The Next President of the USA will be?

[~tangerine~]

Bush really wasn't elected twice in my opinion. He literally stole the first one from Gore.

AGREED! (but don't mention this to Del)... I was steamed after that election!

[~tangerine~]

Dude, I grow weary of going back to quote my posts to confirm what I actually said.

I say many, you distort it and repeat it back as ALL.

I understand that's an automatic feature of the Truth Distortion filter featured on the latest Hackneyed Liberal Attack Plug-in for Firefox v2.0

It gets old after a while.

TYPE 0, you are low. You did that with my post and when i called you on it, you ignored the fact that you did it. No worries, Lake of Shadows among others saw it. You know the one where you called Obama the N word, and then quoted what you wrote and tried to make it look like i said it. Pathetic. I have 0 (zero) respect for you.

[~tangerine~]

Another conspiracy buff.

No wonder Keith isn't sharing his guitars with you.

[JimmyPage1977]

Desperate? Me?..and Obama?

..because McCain is 2% ahead?

..counting all his newfound Palin hooplah-support?

..and with the VP and presidential debates still to come?

Yeah. It's desperation time in Obamaville alright.

Btw, I can't help but notice, Scotty, that nowhere in all your blah-blah

did you refute a single one of the comments I made about McCharade.

Not one.

Defending McCain-Palin. Not an easy (or rational) task, huh?

[edited to add: you're probably right about me needing a new hobby though. *wink* LOL!]

Yeah, you've convinced me! Whatever!! I actually quoted ALL of your BS!!

edited to add: If I'm wrong, then why are the polls showing that McCain is ahead? And gaining? Republicanb conspiracy?

[Suz]

Duh............EVIL! Duh.........SANCTITY! Duh..........TERRORISTS! Duh.......FREEDOM! Duh..........SMALL TOWN VALUES! Duh..........Duh.......Duh...........LIPSTICK! Duh........

Can't wait 'til we have leadership that doesn't make me hear the sound of someone blowing into a jug every time they talk.

[I have got a horsey]

TYPE 0, you are low. You did that with my post and when i called you on it, you ignored the fact that you did it. No worries, Lake of Shadows among others saw it. You know the one where you called Obama the N word, and then quoted what you wrote and tried to make it look like i said it. Pathetic. I have 0 (zero) respect for you.

That's right, I forgot that Type-O did that to you. Well I'm glad some of us can see through his shit

[allthekingshorses]

--------------------------

McCain barbs stirring outcry as distortions

Republican candidate's attacks on Obama come under fire from all sides

By Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg

NY Times. Sept 12, 2008

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

A McCain advertisement called “Fact Check” was itself found to be “less than honest” by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group. The group complained that the McCain campaign had cited its work debunking various Internet rumors about Ms. Palin and implied in the advertisement that the rumors had originated with Mr. Obama.

“The last month, for sure, I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist.

Being called out

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.

A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.”

Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.

*Link to full article*

--------------------------------------

[~tangerine~]

That's right, I forgot that Type-O did that to you. Well I'm glad some of us can see through his shit

He's as clear as plastic wrap. and a liar.

[JimmyPage1977]

Yeah, you quoted ALL my points,.. but refuted NONE of them.

As far as "convincing" you goes,..

you still deny the reality of Climate Change/Global Warming.

so what chance is there, really, of convincing you of.. anything?!

Nope, no republican conspiracy, bud. McCain is ahead for one clear reason: the recent Palin hooplah. For the sake of reality though, please allow me to point out to you, my friend, that McCain's lead is not "gaining",.. its already waning.

McCain had a max [*RCP avg*] lead of 3.9% on 9/8; that lead is now down to 2.3%. That lead is likely to continue to dwindle as Palin is forced to face the media and has to debate foreign affairs expert Joe Biden; as John McCain continues to be called out for running a blatantly and desperately untruthful (and dishonorable) campaign; and as Obama continues to make the case that he, not John "More-Of-The-Same" McCain, represents a real "Change" from the failed policies of GW Bush.

[btw, as far as me needing a new hobby goes.. I blame my diving buddy

who moved to Colorado and had the nerve to.. take his boat with him!

Say,.. do you happen to have a boat, Scotty?]

The real joke here is that this election, which follows the term of the least popular President since Richard Nixon, should be an overwhelming slam dunk for the Democrats, right?

I'm still going to vote for Obama, because I can't stand the Republicans being in the Oval office and I'm far from being a liberal.

This election, by all rights should be a landslide for Obama, but his inexperience and lack of feel for the pulse of the common voter in America is creating an environment in which he could possibly lose this campaign.

The reason that I don't respond to your cartoon editorials is because they are ridiculous, tasteless and part of the reason that voters in the center, politically, can't trust or tolerate extreme left wingers, like yourself. The same cartoons could, and probably are, out there saying the same things about Obama.

People see Sarah Palin as a common person, like themselves, rather than a career politician, regardless of her extreme (by my standards) right wing views. That is something that Obama, McCain and Biden can't buy or lie themselves into.

You should be desperate, because the clown that your party has nominated is blowing it.

That said, I hope that he does a better job as President than he is doing running his campaign.

Peace, bro. And no, I've never been a boat person. I'm a hiker/backpacker type!

[Del Zeppnile]

I'm sure there are no laws on any books calling hunting murder.

Correcta-mundo!

And why is that you ask?

Because animals are not human beings. A not so subtle point of fact that some of you far left liberals have failed to figure out.

A PERSON

NOT A PERSON

I liked a quote i saw on someone's my space page that said something like "did that food you are eating once have a face on it?"

Ask him.

I myself like to not eat the face part if I can help it....

not as tasty as the rest.

I would have never made an issue of the hunting at all if Palin's atrocious policies on it hadn't come to light. I have had a few bf's who hunted in their lifetime. One even used a bow and arrow (but had quit hunting before i met him).

Shooting is a fun sport, but killing animals for fun is another story to me.

..I won't comment on your rabbit killing, because i find it to be unsettling. That reminds me of three brothers i know. When they were kids growing up in Alabama, they would kill (and then eat) squirrels. They did it so they wouldn't go hungry.

So then you have no problem with the 30 or so rabbits I've killed this year who were destroying my lawn -- the dozens of rats and mice, and that darn pesky raccoon that did about a thousand dollars worth of damage to the roof on my house?

I mean since I had a reason other than "fun" for killing them?

So Del, let me ask you then, how do you feel about Palin's policies on hunting? Many Alaskans have opposed her on this (hunters).

Well let my sum it up this way, and maybe answer the question of drilling for more oil in Alaska too at the same time.

I have no problem with her policies on hunting, and would also support whale hunting too...

if we could use the whale oil to run our cars on.

Are we clear?

[~tangerine~]

Correcta-mundo!

And why is that you ask?

Because animals are not human beings. A not so subtle point of fact that some of you far left liberals have failed to figure out.

A PERSON

NOT A PERSON

Ask him.

I myself like to not eat the face part if I can help it....

not as tasty as the rest.

So then you have no problem with the 30 or so rabbits I've killed this year who were destroying my lawn -- the dozens of rats and mice, and that darn pesky raccoon that did about a thousand dollars worth of damage to the roof on my house?

I mean since I had a reason other than "fun" for killing them?

Well let my sum it up this way, and maybe answer the question of drilling for more oil in Alaska too at the same time.

I have no problem with her policies on hunting, and would also support whale hunting too...

if we could use the whale oil to run our cars on.

Are we clear?

I said the rabbit killing is unsettling, that was my out, because i have no desire to talk about it. I find it repulsive behavior, inhumane treatment of another life form, and so i don't wish to discuss it. I can't help you with your sickness so i won't pretend to have any advice on this issue.

Animals are living creatures with functioning brains and central nervous systems. They feel the same pain you do. Your indifference towards animals is sad, but you are not alone. Plenty of evil to go around in the world.

You are clearly a self serving human who cares nothing about others, just what might benefit you. That is why i am grateful you don't work in a field that requires you to have too many human emotions.

[wanna be drummer]

I said the rabbit killing is unsettling, that was my out, because i have no desire to talk about it. I find it repulsive behavior, inhumane treatment of another life form, and so i don't wish to discuss it. I can't help you with your sickness so i won't pretend to have any advice on this issue.

So you've never killed a spider when you saw it? And you've never used a mouse trap or killed a mouse in your house?

It's the exact same thing

Animals are living creatures with functioning brains and central nervous systems. They feel the same pain you do. Your indifference towards animals is sad, but you are not alone. Plenty of evil to go around in the world.

How do you figure that he's evil?

You are clearly a self serving human who cares nothing about others, just what might benefit you. That is why i am grateful you don't work in a field that requires you to have too many human emotions.

It's self-serving to protect one's investment? How selfish...

[~tangerine~]

So you've never killed a spider when you saw it? And you've never used a mouse trap or killed a mouse in your house?

It's the exact same thing

How do you figure that he's evil?

It's self-serving to protect one's investment? How selfish...

Humans and animals have very close anatomy and physiology. Animals feel pain in the same way you would. Insects on the other hand, don't. Insects don't feel pain and they do not feel emotions. To compare animals to insects is almost like comparing animals to flowers. I have NEVER used a mouse trap in my house. I would never use an animal trap. I do however own two cats and if they see a mouse, the poor little guy will be toast.

As for shooting rabbits and other small rodents on your lawn, i doubt it is LEGAL where Del lives. While Del is out there shooting away, he could potentially shoot an innocent human. If my neighbor was shooting at something in the yard i would call the police.

I figure his views on hunting Alaskan wildlife (wolves, wolf pups, bear and Del himself added the Whale to the list) good enough reason for me to see evil.

As for the selfishness factor, instead of killing off more species to drill for oil, it's high time we look for other energy sources (i have heard something about this in chitter chatter). Same old shit, new day for McPinnocchio (kudos to One Drop for that one) and his cheerleader. No progression on that team, just more slaughter to stay dependent on a source that will eventually dry up (but not as soon as McCain will). As for Del protecting his investment, i'm sure with a little research he could find a friendly way to deter the rabbits from being on his lawn. Maybe some cayenne pepper borders would work.

[Del Zeppnile]

I said the rabbit killing is unsettling, that was my out, because i have no desire to talk about it. I find it repulsive behavior, inhumane treatment of another life form, and so i don't wish to discuss it. I can't help you with your sickness so i won't pretend to have any advice on this issue.

Well could at least give me some ideas of what to do with all these dead rabbit carcasses?

Animals are living creatures with functioning brains and central nervous systems. They feel the same pain you do. Your indifference towards animals is sad, but you are not alone. Plenty of evil to go around in the world.

