Lucky...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, it will be the moderator's job to try to NOT get them to have a dialog, but rather just answer the questions. It's a debate, not a dialog. Well, the mod in the Obama/McCain debate had them communicating with each other, so that's what I'm referring to. If Biden converses and counters with Palin, it will advantage Biden. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Generally speaking, both sides will attempt to take whatever question posed to them and reframe it toward one of their scripted talking point answers. Exactly and that's why interviews are always so much better than these general questions that get reframed to the liking of the answerer. >>>>>>>>>>>..Biden has to not lose his cool and just stay focused on topic. He has to acknowledge her presence on stage, but not make a big deal of it. He knows the subject matter well so for him, the issue is not looking like he's being an ass towards her. Palin has to actually answer some questions. If she tries to pull the the evasion tricks and just look "cute" like she did with Couric, Gibson and even Hannity, she's doomed. Totally agree. He can't be the bully, or people will embrace her ignorant cuteness. She has to be substantive and bring something to the event.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>His days in office were days I was proud to be an American and it was easier on the average Americans to live fruitfully. But, but, but...... he got a BJ and lied about it.. I hear ya, those were the glory days and then the carpet got yanked... Sick thing is is that the rich got rich under Clinton and many of them still hate Clinton.

You might want to avoid statements like this because those independants who haven't made a choice yet due to having issues with both candidates, might not consider themselves to be ignorant. And yes there are several issues to be had wregarding Obama. But would you let a person on an intenet posting board change your opinion?

She will be very predictable. She will know a little more than teh Couric interview, but not much, you can't cram that much in that little time. She will appear folksy and smile a lot, but have no substance. If the moderator is able to get dialogue between her and Biden it could be disasterous for her. This will be less devastating for her/Republican Party than the few interviews she's done becuase the questions are less directed and the follow-ups less focused; in general, the interviewee has a better chance to duck the follow-ups.

http://www.pitbullsagainstpalin.com/

Teeth structure indicates omnivorous, you do not (ok maybe YOU do), have a mouth like a horse or cow, our jaws and dentition are designed to handle both meat and vegetation. We have NEVER been herbivorous, it's a personal choice not a survival stratagem The jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool.

>>>>>>>>>>>I'm quite used to having to provide scientific and peer reviewed papers to back up my position (That whole grad school thing kinda requires it.), however, since I haven't stated my position, backing it up is not required. Well, you kinda have: Oh, I don't support PETA. While some of their ideas are good, they go to extremes which I do not support. Right now, they're in process of ensuring that vet schools do not get dogs/donkeys/etc. to dissect, because the animals can not donate their bodies to science willingly. So, it will be interesting to see what happens when vets come out of school and their first experience with handling the insides of an animal is during an operation and THEN realizing how fragile some of the structures are. Of course, pick a non-position, rag on other's positions and demand peer-reviewed evidence on a posting board for positions that you have yet to state. That's a ringer . As for peer-reviewed journals, I have yet to see a forum where people have posted them, that is hilarious. I have a degree as well, so I have read and written papers on them. Again, as I wrote, saying, "I disagree with everything" is a non-answer and total acquiescence. Call shenanigans on whatever you wish that I've written and I will be glad to further support that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>You are very vehement in your beliefs. As a result, I'd expect better resources from you than Wikipedia. I've seen some really spectacular sites utilized by various people on this board to support their arguments and just expect the same out of you. Your entire argument is based not upon the 2 sites I've posted, all of the other assertions I've made, 1 of which you didn't even address, but that of ambiguity and disqualification. Sorry dear, you have to answer issues and evidence with the same. Discount any or all of what I've written with your evidence and I will be glad to counter. If you're just posting to say you did, congratulations. Here’s a list of my assertions, see if they’re factually wrong: Here's a list of reasons humans were designed as herbivores: - Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores. - Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline. - Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores. - Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores. - Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free. - Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores. AND CANINE TEETH: Canine, eye teeth for uppers and stomach teeth for lowers, are far more pronounced in males than in females, if even present in females, evidences the notion they were naturally designed for fighting. If the males of a species utilize canines but the females of the same species do not, we can deduce the dependent variable is defense, not diet. Unless you want to infer the males and females have different diets; males carnivores, females herbivores. _________________________________________________________________ Address those, tell me if I’m wrong and why……or, continue the ambiguity.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>unlike you, I disagree with the provisions in a few of these pieces of legislation, things such as making it an offense to possess, produce or transfer a .50cal bullet a felonius act. I didn't read them and didn't comment on them, so how can you say I disagree with them? Why do you insist on misstating my assertions? So this is Illinois State legislation and you think it would fly federally? It probably wouldn't fly on a state level upon appeal. I read the Bill you posted, all I saw was this: (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; Nothing for .50 cal. There already is a fed law to my understanding that you can own up to .50 cal, larger for muzzle-loaders. SO I'm not sure that this is a new thing, just a mimicking of fed law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do some more reading as to what he tried to pass, you may consider that he is very comfortable with taking away rights, or making citizens a felon even with having committed an act of violence, or harming anyone at all. Clean your own windows. Look at your boy, Bush. He has trampled upon the US Const in so many ways. Whatever Obama does after elected will be scrutinized by so many people in all 3 branches, so I wouldn't worry.

