79. I'll join, I actually just killed a cow today for lunch, but threw most of

it away...it wasn't very good. I did get a nice liver and some good cuts of meat, but really it was a waste. Oh well....he sure was tastee!!


:evilgrin: