Lucky...

Yep, proof alright. Ok, and your point??????? Evidence that prostate and colon cancers are directly contributed to meat.

Have you found your peaceful, happy center yet? Hahahaha! OMG, that's a fucin knee slapper...... Bahahahahahahha...oh shit, let me pull myself off the floor.

Have you found your peaceful, happy center yet? Not totally, but I know I don't directly contribute to animal deaths.

Yep, and I'll sleep soundly. Probably have bacon as part of my breakfast, probably with eggs and pork & beans. Yum! Awesome!!! Prostate cancer is closer every steak.

For some reason, tearing a chicken apart appeals to me more than grazing does. That wasn't the issue. The issue was what was neccesary and humans eating meat is not, it is choice. As for grazing, you don't need to graze, you could buy vegs already prepared.

A guy at work has a colostomy bag from eating meat, So, essentially, he has his asshole somewhere up front. That also makes us vegetarians squirm. I wonder how his lovelife is?

I actually heaved slightly when you got to that one. Blech!!! Fortunately KFC doesn't use actual chickens.

>>>>>>>>>>>>2) we start running short of energy/space/water to grow all that meat. How true....... carrying capacity.

Damn shame. SOmetimes meat eates don't get to wait until 50 to have their arteries harden and their asshole plug up...... nature is kind.... sometimes

I'm curious to hear this, too. Don't hold your breath for a reasonable response. IMO, a society that elected to opt out of meat eating for the sake of better health, cleaner environment, and less animal suffering would be taking a big step UP the "food chain".

Brilliance; comparing a carrot to a cow......

I voted yes, though I've been a vegetarian for 4-5 years now. And I'm a much heathier and happier person for making the change. Plus, it's sort of nice knowing I am no longer a significant contributor to the incomprehensibly vast amount of animal suffering that occurs thanks to our fat-assed, unhealthy nation's lust for meat. "Responsible" meat eating is fine by me, but it sure is disgusting seeing so many people right in this thread make light of such a large scale problem in terms of animal suffering. It's the height of low compassion and unenlightenment. Great post, I generally agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>I voted yes, though I've been a vegetarian for 4-5 years now. And I'm a much heathier and happier person for making the change. I have absolutely no problem thinking of lifelong human carnivoires suffering at 50-60 as their asshole rots out. Then comes the colostomy bag..... I just gotta thinking they were some of the guys/gals joking about how cute it is to sacrifice several animal's lives becuase they enjoy the taste; rationalize it as need. Aren't most serial killers those who enjoy killing animals as kids? Thngs that make ya go Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. If these people had to look in the face and pet these defenseless cretures, well, most would quit eating them. Fortunately slaughter hiuses are well locked and closed to the public, as that is their lifeline. If they offered tours they would lose a lot of business.

Exactly, I abhor animal cruelty in any form, but responsible harvesting and eating of meat is fine by me. That's the same thing Dahmer said.

Criminal socialists everywhere are gasping with fear at that.

No where in history has a nerd like Bill Gates been an alpha male either, yet he is. Forget about conventional evolution, we've bastardized it for good...that is, until nature decides she's done with us.

The one soclice I have and the one that the butchered animals get is that with red meat and pork the consumers of those meats get to die early and often suffer toward the end. It is plain crule to decide that an animal's life is worth a meal. The beauty is that the hatred will fly, but that only reinforces my contention that meat eater's conscience bothers them.

Some prehistoric predecessors to modern-day humans ate no animal products. We can live away from meat, I'm proof of that. Veg for 20+ years, not anemic. Meat is a choice, you decide that taste is worth an animals life; go deal with your conscience on your own.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I will always eat meat, but I do make sure the animals are raised and slaughtered humanely. That's like saying if a pedophile captures and cares for little girls as he mollests them, he's humane. HUmane raising of animals fo slaughter is a gross contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>edit to add: For what it is worth....the packing plants kill the animals much more humanely than wild foxes, coyotes and bobcats do. Just food for thought. 1) So you want to compare the humanity of an animal to yourself? 2) Coyotes have to eat meat to live, you do not, you eat it by choice.

Agreed. And the housing dellima was a direct effect of lowered interest rates. House costs are obviously a compilation of PITA, principal and interest being the largst portion of that by far, esp interest. So when sellers see that the interest is low, the buyers payment is also low, so they raise the principal. Now, why was the interest lowered? When the economy stagnates, the quick fix is to lower the interest rate, hence motivating people to spend. It doesn't work that well for long terms, so you have to keep lowering it. A low iterest rate is not a sign of a healthy economy, it is a sign of a sick one. Now, why did Bush have to lower the rates so much, so long? Tax cuts, the rebate giveaway, etc.. Clinton came in and raised taxes, increased welfare and it took a while, but he inherited a 290B annual deficit and left a 236B surplus. As well the debt had virtually turned the corner. At the same time, growth was at awesome rates, and we had a healthy, stable overall economy. So to borrow growth and claim that growth means nothing. To Have actual growth and lower negative numbers is real growth.

Not if you were taught to proofread your own material before turning it in for a grade. This is not a term paper, so who gives a fuck other than people w/o an argument. The point of my assertion was that lawrocket, a guy who, like me, makes plenty of errors, but he decides to cell me on em. Again, who gives a fuck if wto (intentional) letters are flipped or one is mising (intentional)?