Are lions evil when they take a big juicy bite out of a gazelle?

Are wolves evil that hunt down and kill caribou in pack and rib their living guts out of them as the caribou lays shrieking in absolute pain?

I'm not sure if I understand your logic. You would claim that we humans are all animals just like the rest of nature. Yet we are somehow evil for killing other animals, even if we are eating them.

So what do they call those four little pointed teeth in the human mouth? You know the ones that sort of look like smaller versions of the same teeth on wolves and lions?

Oh, I remember. They are called "canine" teeth. So efficient for TEARING FLESH.

You are clearly a self serving human who cares nothing about others, just what might benefit you. That is why i am grateful you don't work in a field that requires you to have too many human emotions.

So you don't think you are not a self-serving human being in terms of your existence in the animal kindom as well? I think somebody already asked you if you never killed a spider or swatted a fly?

Don't spiders and flies feel pain too?

And I'm sure that if you looked really hard you would find some kind of leather or other animal hide somewhere in your house or closet. Do you think all of those animals died of natural causes? Don't you think just maybe they felt some pain too has they were being killed?

Oh, but of course you are probably a vegan. Don't eat meat or have anything to do with that kind of "evil." Well, I'll bet that the good folks who have supplied you with your fruits and vegetables have killed many thousands of poor little fury or winged creatures in their efforts to cultivate, harvest, deliver and store those wonderful fruit and nutty treats that you like to much on in your supposed innocence. I'll bet that those vegan food producers have poisoned, trapped and basically mutilated a whole universe of smaller life forms in the most agonizing of ways just so you can sit down to a nice refreshing fruit salad.

Don't kid yourself sunshine. You are just as much of a party to the DEATH of animals as anybody else. So wake up and smell the tofu.

Humans and animals have very close anatomy and physiology. Animals feel pain in the same way you would. Insects on the other hand, don't. Insects don't feel pain and they do not feel emotions. To compare animals to insects is almost like comparing animals to flowers.

So when a boy pulls the legs off of a spider, or uses a magnifying glass to burn a captured butterfly; he is not inflicting any type of pain, emotional or otherwise to that small living creature. The butterfly (who we already know will avoid flames or severe temperatures when it detects them) feels nothing. Is that what you are saying?

I have NEVER used a mouse trap in my house. I would never use an animal trap. I do however own two cats and if they see a mouse, the poor little guy will be toast.

Oh how terrible! The poor little mouse is "toast."

But does the poor little mouse feel pain? Aren't you acting as an agent to the poor little mouse's pain and death by allowing your "evil" cats to kill the mouse? And what exactly is the difference between a fury little kitty cat and a fury little mouse anyway? Does one have more intrinsic value as a living creature than the other? Or is that just based on the way "you feel" about the nature of the thing?

What if I told you that I have a friend in Texas who rasises large Norwegian/Brown rats as pets. And this guy has about 200 of these animals that he keeps in cages in his shed. And what if I aslo told you that whenever he sees somebody giving out "free kittens" at the local market; this friend of mine ALWAYS jumps at the chance to take home a couple of kttens and feed them to his hungry rats.

So how do you feel about that? Same thing as your precious cats munching on a poor little mousey I presume?

(actually he raises the rats for laboratories and sells them. But he still thinks of them as his pets - )

As for shooting rabbits and other small rodents on your lawn, i doubt it is LEGAL where Del lives. While Del is out there shooting away, he could potentially shoot an innocent human. If my neighbor was shooting at something in the yard i would call the police.

Like I said, I live in the foohillls and have a very large yard that has no house facing the back of my property. Plus I am shooting these rabbits with a pellet gun not a rifle. I am well aware of all risks involved with discharging a firearm (and in this case air rifle) and the potential for hitting anything that may be downrange or proximate to my line of fire. In most cases the velocity of the pellet being shot at the rabbit is not even enough force to shoot through the rabbit. Most of them practically die of sheer fright. Although a few require un sparato alla testa (a shot to the head). And others a good thump in the skull with the rifle butt to dispatch them to "rabbit heaven." But in any event, I have never taken a shot at any animal or otherwise, without fully contemplating the range or proximity of innocent bystanders, livestock or other property.

You obviously have very limited experience and understanding of these things. So please don't make silly assmumptions about the conditions in which these events have occured.

I figure his views on hunting Alaskan wildlife (wolves, wolf pups, bear and Del himself added the Whale to the list) good enough reason for me to see evil.

I knew the 'whale comment' would rattle your cage. But in all seriousness, I'm sure that whale hunting in acceptable numbers is off your list too. Even when there is strict oversight and adherence to international laws.

As for the selfishness factor, instead of killing off more species to drill for oil, it's high time we look for other energy sources (i have heard something about this in chitter chatter). Same old shit, new day for McPinnocchio (kudos to One Drop for that one) and his cheerleader. No progression on that team, just more slaughter to stay dependent on a source that will eventually dry up (but not as soon as McCain will).

One Drop probably advocates a switch to full solar energy if could guess. Although I don't know how much electicity he would get from the five days of sunshine he gets in the Seattle area.

Maybe you think the rest of our energy needs could be made up by lots of "hugs and kisses?"

I'm kidding of course.

As for Del protecting his investment, i'm sure with a little research he could find a friendly way to deter the rabbits from being on his lawn. Maybe some cayenne pepper borders would work.

