The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 116
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abercrombie View Post
    Really? What about the mega-millions spent by industries like Cattlemen's, Meat, Dairy, Poultry, Pork, and Farm Bureau's to lobby for things like horse slaughter, ag-gag laws, and the defense of some pretty egregious animal "farming" methods? They are *hardly* out-gunned by any of the "animal rights extremist groups"



    Right. And instead of baseball, bear baiting could have been our National Sport.
    Damn those "animal rights" people.
    Animal rights extremists now take credit for what society was working toward's before they ever exited, animal welfare?

    Do I need to explain again the difference between animal rights extremists and their drives to eliminate all animal uses, "no more domestic animals and not to soon for me" and animal welfare, the way humanity, as we improved our own lot, learned to take better and better care of our animals and change our protocols to do that?

    I do believe you are reading on animal rights web sites, the information you are repeating here comes right from those.
    Not that is anything wrong with being an animal rights extremists, to each their own, but to come push that agenda on a horse training web site?



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    I don't mind helping some walking them thru rational thought processes.
    Let me explain again what each one of those associations you mention do.

    Be it for cattle, chickens, pigs, any other, those associations are paid for by members and are working on many, many industry topics and goals.
    Lobbying so their industry can operate is just one of those.

    Those industries are providing a real service, with millions of jobs and products they provide to all of us, agriculture even gives us the positive balance of trade we in the USA enjoy.
    You don't want someone in an obscure office in DC deciding what someone in ND needs to do by regulating what they are absolutely clueless to even understand?
    That is what lobbying for industries is, explaining to those politicians why some regulations make sense and others don't.

    Those are many, many different associations with many different goals and topics they address.

    Now, again, what did you not understand about animal rights extremist groups, some of the LARGEST non-profits in this world, that don't have any other goal than fill their coffers with donations to stay at the top and eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans?
    That is all they have to use their mega millions for, not any other.

    Do you even think it makes sense to try to compare those very different groups and their activities and goals as cavalierly as you did?



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,808

    Default

    Bluey, now you're defending lobbyists? Life must be so simple for you...black vs white with no shades of gray.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Bluey, now you're defending lobbyists? Life must be so simple for you...black vs white with no shades of gray.
    Is that all you understood from that very basic explanation?



  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Now, again, what did you not understand about animal rights extremist groups, some of the LARGEST non-profits in this world, that don't have any other goal than fill their coffers with donations to stay at the top and eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans?
    That is all they have to use their mega millions for, not any other.

    Do you even think it makes sense to try to compare those very different groups and their activities and goals as cavalierly as you did?
    Having millions of dollars in the coffers does not give these organizations the great powers you keep implying they have. If they did have such great powers, there would be no debate about horse slaughter because they would have already made sure it will never happen again in the U.S. As much as some organizations try to put an end to the carriage horse industry, last I checked, the carriages in most cities are still operating on a regular basis.

    PETA is one of the groups you are afraid will have the power to eliminate all uses of animals by humans. Will you please provide evidence they are on their way to making this happen? (Asking this question does NOT make me an animal rights extremist, btw).
    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post
    Having millions of dollars in the coffers does not give these organizations the great powers you keep implying they have. If they did have such great powers, there would be no debate about horse slaughter because they would have already made sure it will never happen again in the U.S. As much as some organizations try to put an end to the carriage horse industry, last I checked, the carriages in most cities are still operating on a regular basis.

    PETA is one of the groups you are afraid will have the power to eliminate all uses of animals by humans. Will you please provide evidence they are on their way to making this happen? (Asking this question does NOT make me an animal rights extremist, btw).
    you can ask this with a straight face?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2011
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    I don't mind helping some walking them thru rational thought processes.
    Let me explain again what each one of those associations you mention do.
    Oh yes, please do. And be sure to type real slow and use little words so those of us who are not nearly as smart can grasp what you're trying to tell us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Be it for cattle, chickens, pigs, any other, those associations are paid for by members and are working on many, many industry topics and goals.
    Lobbying so their industry can operate is just one of those...
    ...That is what lobbying for industries is, explaining to those politicians why some regulations make sense and others don't.
    I'm so glad you explained that -- who knew lobbyists just wanted to "educate" politicians?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Now, again, what did you not understand about animal rights extremist groups, some of the LARGEST non-profits in this world, that don't have any other goal than fill their coffers with donations to stay at the top and eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans?
    That is all they have to use their mega millions for, not any other.
    <sigh>

