Anti-vivisection groups = Proven & Shameless Liars

Theo

Active Member
When you're dealing with lunatics who advocate fascist-style terrorist violence on those they disagree with, including attacks on cancer researchers and their families (rather than trying to win a debate in the marketplace of ideas as civilized people do in democracies) it's no surprise that truth is meaningless to them.

Nevertheless, it's worth looking at what liars they are as they get increasingly belligerent in their hate and self-righteousness.

For example, from June of this year:


The Advertising Standards Authority is today upholding a complaint by Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of NICE and highly respected scientist, against the animal rights organisation ‘SPEAK’, which is campaigning against the new research centre at Oxford University. The verdict is that SPEAK has misused a quote he gave at a conference, changing it so much that the meaning was completely altered.

***

The quote attributed to Professor Rawlins, "The animal testing regime… is utterly futile" has been blazoned on SPEAK placards and leaflets for over two years. The image with a cat’s head and the slogan is available on their website for download (see link, right).

When contacted by RDS, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins said:

"In my view, animal studies play an essential role in the discovery and development of new medicines. Without them new treatments for human disease would not be found; and the safety of patients would be very seriously compromised. The notion that animal studies are 'futile' is utterly wrong."

"As a clinical investigator, there is no way I would be prepared to investigate new active substances in either volunteers or patients without essential information from studies in animals."

***

The antivivisection group, Europeans for Medical Progress, who recently had five rulings upheld against it by the Advertising Standards Authority, has also used this misquote in one of its newsletters: "The animal testing regime is clearly not an effective safety net - indeed Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, has publicly stated that the animal study regime is "utterly futile".

I'm sure that the nutters who support the tactics of these extemist groups couldn't care less that their style is to make up fake quotes by scientists. To the sane of us, any group that must back up their scientific claims with invented, fake quotes from scientists is nothing more than a pack of liars trying to decieve the public.

More:

The UK-based Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has today upheld five complaints against US based animal rights organisations People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). The ruling was made against a fundraising leaflet mailed across the UK by PeTA, which has a turnover of over $28 million in the USA and is backed by numerous Hollywood celebrities.

***

The five complaints today upheld against PeTA cover scientific aspects of the debate, as well as the underlying motivations of researchers for using animals. On the science, the ASA has ruled that "the implication that physiological differences rendered the results of animal experiments crude or inapplicable to humans was misleading."

PeTA claimed that researchers are morally bankrupt individuals riding a 'ghastly gravy train'. The ASA upheld the complaint against this, stating that it: "…unfairly denigrated researchers taking part in research using animals and misrepresented their motives for doing so."

The full ASA adjudication against the PeTA claims is available from the ASA website at www.asa.org.uk


Ah, I've seen those scientific claims all over Morrissey web sites, and the claims about the underlying motives of scientists is a talking point Morrissey routinely spews in his increasingly tedious interviews.

I don't know how one reads into the hearts of people doing, say, cancer research, but blanket, demonizing statements that people in the field are only after money is silly on its face. I'd think many people go into that field because they want to help people. But if you acknolwedge that, you might not be able to work the cultish sheep up into a violent, terrorist frenzy of self-righteous intolerance and hate. Instead you might just do something as boring as petitioning your government to require the strictest standards of care for animals and only allow animals to be used when necessary. No, we must paint the "enemies" as evil, sub0human monsters who's rights we needn't respect, and we are thus morally free (indeed, encouraged) to send them mail bombs as violence is the only language they understand.

Here's a dossier titled Misleading the Public: 15 years of pseudoscientific untruths, distortions and unsubstantiated claims by anti-vivisection groups. It goes over numerous rulings against these groups by the independent Advertising Standards Authority. The usual response to this from a cultist will be that the web site it's presented on is biased and thus all of this information can be dismissed, while the supposed truth-telling web sites like PETAs are the gospel. The web site is indeed biased and doesn't claim to be otherwise. But reading these rulings by the ASA makes clear that the antivivsection groups have no interest in telling the public the truth. I'd ask these groups why, in trying to persuade the public, they must lie. Needless to say, the propagandist will simply attack the source and continue lying. They consider themselves right regardless of facts, because they are morally superior people and they just care more about animals than the rest of barbaric society. If they're lying, it's because they have to in order to save the animals. Or something like that.

Perhaps the reason they resort to violent, terrorist-style violence is because of their frustration that in a democracy the people can hear more information than their propaganda and outright lies (no doubt if they controlled society there'd be no free market of ideas), and thus they cannot persuade us to abandon medical progress, which we all rely on in order to have better and longer lives and don't believe we are evil for doing so. The members of these groups are free to sign pledges declaring their intention to pass up any of the benefits of medical progress if they so choose. I sure won't stop them. For the sane people, it's time to kick the extemist, lying, violent, anti-democratic groups to the curb, along with all the empty-headed celebrities that shill for them, and concentrate on raising the standards of care for animals.