I'm for gun ownership, although let's be real, having guns handy likely bodes well toward violence. I won't be naive and act as if violence can't happen w/o guns, it certainly does, but I want my firearm even tho they are an added evil in a country based upon violence. But as far as voting goes, there are other little issue like: - Healthcare - Iraq - Afghanistan - Runaway inflation - Debt - Deficit - Class disparity - and several other issues worthy of considering. Besides, the ultimate legislators, the SCOTUS, just passed their decision on gun ownership, so whatever is passed will be trumped. Hey, what ever happened to the, "Activist Judges" rhetoric; I didn't hear any with that decision? Oh, that's right, it's only activist when it goes against the right wing, since that is their rhetoric. Anyway, don't worry about gun ownership, it's not going anywhere.

That alone is enough, but when you are a US Citizen, it makes these issues far more important. Foreign citizens don't have the right to voice an opinion of intra-US politics? Hmmmm, I bet SOME Americans voice their opinion of Europe.....nah, couldn't happen.

It's a conspiracy. Esp considering he or his staff aren't the custodianss of his voting records. Keep looking, they're out there.

>>>>>>>>>and Bush Extra Lite for VP. No, she shaves clean, that's what got her there

This isn't a dissertation, it's a posting board. Don't blame my sources because you can't impeach my assertions. Many folks on your side use Wikipedia for this forum. WHy not post what you disagree with and let me find another source.....BTW, "everything" isn't a realistic answer and a total acquiescence. Iposted other sources as well, tell me what you disagree with and why and I will find other sources.

Here's a list of reasons humans were designed as herbivores: - Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores. - Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline. - Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores. - Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores. - Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free. - Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores. http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy Aren't we omnivores? No, look above. Look at the graph for teeth arrangement and design.

>>>>>>>>I think you have me kind of all wrong, fuck bush, and most of all I am a non believer. No, Bush really does exist. >>>>>>>>>>The bottom line is I will always have many fresh tasty animals of my choosing to eat and medicines that have been properly tested on chimpanzees. Cool, I expect I won't be recieving any emails of grievance and regret when your arterial system and your colon decide which are going to take a shit first. These animals get thier revenge, altho it takes years. I'm not in a contest for longevity, I just don't want to have to lift up the front of my shirt to take a shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix That again supports my contention that humans were originally designed to be strict herbivores. Since we have elected to be omnivores, the need for the appendix is not neccesary. One potential ancestral purpose put forth by Darwin[3] was that the appendix was used for digesting leaves as primates. Over time, we have eaten fewer vegetables and have evolved, over thousands of years, for this organ to be smaller to make room for our stomach. It may be a vestigial organ of ancient man that has degraded down to nearly nothing over the course of evolution. Evidence can be seen in herbivorous animals such as the Koala. The cecum of the koala is attached to the juncture of the small and large intestines and is very long, enabling it to host bacteria specific for cellulose breakdown. Early man’s ancestor must have also relied upon this system and lived on a diet rich in foliage. As man began to eat more easily digested foods, they became less reliant on cellulose-rich plants for energy. The cecum became less necessary for digestion and mutations that previously had been deleterious were no longer selected against. These alleles became more frequent and the cecum continued to shrink. After thousands of years, the once-necessary cecum has degraded to what we see today; the appendix. [3] So the very fact that we genetically still produce the organ is string evidence that we were designed to be herbivores.