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Do you even think it makes sense to try to compare those very different groups and their activities and goals as cavalierly as you did?
    Yes.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post
    Having millions of dollars in the coffers does not give these organizations the great powers you keep implying they have. If they did have such great powers, there would be no debate about horse slaughter because they would have already made sure it will never happen again in the U.S. As much as some organizations try to put an end to the carriage horse industry, last I checked, the carriages in most cities are still operating on a regular basis.

    PETA is one of the groups you are afraid will have the power to eliminate all uses of animals by humans. Will you please provide evidence they are on their way to making this happen? (Asking this question does NOT make me an animal rights extremist, btw).
    http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

    For those that don't want to click on links:


    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

    Click here to see proof of how HSUS gives 1 percent of its budget to pet shelters
    Click here to see evidence of how HSUS deceives Americans
    Click here to see evidence that HSUS wants to eliminate meat, cheese, and dairy foods
    Click here to read about how HSUS’s CEO has said he doesn’t want to see another dog or cat born
    Click here to discover how HSUS’s CEO said dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick would “do a good job as a pet owner”
    Click here to see how HSUS funnels more money into its pension plan than it gives to pet shelters
    Click here to learn about why the American Institute of Philanthropy gives HSUS a “D” rating
    Click here to read why six Congressmen recently called for a federal investigation of HSUS
    HSUS is big, rich, and powerful. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $162 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

    Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends more than $5 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

    HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” But Pacelle may have more ambitious anti-hunting goals. In 1991, while he was the National Director of the Fund for Animals, Pacelle told the Associated Press: “[I]f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. Just like we would shut down all dog fighting, all cock fighting or all bull fighting.”

    More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

    Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

    HSUS’s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers “help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.” Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

    A True Multinational Corporation

    HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with regional staff operating in 33 states and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt “charities,” while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don’t have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.

    This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate’s budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.

    Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Paul Irwin (HSUS president from 1996 to 2004) had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin’s Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC’s executive director.


    The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC’s fundraising, but didn’t provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: “I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen.”

    From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

    There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

    The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group — the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.

    In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group’s San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”

    In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, the published proceedings of this conference, HSUS stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.” It’s no surprise, then, that a 2003 HSUS fundraising mailer boasted that the group has been working toward “putting an end to killing animals for nearly half a century.”

    In 1986 John McArdle, then-HSUS’s Director of Laboratory Animal Welfare, told Washingtonian magazine that HSUS was “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature.”

    The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

    The change brought more money and media attention. John Hoyt, HSUS president from 1970 to 1996, explained the shift in 1991, telling National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight … Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency … have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal-rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe,” Hoyt mused, “the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”

    HSUS leaders have even expressed their desire to put an end to the lifesaving biomedical research that requires the use of animals. As early as 1988 the group’s mailings demanded that the U.S. government “eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.” In 1986 Washingtonian asked John McArdle about his opinion that brain-dead humans should be substituted for animals in medical research. “It may take people a while to get used to the idea,” McArdle said, “but once they do the savings in animal lives will be substantial.”

    McArdle realized then what HSUS understands today — that an uncompromising, vegetarian-only, anti-medical-progress philosophy has limited appeal. At the 1984 HSUS convention, he gave his group’s members specific instructions on how to frame the issue most effectively. “Avoid the words ‘animal rights’ and ‘antivivisection’,” McArdle said. “They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of animals.”

    In a 1993 letter published by the American Society for Microbiology, Dr. Patrick Cleveland of the University of California San Diego spelled out HSUS’s place in the animal-rights pantheon. "What separates the HSUS from other animal rights groups,” Cleveland wrote, “is not their philosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals in research, but the tactics and timetable for that abolition.” Cleveland likened it to the difference between a mugger and a con man. “They each will rob you — they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.”