Morrissey declared recently that he'd like to see violence come to those who don't oppose any and all animal research. Somebody should ask him why he wants to see violence against those who simply do not believe the lies of the groups he shills for. It's not our fault he's too stupid to be a critical thinker, and since we're far more tolerant than he is we will not advocate violence against him for the vile things he advocates.
 

Puddle

Banned
Theo

you're the most close-minded person on the boards. it's amzing how everything in the world that is the 'truth' or 'right' happens to be right-wing and conservative in nature. The truth is your mind will only accept 'facts' that support your core values and beliefs, similiar to how people opposite of you behave.

You present us this info, and yet those who disagree will present different facts, including information that would discredit various groups on your side.

That's human nature.

So it comes down to one thing...what do you value? what are your beliefs? whatever they may be, you'll find the "facts" to support it.

I'm just pointing out that you fall into this groove perhaps more so than anyone else here since you are so driven at discrediting information on the left, in order to support your beliefs and values.

Give yourself a pat on the back, theo...you are a tool.
 

Theo

Active Member
Puddle said:
you're the most close-minded person on the boards. it's amzing how everything in the world that is the 'truth' or 'right' happens to be right-wing and conservative in nature.

Yes, I'm closed-minded to the idea you put forth in another thread that the American economy has currently "gone to hell." I'm also closed-minded to the idea that the world is flat. I don't mind attacks on Bush's economic policy, aspects of which I myself take considerable exception to (such as tariffs and deficit spending). My simple request is that you post from reality and not Puddle's Fantasyland. What I saw was someone saying something stupid and not being called on it because his conclusion was that Chimpy McHitlerburton is the root of all evil, so who cares about the details of Puddle's claim, let's just suck each other's dicks.

It's also true that I condemn the deranged advocacy of terrorist violence against people doing cancer research, particularly at a time when the entire world is being victimized by deranged terrorists of various stripes (most recently, India).

Since you haven't stated otherwise, I'm left having to presume you view the advocacy of terrorist violence against cancer researchers as "open-minded" and the condemnation of it "closed-minded." Lovely.

I'm open to someone proving that we could abolish biomedical research on animals without stunting medical progress. Who among us would not sign on to abolishing animal research if we could get the same results without it? If these groups could only present proof that we don't actually need animal research whatsoever, my how easy the issue would be. Would there even be a controversy? Why wouldn't the UKsign on to banning animal research since they don't need animal research for anything good? Why, there'd be no reason to commit terrorist acts of violence on people when all you'd have to do is present them the facts.

But that's not the reality, whatever it is in Puddle's Fantasyland. Instead there are actually people who support some use of animals in research for reasons other than their being evil monsters who deserve letter bombs mailed to their homes, and maybe it is not "closed-minded" to argue against Morrissey's black and white mentality which concludes that all scientists dealing in animals are evil, there's nothing to discuss or debate, they simply must be killed.

Not only has my own research found that it is not true that animal research is not needed for medical progress, but what I have found is that the claims of the anti-vivisection groups are intentionally deceptive. The claim that medical researchers could do as well without animals begs the question of why, then, it's still going on in a country like England, where concern for animals is high. The answer these shady groups offer is the blanket smear that they are nothing but greedy scumbuckets. From here these groups leap to the advocacy of violence and harassments against people they do not know yet have taken considerable effort to demonize and slander as monsters.

It is important to these groups to tell this lie. What they don't want the soft-brained to know is that to the hardcore of these groups it does not matter. It would be extremely difficult for them to go to the public and say that we should give up life-saving medical progress because a person's life is of no more value than a fish's. They'd prefer lying to you and saying we could do just as well without using animals and evil-doers are preventing you from knowing that.

And, knowing that the soft-brained are caught up in a celebrity-worship culture, they sign on uneducated celebrities to encourage their fans to believe falsehoods.

The problem with Morrissey is that he went well beyond appearing in an ad for PETA. He told his fans to victimize other people, to trample on their human rights, to commit acts of violence against them. It could be that Morrissey thinks no one will take him seriously when he says these fascist things. It could be that he's just stirring the pot, getting some headlines for himself, and getting people to think generally about animals in rather idiotic fashion. This does not stand up to scrutiny when you examine his Q&A praising the Animal Rights Militia. What was on display there was a humorless, fanatical zealot, consumed with hatred and intolerance for anyone who disagrees with him to the point where he celebrates violence against them. Morrissey said these ugly things but makes sure he will never be cross-examined. Instead it hangs out there and a thousand of Morrissey's dumber, most sycophantic fans think Morrissey's homicidal and ignorant formulations are just cool, and anyone calling it idiocy is "mean" and "right wing."

You present us this info, and yet those who disagree will present different facts, including information that would discredit various groups on your side.

What fact are you going to present that proves Professor Sir Michael Rawlins believes the things the animal rights groups attribute to him which he says he does not believe? That would be an astonishing trick. I'd be most impressed to see you prove that Prof. Rawlins actually does believe what he does not believe but he just doesn't know it.

Feel free to go beyond the proven lies of these various groups and prove that medical progress would not be damaged if we abolished all research on animals. I've already stated I'd be receptive to that being the case, and happy to learn it. I can't imagine why the anti-vivisection groups would have dozens upon dozens of rulings against them from the ASA for lying to the people if truth is on their side. I do encourage you to post about that rather than telling me I am "right wing" for opposing violence against people who's only crime is to not agree 100% with Morrissey but instead agree with the majority of citizens in Britain.

You may also go ahead and explicitly support terrorist violence against people who disagree with a pop singer, if that is actually what you're trying to say, although I don't think you'd be doing well for yourself as a Mr. Open Mind who cares so much about freedom, rights, and democracy. Instead you'd be placing yourself with those who advocate the blowing up of abortion clinics.

But that wouldn't make you a "right winger", for you make postings about Chimpy McHitlerburton to prove you "get it" and are "right on" in comparison to the 65 million rednecked Americans who voted for pure evil. Okay, Puddle, I'll come out and admit it. I voted for Bush precisely because he reminds me of Hitler, who I'm a huge fan of. I'm watching with glee as he shreds up your constitution and purposely murders innocent people the world over. Now that we have that out of the way, either post on the topic or find a thread that interests you. What stands out in your little hit job on me, as always, is that you completely side-step the topic and offer a substance-free personal attack.

Perhaps it would just kill you to call a spade a spade and admit that Morrissey advocates the indefensible.
 
Last edited:

Puddle

Banned
i was simply defending my original joke. once again. since morrissey was in the US between 1998-2005, it's true that the economy went to shit at some point during that time. Remember the stock market decline that lasted a year and half or so? the bubble bursting. layoff after layoff, unemployment rising, ...or heck the current rising inflation...in no way did i even tie that all to bush though i don't agree with his economic policy. furthermore i never said it's currently shit. granted we have been in a bear market for two months now, gas continues to rise, inflation harder to keep in check...but this is all short term and will probably end at the end of summer. it doesn't mean a weak US economy. I know damn well the state of the US economy--now and then.

as for the other stuff, i do attack you personally because you're an arrogant ass, and you come around here putting down peopel on the left or animal rights advocates. when in fact most of us don't care for it. as for your world cup comments, the way you stated it just made you a yankee-doodle asshole. you're like the Ann Coulter of morrissey-solo...it's so annoying--insulting liberals and the world outside the U.S., while talking out of your narrow-minded, arrogant and ignorant ass.

most of us don't even read your propaganda and just skim through it. it usually consists of insults thrown at Morrissey, liberals--people you know would take offense here on the boards. you always mention freely debating ideas in a civilized manner, but you far from practice it yourself. Instead, we're all naive idiots and you are right. you find your information from hack sites that closely resemble conspiracy wacko sites. guess what, us on the left have those same sites but none of us here are low enough to go gather info from them. Stick to your beliefs and values, but stop trying to spread through your insulting propganda. Isn't there a forum on drudge.com you can go hang out at?

i can;t get into a debate with you about the issue of animal testing because i don;t care to research it. you are the one who obsesses over finding 'information' online on various issues and present it here to throw in the face of people you know will tell you to f*** off--that being the vast majority of us here. your tactics are so low that you will even twist morrissey's words. though i didn't just go over the original quote, didn't morrissey say he "understood" why these groups use violence on people who use violence? perhaps his words weren't carefully chosen (when have they?) since they can easily be twisted by either the media who always like a good scandal (as they did), or f***wits like you. either way, morrissey will be against animal research. if it weren't for those against animal research, there would be plenty of unneccessary animal testing, most of it has been already eliminated because of pressure put on by these animal rights groups (not those who use violence of course). I have read arguements against the use of animals in research but it's been a long time ago...i am not going to go research it and prepare a debate with you...i just don't care.
 
Last edited:
D

Dave

Guest
Bush Administration = Proven & Shameless Liars

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/220406_b_Young.htm

Back in the days of "mission accomplished"
Our chief was landing on the deck
The sun was setting on a golden photo op
Back in the days of "mission accomplished"

Thousands of bodies in the ground
Brought home in boxes to a trumpet's sound
No one sees them coming home that way
Thousands buried in the ground
 

Theo

Active Member
Remember...the bubble bursting.

Yes, the stock market and rampant corporate and governmental corruption during the Clinton years, and the "bubble burst" was because the stock market was a fraud that Clinton and his cheerleaders in the press kept hype-hype-hyping away in order to achieve a short-term boost in approval ratings, none of which has anything to do with Bush. Instead it has much to do with the president you proudly voted for.

though i don't agree with his economic policy.

You can disagree with tax cuts that led us to a speedy recovery from economic recession. Most Dems stated that these tax cuts would dig us deeper into recession and, as it happens, they were wrong. We're not allowed to notice they were wrong because Republicans are evil. The moment a Democrat is elected, our dark Depression will vanish and happy days will be here again.

gas continues to rise,

I think it's good that gas prices are higher, and would support a tax to be placed on gasoline on top of that, as it relates to national security and the preservation of the environment.

It's odd when Americans whine about rises in gas prices when all they need to do is observe posted speed limits in order to save fuel and thus money. Whatever their gripes, higher gas prices have led to a decline in SUVs and the success of hybrids without wrecking the economy. That Dems complain about this makes one wonder if, rather than setting up elections in Iraq, they might have gone there to steal the oil had one of theirs been President. Just what is it that the Dems believe? One day it's that global warming will kill us all; the next day Bush is a shitter because they're using less gasoline and trading in their Suburbans for Priuses.

you come around here putting down peopel on the left or animal rights advocates.

I'm for animal rights. People like Morrissey are harmful to that cause.

What I despise more deeply than anyone could hate Chimpy McHitlerburton is the admiration or advocacy of terrorism by certain groups and individuals, including Morrissey. Morrissey has zero tolerance for those who disagree with his animal rights views; I have zero tolerance for those who advocate terrorism of any stripe for any cause as it goes against everything democracy stands for and any morality I can comprehend. Unlike Morrissey, my zero tolerance does not include sending thugs to Morrissey's home to violently attack him.

It was not enough for Morrissey to have every idiotic position with respect to the War on Islamic Terrorism (the only time he has ever condemned terrorism was when he called U.S. soldiers terrorists). He had to take it further beyond positions decent people don't see eye to eye on. He had to become an advocate of terrorism. This is disgusting and a horrible influence on his fans.

In the years before his long break most of his extremist political statements could be characterized as hypobolic and laced with humor. He has changed, lost all his humor and charm, and become a deranged zealot. That's my opinion. Morrissey turned on Bowie the person after he saw what Bowie had become in his later years. I have turned on Morrissey.

Morrissey telling his fans that terrorism is the most wonderful thing you can do for animals won't prevent me from acknowledging he can write a good song (although he doesn't write them as well lately), but it was a turning point.

In the months since, I have seen ever-increasing ugliness from Morrissey. I don't care to get into all that here. It is enough to point out that Morrissey, today, uses his stardom to advocate animal rights terrorism, exposing a twisted mind and hateful heart.


perhaps his words weren't carefully chosen (when have they?)

How could it be that he didn't choose his words carefully when he typed them himself at his own leisure?

Morrissey was very specific in choosing the Animal Rights Militia. You can find what that label means on various terrorist-supporting web sites. The difference between an ALF action and an ARM action is that the ARM action is one carried out with complete disregard for the safety of others. If one's action gives consideration to the safety of others you can label it an ALF action. If one's action is even more extreme and violent and you do not take precautions whatsoever for anyone's safety, and are attempting to purposefully harm others, then it's an ARM action. Spin it however you like, it is what it is.

Today, as a middle-aged adult who has seen what terrorism is doing to the world, he name-drops ARM. He knows what he's saying. That I'm supposed to parse the words in some Clintonion fashion to allow a weaseling-out of what is clearly being advocated to his impressionable fans is asinine. If Morrissey issued any sort of press release revising his views, I missed it.

But, yes, I took the time to research ARM, and that is what you find when you browse around the scummy underworld of animal rights and environmental terrorists, groups that the FBI has stated are the most likely domestic terrorist groups to give assistance to Islamic terror cells. From what I saw, I quite agree.

As far as your claim I have lied about his words and he did not advocate terrorist violence, here's the quote:

Q13: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR MESSAGE TO THE WORLD TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR ANIMALS ON OUR PLANET?

Frédérique, France.
--
hello Frédérique

With people in the world such as Jamie Oliver and Clarissa Dickson Wright there isn't much hope for animals. I support the efforts of the Animal Rights Militia in England and I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war. You reach a point where you cannot reason with people. This is why the Animal Rights Militia and the Hunt Saboteurs exist. They are usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral.
In England, animals are hunted to the point of extinction, and then a great effort is made to save and reintroduce animals, and once they are re-established, they are then hunted back to the point of extinction. Everybody needs to hate something, it seems.


What exactly did I twist, Puddle? Could it be any more unambiguous? He's asked to give his Message to the World and his message is that terrorists are cool. If I am an arrogant ass, that is the worst of my crimes. What do you have to say about the advocacy of terrorist violence on those you disagree with? Can't you muster the energy to condemn that?

He was worked up into a frenzy in general that day, saying that he could not tell the difference between Tony Blair and Saddam Hussein. I woulld have put this in the category of heated political rhetoric and mere hyperbole if I did not read on and find him quite happily admiring terrorism. While doing so he claimed he doesn't know what his politics are except that he opposes barbarism. I know what his politics are: Fanatical Nutterism. Tony Blair, who opposed barbarism in a real way in Sierre Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere - he's indistinguishable from Saddam Hussein, the denocidal dictator Morrissey is upset is not still ruling Iraq.

But Morrissey, who advocates the violence against scientists he doesn't know and has never met. Scientists who, while they may be mild-mannered, highly educated, and nerdy, just cannot be reasoned with because they are the monsters of our age and any intelligent person would instead place bombs into the mail addressed to them. He's the one against barbarism.

Morrissey and Saddam Hussein both admire terrorism and Tony Blair has been working overtime against terrorism, but it is Tony Blair that is somehow indistinguishable from Saddam Hussein and Morrissey who is standing for all that is right and good.

Perhaps in a sick f***ing world.

I despise people who think this way. I believe people with this sort of mentality are one of the biggest problems in the world today.



...i just don't care.

I haven't said you have to care. You're the one who stopped by this thread. Perhaps you should've just silently looked the other way like the others who are afraid to call Morrissey out. I obviously quite like typing away about these things. And whenever I am bored I will come to Morrissey web sites and remind people that Morrissey advocates the infensible and is, essentially, indistinguishable from a celebrity saying Timothy McVeigh was a cool dude.

I don't find terrorism funny and until Morrissey reforms his thinking and stops publicly advocating terrorism, there will be no Morrissey forums where people are not reminded of it. You have no problem when he types his scuzzy views about Blair the Terrorist ad naseum, and how sick people are who eat chicken - how they are the moral equivalent of cannibals - in his empty-headed Q&A's on True to You. That's okay. That's just great. Backslap to Morrissey. But someone throwing it all back at Morrissey is horrible.
 
Last edited:

dazzak

New Member
Confession time

I think I'm in love with Theo. There's just something about insane political rants that really turns me on.
 

Theo

Active Member
Re: Bush Administration = Proven & Shameless Liars

Dave said:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/220406_b_Young.htm

Back in the days of "mission accomplished"
Our chief was landing on the deck
The sun was setting on a golden photo op
Back in the days of "mission accomplished"

Thousands of bodies in the ground
Brought home in boxes to a trumpet's sound
No one sees them coming home that way
Thousands buried in the ground


In other words, you admire Morrissey's advocacy of terrorism just as much as you wish Saddam Hussein were still committing genocides in Iraq?

Not sure what your post had to do with the lies concerning animal research.
 

Theo

Active Member
Re: Confession time

dazzak said:
I think I'm in love with Theo. There's just something about insane political rants that really turns me on.


I had my fun for this morning. I bet when I come back no one will have proved that anti-vivisection groups don't routinely lie about animal research, but that won't stop Morrissey from advocating violence against people who don't believe those lies.
 

dazzak

New Member
Re: Confession time

Theo said:
I had my fun for this morning. I bet when I come back no one will have proved that anti-vivisection groups don't routinely lie about animal research, but that won't stop Morrissey from advocating violence against people who don't believe those lies.
Yes, that's all well and good, but are you single? Actually, sorry, that's a silly question. How do you feel about long-distance relationships?
 

Puddle

Banned
Theo said:
Yes, the stock market and rampant corporate and governmental corruption during the Clinton years, and the "bubble burst" was because the stock market was a fraud that Clinton and his cheerleaders in the press kept hype-hype-hyping away in order to achieve a short-term boost in approval ratings, none of which has anything to do with Bush. Instead it has much to do with the president you proudly voted for.

Well i wasn't blaming the poor economy on Bush or Clinton...Likewise, the economy started to go to shit in 1998-1999...while Clinton was president (and morrissey just came to the United States...thus my original joke still holds). Despite that, the market went to shit because it experienced to high growth, most of it gretly inflated unseen before...so a longterm correction was neccessary....i still say "it went to shit" as i did in my original joke because people lost jobs, they couldn't find jobs, retirees all of a sudden lost a lot in their retirement funds...it was shit. I never blamed Bush, but whatever.



THEO said:
You can disagree with tax cuts that led us to a speedy recovery from economic recession. Most Dems stated that these tax cuts would dig us deeper into recession and, as it happens, they were wrong. We're not allowed to notice they were wrong because Republicans are evil. The moment a Democrat is elected, our dark Depression will vanish and happy days will be here again.

some think if the fed continues to raise interest rates as inflation continues to rise, that we may still find ourselves in a recession. But since i don't believe presidents have much control over the economy, i don't blame Bush...



THEO said:
I think it's good that gas prices are higher, and would support a tax to be placed on gasoline on top of that, as it relates to national security and the preservation of the environment.

It's odd when Americans whine about rises in gas prices when all they need to do is observe posted speed limits in order to save fuel and thus money. Whatever their gripes, higher gas prices have led to a decline in SUVs and the success of hybrids without wrecking the economy. That Dems complain about this makes one wonder if, rather than setting up elections in Iraq, they might have gone there to steal the oil had one of theirs been President. Just what is it that the Dems believe? One day it's that global warming will kill us all; the next day Bush is a shitter because they're using less gasoline and trading in their Suburbans for Priuses.

I agree that higher gas prices lead to a push in alternative fuels and technology. all good. But you are taking my statement out of context...i took the rapid rising gas prices and tied it in with the effects it is having on the economy. A rapid rise in gas prices, like we have been experiencing, leads to higher costs for small and large businesses, and higher prices for consumers--both at the pumps and at the counter buying various goods or services. It leads to greater inflation and rising interest rates which may trip a recession. Of course, i hope for the day for cost effective clean fuel and technology, it's unfortunate that the only thing that drives the transition is when the economy starts to take a toll because of higher fuel costs. either way, there's resistance to this shitf in technology by oil companies. I'm sure eventually the gas prices will go down and all progress made will be washed away. then again, the time for alternative energy is now..it's a sector that is finally being noticed on the stock market...which means people are finally looking at it as having a strong potential of being cost effective and profitable. Since this is capitalism we live in, this is what gets things done.
 

Puddle

Banned
THEO said:
I'm for animal rights. People like Morrissey are harmful to that cause.

I jsut don't think he matters much except for turning on people to the ideas. There's nothing wrong with choosing strong words. It's the way to be heard at times. People have their opinions on whether it's effective. I think the media took waht Morrissey's said too literally when morrissey meant to make a statement suggesting a comparison between how "BOTH" acts are violent (and thus implying both are wrong but naturally narrowing in on animal researchers since his statement is pro-animal rights staement). but morrissey makes it easy for his words to be misunderstood...it's been like that always with him..

And since morrissey believes animal testing is cruel and murder (well when animals are killed), then he won't care for the researchers lives (perhaps, I'm not him. he may just say it for the sake of effect and to draw a comparison, which i go into detail below...either way i'm not ruling out that he simply doesn't care for the lives of what he considers to being murderers...which is only human). this is just something you have to accept through your thiick skull theo. I know you think it's wacko but so be it.

here's the equation morrissey believes in....ANIMAL LIVES=HUMAN LIVES...thus, similiar to how we think Hussein and bin LAden and Bush and other individuals are murderers, morrissey includes those who do violence against animals along with them. Kinda...naturally you can only go so far against people who eat animals since it's so wide spread and probably includes your own mother. furthermore, the statement by morrissey was political in nature and meant to be an exageration in order to grab attention. but either way, the equation could be taken further. if morrissey is against violence against animals but compares it to violence against animal researchers (he basically states violence is violence), then morrissey is also against violence agaisnt animal researchers. the sentence where he says he supports the efforts of ARM cannot be taken out of context with the entire statement (Which is what you and the media did)...because the entire statement is meant to draw a comparison--for the sake of effect.

For example the following portion is the main point of his statement, not the line you jumped at:

"I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war. You reach a point where you cannot reason with people. This is why the Animal Rights Militia and the Hunt Saboteurs exist. They are usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral."

You see...the words he uses are controversal, but that was the point, to bring attention. unfortunately, what morrissey intended was missed by those with thick skulls and the statement could be easliy meant to condone violence. But then again who knows...certainly you don't...but yet you take your opinion to be fact and you come here spilling garbage on our forum.



THEO said:
Morrissey telling his fans that terrorism is the most wonderful thing you can do for animals won't prevent me from acknowledging he can write a good song (although he doesn't write them as well lately), but it was a turning point.

Where did morrissey tell this to his fans?


THEO said:
Morrissey was very specific in choosing the Animal Rights Militia. You can find what that label means on various terrorist-supporting web sites. The difference between an ALF action and an ARM action is that the ARM action is one carried out with complete disregard for the safety of others. If one's action gives consideration to the safety of others you can label it an ALF action. If one's action is even more extreme and violent and you do not take precautions whatsoever for anyone's safety, and are attempting to purposefully harm others, then it's an ARM action. Spin it however you like, it is what it is.

I didn't know that, perhaps morrissey didn't either. I said perhaps. I don't go around being 100% certain about everything like you do. You hold morrissey accountable when he is only human. One whose actions and words have been questionable and "off the mark" since the 80s. Reason of which i don't know. I barely know the reasons at times why i do what i do, say what i say, and feel the way i do in my life. But you're such a tightass i'm sure you have your life in boring order. Either way, morrissey's controversal remarks is very morrissey.

THEO said:
Today, as a middle-aged adult who has seen what terrorism is doing to the world, he name-drops ARM. He knows what he's saying. That I'm supposed to parse the words in some Clintonion fashion to allow a weaseling-out of what is clearly being advocated to his impressionable fans is asinine. If Morrissey issued any sort of press release revising his views, I missed it.

You are greatly exagerating his influence. Furthermore, He was merely making a point, sharing his opinion, drawing a comparison (similiar to his canada seal hunt staement). He wasn't condoning anything. Are there certain words or topics you can't talk about in your house because doing so would be dangerous and irresponsible? Furthermore, are you against creative comparisons for the sake of effect? You advocate "thought control". Whatever happened to freely expressing ideas in a democratic forum? that's what morrissey did. Yet you bad mouth him for mentionning a group that in your eyes is taboo. He mentionned ARM bcause he was discussing the motives behind those who attack animal researchers...it was meant to push buttons...your buttons theo.

THEO said:
But, yes, I took the time to research ARM, and that is what you find when you browse around the scummy underworld of animal rights and environmental terrorists, groups that the FBI has stated are the most likely domestic terrorist groups to give assistance to Islamic terror cells. From what I saw, I quite agree.

Yes the FBI would say that wouldn't they...and the propaganda they use would give you the idea that environmental and animal rights groups would support Islamic terror cells. You don't think property damage and loss of money has anything to do with them linking the two together? the strategy is to link the two (ELF/ALF with Islamic terror cells) to the american public and congress in order to increase support and funding to stop them--stop them for the sake of money being lost. FBI is doing it, as well as the industries who have lost money because of ALF and ELF. If you really think it's not all bullshit and that these environment and animal rights groups would condone and help mass killing of innocent civilians then i really feel sorry for you. you really are a tool...but then again we already established that you are. It's fine if you thnk they are wrong in their actions. that's totally respectable and understandble, but if you go around believing they would support and help kill thousands of civilians then you are a brainwashed f***.


THEO said:
Morrissey and Saddam Hussein both admire terrorism and Tony Blair has been working overtime against terrorism, but it is Tony Blair that is somehow indistinguishable from Saddam Hussein and Morrissey who is standing for all that is right and good.

So you are linking morrissey with Saddam hussein...interesting how guilty you are of doing what you complained morrissey of doing (linking western leaders with terrorism). Now you see how easy it is to do when you stick to your beliefs and convictions. You, like morrisey, are only human.

What i'm saying is that since Morrissey compared Blair to Hussein, then Morrissey is also against Hussein. But you want to paint him as being a hussein supporter and a terrorist supporter when all he is doing is speaking again Western actions in the middle east. there are plenty of people doing that...in the US, ENgland and all around the world. You have to respect other people's views Theo...they don't think like you, they don't believe what you do..and thank goodness for that.



THEO said:
I don't find terrorism funny and until Morrissey reforms his thinking and stops publicly advocating terrorism, there will be no Morrissey forums where people are not reminded of it. You have no problem when he types his scuzzy views about Blair the Terrorist ad naseum, and how sick people are who eat chicken - how they are the moral equivalent of cannibals - in his empty-headed Q&A's on True to You. That's okay. That's just great. Backslap to Morrissey. But someone throwing it all back at Morrissey is horrible.

It's horrible because you don't get it. You are too narrow-minded to get it and yet we are forced to take your garbage on various issues.
 
Last edited:
D

Dave

Guest
Theo said:
none of which has anything to do with Bush. Instead it has much to do with the president you proudly voted for.



How do you know who anyone voted for?

Besides that, you are the guy that bragged about webcamming yourself on the toilet. I think that really sums it all up. You need a good lawyer, someone botched your lobotomy.
 

Puddle

Banned
Dave said:
How do you know who anyone voted for?

Besides that, you are the guy that bragged about webcamming yourself on the toilet. I think that really sums it all up. You need a good lawyer, someone botched your lobotomy.

Besides...i couldn't proudly vote for clinton because the last time anyone could vote for a clinton for president, i was 16 years old.

But if i wre able to, i would have voted for Clinton...i am totally for voting for the lesser of two evils. I wouldn't vote for Perot, Bush Sr. or Bob Dole.
 
