Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new] "owner"
Disgusting! I'll put *s around anything else I see wrong with this garbage, and it's bound to be a heck of a lot.
Subject: FW: [stopthekilling] Extension of *Rights* for *Companion Animals*
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:07:36 -0700
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:07:36 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: ADLLA
To: *Stop The Killing*
From: ADLLA
To: *Stop The Killing*
(self-righteous, ego-puffing, and hypocritical when humans are getting killed every day and they're not crying over that. "companion animal" is the term PEta wants to get everybody using instead of "pet" as a step to putting animals as equal with humans in order to eventually end all contact between animals and humans with the exception of themselves, of course.)
Sent: 9/18/2007 11:48:03 Pm
*POST AND CROSS POST!*
(Yikes! All caps = shouting, chain letter style - and this instruction's how chain email gets started, and it's very typical of animal welfare people to do this)
Visit *www.StopTheKilling.net*
(offensive self-righteous looking domain, typical of animal welfare/rights egotists)
In the news today, a dog *who*
In the news today, a dog *who*
(who is for humans, this should read "a dog that was)
was taken to the veterinarian's
office in the state of Georgia is being held *hostage*
office in the state of Georgia is being held *hostage*
(Implies a kidnapping which didn't happen, and since when is a dog a "hostage"? People are hostages, dogs are impounded!) until the *"owner"* (yes, the OWNER, not the mommy or daddy or guardian or care taker or steward or any other aw term, so no need for the quotes around it, dude.)
pays the *nine-hundred-dollar bill* (Holy crap! That's horrendous! The dog probably didn't even cost that much to buy in the first place, no?) owed to the vet. This is *receiving
tons of coverage in the mainstream press,* (meh...If you say so - I haven't heard of it, anyway, lots of chain letter hoaxes claim the same thing when in fact the story can be seen nowhere in the media except maybe to be exposed as a hoax.) which is discussing the
issue of *companion animals* (PETS!) *)cats, dogs, rabbits)* (Uhm dude...Er, like...Most of us know what pets are, and what kinds of pets are commonly found in households! DUH!) being given *more
standing in the law.* (which is sometimes mentioned in the media, but is still ridiculous and absolutely wrong. Animals are not and never will be little fur-people, or come before people except in the depraved minds of the animal activists who hate their own species...) As *the journalist* (Which journalist?) explaining the story stated,
*"If you took your daughter to the dentist for dental work* (This is a dog, not your daughter, a blasted dog, for crying out loud! Any journalist who attempts to equate children with animals needs to have their credentials as well as their head examined, not to mention, they just wouldn't belong in a media job!) and couldn't
pay the bill, the dentist wouldn't be able to hold your *child hostage* (Again, this is a dog, not a child! But it seems to me somebody is trying to weasel out of paying a tremendously outrageous vet bill, or a vet is trying to bilk a dog owner out of their hard earned money! It stinks either way.)
or send her to an *orphanage."* (Orphanages are for children! Dogs go to the pound or a kennel, doofus!)
pays the *nine-hundred-dollar bill* (Holy crap! That's horrendous! The dog probably didn't even cost that much to buy in the first place, no?) owed to the vet. This is *receiving
tons of coverage in the mainstream press,* (meh...If you say so - I haven't heard of it, anyway, lots of chain letter hoaxes claim the same thing when in fact the story can be seen nowhere in the media except maybe to be exposed as a hoax.) which is discussing the
issue of *companion animals* (PETS!) *)cats, dogs, rabbits)* (Uhm dude...Er, like...Most of us know what pets are, and what kinds of pets are commonly found in households! DUH!) being given *more
standing in the law.* (which is sometimes mentioned in the media, but is still ridiculous and absolutely wrong. Animals are not and never will be little fur-people, or come before people except in the depraved minds of the animal activists who hate their own species...) As *the journalist* (Which journalist?) explaining the story stated,
*"If you took your daughter to the dentist for dental work* (This is a dog, not your daughter, a blasted dog, for crying out loud! Any journalist who attempts to equate children with animals needs to have their credentials as well as their head examined, not to mention, they just wouldn't belong in a media job!) and couldn't
pay the bill, the dentist wouldn't be able to hold your *child hostage* (Again, this is a dog, not a child! But it seems to me somebody is trying to weasel out of paying a tremendously outrageous vet bill, or a vet is trying to bilk a dog owner out of their hard earned money! It stinks either way.)
or send her to an *orphanage."* (Orphanages are for children! Dogs go to the pound or a kennel, doofus!)