    Targeting Meat and Dairy ....



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    you can ask this with a straight face?
    Yes.

    What's your point?
    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg



  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Is that all you understood from that very basic explanation?
    And there you go again with another snide remark. I guess you can't see it when you're doing it.

    That was not a basic explanation. That was Bluey's world as she sees it, not as it exists. Cattle, chickens, pigs, etc organizations are there to make sure their members can operate with as few regulations and oversight as possible whether it keeps the food supply safe or not.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

    For those that don't want to click on links:


    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

    Click here to see proof of how HSUS gives 1 percent of its budget to pet shelters
    Click here to see evidence of how HSUS deceives Americans
    Click here to see evidence that HSUS wants to eliminate meat, cheese, and dairy foods
    Click here to read about how HSUS’s CEO has said he doesn’t want to see another dog or cat born
    Click here to discover how HSUS’s CEO said dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick would “do a good job as a pet owner”
    Click here to see how HSUS funnels more money into its pension plan than it gives to pet shelters
    Click here to learn about why the American Institute of Philanthropy gives HSUS a “D” rating
    Click here to read why six Congressmen recently called for a federal investigation of HSUS
    HSUS is big, rich, and powerful. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $162 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

    Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends more than $5 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

    HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” But Pacelle may have more ambitious anti-hunting goals. In 1991, while he was the National Director of the Fund for Animals, Pacelle told the Associated Press: “[I]f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. Just like we would shut down all dog fighting, all cock fighting or all bull fighting.”

    More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

    Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

    HSUS’s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers “help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.” Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

    A True Multinational Corporation

    HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with regional staff operating in 33 states and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt “charities,” while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don’t have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.

    This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate’s budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.

    Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Paul Irwin (HSUS president from 1996 to 2004) had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin’s Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC’s executive director.


    The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC’s fundraising, but didn’t provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: “I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen.”

    From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

    There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

    The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group — the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.

    In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group’s San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”

    In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, the published proceedings of this conference, HSUS stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.” It’s no surprise, then, that a 2003 HSUS fundraising mailer boasted that the group has been working toward “putting an end to killing animals for nearly half a century.”

    In 1986 John McArdle, then-HSUS’s Director of Laboratory Animal Welfare, told Washingtonian magazine that HSUS was “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature.”

    The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

    The change brought more money and media attention. John Hoyt, HSUS president from 1970 to 1996, explained the shift in 1991, telling National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight … Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency … have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal-rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe,” Hoyt mused, “the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”

    HSUS leaders have even expressed their desire to put an end to the lifesaving biomedical research that requires the use of animals. As early as 1988 the group’s mailings demanded that the U.S. government “eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.” In 1986 Washingtonian asked John McArdle about his opinion that brain-dead humans should be substituted for animals in medical research. “It may take people a while to get used to the idea,” McArdle said, “but once they do the savings in animal lives will be substantial.”

    McArdle realized then what HSUS understands today — that an uncompromising, vegetarian-only, anti-medical-progress philosophy has limited appeal. At the 1984 HSUS convention, he gave his group’s members specific instructions on how to frame the issue most effectively. “Avoid the words ‘animal rights’ and ‘antivivisection’,” McArdle said. “They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of animals.”

    In a 1993 letter published by the American Society for Microbiology, Dr. Patrick Cleveland of the University of California San Diego spelled out HSUS’s place in the animal-rights pantheon. "What separates the HSUS from other animal rights groups,” Cleveland wrote, “is not their philosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals in research, but the tactics and timetable for that abolition.” Cleveland likened it to the difference between a mugger and a con man. “They each will rob you — they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.”

    Targeting Meat and Dairy ....
    From Richard Berman- one of teh largest paid lobbysists for Big Ag, tabacco, and alchohol industry...not exactly unbiased.

    HSUS also helped get horse tripping, cockfighting, and dogfighting banned. Which one of those are you ok with? And even though they are banned, people still own roosters, horses, and dogs...


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    From Richard Berman- one of teh largest paid lobbysists for Big Ag, tabacco, and alchohol industry...not exactly unbiased.