Bullshit. Some years are worse than others. But after a really wet season there is often a plague of rabbits and rodents like the season we had after the El Nino storms.

Besides, how could a cayenne pepper border help when I am using hundreds of gallons of water everyday to irrigate my lawn, shrubs and trees? All that water would wash away the pepper, and that shit doesn't work anyway. Only thing I use cayenne pepper for is in my TexMex chili recipe.

I've considered this:

Pindone rabbit poison is an anticoagulant, which reduces the clotting ability of the blood, causing internal haemorrhaging. Rabbits require two feeds of Pindone to die, often continuing to eat bait after receiving a lethal dose. To avoid wasting bait a ‘pulse baiting’ method should be used. This involves laying bait for 3-4 days and removing bait for several days, repeating the cycle if necessary

Although I don't want the coyotes and hawks to get poisoned by anything, so for that reason alone shooting is the best option. So call me a responsible person for not wanting to harm the natural predators who are the best at keeping the nusiance numbers of rabbits and other rodents in check.

[~tangerine~]

Well could at least give me some ideas of what to do with all these dead rabbit carcasses?

Are lions evil when they take a big juicy bite out of a gazelle?

Are wolves evil that hunt down and kill caribou in pack and rib their living guts out of them as the caribou lays shrieking in absolute pain?

I'm not sure if I understand your logic. You would claim that we humans are all animals just like the rest of nature. Yet we are somehow evil for killing other animals, even if we are eating them.

So what do they call those four little pointed teeth in the human mouth? You know the ones that sort of look like smaller versions of the same teeth on wolves and lions?

Oh, I remember. They are called "canine" teeth. So efficient for TEARING FLESH.

So you don't think you are not a self-serving human being in terms of your existence in the animal kindom as well? I think somebody already asked you if you never killed a spider or swatted a fly?

Don't spiders and flies feel pain too?

And I'm sure that if you looked really hard you would find some kind of leather or other animal hide somewhere in your house or closet. Do you think all of those animals died of natural causes? Don't you think just maybe they felt some pain too has they were being killed?

Oh, but of course you are probably a vegan. Don't eat meat or have anything to do with that kind of "evil." Well, I'll bet that the good folks who have supplied you with your fruits and vegetables have killed many thousands of poor little fury or winged creatures in their efforts to cultivate, harvest, deliver and store those wonderful fruit and nutty treats that you like to much on in your supposed innocence. I'll bet that those vegan food producers have poisoned, trapped and basically mutilated a whole universe of smaller life forms in the most agonizing of ways just so you can sit down to a nice refreshing fruit salad.

Don't kid yourself sunshine. You are just as much of a party to the DEATH of animals as anybody else. So wake up and smell the tofu.

So when a boy pulls the legs off of a spider, or uses a magnifying glass to burn a captured butterfly; he is not inflicting any type of pain, emotional or otherwise to that small living creature. The butterfly (who we already know will avoid flames or severe temperatures when it detects them) feels nothing. Is that what you are saying?

Oh how terrible! The poor little mouse is "toast."

But does the poor little mouse feel pain? Aren't you acting as an agent to the poor little mouse's pain and death by allowing your "evil" cats to kill the mouse? And what exactly is the difference between a fury little kitty cat and a fury little mouse anyway? Does one have more intrinsic value as a living creature than the other? Or is that just based on the way "you feel" about the nature of the thing?

What if I told you that I have a friend in Texas who rasises large Norwegian/Brown rats as pets. And this guy has about 200 of these animals that he keeps in cages in his shed. And what if I aslo told you that whenever he sees somebody giving out "free kittens" at the local market; this friend of mine ALWAYS jumps at the chance to take home a couple of kttens and feed them to his hungry rats.

So how do you feel about that? Same thing as your precious cats munching on a poor little mousey I presume?

(actually he raises the rats for laboratories and sells them. But he still thinks of them as his pets - )

Like I said, I live in the foohillls and have a very large yard that has no house facing the back of my property. Plus I am shooting these rabbits with a pellet gun not a rifle. I am well aware of all risks involved with discharging a firearm (and in this case air rifle) and the potential for hitting anything that may be downrange or proximate to my line of fire. In most cases the velocity of the pellet being shot at the rabbit is not even enough force to shoot through the rabbit. Most of them practically die of sheer fright. Although a few require un sparato alla testa (a shot to the head). And others a good thump in the skull with the rifle butt to dispatch them to "rabbit heaven." But in any event, I have never taken a shot at any animal or otherwise, without fully contemplating the range or proximity of innocent bystanders, livestock or other property.

You obviously have very limited experience and understanding of these things. So please don't make silly assmumptions about the conditions in which these events have occured.

I knew the 'whale comment' would rattle your cage. But in all seriousness, I'm sure that whale hunting in acceptable numbers is off your list too. Even when there is strict oversight and adherence to international laws.

One Drop probably advocates a switch to full solar energy if could guess. Although I don't know how much electicity he would get from the five days of sunshine he gets in the Seattle area.

Maybe you think the rest of our energy needs could be made up by lots of "hugs and kisses?"

I'm kidding of course.

Bullshit. Some years are worse than others. But after a really wet season there is often a plague of rabbits and rodents like the season we had after the El Nino storms.

