Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) I've eaten deer within the last five years. Wild Boar, also. Interestingly enough, I've always wanted to try Wild Boar, but never have.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) How many people here have eaten rabbit or deer in the past five years? Armadillo? Wolves? Bear? Squirrel? Waiting for their numbers to EXPLODE! Me. I've eaten rabbit, deer, squirrel and bear in the last year alone, and it's what, February? No wolves though, as I think you'll go to jail if you shoot one. I think they're on the protected list, or they were, they may not be now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) BS, I had not seen that before. Thank you for your post, it has brightened my day. Do you live under a rock? I've seen nothing BUT those images all over the place for over a week now.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) I am well aware of what Jumped the Shark means, smart ass. Just in case you don't know what Jumping the Shark means: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDthMGtZKa4 Cuz, you never know...well, I should say I never know...you're a plant eating Android user, usually takes you guys a while to catch on...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) Sorry. I will start PMing you with the contents of each proposed post I want to make for your clearance. I didn't say to not make the post, I was simply pointing out that the first few were funny, and now they're just as stupid as the people spreading them around. So I guess, in a way, I called you a stupid. Jump the Shark = reached climax...and downhill from here. Those have been going downhill for well over a week now, and that link illustrates what I mean, perfectly.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) Many more to laugh at here. Shark was jumped after about the first 3 I saw floating around the Internet.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) A more fair question would allow you to raise and slaughter your own animals. Basically, "what type of farmer do you want to be?" Right, whatever the case, it just seems like the question was posed in a manner in which you are almost *forced* to choose vegan, as with the meat eating lifestyle, you have to hunt, kill and clean, while with the proposed vegan lifestyle, all you have to do is go to the market and buy stuff... Even I, a meat eater would be forced to choose vegan in the way this question was framed, as I do not have the time to hunt, etc. Now, if I had to grow the crops I eat for the year, I think I'd rather hunt, and have a small garden. So again, I'm back to square one...I'd do both! But that wasn't a choice!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 08:02 AM) Really? Your defense for eating animals is that if you don't control a small number of them, agriculture will suffer? Fine. In that case, the ideal human consumption in terms of energy efficiency is 99.99% agriculturally grown products, and .01% animal products produced as by-products of population control. You're not feeding 7 billion people based on the few deer and other species it takes to keep herds from becoming overgrown. That's not a defense of anything. You've pretty much given everyone on earth a reason to eat meat 1 time every year or two. Hell, if anything, it's more a defense of protecting natural predators like wolves, which control the animal population on their own, and thus in those cases actually serve to increase agricultural production efficiency. Well, for one, we aren't actually feeding 7 billion people. A lot of them are and will be dying off of starvation. A famine is going to hit some of these over populated counties sooner than later. The problem with wolves, you see, is they aren't particular about what they hunt/eat...they'll eat children (or even adults) as easily as they will a cow or a dog. So, once again, we have to kill in order to control them, one way or another. That said, I'm not arguing that we eat too much meat...I don't even eat meat everyday, but I do eat it. I'm simply saying that in you CANNOT build this "ideal world", because it doesn't exist. We are a necessary predator, as are wolves, all the way down the line. We cannot just decide to step down from that job in natures eyes...it doesn't work that way. So whether we at 99% plant 1% meat, the 1% is NECESSARY. We cannot do all or nothing. Back to the original point of this post...the question posed was unfair. Why do the hunters have to hunt to kill their meat, but the vegans don't have to farm to get their fruits and vegetables? Also, note that it's become sport to troll you, Balta. I'm practically a shoe in for the troll Soxtalk HOF.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) Huh? Producing meat products takes an awful lot more food-products than simply eating the food/grains yourself. If you want to be a realist on the amount of food available, then meat is the last thing you should eat. It's a pyramid. If you eat everything at the base of the pyramid, you have the most available food. If you eat the next level..the level that eats the base below it, there's less food available. Every level you move up, there's less available at the level just below. Huh? Do you really need it explained to you? Ok...now listen carefully, Billy...you may actually learn something you can apply to a REAL world, not a made up fantasy land! While what you say might hold true for a temporary amount of time in this mythical world you've built...after a few years, it would come to a grinding halt. While the farmed for meat animals of the day would fall off in population (cows/chickens/pigs), every other animal under the sun would grow exponentially. You see, Billy, since #1 on the food chain (humans) stopped hunting them, they'd grow in number at a rate that would make your little head spin. Deer would absolutely EXPLODE in population, and with nobody to cull the herd, they'd eat your precious crops...the only reason why deer aren't eating those crops now is because they'll get shot for trying. Same applies to rabbits, and just about any other small animal. It wouldn't take long for wolves to realize they aren't getting shot for roaming around, either. Now, if you allowed us to kill animals attempting to eat in this world you've created, but we aren't eating them, then we create a new problem since we would have dead animal carcasses everywhere...and I'm not sure that was the solution you were attempting to find here... You see, Billy, it's part of the natural cycle...and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. This perfect world you are all contemplating CANNOT exist. Someone HAS to hunt and kill these things. It's a top down thing. As I said previously, nature INTENDED it. Keep in mind, the farm animals we keep alive now for meat harvesting are in a controlled population. Without us, and hunters, there would be nothing to control such populations...and most of these animals wouldn't just disappear, "just cuz you want them too in your perfect little vegan world".

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 12, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) Ugh I really wish my wife didn't insist on having the max cable package from Verizon. She is the one who doesn't get this, not me, although in life I have had to remind myself a couple of times not to spend money just because I have it. She would be a financial disaster without me. Still, if you want to argue that the inflated costs of housing isn't probably the most significant factor out of all of them, you're probably arguing with a wall. Real wages HAVE declined relative to X number of years ago and probably starting around the early 80s or so. My dad was a steelworker while I was growing up, I think the year I was born and when I was a baby in the early 80s he made about $30k, give or take a couple thousand. Back then, that was decent money to support a family in the suburbs. Then as the years went on we know what happened to that industry. His salary never went up to match the cost of living, and by the time I was ready to go to high school... he's still making the same wages, hence, we were always broke, trying to figure out which bill to let float, going long periods of time without cable or hot water, eventually losing the house to foreclosure (the house being in very bad shape because he couldn't afford to do routine maintenance). You bring up an exellent point in regard to housing, I touched on it earlier and I believe housing, even at it's current levels, remains inflated. Houses, especially well kept houses, simply cost too much. I know how easy it is to fall into the debt trap, too as I've witnessed many people I know do it. All you have to do is look at their things and you can see why, too. Always seem to have a new snowblower, or lawnmower, or iPhone. Whatever the case may be, it the typical keep up with the Jonses mentality. And it's even a possible learned behavior from watching our government operate on a daily basis. Life can still be fun without a 300$ per month cable bill for 600 channels of movies you've already seen. While my father never lost the house, he also never made more than 42k, all the way up unt retirement. At times growing up it wasn't fun to watch everyone around me with the newest toys, nintendos or vcr's, which I would have died to have. But it was what it was. We got by. And now I have all these things, bit I also tend to understand when to say when.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2011 -> 02:57 PM) The reason I'm a jerk on things like this is that Y2HH's POV leads to the conclusion that improving middle class living standards is a bad thing. Wrong, and wrong. Middle class standards HAVE improved and ARE improving. That's why middle class families can have 3 f***ing televisions now and two cars. And not just any cars...25k+ cars and trucks...because why not?! Nobody wants to be seen in a 13k car that works but doesn't go 150mph! Oh, and we can't have the superbowl party here unless we have a 63" 3D LCD TV, either! So let's buy that, despite the fact that the 60" Plasma right next to it costs 1/3rd the price! Plasmas old though, screw plasma...we need the BEST! You don't seem to get that, do you? Because it's the predominant mentality that I witness on a daily basis. People can live better lives than 40 years ago, without being in debt. I should teach a spending/investing class, because I can easily reconstruct a persons budget to fit their means...so long as they forego the 3 televisions and 250$ a month cable bills, because they *NEED* every channel. Another interesting tidbit...these same people that are in debt while making 2 40k incomes...WILL still be in debt if they were both making 80k incomes. I see that quite often, too. Big promotions come around, and I hear how they'll never worry about money again...and things stay status quo, only now instead of eating at Red Lobster 4 times a month, they eat at Nick's Fish Market...and they're still at square 1...same debt despite making 2x the money...because all they did was lift their spending by 2x.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) No, it leads to the conclusion that people are responsible for their own messes by their own excesses. Relying on debt for unnecessary consumer spending isn't "improving middle class living standards". That's the mentality of "I can't be broke, I have more checks still!" that seems to be permeating down from our federal government and into our personal lives. Exactly what I mean.