President Bush a Fur Supporter???

[Sparky]

sorry kids, but statistics show, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat.

also voodoojoint is completely correct in his/her statements. just try and prove him/her wrong.

bush is a human rights criminal and he cares nothing for animal rights. just try and prove otherwise.

[VoodooJoint]

Originally Posted by sasha

not everything that environmental groups say is true. For example, the EPA study about second smoke that declares it harmful...the court said they flat out lied,...

Very true that you can’t believe what all environmental groups say. That’s why I checked those accusations against this THE BUSH RECORD More than 300 Crimes against Nature
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/20...ecord_print.asp and double checked those dates and accusations against newspapers, online government updates and the like. They are true. If they are not please point out which are wrong along with your evidence so I can check it again.

As far as the second hand smoke thing...you got a little off topic and I’m not certain what you were getting at but personally I doubt that second hand smoke, or any smoke is non-risky. I don’t thing any of us need a scientific study to know that.

Originally Posted by sasha

Another good example is PETA, most of the members are nice well intentioned people, however the higher up administration has given thousands of dollars to people who have openly, on camera and in court, declared themselves to be responsible for ARSON.

I don’t remember quoting PETA in any of my statements. In my opinion they go too far. Because of their controversial views I avoided using any info from their site.

Originally Posted by sasha

Not to mention, I get really miffed about environmental groups that are really anti-capitalism, or anti-globalization, and use environmentalism as a self righteous platform for those ideas.

I agree. However, I can’t think of any environmental groups that are like that. Can you please tell me the names of these groups?

Originally Posted by sasha

I don't like Bush, but I come right out and say it,

Was this aimed at me or environmental groups? I figured I was pretty clear on how I feel about Bush but if in case anyone missed my true feelings about Bush feel free to go to “The Kitchen Forum� and read the thread titled “Presidential Elcetion????� http://cavycages.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2981

Originally Posted by sasha

instead of faking concern about the environment just so I can shout about evil companies cutting down the rain forest. The companies are not the ones doing the cutting in rain forests, the starving, indigent peoples trying to feed their families are cutting it down. If any one of us was in the same situation, we'd probably be the first to pick up an axe, if it meant feeding our families. Those of us that are privileged enough to live near a grocery store need to think about those people before mouthing off.

Sorry but the companies are cutting down the rainforests to provide mahogany and other hardwoods for various reasons and to clear cut grazing land for fast food chain cows. Do a search for “rainforest logging companies� and you will probably find a lot of companies listed (I did). The poor people of the regions work for these logging companies but are not directly responsible. They are doing a job to feed their families and I can guarantee they are getting paid poorly for the job they do. You want to know what else? None of these people were starving until their rainforest, which provided them all of the food they needed and more, started getting wiped out. The logging companies are paying them to kill themselves and these poor people are taking the jobs because they want to survive...does it make any sense to you? ‘cause it makes no sense AT ALL to me.

Originally Posted by sasha

But if you aren't willing to take the time to learn how to intepret reliable information, don't just pretend likes its ok to spout off whatever your favorite propaganda machine thinks you should be.

Once again is this directed at me? I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I double checked my facts. If you can contradict any of the facts I stated please do so...but don’t try to disprove me by saying I’m spouting propaganda. It makes people look ridiculous when that is the only comeback they have.

Originally Posted by sasha

Thirty years ago, the people who are now raging against global warming, were predicting an ice age, and FYI, its been getting colder again since the nineties.

Are you saying we no longer have to worry about Global Warning? What a relief! Please do show me where you got this wonderful information. Of course even if it’s true I doubt this “fact� will last if Bush keeps turning his back of the environment.

Originally Posted by sasha

Worse yet, this causes a lot of environmental groups to spend money fear mongering and not doing anything, instead of focusing on worthy, quantifiable issues. What if every dollar spent on leaflets with misinformation went to stopping live animal sales in pet stores?

Which groups do this? Let me know so I can make sure not to donate to them.

Originally Posted by sasha

I want environmental protection and animal welfare as much as the next person. However, I think we need to be responsible, dignified, and maintain scientific and moral integrity when working toward these goals.

Me too. I ask the exact same thing from our leaders “responsible, dignified, and maintain scientific and moral integrity� . The problem is we aren’t getting it.

[sasha]

voodoojoint, we are on the same page with most of this stuff, my reply was mostly just a general rant. I was not refering to you. I agree that Bush's environmental policy stinks. I like that you have specific sources, but you are the exception to the rule.

For environmental groups that are anti-capitalism:
Even one of the original founders, Patrick Moore, quit greenpeace because he said they were more about anti-capitalism than environmentalism.