Besides, how could a cayenne pepper border help when I am using hundreds of gallons of water everyday to irrigate my lawn, shrubs and trees? All that water would wash away the pepper, and that shit doesn't work anyway. Only thing I use cayenne pepper for is in my TexMex chili recipe.

I've considered this:

Pindone rabbit poison is an anticoagulant, which reduces the clotting ability of the blood, causing internal haemorrhaging. Rabbits require two feeds of Pindone to die, often continuing to eat bait after receiving a lethal dose. To avoid wasting bait a ‘pulse baiting’ method should be used. This involves laying bait for 3-4 days and removing bait for several days, repeating the cycle if necessary

Although I don't want the coyotes and hawks to get poisoned by anything, so for that reason alone shooting is the best option. So call me a responsible person for not wanting to harm the natural predators who are the best at keeping the nusiance numbers of rabbits and other rodents in check.

You think Palin is eating the wolves (well maybe the pups) and bears. Would you? You said you are not eating the rabbits (how many have you shot now) you kill. So you don't just hunt for food (like animals in nature do, duh). And i would like to know, is it legal for you to shoot animals at random on your property, by law? As for the descript way you speak of animals killing others, that is nature. Hunters who kill for "sport" are not the same, don't try to twist it into what it's not.

In addition, i have already said more than once, this is not a hunting issue to me. This is an issue of Palin's policies on hunting in Alaska, in particular the policies that many Alaskan hunters are ALSO appalled by. The policies that make her look like a disturbed human being. Hunting wolves and bear by plane is not sport, it's cruel. It goes against someones character when they claim so vehemently to be pro-life. Look it up or check my previous links if you don't understand what i am talking about. Her stand on the environment in general is a disgrace. She wants the entire country to return to Frontier living. She wants big money from big oil, drill Alaska. Why go forward when we can set our country back a hundred years.

I already told wanna be that insects don't feel pain or emotions. They don't have a Neurological system that allows them to feel emotions like humans do. They don't have fear or sadness. God have you ever seen spider tears, lol. I will look for a link in an attempt to appease you. ANYWAY, lol, there are billions of insects (at least) to one human. I think more than a need to cull polar bears, we have a need to find effective insect control in every part of the world. Insects breed disease and pass it on to humans. Insects can feel stimuli like heat, but that has nothing to do with pain. They don't have pain receptors so they can't feel pain. So boys, enjoy pulling off insect legs. Sounds like fun.

A small piece of information that seems clear an insect isn't feeling pain: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/nerves.html

In comparison to vertebrates, an insect's nervous system is far more de-centralized. Most overt behavior (e.g. feeding, locomotion, mating, etc.) is integrated and controlled by segmental ganglia instead of the brain. In some cases, the brain may stimulate or inhibit activity in segmental ganglia but these signals are not essential for survival. Indeed, a headless insect may survive for days or weeks (until it dies of starvation or dehydration) as long as the neck is sealed to prevent loss of blood!

Del, here is your information:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus...tn-e/shelly-e.h

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do Invertebrates Feel Pain?

Invertebrates are classically defined as animals, which lack a’ backbone’ or dorsal nerve cord1, such as insects, crustacea (e.g. shrimp, lobster and crab), and molluscs (e.g. clams, snails, and squid). Traditionally, these animals have not been included in legislation concerning cruelty to animals2.

Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage”3. The subjective, emotional component of pain is considered its important aspect, not the activation of pain sensors (nociceptors) in the body. The IASP makes this clear “Activity induced in the nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause”3. In other words, the only animals capable of feeling pain are those that can feel fear, anxiety, distress and terror, similar to what humans feel when we receive noxious stimuli.

Almost all organisms, including bacteria, will attempt to escape from an aversive stimulus4. Because bacteria are not thought to be capable of feeling pain (e.g. they lack a nervous system), possessing an escape response to an aversive stimulus is not enough evidence to demonstrate that a species is capable of feeling pain. To infer that a non-human vertebrate (mammals, birds and reptiles) is in pain, researchers rely on the vocalizations and physiological responses (e.g. the release of stress hormones) that an animal produces when faced with an aversive stimulus2. Because these responses are similar to our own when we are in pain, researchers argue that, by analogy, animals showing these responses are also in pain2. This technique cannot be used with invertebrates. Invertebrate physiology is different from our own1. The invertebrates diverged from that of vertebrates hundreds of millions of years ago1.

Scientists have used three lines of reasoning to assess the likelihood that invertebrates are capable of feeling pain5.

The evolutionary function of pain

The neural capacity of invertebrates

The behaviour of invertebrates

1. The evolutionary function of pain.

In vertebrates pain is thought to be an important educational tool6. Vertebrates are relatively long-lived creatures and learning shapes much of their behaviour. Learning from pain (and pleasure) plays a vital role in the development of their behaviour6.

Almost all invertebrates are short-lived and their behaviour is thought to be largely genetically determined7. Therefore, there is less evolutionary pressure selecting for the evolution of pain in this group of animals6.

2. The neural capacity of invertebrates.

Except for the cephalopods, invertebrates have small nervous systems, consisting of many small brains (ganglia). Because of the small number of neurons and the distributed organization of their nervous systems, invertebrates are thought to have limited cognitive capacity6. High cognitive capacity is thought to be a prerequisite for the development of an emotional response6.