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) In this world? Absolutely. Here we are again with the idea that cell phones and internet access for families isn't completely necessary in the modern world, which I think is ludicrous. And anyway...as I pointed out but you brushed off...all those purchases have done is replace other purchases that have either gone down in price or been phased out. Otherwise, the income fractions spent on those items would have gone up, not stayed steady. That's why I keep saying every version of this argument you guys make, where you want to lecture people for buying things you judge to be unnecessary, is tantamount to saying that the Middle Class lifestyle needs to take a step back. The Middle Class needs to stop pretending that they can have a Middle Class lifestyle. I'm middle class and I have a middle class lifestyle. Funny. Nobody said phones and internet access aren't necessary in the modern world, either. But you don't need Android or Iphone devices when you can get buy 1 get 3 free phones for ... free. I can go on and on...but I think in some odd/paradoxical way we are saying some of the same things, but in completely different ways. People don't have to spend as much as they do. And as for what you say about middle class -- it IS better than it was 40 years ago, that's the point...and in some ways, it's STILL not enough for many people, which is why they spend more than they make.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) So, no one owned goods that would be deemed luxury goods 30 years ago? All you're doing is stating that the luxury items of today didn't exist 30 years ago and therefore everyone is worse at managing money. And I'll note 1 more point...you also explicitly blamed the credit providers in your effort to defend them...by saying that they were happy to provide people lines of credit that they wouldn't pay off. Actually, that's not what I'm doing at all...you missed the entire point, and you reply clearly shows this. People DID own luxury items 40 years ago, they just didn't own 4 of each, mostly because they couldn't afford 4 of each. A radio was a luxury item back then, and an average middle class family had one. A record player is another, and a family had one. A television is another, and...you guessed it, most middle class families had ONE! The same can be said of automobiles. I grew up in the 80's, living in a middle class family, but we didn't have a VCR, and we didn't have cable TV. We did without things because we couldn't afford them at the time, and this was when credit WAS available, as my parents had credit cards...they just all had zero balances on them. I guess I learned a slightly valuable life lesson living through that...which is why I live the way I do today. And I don't blame credit providers, either, I blame the people for overspending, which I specifically pointed out -- and you apparently ignored -- numerous times. The credit providers didn't hold a gun to anyones head and said "SPEND IT OR WE SHOOT!", no...people simply *chose* to live beyond their means, and now they can't get by without multiple incomes because they ran up debt. I guess in some way you can "blame" those that made this credit available...but then you have people like me, who didn't live that way...and aren't in credit debt...because once again, nobody forced me to spend what I didn't have. I call it self control. I also call it living within your means. Of course, this is taking a "normal middle class life" into account, I'm not speaking about people that fell into financial ruin over a car accident, or for unforeseen health reasons. I'd love to own another TV, and another computer, (I work in the computer industry and I'm using a 4 year old pc)...and I'd love to be able to buy my wife an iPhone 4...but we don't have they money to do that right now...otherwise I wouldn't have any savings for "rainy days"...and I'd probably be running up credit card debt. The problem is, most people today have bastardized what a middle class life is...and they life upper middle class or even "rich", when they don't have the money to be doing so. Scale it back...believe me, it's possible...and we don't have to blame credit card companies, governments or banks because we love to spend what we don't have!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) The other part of this is that 40 years ago, you could legitimately sustain a middle class lifestyle on a single family income. Since then, it's moved to where you've required 2 incomes to support a middle class family, then to the point where a 2 income household still can't keep up with its own health care costs. You're forgetting a few VERY important things here...conveniently I might add. Because this is complete bulls***. 