|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended". | | |
| "You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families
have two parents, two children, and live in California .
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
$25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or
$52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe
Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for
his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose
Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe
Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and he still
has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline,
etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children
get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an
after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire
services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now?
If you vote for or support any politician who supports illegal
aliens...You are part of the problem!
It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!"
Quoted from some guy on Yahoo. Xanga folks, what is your opinion on the matter?
| | |
| I don't know why the OP's and Xanga's have the need to repost a topic that was discussed. (http://www.ireallylikefood.com/719637221/why-you-should-become-a-vegetarian/?ref=xn http://www.healthkicker.com/718103322/why-you-should-become-a-vegetarian/)
Well, I'm going to set the record straight. The OP's information is flawed. We are not herbivores. Our mouths and intenstines are not designed for a carnivore diet. Here's the same response I gave on her first post.
This essay was written by an anatomist, a primatologist, and a vegeterian. Credit goes to John McArdle, Ph.D. There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater. Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics. Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms. The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice. There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat. Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates). As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants. Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material. Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations. Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth. The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations. These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group. Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups. Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.
If Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10%, every one of the 60 million human beings that starve to death on this planet could be adequately fed.
Here's the link to original author's work: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm . Btw, that author is part of a Vegetarian Resource Group.
There you go, the first half of the OP's argument is null. ( Humans are omnivores. )
| | |
| I don't know why the OP's and Xanga's have the need to repost a topic that was discussed. Well, I'm going to set the record straight. The OP's information is flawed. We are not herbivores. Our mouths and intenstines are not designed for a carnivore diet.
Here's the same response I gave. The original author is an anatomist, a primatologist, and a vegeterian.
There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater. Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics. Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms. The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice. There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat. Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates). As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants. Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material. Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations. Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth. The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations. These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group. Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups. Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.
If Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10%, every one of the 60 million human beings that starve to death on this planet could be adequately fed.
Here's the link to original author's work: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm . Btw, that author is part of a Vegeterian Resource Group.
There you go, the first half of the OP's arguement is null. Humans are omnivores.
| | |
| While talking to several people from different countries, they discussed that America was a declining superpower. The value of the dollar is down and the exchange rate is better for all of them. They continued to deliberate the reasons why America has deteriorated to a sad state. Some of them blamed our former president. Many of them said the cause was the expensive war. I told them that they were all wrong about the cause. For a long time, Americans bought more than they make and sell. Years after years of this unbalance just became a ticking bomb. 9/11 completed that bomb and the war set it off. All Americans were going to pay for the extravagant spending habits of some. In fact, not only all Americans are going to pay a price, but their children and grandchildren too.
However, I believe in the phrase "whatever comes up must come down". Eventually, this situation would've bound to happen. I also believe once you hit pit bottom. There's nowhere else to go except up. Acknowledging our problems was the first step up. I have strong hope that we will regain our strength. In my life, anytime I've been pushed down and still stayed alive, I came back stronger. Americans are resilient. If they are not dead from this recession/depression, they will come back greater.
Well, what's your take on America's situation?
Do you think we have reached pit bottom yet?
Do you believe America will return to its "former glory"?
What are your thoughts on what causes of our decline?
| | |
|