3. The behaviour of invertebrates

Invertebrates show few, if any, of the behaviours that we would recognize as evidence of emotion6. Many invertebrates are cannibalistic, and many eat their young when given the chance. Most have no social behaviour. Although they can respond vigorously to noxious stimuli, even this response is inconsistent. Insects, for example, will continue with normal activity even after severe injury. An insect walking with a crushed tarsus (lower leg) will continue applying it to the ground with undiminished force. Locusts will writhe when sprayed with DDT. However, they will also continue feeding while being eaten by a praying mantid6.

Cephalopods

Cephalopods are sometimes given special status by animal care committees (e.g. CCAC) because they have a large, vertebrate-like central nervous system, which is about the same size as that of a fish8. In the United Kingdom these animals have some legal protection, however in the United States they do not.

Although they have large brains, all the coleoid cephalopods (squid, octopus and cuttlefish) have short lifespans8. Most live less than one year. There is no parental care8. The absence of parental care suggests that most of their behaviour is genetically determined (i.e. they must be able to hunt, hide from predators, communicate etc. without instruction by others of their species). They are capable of learning, but their abilities are sometimes greater, sometimes less than that of fish8,9. Most are highly cannibalistic, even the schooling squid. We know nothing about their hormonal response to stress, and therefore we cannot determine whether they have a physiological response that resembles ours when confronted by aversive stimuli. We understand very little about their visual communication system and, therefore, we do not know whether they make any ‘pain-specific’ signals. Given our three criteria above, we have very little evidence that these animals feel pain. Nevertheless, it is possible that as we learn more about them, we may find evidence suggesting that they are capable of feeling pain.

Conclusions

Although it is impossible to know the subjective experience of another animal with certainty, the balance of the evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain. The evidence is most robust for insects, and, for these animals, the consensus is that they do not feel pain6.

edit: end of link

Del, I have already said i am not a vegetarian. I have made it clear i don't condone, but i'm not out protesting hunters. I eat very little meat, but i do eat it. Mostly, i'm a seafood, fruit/vegetable and unsweet iced tea lover.

I never said my cats eat mice because i have yet to find a mouse in my house. I said they "would" and then again, i'm guessing. But that is more humane than me laying out a trap that injures the mouse while it suffers for who knows how long before dying. Yes the mouse, like the rabbits you kill, feel pain (unless they are killed instantly). Your friend who raises the rats, not very stable individual imo.

I am glad i live in an area where your issues with wild rabbits is not a problem. I have a great deal of trees and woods and greenery, but i don't have to fear anyone is shooting pellet guns in their backyard. You have made me feel blessed.

The cayenne pepper wasn't a suggestion, just an example. I didn't say it works, it was just a way to lead you down the road to finding natural ways to control the problem. I know there are some that don't require Warfarin poisioning of rabbits, but i am not going to research it for you.

Let me ask, do the foothills not have drought conditions (sounds like you use alot of water).

This has been fun Del.

My main points: i don't like Palin's irresponsible views on the environment and HER barbaric hunting policies. I don't like sport hunting, but i'm not a protestor. I don't like meat very much, but i do eat a little of it. I may have some sneakers with leather uppers, but i haven't bought a leather coat or handbag in over a decade. You would have to search hard to find leather products in my home. I realize the carcass is a by product of the meat anyway, so if eating a cow is acceptable to me, the rest of the body is just as acceptable. I also said i do my best when i do eat meat, to buy it from the area Farmers Market where the Lancaster Dutch raise their animals in free range quarters. It's less inhumane anyway. It's not perfect.

I want to know if it is legal for you to be shooting the rabbits. I want to know if you want the insect population to explode, lol. And i'm curious, how many spider legs have you pulled off???

oh and for the record, i don't like tofu (but i tolerate it in Miso soup).

have a nice night, you are too much work, lol. i'm exhausted.

[Del Zeppnile]

You think Palin is eating the wolves (well maybe the pups) and bears. Would you? You said you are not eating the rabbits (how many have you shot now) you kill. So you don't just hunt for food (like animals in nature do, duh).

But I already made the point that we do not need to limit ourselves to only "eating the animal" as being a reason to kill the animal. We kill many animals that are pests or pose threats to safety, health and agriculture. And you never responded to my contention that many of your fruits and vegetables have been cultivated, harvested and so on, with programs aimed at erradicating rodents, birds and other creatures which would damage or destroy those crops. You never told me what your thoughts on that are?

Do you feel responsible for the killing of animals that insure your vegetarian crops as well?

And i would like to know, is it legal for you to shoot animals at random on your property, by law?

Since I also have a vegetable garden, it is in fact legal for me to protect those crops by using poisons, traps or other means. It is not legal to hunt rabbits for sport inside of the city limits in my jurisdiction. But that is not what I am doing.

As for the descript way you speak of animals killing others, that is nature. Hunters who kill for "sport" are not the same, don't try to twist it into what it's not.

In addition, i have already said more than once, this is not a hunting issue to me. This is an issue of Palin's policies on hunting in Alaska, in particular the policies that many Alaskan hunters are ALSO appalled by

But that is just your feeling/opinion on that. Hunting of all sorts of species is legal. So you can't argue that it is immoral too. You keep giving your opinion on this and never accepting the facts of the laws. But policies which include hunting and/or culling animal herds from aircraft have existed, and continue to exist in many western states. The BLM (Bureau of Land Management) conducts many culling operations from aircraft on Federal lands to deal with wild mustangs and burros as well. Without these culling operations, the populations of these animals tend to get out of control. And then they pose risks to other parts of the eco system and habitiats for other sensitive creatures. Using aircraft for these operations makes perfectly good sense given the vast expanses of land and terrain, especially in Alaska.

