i'm fairly certain you won't find 1/4 of people surveyed in favor of or neutral on banning basketball.

I'm for it... It's abusive to Agromegliacs

remember this poll is being taken at the height of the anti-racing hysteria.
anyother time and I think you'd find an even more benign attitude towards the sport.

I'm for it because I wouldn't watch a game if I was a hostage.

stop making me look words up.

No it's not. When the "president" of an organization is closely linked and proven to have aided and abetted a known domestic terrorist group it's calling a duck a duck. No matter what the "members" which to think, their/your leader helps terrorists.

http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21

an excerpt:

Most ominously, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk was involved in the multi-million-dollar arson at Michigan State University that resulted in a 57-month prison term for Animal Liberation Front bomber Rodney Coronado. At Coronado’s sentencing hearing, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said that PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk arranged ahead of time to have Coronado send her a pair of FedEx packages from Michigan -- one on the day before he burned the lab down, and the other shortly afterward.

PETA doesn't do anything good for animals, there are groups that do, but they are not one of them.
All they do is try to push their agenda down everyones throats and if you don't agree they scream and have a fit.

Additionally, they blatanly mis-use thier funding as a 501C3. The legislation you are referring to is illegal under the statutes of 501C3 laws. Only extremely limited monies are allowed 501c3 groups to lobby federal or state govt. Do you have any idea the kind of money they raised with their eight belles e-mail to do what with...go protest at the Preakness?

And frankly as far as your non-hormone meat, go buy organic or raise it yourself, maybe I like hormones in my meat, why should you and the terrorist group decide how I take my meat. (I should have read that before I posted it, be nice people)
I have enough government in my life telling how to think and how to live.

I despise groups like PETA, all they do is stand on a soapbox, ask for money and contribute to terrorist organizations.
During one of the largest animal rescue deployments, Katrina, PETA was shunned and often times banned by the mainstream groups and our federal govt.
They actually wanted to stop the euthanization, BY the extremely skilled disaster/trauma VMAT vets, of animals suffering from chemical burns, extreme dehydration and other catastrophic illnesses. What is humane about that.
They, PETA people, had to be physically removed from the facility. And I do know from personal experience I vet teched with the VMAT teams for 2 months after Katrina.

Additionally which this has nothing to do with anything, thier people were just gross, unwashed, dirty hippyish types, I almost threw up when one of them put thier sandaled feet next to me, (well I did throw up). And why would you be walking around a toxic HZMAT detox center in sandals????

Why don't you go ask your local animal shelter, who toil diligently under dire situations and very little funding...when is the last time PETA helped them. The answer would be NEVER!
Then ask them the last time ASPCA or Best Friends to name a few have helped or provided grants, often times it could be very recent if the shelter applied, these groups give grants all the time and feverishly help with animal over-population. But that's right, PETA's answer to rescue animals is to secretly kill them and dump them on the side of the road.

Your statemenst and some of the others here I believe are lazy statements as you have never taken the time to really research PETA.

They just make everything warm and fuzzy and it appeals to the masses that don't take the time to find out what this group really does.
There are some of us here that are very involved in animal welfare and very familiar with PETA, and can tell you they are not even remotely the good guys.
OK I'm going back to watching HD horseracing.

that's a completely valid point.

but unless there is never another high profile breakdown i'd expect to see opinion yo-yo around these events.

and 27% of people open to the idea of an outright ban, even if it's high tide, is a shocking number.

the only thing shocking to me is how low the percent is of people that want hrose racing banned, given the one-sided coverage that has been streaming forth.

i do not believe its correct to say that the 17% who answered "not sure" are open to the idea of an outright ban. they may also be open to not banning racing. thats what not sure means.

as i read it the question was are you in favor of banning racing? some of them may be open to, but I believe most of that group are people who felt they didn't know enough to answer the question, or didn't want to give an opinion.

when the question being asked is whether the most radical action possible should be taken, i'm worried about someone who doesn't have a knee jerk "that's completely idiotic" reaction.

if the question asked is whether medication rules should be changed i understand that "i don't know" is a reasonable response.

"i'm not sure" the death penalty should be applied to an entire sport is more worriesome to me.

I agree with you, HIG.


I'm gonna have to take 2 tylenol pm's tonight because of this disturbing poll.

If public opinion really mattered we'd have a president that....

See, it'll be OK. Everyone move on, there's nothing to see here.

Spyder

feeding critters takes money, and peta needs that for other, more important things...

maybe, but probably 50% of those that voted to ban racing think Eight Belles died of excessive whipping.

a supporter once told adalai stevenson that every thinking person would vote for him.

he responded, "that's not enough. i need a majority."

FGFan, circa nineteenth century: And indeed, if you wish your bread-making flour to be flour only, perhaps you should grow the wheat by your own labor. For you have not considered, sir, that perhaps I prefer my purchased flour to contain plaster-of-paris and perhaps I enjoy the improved color that the addition of lead gives to many of the foods I ingest. The government exerts an inordinate amount of control over my daily life and I prefer not to be enlightened on the ingredients in the foods I ingest into my own body and entrust the businesses my own good health. Thus I rest sound at night, sure that they care for nothing more than my well-being, even at the expense of their own profits.

(not meant unkindly, FGFan, but the reason hormones and antibiotics in meat are a big deal is because they aren't there for your health; they're there to keep animals in unsanitary conditions healthy "enough" that they can be turned into food for humans. They're bad for you.)

As for the survey, hey, the percentage of people who think racing should be banned or are ambivalent is about equivalent to the percentage of people who think Bush is still doing a good job, and he's still President. Wait. I'm not sure if that's good or bad for racing...

Genuine Risk, I understand your point.

I was being glib...as you can tell I hate PETA.

We actually raise livestock for personal consumption so that we can control what our steaks or pork chops have ingested.
But there are already alternatives for those that can't do this, such as organic which is available in even the largest cities.


I just don't think PETA should be the ones to carry on this crusade, especially since they want everyone to be vegans. Again another misuse of PETA funding as a 501C3, illegal lobbying for a cause they don't believe in as we are all supposed to eat plant matter only.

For people to keep saying PETA is a good group just galls me. They are exploiting Eight Belles tragic, freak death, ruining the Preakness and funding ALF(animal liberation front) in the name of Eight Belles.