40 years ago, on a middle class income, you didn't own 3 HDTV's, 2 cars, take expensive vacations to Disney or Vegas once a year and eat out 4 days a week. The reason why you need 2 incomes now, for most families, is because they overspend. A lot. Now lets add in the fact most people own 2+ cell phones, 2+ computers, have a huge cable bill, a home phone they don't use, and whatever else. These are costs people simply didn't have 40 years ago, nor would have have taken them on. If they couldn't afford cable, they didn't have it. I know I grew up without cable and without a VCR, too. Having 1 of something used to be good enough. Now, it seems most families need need 1 for each person. Hell, I even see little kids with cell phones, then hear the parents complain about not having enough money! I work, my wife doesn't. I'm middle class. We are doing well. My friend, family of 4, single income, also doing very well. Also middle class. Fact is, you CAN live on a single middle class income...just like they did 40 years ago, IF you live middle class. I know 6 people, very close to me, and we all do it this way, our wives do not work, and we work a single job. From a police officer to a system administrator...it can be done, you just can't own all of these things, run up credit cards you can't pay off in full...nor can you eat steak every night, either. It's actually QUITE simple to do, if you choose to do it. It's important to keep in mind here the quality of a modern middle class life is far higher than what it was 40 years ago. Middle class families used to eat out for special occasions, now they do it a few days a week...because it's Tuesday and they 'don't feel like cooking themselves'. Live within your means, and you'll see how easy it is. Just like they did 40 years ago. Also, note I'm not directing this at YOU, in specific...just generalizing based on what I see out there. I will say one key difference is the cost of a home vs 40 years ago. Housing is *still* inflated. 40 years ago the cost of a house was (at max) 2 years income, if not just 1 year. Now it's usually 4+ years income. However, my key point remains. People live beyond their means today, because it's easy to do with easily accessible lines of credit, etc. I just refuse to do so. It can still be done...it's just most of us WANT 2+ televisions, 2+ cars, etc., even if we cannot afford it.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 09:57 PM) My hunch is violence against animals would lead to violence against humans. Interesting you would post this. Unrelated in every way. Most modern murderers haven't ever hunted, nor will they ever. They're just murderers. I'm just on the realistic side...I don't care what a vegan eats, they can do what they want. But the world doesn't have enough food in it without animals being a part of the food. And if you think killing animals to food links to murder, you are reaching far in search for what isn't there.

And this poll would be a bit more fair if it were balanced...as it is, it's not. If the meat eaters have to hunt, kill and clean their animals, the vegans should have to grow their own crops, too. Let's see who lives longer in that "fair" world. This is how it would work... I'd hunt and kill animals, eat them, have farmers like BigSqwert pay me in vegetables to keep rabbits and other such animals from eating up his crops...which I'd also eat... And if I ran out of food during the winter, I'd bring my gun and keen hunting skills to Sqwerts house and see if we could work out a deal...if he gives me some crops, he can live.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 07:43 PM) Why do people assume all vegans are weak and sickly? That's just not true. I eat meat, I love meat, and I will probably never stop, but it's not like there's anything inherently healthy about eating it, either. Think about it. You are eating a rotting animal carcass. If you're eating rotting flesh, you are doing it wrong.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 04:45 PM) I had you confused with another poster. My regrets. They probably all drink whey protein shakes, made from dairy (not to mention anabolic designer steroids) . And congratulations, you found 3 people out of 6 billion that look like that and eat plants. We have canines for a reason...you live a blessed life in which you can ignore what you are. Unfortunately, a lot of the world doesn't...also, without natural predators, many of these animals you love would over populate and starve out. We are predator #1. Top of the food chain. We aren't only supposed to kill...nature expects us to do so. Part of the master plan and all. The circle of life. Rent Lion King, James Earl Jones will explain how it works.

QUOTE (PeavyTime @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 07:51 PM) This is a completely different situation as runoffs are not a part of most elections. You can vote for whoever you want, but Rahm is going to win and a runoff is a waste of money that we don't have. Because THAT will stop them from spending it!