You are going to do a lot better to convince me that this is a bad policy.

But let me give you another example. You are probably a big supporter of our National Parks and the types of natural lands open for our citizens to enjoy in this country. Have you ever been to Yellowstone or Yosemite? Well if you have, then consider that our very presence there has helped to cause some bears to be captured and killed by the park service. Yep it's true. When people go into these naturual areas in large numbers they bring food and leave garbage behind. That garbage in turn attracts bears, who unfortuntly get into the habit of hanging around to eat the garbage. The park services and BLM attempt to educate people on how to discourage bears by providing people with logical ways to minimize the attraction for them. But I'm sure you are aware that it only helps to keep some of the bear's behavior in check.

As it turns out many bears are relocated to more remote areas. But in the process they are "tagged" after having been found to be a nuisance and possible threat to people or livestock. And eventually a "bad bear" if it returns to the same areas and exibits the same behavior, it ends up being euthanized by the park service. The unitended consequences of attempting to provide people with the ability to visit or vacation, or just live near wild areas.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the "killing" of bears for those reasons as well?

[Del Zeppnile]

continued--

The policies that make her look like a disturbed human being. Hunting wolves and bear by plane is not sport, it's cruel. It goes against someones character when they claim so vehemently to be pro-life.

PRO-HUMAN LIFE is what the term "pro-life" means. Do you understand that term, or you are just being obtuse?

I've heard people use the 'support for capital punishment' arguement in attempting to counter the 'pro-life' stand. But to use the killing of animals for hunting or other means as a way of winning a debate in the anti-abortion/pro-choice debate, is not going to get anywhere. Hell, John Kerry is a hunter and he is pro-choice too. So where is your logic in that direction?

Look it up or check my previous links if you don't understand what i am talking about. Her stand on the environment in general is a disgrace. She wants the entire country to return to Frontier living. She wants big money from big oil, drill Alaska. Why go forward when we can set our country back a hundred years.

She has a better than 80% approval rating in Alaska. She must be doing something right for Alaskan citizens. I'm sure any president or the congress would have a wet dream for an 80% approval rating.

The facts in her appeal to Alaskans can not be disputed.

Del, I have already said i am not a vegetarian. I have made it clear i don't condone, but i'm not out protesting hunters. I eat very little meat, but i do eat it. Mostly, i'm a seafood, fruit/vegetable and unsweet iced tea lover.

Oh, I must have missed it where you said you eat meat too. So then I guess I don't understand your logic at all.

When you have eaten seafood, do you ever eat lobster and crab? I happen to love seafood, but I wonder how a lobster feels when you drop alive into boiling water?

Or are they also creatures that don't have nervous systems or feel pain? I guess then I don't understand that physical reaction I see in a fish when you stick a knife into it's anus when you gut it. Usually the fish is already dead, but sometime I get ones that I only thought were dead.

Have you yourself ever hunted or fished for your own food? Have you ever butchered a hog or prepared a live chicken for your supper? I have, so I guess I don't understand the hypocricy of anyone who admits that they eat meat, and then second guesses anyone else who either hunts or has a legitimate need to kill an animal.

I believe you actually used the term "evil", so what gives with that?

I never said my cats eat mice because i have yet to find a mouse in my house. I said they "would" and then again, i'm guessing. But that is more humane than me laying out a trap that injures the mouse while it suffers for who knows how long before dying. Yes the mouse, like the rabbits you kill, feel pain (unless they are killed instantly). Your friend who raises the rats, not very stable individual imo.

Again, if you have ever watched a cat kill a mouse, it will often just injure the mouse first with its claws. Then the cat will take great pleasure in "toying with" the wounded animal for some time while the mouse suffers in pain and discomfort before actually killing the rodent.

Very grizzly indeed.

I am glad i live in an area where your issues with wild rabbits is not a problem. I have a great deal of trees and woods and greenery, but i don't have to fear anyone is shooting pellet guns in their backyard. You have made me feel blessed.

Okay.

The cayenne pepper wasn't a suggestion, just an example. I didn't say it works, it was just a way to lead you down the road to finding natural ways to control the problem. I know there are some that don't require Warfarin poisioning of rabbits, but i am not going to research it for you.

Well, I'm only for things that work. Like I said I don't want to poison them because of the coyotes and hawks. So killing them is really a pretty natural solution. No matter what some peoples sensibilities about that are.

Let me ask, do the foothills not have drought conditions (sounds like you use alot of water).

Yes I do use a lot of water. And I have always done so intentionally. In some years the county may impose rationing, which is usually a requirement for a 10-20% cut back on consumption. But since they usually base that figure on your previous years consumption statistics (based on your water bills). It makes good sense to use a lot of water (maybe even more water than you need to), so that when they make you cut back 20%, you are still getting a decent alotment of water, and don't end uphaving your lawn die. Farmers and ranchers do the same thing. It's pretty much a "use it or lose" approach to water alotments.

Besides, I'm sure I am still using less water than Al Gore, so I have a clear conscience.

This has been fun Del. have a nice night, you are too much work, lol. i'm exhausted.