    HSUS also helped get horse tripping, cockfighting, and dogfighting banned. Which one of those are you ok with? And even though they are banned, people still own roosters, horses, and dogs...
    What does being biased or not have to do with explaining the truth about the HSUS?

    After all that has been presented, all you have to say is that you think the source, in your opinion, is biased.

    Too bad you can't deny that all that is true, is it.



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    From Richard Berman- one of teh largest paid lobbysists for Big Ag, tabacco, and alchohol industry...not exactly unbiased.

    HSUS also helped get horse tripping, cockfighting, and dogfighting banned. Which one of those are you ok with? And even though they are banned, people still own roosters, horses, and dogs...
    But dogs and roosters are a natural resource, to be used by us however we see fit. See you just don't understand, you're being conned by the evil, evil HSUS into thinking that dog fighting, horse tripping and cock fighting is bad.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    But dogs and roosters are a natural resource, to be used by us however we see fit. See you just don't understand, you're being conned by the evil, evil HSUS into thinking that dog fighting, horse tripping and cock fighting is bad.

    Never mind, that is the absurd way some have to explain why we should let animal rights extremist continue to assault all we do with our animals, because they helped close some we did that was directly abusive, like dog fighting, that society was already trying to ban, before animal rights even existed.

    Those groups are not going to miss a chance to get a halo, even if it was false.
    See what the HSUS did lately, hire a dog fighting criminal, as a publicity stunt, because it fit their goals at the time.
    That would be like hiring Hitler to run a jewish school.
    Boy, was that a great run of free publicity in the news:

    http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=6510

    As you can tell, before you mentioned, yes, that source is also biased.



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,808

    Default

    And there we have it, only 3 pages before Bluey invoked Godwin's law. I rest my case.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2011
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Not that is anything wrong with being an animal rights extremists, to each their own, but to come push that agenda on a horse training web site?
    Funny coming from the person who likes to link to sites like the Cattle Network to push their agenda on a horse training web site.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abercrombie View Post
    Funny coming from the person who likes to link to sites like the Cattle Network to push their agenda on a horse training web site.
    I don't have an agenda (don't even know what the Cattle Network is) unlike others here seem to have.

    I am defending our rights to use our animals, which is I think very appropriate in a horse web site.



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    And there we have it, only 3 pages before Bluey invoked Godwin's law. I rest my case.
    While Hitler may be a figure of speech to you, who knows, he is a very real example to me, affected my family greatly and we are not even jewish.

    I won't counter your continuous personal attacks with some of my own, but I will say, maybe consider easing up a bit on that front, "will ya"?



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2009
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    238

    Default

    This thread is totally "off course". I asked a simple question. It was answered on page one. Never mind......I should have known. Is there any question that can be asked on this BB that doesn't start a war?

    Really some bored people out there........why don't you all just "hug" and give it a break? Another train will be along in a day or so.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hpilot View Post
    This thread is totally "off course". I asked a simple question. It was answered on page one. Never mind......I should have known. Is there any question that can be asked on this BB that doesn't start a war?

    Really some bored people out there........why don't you all just "hug" and give it a break? Another train will be along in a day or so.
    Don't blame me, I answered right off and on topic.

    What did you think such a question would bring for responses, if you read the others where this same was debated 'round and around.

    It was a good question, I think it has been a good discussion, for what such are.
    I hope many have learned some they didn't know and that is the point of your question, right?



Similar Threads

  1. What countries DO NOT eat or slaughter horses?
    By msrobin in forum Off Course
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: Mar. 12, 2013, 01:07 PM
  2. Replies: 196
    Last Post: Jan. 24, 2012, 11:43 AM
  3. Saving Horses From Slaughter
    By Lord Helpus in forum Off Course
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: Feb. 21, 2011, 12:56 PM
  4. Do 1/2 of Sugarcreeks horses go to slaughter?
    By RU2U in forum Off Course
    Replies: 408
    Last Post: May. 4, 2007, 07:38 PM
  5. Replies: 144
    Last Post: Oct. 1, 2005, 09:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •