Why not just cut out the middleman, do some yoga and shit in your own mouth ?

From the original huffington post article we find, among other things, a quote by a veterinarian who handed them a mother cat and her kittens who were perfectly healthy. The PETA representatives said they would be "easy to adopt" and the vet was wanting to find them homes as they were in perfect condition.

The PETA guys killed them in their van mere moments after telling that blatant lie.

Isn't it odd that every other shelter organisation around has far fewer euthanizations and far more adoptions than PETA's shelters do ? That most of them keep animals for several months before considering euthansia while PETA animals rarely make 14 days - even if they are in perfect health ?

That animals coming to PETA with diseases which other shelters routinely treat and cure and then adopt the animals are simply left to die untreated ? Like Parvovirus - average survival rate among infected animals at shelters: 90%, survival rate at PETA shelters: 0%.

Comedy is serious business :P

You remind me of a debate between Bill O'Reily and Bill Maher, where O'Reily said: "People don't want progressivism, they don't want the country to change, they like the country".

My answer to him is: yes, a lot of people like America, a lot more than 50 years ago actually, much more than 70 years ago and way more (all percentage-wise to population at the time) than a hundred and fifty years ago. The reason each generation has more people who like America is because each generation has fewer groups of people who are not being disenfranchised and having their rights denied by government and the beneficiaries of unequal rights. That philosophy which, with each generation, has recognized and extended basic rights to more and more of those groups who are denied it, that is progressivism. That is what gave the vote to black people, to women, and as recently as 1992 only to people of Romani descent (aka gypsies). We still need to be progressive because, today, there are still many people in the USA whose rights are not truly recognized and who are not truly equal before the law. The gay community for one, the children of illegal immigrants for another (recently a republican congressman suggested denying foodstamps to illegal immigrants, since any child born in the US is automatically a citizen, this would mean - literally - starving American babies because their PARENTS broke the law).
We can stop being progressive, when we have nobody left who desperately needs progress to happen."

Bias disclosure: I am not an American, nor do I ever want to be one, but I do follow your news and events (since they directly impact my life - you choose a bad president and I get poorer even though I got no vote, seems rather undemocratic in my view, that's about the only thing I actually AGREE with Ron Paul on - stay the hell out of other people's countries, you do not get to mess with OUR democratic choices to serve YOUR interests).

Dude, if you're going to make the Blackadder joke, then at least get it right. Richard IV ruled for 13 Glorious years before lord Percy's mixup with the wine and poison. At which point, Henry Tudor ascended the throne and rewrote history for a full backdated 13 years, claiming the death of Richard the third, victory at Bosworth and basically denying the very existence of Richard the fourth.

It's in the opening sequence to the series dude.

>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Yes, and of course, all politicians since the birth of the United States have held all clauses of the Constitution as sacred and equal. Like when Thomas Jefferson paid heed to those clauses about due process and a fair trial by not shooting an accused traitor on the White House lawn... oh wait.

>No, it's like how convicted pedophiles are not allowed to live or hang out near schools.

Or teenagers who got caught sexting.

This is a fairly common thing, though not always practical. In Brazil crime bosses regularly DO run their gangs from the inside. A few years ago the Brazilian authorities tried to end this by putting cellphone signal blockers around prisons.

The result was violent gang-on-police war in the streets of Sao Paulo as the gangs basically attacked the police head-on. It lasted several days and then mysteriously ended - the popular belief being that the government quietly caved and disabled the signal blockers.

I never said I AGREE with the labour theory of property, I just told you the history of the natural justice theory used to justify it.

One guy standing on a porch waving a sign around is not a newsworthy protest... unless he's a member of the WBC.

I absolutely agree. It's in fact true that virtually none of the economists that the hardcore capitalists like to cite actually believed anything remotely what those people want us to believe. F.A. Hayek is another example - among the many things he said which his "followers" conveniently skip over is that it is impossible to have a competitive labour market UNLESS you have a minimum substainance grant for workers (a minimum wage law achieves the same thing of course).

In fact, the only noteworthy economist who actually thought an unfettered capitalism could possibly be a good thing was Ludwig Von Mises, and he was very well named the miserly old bastard.

The labor theory of property or labor theory of appropriation or labor theory of ownership or labor theory of entitlement is a natural law theory that holds that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources. It is also called the principle of first appropriation or the homestead principle.
In his Second Treatise on Government, the philosopher John Locke asked by what right an individual can claim to own one part of the world, when, according to the Bible, God gave the world to all humanity in common. He answered that persons own themselves and therefore their own labor. When a person works, that labor enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes the property of that person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

The labor theory of value has developed over many centuries. It seems clear that there is no one originator of concept, but rather many different thinkers have arrived at the same conclusion independently. Some writers trace its origin to Thomas Aquinas.[10][11] In his Summa Theologiae (1265-1274) he expresses the view that "... value can, does and should increase in relation to the amount of labor which has been expended in the improvement of commodities".[12] Scholars such as Joseph Schumpeter have cited Ibn Khaldun, who in his Muqaddimah (1377), described labor as the source of value, necessary for all earnings and capital accumulation. He argued that even if earning âoeresults from something other than a craft, the value of the resulting profit and acquired (capital) must (also) include the value of the labor by which it was obtained. Without labor, it would not have been acquired.â[13] Scholars have also pointed to Sir William Petty's Treatise of Taxes of 1662[14] and to John Locke's labor theory of property, set out in the Second Treatise on Government (1689), which sees labor as the ultimate source of economic value. Karl Marx himself credited Benjamin Franklin in his 1729 essay entitled "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" as being "one of the first" to advance the theory.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

"Only through human labour can value be created" - John Locke, straight from his books.

Locke lived until 1632, Adam Smith was born in 1723.

If you believe in a linear concept of causality then it seems rather unlikely that Locke could have copied from somebody who wasn't even born until almost a century after he died.
That's like claiming Plato's work was based on Carl Jung's !
Mill was born in 1773 - long after Smith even.

The first and original labour theory of value was written by Locke. Locke's theory forms the basis of western property law, and it formed the basis in turn of much later economic theory. Smith wrote most of the basis of modern capitalism based on it (but capitalism existed well before Smith - hell the first corporation existed before Locke was even born), Marx's theory was based on it as well.

I never said all these things ARE Locke's theory, I said they are all BASED on it. All mere refinements of an idea that dates back to the 1600's.
There are many problems with Locke's theory - for example apart from the word "man" there is nothing in there that doesn't mean a beaver should be able to claim full ownership of it's dam, especially as it can probably show it's family lived on the land for centuries before the current owner arrived.
It is quite capable of supporting the contradictory conclusions drawn by Adam Smith and Karl Marx too.

But please dude, if you can't manage to not get your centuries confused you shouldn't be arguing history.

>That is called Labour theory of value, a 19th century theory of value that has been long since disproven.

This is often said, and never true. Firstly you got the date wrong - the labour theory of value was written by philosopher John Locke in the 16th century.
Secondly claims that it is "disproven" are never substantiated, in fact it isn't. The labour theory of value (which in it's proper form states 'all value is created through human labour') is the basis of BOTH capitalism AND communism (they don't argue about that at all - they argue only about what to DO about it).
It is the basis of property law - the idea that raw land becomes valuable property only after some form of human labour is involved - laying out a farm, building a house, mining for minerals. Taking those minerals and making something out of them is also labour, and once-more increases their value.
On the contrary, this idea you think is "disproven" forms the fundamental basis of all known economic systems except one - a genuine post-scarcity economy.
Ironically the only economic model NOT based on labour theory of value is the one you just said cannot work because, according to you, that theory is wrong.