As for large environmental groups lying to push an agenda:
Greenpeace's website actually says that genetic engineering "will not help" feed the worlds population. However, they are already in use in our food supply, and without them, two billion people would have to stop eating-according to Norman Borlaug, who won a nobel prize for saving a billion starving people by making small modifications to rice and grain crops. So that's just plain lying, and they get 800 million dollars in donations a year to do it. Not to mention, a lot of these groups have convinced leaders of poor, underfed countries that the food is unsafe, and to let their countries' children starve to death, rather than use GE crops. To me that is incredibly infuriating that they would sentence innocent children to death because of their own agendas; not to mention, none of them are volunteering to be in that group of two billion people who would have to stop eating for the world to stop using GE crops. To make matters worse, there are no fish genes in tomatoes, or firefly DNA, etc; those are laboratory tests usually used to study a specific gene for research purposes. The actual GE crops have small modifications, and are the most tested crops in the history of this country.

I am concerned about global warming, but I do feel that groups like greenpeace take too much of an apocolyptic tone when talking about it, because the numbers aren't certain, and the honest scientists admit that:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html is a good summary.

Of the 30 studies the EPA used to compile their second hand smoke report, 6 found a statistically insignificant increase of lung cancer, 18 found no effect from SHS, and 6 found that the SHS group had a smaller chance of getting cancer. So it averages out to no effect on lung cancer from second hand smoke. Personally I'd still worry about Asthma and allergies, and don't want people to smoke around me, but lets be honest about why, instead of picking and choosing our data, reducing the statistical tests we use until our results seem significant, and then releasing them and lying about them, until a judge fiinally issues a 92 page decision criticizing our lack of ethics. Its an example about how lots of people from supposedly reliable organizations are lying to push their agendas.

[o0Ms Jenny0o]

Sure looks like he hates animals... http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?i=3...deo_topnews&rf

[Susan9608]

I think Bush, like millions of people everywhere, loves the animals he and others keep as pets, and doesn't think twice about the other animals that he eats or wears. Some how, people feel that a dog is different from a cow ... or a beaver ... or a rat ... which makes it okay to love the dog but eat the cow, skin the beaver, and torture the rat. Crazy system.

[mncavylover]

Agreed. It is something we so take for granted in the system that we don't even stop and think about it at all. Or, rather, most people don't. Sad but completely true.

[Susan9608]

Definitely sad. I think people don't think about it because to do so would mean that they would have to do something about it, and it's so much easier to remain ignorant and do nothing.

[mncavylover]

Ah yes, the "we can't change anything so let's not do anything" crowd. Poo on them.

[avengedphish]

Does anyone here know how devastating beavers can be on the envirnment? Has anyone here ever heard of conservation? Beaver build large dams that clog up rivers and streams. These clogs create floods which can destroy valuable farm land, and cause many other problems. Would you rather they just kill the beavers and throw them in the trash can? The way I see it is at least they are being used for something. Whether George Bush or anyone else wants a beaver hat beavers are going to be killed. Isn't it better that we put them to some use than just throwing them in the trash can?

[avengedphish]

Wow that is one of the coolest cowboy hats I have ever seen. If anyone knows where I can buy one please send me a instant message at Furby Commander.
AIM- Furby Commander

[DocDolittle]

Actually, beavers naturally build dams to create valuable new rivers and streams and often times help to control flooding. And also, that last post makes me think I *sniff sniff* smell a troll!

[avengedphish]

Haha those valuable new rivers destroy valuable farm land. If new rivers and streams are being made from the dams isn't that called flooding?

[Susan9608]

Avengedphish -

Just a thought in regards to one of your posts ....

Am I correct in my interpretation of what you said? It seems to me that you were saying that since beavers cause devestating damage to the environment, it's okay to kill them.

I find that very poor logic. For one thing, it is *because* human beings have "developed" so much of the land that beavers (and other animals) have been displaced and forced to live in closer proximity to human beings. Our roads and homes and farm land were once their homes, which we usurped, so it should be our obligation to find a way to coexist with them.

Also, trapping and killing beavers is not only cruel, but also ineffective. As long as the area is accessible and attractive to beavers and other animals, more animals will move in to replace the ones that were killed. This creates a vicious cycle. There are other, humane ways to control beaver activity and populations that are currently being used in Virginia and the District of Columbia. So trapping and killing (and subsequent hat making) are not necessary.

But by your logic, it's okay to kill them because they cause destruction. It apparently doesn't matter that beavers are gentle, inquisitive, family-oriented animals who mate for life and remain friends with their children. Beavers can live to be 20 years old and are expert architects—their complex, sturdy lodges can stand for years. They constantly maintain their homes, taking obvious pride in their work, and are even known to enjoy flute music. Female beavers are especially busy as they care for their young while also looking after their rambunctious “teenagers.� But evidently, none of this matters; since they cause destruction, it's okay to kill them.

Does that apply equally to anything that causes destruction? Should an arsonist who burns down a building be executed for destroying property? Or is it just those who destroy the environment that deserve to be killed? How about the people drilling in the formerly protected land of Alaska, looking for oil? They are destroying the environment ... should we trap and kill them as well? And after trapping and killing them, should we make hats and coats and boots of their skin and fur, so they don't go to waste?

I think your argument is ridiculous ... that it's okay to kill something because it causes destruction. Human beings first destroyed the beavers' home. According to your rules, the beavers should have killed us. Wouldn't that be a sight? Beavers walking around, wearing human hats.