And the same can be said of your party and their stance on abortion; see how everything is related? Basically, PETA would like to stop all animal sufferring, but at this point they want to start with the most gross form of animal abuse, furs, labs, etc...

>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, right, sorry, that can't possibly be used for eating meat. I feed my dog veggies, donuts, whatever I'm having, as well as her Science Diet, so what can be used for either has a design for one or the other, generally. Are you going to argue that a compound jaw is need more for cutting and grinding vegetation or for ripping soft tissue? Rememebr, structure = function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you treat that the same as "don't break down red meat"? Hey, what about white meat, like pork, or cat? Red meat and Pork are a lot alike in terms of digestion as I know it, foul and fish are different to my understanding. With all the other human physiological attributes, humans were originally naturally designed to eat vegetation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>???? Um, neither I nor anyone I know is unable to get meat swallowed. (Yeah, I know how that sounds. Deal with it.) Being unable and having it to be difficult/unnatural are different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.How fortunate for your point that you forgot to mention our CANINE TEETH. I didn't forget about them, I wanted you to bring them up as a sort of trap. Canine, eye teeth for uppers and stomach teeth for lowers, are far more pronounced in males than in females, if even present in females, evidences the notion they were naturally designed for fighting. If the males of a species utilize canines but the females of the same species do not, we can deduce the dependent variable is defense, not diet. Unless you want to infer the males and females have different diets; males carnivores, females herbivores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_teeth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And since when do you grind your food with your incisors? I think I wrote humans have molars for that, quit trying to restate my words. Incisors cut, molars grind.

The buck stopped with her. (No pun intended.) Wasn't it a moose?

There you go, crying "Wolf!" again about so-called PAs. Don't worry, it's open season on me. I don't dare fire back.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What part of Peta saying that ANY product enhanced in ANY way by animal research is to be avoided completely? So your interpretation is that if an animal experiment from the 1960's was used to develop a product today that PETA members should not use it? Nice, instead of talking about veal production and the gross cruelty associated, you create a box for all PETA members so they cannot have their opinions and continue to live. Look, it's not that difficult, 'quit expoiting animals,' being their message. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are levels of hypocracy, have I ever been a hypocrite? You bet. Right, and there are levels of vegetarianism, as there are levels of most things. WHat PETA wants is to quit killing animals for food, food that we were not designed to injest anyway, at least as far as nature would have it. Stop using animl furs, stop the obvious exploits to animals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I work with very sick children, I am at work right now. I guess Peta would like me to go tell some of these kids with spinal fractures that you will never have the chance to have the use of your arms or legs again because some people dont wanna hurt the little fuzzy mice or bunny rabbits. Yea, and tell your local bible thumper and any Bush voter the same thing, as he refusde to sign for more embryonic research, even in discord with most Republicans and the then Republican Congress....that was his first veto in 5.5 years. We could gain far more from human embryonic research than we could from animal research, yet your guy won't allow it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I would personaly rip the heads off every fucking mouse or bunny if I could see one of these kids walk again. Or.... we could simply allow for aborted embryos to be researched with fed funding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thats just me, call me mean or crazy but I really like humans more than animals. Not to say I dont like animals. The fact is I distain any unnessecary suffering of anything. I like then both equally and the fact that we are humans is only by chance; we could be one of the bunnies you would be willing to rip the head from. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Their are many noble animal rights groups that do great things. Peta or ALF is not one of them. Which do you think is/are noble and why? Why is PETA not noble?

Cool, ask you colon, it doesn't love all animals as much. we,re omnivorous, biologically, meat is meant to be a part of our diet, not the, bulk but definitely a part saying anything else is a personal moral stance, and not grounded in science. Uh, sorry, this was recently thrown around here and no, we are biologically herivoires. The closest you can come is to bring up B-12, which was defunct as that is not originated from animals but from roots, I believe a bacteria grows on there that is the derivative of B-12. Perhaps you can explain how people live their entire lives as vegans. Physiologial evidence is: - Compound jaw - digestive enzymes not great for breaking down red meat - Small throat diameter, not good for eating meat - Teeth structure, molars and incisors - good for grinding vegetation. Sorry, the morality is to be a carnivoire, Jebus would want it that way.