Even though under our *draconian laws* (Draconian law would be forcing people to treat their animals as children and thereby end pet ownership!) animals are still *considered
someone's "personal property,"* (Obviously you have a problem with that, which makes you an ar extremist. Get a life!) there are many judges across the nation
who are apparently *awarding "companion" animals extra considerations
in dealing with issues similar to this one.* (Not because they are as sadly and scarily twisted as this, I hope, but rather, because of other factors like who's pet it is and who has a stronger case for keeping the animal - and even that's no guarantee the animal would end up where it belongs, animal welfare people are very good at stealing animals from people and using the law as a cover for their rotten activities.!) Some judges have extended
the term "personal property" in dealing with *companion animals* (They're called pets, dude...) to
"personal property *who* (Who is a human...) make a positive impression and difference in
the lives of those who own them!"* (Again, yes, people do own pets,the animals don't care what you call them, but anybody who cares to keep their own rights to be benefited by their personal property, should care, and shun your disgusting rhetoric and call it for what it is, extremist animal rights propaganda!. And yes, everybody who has ever owned and loved a pet knows pets do make a positive difference in their lives, but you animal rights nutters want to take that away, and that is the bottom line with you here!)
Now, of course, ADL-LA believes that animals should have intrinsic
value and be accorded *rights* (Rights is a human concept and cannot be applied to animals...) independent of their meaning to human
beings. Because *non human animals* (of course they're non human, they're animals! You're making me want to throw up!) are indeed *sentient* (Right up there on the ars favorite words for describing their idea of animals, right along with "innocent" "voiceless" and all other tripe. Give me a break!) and able to
*suffer* (As you ars continually to fantasize about, you just can't stand that somewhere, a human is happy, or that an animal and a human are happy in each other's presence! Again, get a freaking life! Yes, most of us know animals feel pain, get excited over treats, miss their owners when they're away, have foods they like and foods they dislike, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! That does not make them little children in fur coats!) *- feel pain, fear, pleasure, disappointment, depression, etc.* (Yadda, yadda, yadda, I just covered that...) -
they *should* (No they should NOT) be granted rights irrespective of any "human"
considerations whatsoever.
(Oh right. To you, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, and an ant should be granted the same consideration as your child since your child is of no more value to you than an ant...You pass with flying colors to be a good little soldier in the PEta/HSUS/ALF etc. army.)
But, in light of *how companion animals are treated* (Pets, dude, pets!) inside the *prison*
walls of LAAS and other municipal *shelters,* (the pound) this broadening of the
term "personal property" being given by some judges is a positive
step forward. Therefore, the veterinarian in Georgia is going to
either be forced to give the dog back to the owner or make sure the
dog gets a safe and loving new home; he will NOT be allowed to send
the dog (as he had initially intended) to a *shelter* (pound) with the dog's
death the likely outcome.
walls of LAAS and other municipal *shelters,* (the pound) this broadening of the
term "personal property" being given by some judges is a positive
step forward. Therefore, the veterinarian in Georgia is going to
either be forced to give the dog back to the owner or make sure the
dog gets a safe and loving new home; he will NOT be allowed to send
the dog (as he had initially intended) to a *shelter* (pound) with the dog's
death the likely outcome.
(So...It's either a money-grubbing aw extremist vet, or a loafing animal owner looking to get something for nothing, trying to cop out of having to pay a vet bill. Yes, I hope the vet is forced to give the dog back to its owner once the bill has been paid - provided the vet was on the up and up about the amount and the owner wasn't trying to get something for nothing. It's not easy to tell which one was the villain and which one was the victim here, but either way, it's disgusting how the animal rights people are trying to use it to their own twisted interests.)
