Pamela Anderson Speaks Out for Chickens

I could go for some breasts right about now....sorry, what was this thread about again? ;)

The reason I never have and never will eat at KFC is that I have known people who work there and the practices of preparing the meat do not sound so appetizing to me, such as if a chicken is dropped on the floor, it is still cooked. Anyways who would want chicken when they oculd have a good ole beef hamburger

As I understand it (and have seen via bootlegged copy), she knows a lot about choking chickens. ;)

Who eats at KFC anyway? The food smells bad and then the biscuits are stale. But, at least Pamela Anderson is talking about something other than her husband and her chest.

Fact No1: Chicken meat is supposed to have a hormone that makes breasts grow bigger (works for both sexes...)

Fact No2: KFC is NOT chicken, but a hybrid the KFC have created to lower production cost: a chicken body that is headless and featherless (there's more "-lesses" but can't remember all of 'em), kept alive (if any such thing can actually live) by tubes and machines :barf: ...

Conclusion: It's only natural for Pam to be anti-KFC...

I was only trying to be funny and ironic about Pam's breasts Jeff (cause they're bigger than mine )

Both "facts" are not actual facts... And neither are her "breasts"

I heard that Pamela prefers being barn-laid

This is almost as good as the "Free Range Chickens" benefit single skit on SNL, so many years ago. Michael Bolton lead the "all-star" singing group. It was funny

At least the chickens aren't infected with hepatitis.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope At least the chickens aren't infected with hepatitis.

*urban myth no.3

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope At least the chickens aren't infected with hepatitis.

Only coz they are pumped full of drugs

I think if Chickens wanted a canadian representative it would be the chicken lady from the Kids in the Hall Not Miss Anderson Lee Whatever

I believe her offical title is "Keeper of the Silicone"

I love how outright idiotic some "animals rights" people are. They rail against cruelty to animals by mankind, yet when a puma breaks the neck of an innocent rabbit, where are they then? Why is there no outcry against lion-on-lion violence? When an alligator attacks a gorilla sitting peacefully in his perch, how can they just sit back and say nothing? HOW?

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I believe her offical title is "Keeper of the Silicone" I love how outright idiotic some "animals rights" people are. They rail against cruelty to animals by mankind, yet when a puma breaks the neck of an innocent rabbit, where are they then? Why is there no outcry against lion-on-lion violence? When an alligator attacks a gorilla sitting peacefully in his perch, how can they just sit back and say nothing? HOW?

Errrr... bit of a difference there methinks. Theres no connection between those scenarios. One - the puma eating a rabbit - is a completely natural occurence - 'cruelty' cannot come into it. Cruelty is a human perception. However there are many valid animal cruelty/welfare issues out there - battery hens, veal crates, animal exports, factory farming - that cannot be justified in my opinion. BTW, I am not an animal rights 'crank' nor a 'veggie'(no disrespect to them::D. Too many people can't/don't want to make the connection between whats on their 'McPlate', how it got there and what it actually is...

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Why is there no outcry against lion-on-lion violence?

White coat time Trevor, now come quietly please, we don't want a fuss.

Originally posted by feline I was only trying to be funny and ironic about Pam's breasts Jeff (cause they're bigger than mine )Both "facts" are not actual facts... And neither are her "breasts"

wish you'd told me this before i ordered 300kg of frozen chicken breasts to be sent to every single bird in bristol!

& here was me thinking we had found the secret of whats on new orders rider all these years...

oh & to stay on topic presumably pammy thinks its ok to eat them if they are humanely killed, but if treated badly its not?