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 05:55 AM) I'm not ignoring the treatment at all. In fact I pointed out that he was treated in my first post. I'm not certain what argument you are finding here. I asked a simple question. What if Mexico cried they were too poor to treat a US citizen who was working in their country illegally, would we welcome that criminal back, after he was treated and stabilized? Welcome them back? No. Expect them back? Absolutely.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 06:39 PM) He was working there without his proper papers (FM3). Believe it or not, Mexico required workers to fill out a couple forms and pay a small fee to work in their country. And not quite so hypothetical because it happens in our Maquila operations every once in a while where an employee working in Mexico but on the US payroll is injured and winds up in a Mexico hospital. I've never heard of a case where the person was in need of nursing home care, but at least for smaller injuries, Mexico does not kick patients out. I was just wondering how everyone would feel if the situation was in reverse. Another country shipping a criminal back so that the American taxpayer could pay the bill. If you don't like the question, feel free to not respond. Again, we didn't "kick him out" without first treating him. Feel free to keep ignoring that for the sake of a bad argument. And I think the country sending this criminal back is in the right in doing so, it's not as if we are talking about an upstanding citizen here.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) I am talking about someone who was a criminal in Mexico. While committing a crime in Mexico he is badly injured. Mexico then claims it will cost them too much to take care of him so they send him back to the US for treatment and lifelong care. Y'all would be fine with getting the criminal back because he is an American citizen and even though he was committing a crime in Mexico, the US taxpayer should pay for his lifelong treatment. What the hell is this, even? This went from an actual discussion about an actual story to a complete hypothetical crap fest. That said, what kind of "crime" did he commit in Mexico? Did he steal a candy bar? Or did he rape someone? If it's the latter, I'd rather the person be thrown in the ocean to drown a miserable death, and then nobody has to take care of him ever again. If it's the former, yes, he should be returned to the country he belongs in, as I'm sure he feels bad for stealing that baby ruth for Sloth.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 01:22 PM) In that case, the victim of the injury would have to do something to establish residency (which typically takes on the order of a few months to "officially" qualify.) If you were there for 2 days, got hurt, and decided you wanted to stay in that country, then you'd probably have to file an official request with the government to be granted a visa. Keep in mind you can't just decide to go to these countries and "establish residency" that easily. Try moving to these places, "just because", and see what they say. They'll tell you to go f*** yourself. These other countries do have rules and regulations to follow in order to go there -- and stay there -- legally. The problem here is we aren't talking about "legal" anything.

QUOTE (soxfan2504 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 01:00 AM) After reading this article, there were two things that immediately popped into my head: First, the reason why so many illegal Mexicans come here: Jobs, nothing else. Jobs. The jobs that the political establishment in Mexico has largely given up on drawing to their country. As a result of this hopeless point of view, from those who actually run Mexico, working class Mexicans gotta go somewhere that they can find work. And that place, unfortunately, is not in their home country; it's in the more prosperous neighbor to the north. These illegals are not costing Americans jobs; it is the hopeless attitude of the Mexican government, that leaves its working class with no choice but to illegally border-hop, that is the problem. And yet we do nothing to fix it, because it helps the economy by keeping companies profitable that would not be able to do so if they paid fair wages to ACTUAL US CITIZENS. Second: Even if you leave out the issue of the quality of medical care, the question is; where the hell does this guy have a chance at something resembling a normal life? It sure as hell isn't Mexico, and certainly not in one its poorer states. Chances are very high that this guy will not recover to the point where he may even be able to drive, even with modifications such as hand controls. So that leaves him with the options of rolling around town in his power chair on the sidewalks, and taking public transportation. Well, except there's one problem........... If you think there are a good number of curb ramps (think of what you see at street corners all over the U.S.), and accessible buses with working lifts or ramps in Oaxaca, or any part of Mexico, for that matter, then I've got some oceanfront property to sell you in Kansas. By that rational, I guess we should just take all the Africans, Mexicans, South Americans and everyone else from struggling countries, absorb them into the US and up it's current and already over-populated self from, what is it now, 300M?, to well over 3 Billion -- so everyone in our galaxy can have a "normal life". I'm sure we have the jobs and money to support it. My problem with your argument, and every argument like the one you've posed is when do we say when? Is it ok only for Mexicans because they happen to be a border country? And if that's the case, f*** all the struggling Africans and Chinese?! You have a line you're deciding to move around arbitrarily here due to "neighbor" status, but my question is valid -- where does it end? Unfortunately, we CANNOT just "accept everyone"...the money machine is already out of change... It has nothing to do with fair.