This issue set ADL-LA members to pondering how we can use this new and
more progressive perspective in thinking about *companion animals* (Pets!) to
serve LA's own homeless and lost animals. It seems - if we are to
agree with the many judges who are giving *companion animals* (Pets!) 'extra
consideration' - that when a *companion animal* (Gads, I've never seen so much repitition of an offensive phrase except for the flamer who flamed somebody's guestbook with pages of the words "bitch pants" Get it through your thick head, it's PETS!) is lost, the "shelters"
(yeah, they are pounds) should be unable to kill the animal because they have an owner
somewhere. Even if the owners make no attempt or are otherwise unable
to find their missing pet, the *shelters* (pounds) should be forced either to
find this animal a home or care (humanely!) for the animal's physical
and emotional needs for the rest of his/her natural life.
(Gosh, for a second there, I actually thought you were going to say something truly compassionate and sensible, and say the pounds should be forced to track down the owner and give the animal back to him/her! So - you didn't say anything surprisingly and refreshingly decent after all...)
more progressive perspective in thinking about *companion animals* (Pets!) to
serve LA's own homeless and lost animals. It seems - if we are to
agree with the many judges who are giving *companion animals* (Pets!) 'extra
consideration' - that when a *companion animal* (Gads, I've never seen so much repitition of an offensive phrase except for the flamer who flamed somebody's guestbook with pages of the words "bitch pants" Get it through your thick head, it's PETS!) is lost, the "shelters"
(yeah, they are pounds) should be unable to kill the animal because they have an owner
somewhere. Even if the owners make no attempt or are otherwise unable
to find their missing pet, the *shelters* (pounds) should be forced either to
find this animal a home or care (humanely!) for the animal's physical
and emotional needs for the rest of his/her natural life.
(Gosh, for a second there, I actually thought you were going to say something truly compassionate and sensible, and say the pounds should be forced to track down the owner and give the animal back to him/her! So - you didn't say anything surprisingly and refreshingly decent after all...)
Furthermore, animals *who* (should be 'which' or 'that') don't have owners ("strays") are the de facto
personal property of the community in which they are found - and,
therefore, *a portion of the tax dollars (more then 22 MILLION EACH
YEAR) given to the department of Los Angeles Animal Services by the
citizens of Los Angeles should be allocated precisely to finding homes
for these animals as well, so that they can "make a positive
impression and difference" in the lives of someone else who chooses to
own them!*
personal property of the community in which they are found - and,
therefore, *a portion of the tax dollars (more then 22 MILLION EACH
YEAR) given to the department of Los Angeles Animal Services by the
citizens of Los Angeles should be allocated precisely to finding homes
for these animals as well, so that they can "make a positive
impression and difference" in the lives of someone else who chooses to
own them!*
(Who wants to shell out more money for useless taxes? people are already being taxed for more important things such as schooling and for other things they probably don't even know or care to support. And if I didn't have a pet, I should not be expected to pay taxes so some mangy flea-ridden mutts or alley cats are foisted on people who should have the right to choose to get their pets elsewhere than at some dumpy pound, and there's no way I'll support any funding to help the institutions that participate in raiding pet owners and importing sick and vicious dogs from other countries to perpetuate the animal overpopulation myth and put pet shops and breeders out of business, eventually ending pet ownership altogether, as pound pets get spewtered before they're allowed back into a home!)
Therefore, no *companion animal* *Blimey! Okay, I'm going through this nauseating thing to tally the number of times you churned out your favorite PEta phrase! And they are still pets!) should ever be *killed,* "(Like it or not, animals do have to be killed. If that wasn't the case, everything that moves on this planet would be living on vegetation only! And sometimes animals are killed to prevent the spread of disease, sometimes they are put down because to let them live and suffer from an incurable condition isn't doing it any favors and may be a huge finantial drain on the owner who can't afford steep vet bills every time meds are required, especially when this owner has his or her own condition they are spending lots on for meds, or if the owner has a loved one such as a child who needs special care and it isn't cheap!) *neglected,* (Pets usually aren't neglected by their owners. It's when animals end up in the pounds or the hands of other animal rights extremist raiders is when the neglect comes in to it.) or
allowed to die from treatable illnesses in our LA *shelters*
Therefore, no *companion animal* *Blimey! Okay, I'm going through this nauseating thing to tally the number of times you churned out your favorite PEta phrase! And they are still pets!) should ever be *killed,* "(Like it or not, animals do have to be killed. If that wasn't the case, everything that moves on this planet would be living on vegetation only! And sometimes animals are killed to prevent the spread of disease, sometimes they are put down because to let them live and suffer from an incurable condition isn't doing it any favors and may be a huge finantial drain on the owner who can't afford steep vet bills every time meds are required, especially when this owner has his or her own condition they are spending lots on for meds, or if the owner has a loved one such as a child who needs special care and it isn't cheap!) *neglected,* (Pets usually aren't neglected by their owners. It's when animals end up in the pounds or the hands of other animal rights extremist raiders is when the neglect comes in to it.) or
allowed to die from treatable illnesses in our LA *shelters*
(pounds, and that's what pounds do, because ars working there would rather see them dead than go to live with another human.)