So now you 're taking shots at everyone who doesn't think exactly like you. No partisanship in that mind of yours, is there? No, the ______ said that I was talking shit about the troops, I asked his to show me where I've ever done that. Then reminded him that I was once a GI enlisted. Explin your false statement for me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looks like during the clinton Presidency, Clinton took the interest rates from 8.12 to 9.33 and down to 6.9. You can see it fell further under Bush. And, as I'm sure you know, Alan Greenspan was the Chairman of the fed from 1987-2006 - whihc spanned this period you discussed. The pres can fire theChair of the fed, he had no issue with the lowering of the rate. What happen as that Bush gave away the 236B Clinton left, lowered int taxes and then the economy stagnated. The fed then lwered the rate to keep the economy struggling. Sorry, but your pres fucked it up. BTW, you misspelled aword, if I were you I would make fun, as it is I realize that happens in long posts.

Then would you say that Clinton's administration pleayed a significant role in the creating of the dot-com bust? After all, Enron was named by Forbes as America's Most Innovative Company for six years running! Was it not during Clinton's watch that the sham accounting and investing was being done? Indeed, was not the economic climate for these fraudulent accounting practices displayed throughout the 1990's? The collapse happened just before 9/11. And the dot-com bubble started bursting in 2000 - leading to three non-consecutive uarters of negative growth between summer 2000 and fall, 2001. The interest rates were low. Unemployment low. Tax revenues peaked. Was Clinton responsible? I established, as well as jcd11235 did so independantly that Bush's constant lowering of the int rate thru Greenspan was what caused house prices to soar. So how is that connected to the DOT.COM bust? Diff deal, dif era, alltogether different.

I must agree with kallend. Those are our men and women dying in that place. 900 of them last year. And they are dying at the same - or greater - pace as any other time during this conflict. I do not disagree that even one death is significant and tragic. But the bs twist he aimed back had nothing of any significance to even think of replying to. One of his typical fish bait tosses You asked why the lack of Bush-bashing threads, he replied that the war is still killing many good kids, hence there's plenty to be bashing about. Tell me, how is it that he was out of line, off topic or otherwise twisting anything?

>>>>>>>>>>>>Another strategy by Bush and the Republicans to draw voter attention away from Iraq. Those evil dogs. That would infer that Bush has some control, which we know is not true. The economy is fucked due to gross mismanagement, simply as a byproduct. >>>>>>>>>>>>Indeed, and it sucks to know that somewhere, somebody may actually be happy. Such people clearly don't care about anything other than themselves, and must be made to join the society of equal misery among all. But enough about elitist lawyers who hate the thought of poor people with healthcare. Nice to see you defending your party tho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, I think you've hit it right on the head! "Appal-ogizing." HA! It IS appaling. And so I typo, I'[ve gone thru [ages of your typing errors and said nothing - are you out of things to remark about? Pathetic after reading your typos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are a few million pages that have been written about the topic. Yea, the context was about the desensitization of US deaths, but you, Mr typo error who corrects everyone for typos, doesn't even keep it in context or, "..." Wait, I'm dealing with an attny, why am I surprised at idiotic, abstract logic? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. The times were so bad that Nixon was viewed as a "unifying force." And, your hero McGovern was put out there - too bad the population hated him. The guy only won Massachussetts and DC - the worst showing up till Mondale. Nice to see you continue to defend your party (Nixon) and smal mine (McGovern). Some things never change . Let's talk about Nixon / Agnew. Agnew had just resigned for tax evasion and Nixon was square in the middle of Watergate, yet the idiot American voters reelected him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gonna "analize" them? Wow! Talk about getting it up the wazoo!!! You are on FIRE!! The word, "analyze" would have the unofficial root word, "anal" even if I spelled it with the y rather than the i. I would think a lawyer like you who constantly misspells words would refrain from correcting other's misspellings. You know when a poster is out of gas when they resort to spelling and punctuation; what's next, syntax? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1) Iraq - yeah. He should have never gone in. 2) Iran potential - not gonna happen till we get out of Iraq. 3) Recession - There is concern, but the dominant thought among those in the know is it probably won't happen. 4) Doubled house prices and mortgage melddown - Bush had as much to do with that as Clinton did with the dot-com bust. Very, very little. 5) tripled gas prices - I seems to recall paying 2.39 per gallon once in 1996. Are we paying $7.00/gallon now? 6) 3.9 trillion in debt increase - okay. No arguing about that. By the way, how has the Dem Congress done at reeling it in? 7) Loss of Constitutional protections / wiretapping / Habeus Corpus / etc - thank goodness those Reagan and Bush appointees in the courts are ruling against the Admin left and right. 8) Am I forgetting a few? - Probably hundreds. 4) Bush's tactic of lowering taxes and his giveaway in the midst of his war hobby was part of it. Altho you like it, but the lowering taxes for corps is largely what caused it, had to lower the int rate to keep the economy half-ass stimulated, that gave sellers license to raise house prices as the payment would be the same, thn started the pyramid scheme type efect. 5) I don't think so, as for the gas prices of 2.39 in 96. Can you support that? Furthermore, gas was 1.20 at the highest, more like about a buck when your pres took office and you know it. 6) The Dem congress has shoved bills in front of Mr no veto, then he found his pen. When the dems get in, they'll lose their pen and + things will get done. 7) Lawrocket wrote: thank goodness those Reagan and Bush appointees in the courts are ruling against the Admin left and right. Hardly, they rubberstamp many things. But again, you have to support your party. >>>>>>>>>>>>We've been that way since, oh, the late 70's. You don't know where I grew up, boy. Nobody ave a shit what was goign on in my neighborhood. Nor do I care where u grew up. If I were a lawyer w/o an argument I would make a comment on the misisng letter and the misspelling, now I just realize it's just what happens on posting boards.