Forums | MacLife

how much did these assisted folks spend on this bird, gpo? quite alot for someone on the dole, i would think...

Priorities, priorities, priorities.
When you live for free, you can buy anything. They had a newer Firebird too. They got the bird from a girl that inherited it from an elderly lady that passed away in Fla. The 'too is about 29 years old. I know that it was banded in 1974.  It's feathers and body was covered in nicotine.

They also had 4 cats and 3 dogs. ! dog had a collar on to prevent it from oppeing a leg ulcer. Ugh. I can't stand to see animals in squalor.

Here is a fine example of poor animal husbandry.
The people we got her from deserved a good flogging.

Shoot! I forgot to ask the more important question:
Was the previous owner liberal, or conservative?

Ooo! That's a toughy! If they were liberal, they would have let it go free. If they were conservative, they would have simply eaten it. Hmmm... Wonder which it will turn out to be.

Well, I guess my brother answered your question.
My original reply made no accusations of the party line of the "owners".
As with Omega, I can't stand to see an abused animal.

And bastard, your statement made me laugh.
My wife often makes threats of 'too noodle stew about Roxy.

Hey I'm back. Miss me? I just wanted to clear things up.

Of course I knew it was an accident. In fact, nowhere in my post did I say that I think she should be punished. I simply stated that I noticed a double standard. The double standard existed on the level that animal rights activists wheren't getting mad at her. As I stated, if someone had intentionally done the same thing, more than likely they would be all over it. Especially since it went out over the radio to all the country. Think about it, what if someone came on the radio and said, "hey just this afternoon I went and tied up a lobster and threw it in a freshwater pond just for fun". There would be an outrage from the animal rights community. They would demand some sort of legal action based on animal crualty. That didn't happen because we all know that she didn't do it intentionally. However the lobster still died the same way.

Now we just established that it's not really the action that takes place that makes it wrong, it's meerly the intentions.

No one here thought that she did anything wrong because what she did was an accident and she had the best of intentions. I agree. She didn't mean to do what she did. In fact, when you look at it, it's kind of funny. (in a sick kind of way I guess)

This thread was not meant to be liberal bashing. In the title, I called her a liberal nut. I chose that frase specifically. She is a self-proclaimed liberal (I didn't just assume it King Fred) and she is a nut. I differentiate the two because I don't believe that all liberals are nuts nor do I believe that all nuts are liberals. I called her a "tree huggin, animal kissin liberal" because she is part of the more extreme side of liberalism that truely believes that all animals are equal to people. (again proclaimed by her not assumptions). I said "being the liberal that she is (i.e. the animals are equal thinking liberal) she decided to set it free" Most conservatives would not set it free on the basis that they think the animal is equal to a human. That is a liberal ideology. Yes I do know conservative vegetarians (my brother's girlfriend is one). However, a conservative would most likely give it to another to enjoy than to set it free based on that very liberal ideology.

Now then... Damage was the closest to guessing the intent of my intial post. I wanted everyone to agree against me. I wanted everyone to state how stupid it is to get mad at someone who thinks that an accident and a purposeful act are the same. Bratboy summed it up for me

Secondly...can you not recognize the profound difference between accidental cruelty (when someone was attempting to act in good faith) and perpetrating purposeful cruelty upon something?  Accidental death versus murder?  Hello?

Of course I can recognize the difference. I never said that I couldn't. The question is, can any of you?

Many of the arguments stated here against the war on Iraq are based on the idea that we are going to kill innocent Iraqis. You say it as though the U.S. military is going to do it intentionally. I ask you, can you tell the difference between the intent to kill innocent civilians and the accidental death of innocent civilians? In the end, they are still dead. But, just yesterday, everyone in this thread agreed that it isn't the action that matters but the intentions.

I just wanted everyone to see a familiar subject in a different light. If you will go back and read my initial post you will see that I chose my words very carefully.

Now then... let's discuss......

I don't like the idea of invading Iraq because I don't like the 'intentions' of my government. (That sentiment subsumes that of the dead Iraqui civilians.)

So there.

Bite me, mr clever.

I don't like the idea of invadint Iraq because I don't like the 'intentions' of my government. (That sentiment subsumes that of the dead Iraqui civilians.)

So there.

Bite me, mr clever.

 

Are you sure you are in the right thread?

I read where Colorado passed a law where a pet is now a companion and not property. Finally, pets have rights. Now for the rest of the country to realize animals are not disposeable playthings.

Secondly...can you not recognize the profound difference between accidental cruelty (when someone was attempting to act in good faith) and perpetrating purposeful cruelty upon something?  Accidental death versus murder?  Hello?

Of course I can recognize the difference. I never said that I couldn't. The question is, can any of you?

Many of the arguments stated here against the war on Iraq are based on the idea that we are going to kill innocent Iraqis. You say it as though the U.S. military is going to do it intentionally. I ask you, can you tell the difference between the intent to kill innocent civilians and the accidental death of innocent civilians? In the end, they are still dead. But, just yesterday, everyone in this thread agreed that it isn't the action that matters but the intentions.

I just wanted everyone to see a familiar subject in a different light. If you will go back and read my initial post you will see that I chose my words very carefully.

I don't think there is a big enough    for this thread.

I, for one, recognize the difference between intentionally killing civilians and accidently killing civilians.  The disconnect does not lie in that part of the argument, anyway...it lies in whether or not it is necessary to undertake those actions that might accidently kill those civilians. 

I would never suspect anyone, even those who think the Iraqi war is necessary, of being cavalier about the lives of innocent people there...unless they specifically say something that makes me think otherwise...which unfortunately happens often ("bomb the hell out of all of em, I don't care...for example").

by pastor Macman:

Of course I can recognize the difference. I never said that I couldn't. The question is, can any of you?

Many of the arguments stated here against the war on Iraq are based on the idea that we are going to kill innocent Iraqis. You say it as though the U.S. military is going to do it intentionally. I ask you, can you tell the difference between the intent to kill innocent civilians and the accidental death of innocent civilians? In the end, they are still dead. But, just yesterday, everyone in this thread agreed that it isn't the action that matters but the intentions.

I just wanted everyone to see a familiar subject in a different light. If you will go back and read my initial post you will see that I chose my words very carefully.

to which I replied:

by myself:

I don't like the idea of invading Iraq because I don't like the 'intentions' of my government. (That sentiment subsumes that of the dead Iraqui civilians.)

So there.

Bite me, mr clever.

Mars and Hillbilly, can you guys even comprehend what you read or does it fade several seconds after having read it? Maybe you should stick to FUBAR, save yourselves the task of having to actually think before you argue.

Snap, crackle. . . fukkin' pop. . . baby !

No, because we evolved to eat meat. We can choose not to as a moral decision. I won't eat veal.

Oh, I won't buy the live lobster either. I can't kill it myself.

I listen to Sean Hannity now and again and I heard something today caught my attention. Hannity's call screener is a liberal gal nicknamed flipper (might be her real name i don't really know). He bought her a live lobster to cook for Christmas. He knows that she is vegitarian but got it for her and her husband. Being the liberal that she is, she decided to set it free instead of cook it and eat it.

Well... she set it free alright. She forgot to take off the rubberbands on it's claws and she released it into a fresh water pond. Do you realize how horribly this lobster died? I know that people boil lobsters live all the time but this is a tree huggin, animal kissin liberal who brutally killed this lobster. How come there's no animal rights activists coming after her? How can she live with herself? She says it was an accident and that she was distracted because she just had a baby and wasn't thinking straight. Does that make it any better? The lobster still died horribly.

Had someone purposefully thrown a bound up lobster into a freshwater pond, there would've been an outrage by animal rights activists demanding criminal charges. But because a fellow liberal does the same damage on accident, no on says a thing.

What do you say?

Too bad the lobster didn't break the rubber band and take her nose off.