D

Dave

Guest
Posh and Becks = Proven & Shameless Liars

I understand why people will vote for the lesser of two evils, but I think that it is a sort of defeatist stance. I understand that it does make a difference which of the two major parties is in control, but I think that things are more drastic than that. Both of them want to drive us right off of a cliff but one side is letting you put on a seatbelt first.

Kerry did not deserve to win because he was weak. He did not stand up to charges that he was "Anti-war", as if we should all be pro-war. He is the one that had a record showing that he actually faced some risks Nevermind that the story about what exactly he did, how heroic it was, has never been agreed upon, we know he did more than Bush did, and yet Bush managed to come across as pro-military in a time when the nation was being blasted around the clock with messages of fear. Gore also was weak. He tried to distance himself from Clinton when, despite Clinton's problems with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton was still a much stronger speaker and much more respected than George Bush. I have to say that I also feel that Clinton was responsible for the mass murder of the children at the Branch Davidian compound. That entire incident was an embarrassment, and was far worse than Whitewatergate or all of the Genniffer Flowers stories.

To me it's Coke or Pepsi, and the taste is very similar. Democrats and Republicans, they make horrible deals and they sell out the powerless everyday. We truly need an alternative. Not even a third party, although that would be a start. It would probably make it a little harder for the two main parties to hide their collaboration on the many schemes they pull on us all.

I think I would rather "throw my vote away" by voting for someone I truly believe in. After looking at the results of the last two presidential elections I'm not sure it much matters who you voted for anyway. They play it according to the script. That people sat through the months of chaos following the Bush-Gore election and then accepted Bush as "president" is stunning really. I don't know what it would take to wake people up, but when it happens it may be too late. I actually feel that the Bush-Gore election was a huge blow to the confidence that most Americans feel in our political system. It was shocking and embarrassing and it would not have been tolerated if it had been happening somewhere else.
 

Puddle

Banned
Re: Posh and Becks = Proven & Shameless Liars

Dave said:
I understand why people will vote for the lesser of two evils, but I think that it is a sort of defeatist stance. I understand that it does make a difference which of the two major parties is in control, but I think that things are more drastic than that. Both of them want to drive us right off of a cliff but one side is letting you put on a seatbelt first.

Kerry did not deserve to win because he was weak. He did not stand up to charges that he was "Anti-war", as if we should all be pro-war. He is the one that had a record showing that he actually faced some risks Nevermind that the story about what exactly he did, how heroic it was, has never been agreed upon, we know he did more than Bush did, and yet Bush managed to come across as pro-military in a time when the nation was being blasted around the clock with messages of fear. Gore also was weak. He tried to distance himself from Clinton when, despite Clinton's problems with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton was still a much stronger speaker and much more respected than George Bush. I have to say that I also feel that Clinton was responsible for the mass murder of the children at the Branch Davidian compound. That entire incident was an embarrassment, and was far worse than Whitewatergate or all of the Genniffer Flowers stories.

To me it's Coke or Pepsi, and the taste is very similar. Democrats and Republicans, they make horrible deals and they sell out the powerless everyday. We truly need an alternative. Not even a third party, although that would be a start. It would probably make it a little harder for the two main parties to hide their collaboration on the many schemes they pull on us all.

I think I would rather "throw my vote away" by voting for someone I truly believe in. After looking at the results of the last two presidential elections I'm not sure it much matters who you voted for anyway. They play it according to the script. That people sat through the months of chaos following the Bush-Gore election and then accepted Bush as "president" is stunning really. I don't know what it would take to wake people up, but when it happens it may be too late. I actually feel that the Bush-Gore election was a huge blow to the confidence that most Americans feel in our political system. It was shocking and embarrassing and it would not have been tolerated if it had been happening somewhere else.



what you say is the ideal...i'm all for it...but if the third party leans toward more liberal or more conservative, it really weakens the chance of any candidate from that side of thinking to making it in office. I'm for it if we had more than three strong parties....and i do regard Green Party as strong and similiar to how I regard the Reform Party as strong--when they are around. why? becasue in certain states they make the elections close...very close. thus they make a difference...

so yeah...i'm not for third parties unless there is still some sort of balance. a fourth party would be good...a fifth.

voting for the lesser of two evils is not a defeatist stance...it's realistic. Throw your idealistic vision of democracy out the door, this was Bush we were talking about back in 2004 and yet pepole voted for the Green PArty candidate in states everybody knew was going to be close. and that election, for the left, was mostly about getting bush out of office. but some people thought about "their" selfish principles and ideals before the welfare of the world and country. that i can not accept despite how democratic and free we are suppposed to be. There's being realistic; and then there's being selfishly, self-righteously, naive.
 
Re: Posh and Becks = Proven & Shameless Liars

Sorry to say but if one chipmunk has to die so a couple of thousand or more people can live than so be it.
 
Top Bottom