just
because they are lost or homeless. ARE THERE ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE
WILLING TO TAKE THIS ON?
(A smart lawyer who is not greedy, wouldn't touch this with a 30 foot pole unless it meant making the greedy animal welfare extremist pounds give the animals back to their owners every time!)
because they are lost or homeless. ARE THERE ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE
WILLING TO TAKE THIS ON?
(A smart lawyer who is not greedy, wouldn't touch this with a 30 foot pole unless it meant making the greedy animal welfare extremist pounds give the animals back to their owners every time!)
This to ADL-LA would be a step forward in the way Americans view
certain categories of animals - i.e., those classified as
*"companions."* (pets.) This should be a given - not something for which
activists should have to fight for, get arrested over or be
continually dragged into court.
certain categories of animals - i.e., those classified as
*"companions."* (pets.) This should be a given - not something for which
activists should have to fight for, get arrested over or be
continually dragged into court.
-Wrong. Activists should be arrested, and dragged into court, for simply being what they are and making it their mission to cause strife wherever they go!)
Once we as a society are forbidden to kill *"companion" animals* (PETS!) in our
municipal *"shelters"* (pounds!) maybe - just maybe - this will pave the way for
other animals *who* (which or that!) are not considered "companions" to be given
consideration under the law as well, and NOT be *violated*
municipal *"shelters"* (pounds!) maybe - just maybe - this will pave the way for
other animals *who* (which or that!) are not considered "companions" to be given
consideration under the law as well, and NOT be *violated*
(Animals don't have a sense of dignity, so they cannot be violated, even if they can be hurt! The term 'violation' is connected with rights, which is a human concept alone!) *for human
greed, vanity, profit, entertainment, or culinary desires.*
greed, vanity, profit, entertainment, or culinary desires.*
(This passage sums up this judgemental self-righteous egomaniac animal extremist for what he/she is.Someone whose bigoted, dictator views run so deep they want to force everybody to eat only carrots, soy and greenery, even if a human hates it or is allergic - oh, but the animals can go on eating meat, right? Hypocrite! Or maybe you want to force pet owners to feed their cat a vegan diet? Hypocrite! And wear only plastic and other synthetics, even if they are not comfortable or even good for people, never see animals except in picture books and on outdated, anti-human nature programs, and all of this on pain of getting bullied and insulted as greedy, vain, etc. if one doesn't comply. And heaven forbid anyone but the animal activists be allowed to make any money! I've said it before, but will say it again, get a life, you miserable, stinking, conceited, self-agrandizing prat!)
ADL-LA Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this publication is intended
to encourage or incite illegal acts. Many of the reports contained in
our Action Alerts and on our web site at www.StopTheKilling.net have
been received anonymously and the Campaign cannot make any guarantees
for the accuracy of these reports.
to encourage or incite illegal acts. Many of the reports contained in
our Action Alerts and on our web site at www.StopTheKilling.net have
been received anonymously and the Campaign cannot make any guarantees
for the accuracy of these reports.
-Nooooooooo kidding!!! Better not even claim to try!
Any views or comments stated in
reports, Action Alerts or on the web site are not necessarily the
views of STK or ADL-LA.
Erm, I find that very hard to believe!
reports, Action Alerts or on the web site are not necessarily the
views of STK or ADL-LA.
Erm, I find that very hard to believe!
BTW the number of repeats of a certain animal rights phrase throughout this obnoxious drivel was 8. 8 times!
Furkids? Isn't that calling yourself the mother of a dog? Wouldn't that be calling yourself a bitch? What does that make your sons?-------------------"Shelters" importing dogs is like the fireman w ho sets fires so he can be a hero when he puts them out.
No comments:
Post a Comment