Cool, ask you colon, it doesn't love all animals as much.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Even if there is not any animal products used in her insulin now, she had no problem using them when it was her only option. that made her a hypocrite. So you're saying that she was a hypocrite but she is no longer since insuline is bacteria-based? OK, newsflash; WE'RE ALL HYPOCRITES at one time or another. The ones who deny it are usually the biggest ones. We're here today, we can use technology gained frrom former animal torture, just not advocate the use of it today. As well, most people believe that if the technology is there, however it got there, they're going to use it and that does not make them a hypocrite. That's like saying you don't want to use non-toxic paint for your house because we accidentally tested lead-based paint on humans, changed our technology and now use non-lead paints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The fact that the insulin she now uses was tested on animals makes her a hypocrite. WAS. She didn't advocate it, nd even protested it, but she is using what is there, not is hypocritical as she was actively tryijng to stop it at the time and I'm sure testing for current insulin is done. They may be testing for future insulin, and that's teh kind of stuff they protest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Where does it state that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They should try to model themselves more like Jehova's wittnesses who believe blood transfusions are wrong and are willing to die instead of have one. PETA members aren't martyrs, they simply want to end animal suffering. Others who are offended by PETA's agenda for several personal reasons try to hold these people to unusually high standards. As for her or anyone being a hypocrite; so what? WE ALL ARE HYPOCRITES and those who deny are usually the biggest ones. Their mission is simple, end animal suffering. I'm sure you think I'm a hypocrite for being vegetarian, supporting PETA and wearing leather shoes. I couldn't care less. I don;t walk around preaching PETA, don't have a bumper sticker or newsletters, just support what they do. It IS cruel to test on animals, to factory farm, etc.... To hold them to a standard of extremism to die before anything animal related is to reveal something about ourselves.

You analogies are all fucked up. PETA opposes using animals for research--period. They would have humankind simply leave animals alone to live "free." (Never mind that this would cause endless animal suffering. Even the abolition of hunting would actually engender a lot of animal suffering.) It most certainly is hypocritical to support PETA and then also support things that PETA vehemently opposes. It's not the same as getting things delivered by truck when trucks accidentally cost lives. Not at all. It's like owning guns but supporting the Brady Center's efforts to ban them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>You analogies are all fucked up. What's the matter, you don't like the analogy so you have to PA? Or is it close to home? See, everyone likes to consider themselves, "animal lovers" when in reality they are pet lovers. SO when somone deflates their animal love the reaction is to get pissed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>PETA opposes using animals for research--period. Where did I say otherwise? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>They would have humankind simply leave animals alone to live "free." Right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Never mind that this would cause endless animal suffering. Even the abolition of hunting would actually engender a lot of animal suffering.) Yea, that's what Dahmer and Bundy must have thought, and they were kind people too that didn't want more human suffering, so they just killed em. Amazing how these non-human animals figured it out before human animals, yet we think we have the key to all life. Wer certainly aren't intelligent considering we overpopulate ourselves into extniction. The carrying capacity of earth is about 9.5 billion, that number projection keeps getting closer as the population exponentially explodes, then what, startvation? That's ok, as long as it isn;t here. How many species will we do a favor for and extinct as we try to maimtain 9.5+B people. Boy, teh animals of the world are sure lucky to have us here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It most certainly is hypocritical to support PETA and then also support things that PETA vehemently opposes. Yes and it's hypocritical to advocate anything and then engage in that behavior, like: 1) Advocating human welfare and then buying things delivered by trucks, aircraft, etc. Hell, skydiving kills people, so to advocate that is to not love mankind. 2) Advocating a healthy fiscal economy and then voting Republican when they have blatantly shown they cannot do this well and will devastate the US economy as long as people continue to vote for them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not the same as getting things delivered by truck when trucks accidentally cost lives. Yes it is as it's obvious and calculable what the average number of fatalities will be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not at all. It's like owning guns but supporting the Brady Center's efforts to ban them. That would be hypocritical, I do own gns and I oppose the Brady Law, the Bracdy Center and the Brady Bunch. This is a very emotional issue, as we all like to think that we are humanitarians and eating animals whether hunted or factory farmed is not doing them a favor.