Ccome back anytime. Thunderizing treatments are free.

[TypeO]

Don't you just HATE IT when these pesky facts keep gettin' in the way of your rhetoric and double-standard???

Obama only talks good game on gender pay equity

DEROY MURDOCK

"Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work," Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Aug. 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: "I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."

Obama's campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading "Fighting for Pay Equity," the women's issues page laments that, "Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act..."

Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.

The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.

Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama's rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

Obama responded Aug. 31 to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin "seems like a very engaging person," Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. "But I've got to say, she's opposed -- like John McCain is -- to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."

Obama's criticism notwithstanding, McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.

How could this be?

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women -- much more than men -- for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

If anyone on McCain's Senate staff is unhappy, McCain's male staffers might complain they seem to get a slightly raw deal.

In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama -- at the expense of the women who work for him -- quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.

Great news for all those women who support B.O. - he's a lot more "old school" than he'd prefer you to believe.

Who'd have thought that it's McCain who's actually walking the walk of 21st century change in gender-equity?

REMEMBER, Ladies - with B.O., it's "Believe what I SAY, not what I DO!"

That's CHANGE (as opposed to DOLLARS) you can believe will be in your paychecks.

B.O. is caught choking on his own rhetoric and double-talk.

POTUS hopeful claims "Even I can't swallow this bullshit!"

[zepyep]

More women in the higher paying positions on McCain's staff =

higher overall average salary for the women on McCain's staff.

More men in higher paying positions on Obama's staff =

higher overall average salary for the men on Obama's staff.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "unequal pay based on gender".

Right!

KB

[TypeO]

More women in the higher paying positions on McCain's staff =

higher overall average salary for the women on McCain's staff.

More men in higher paying positions on Obama's staff =

higher overall average salary for the men on Obama's staff.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "unequal pay based on gender".

It has EVERYTHING to do with B.O. isn't as supportive of women as he claims - sure, they can run errands and answer phones, but the TOP-PAYING advisory positions aren't trusted to very many women in his world.

That's same old glass ceiling/doublestandard CHANGE you can make-believe in!

[wanna be drummer]

Why kill a spider? ..just because it's a spider?

Surely you can think of another way to resolve your spider "issue" other than

by killing it, can't you? I mean,.. you are smarter than the spider, aren't you?

Surely your God didn't create spiders just so you

can go around unecessarily killing them, did he?

I'm no Catholic (anymore),.. but I tend to doubt it.

God: "Wanna be, my precious son, I have created these amazing little creatures. You know them as "spiders". They do amazing things and come in a multitude of sizes, colors, and varieties. But know this, my son: [God's tone becomes slightly sarcastic and mocking] I have created them first and foremost for one reason: so that you might go about needlessly killing them. Yes, they are my perfect little creations, but please, pay that no heed.. by all means, you go right ahead and kill them.. for no reason.. other than for the fun of it. With one step, squash the life I created so perfectly.. and that I created with as much love as when I created you. And remember this, my beloved son: when the time comes, I'll see you at the Pearly Gates,.. and I'll present you with a tally of all my perfect creations that you have needlessly killed over the course of your lifetime.. spiders, cows, chickens,.. the lot of them! And I shall reward you accordingly, my son. Oh, yes, indeed.. I shall reward you accordingly. Think of me when you kill that spider, my son. Think of me. You can sure as shit bet I'll be thinking of you. Erm,.. did I just say 'sure as shit'? Uhh.. well.. you know what I mean, boy. Go on now, scram. I'll see you at The Gates!"

Uhh.. maybe you should consider catch-and-release, wanna be. It's easy. Put a glass over the spider, thus trapping the spider in the glass; then slide a post card under the glass; carry the spider in a glass outside and.. let it go. You get what you want (the spider out of your home) and the spider gets to go about being a spider. It's win-win, brother. You don't have to do any unnecessary killing, and no spider has to do any unnecessary dying. And best of all,.. God will be pleased with you.

then again,.. there's always..

..to look forward to.

[great album, btw! ]

That's hardly what I'm talking about O.D. (weird...). I'm not saying that I go around smashing spiders left and right, but to go about killing them and seeing it as ok is (to me) nearly identical to someone killing moles or rabbits or whatever that tear the shit out of your lawn.

And Tangerine, as far as insects not feeling pain or fear, you can't be serious. You ever seen someone tear a couple of legs off a Daady Long Legs? It's clearly scared shitless and trying to get away. Insects fear as much as animals do.

[Del Zeppnile]

You mean..

PESKY FACTS like the ones you (conveniently?) failed to highlight in the article you (so colorfully) quoted???

Here,.. I'll add the color where you (self-servingly?) chose not to, buddy. -->

More women in the higher paying positions on McCain's staff =

higher overall average salary for the women on McCain's staff.

More men in higher paying positions on Obama's staff =

higher overall average salary for the men on Obama's staff.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "unequal pay based on gender".

Duh.

In other words, "Who's getting paid how much for doing what?" is the more pertinent question. As long as the men and women on Obama's staff are being paid equal salaries scales for working the same job position, there is no "unequal pay" issue here. "Unequal pay" is an issue when the men and women are on different pay scales even though they work the same position. Get it?

NEXT!

[btw,.. ya think we can forego the ridiculously huge font in the future, TypO? ]

Although it comes down to the real equality issue, which campaign is the one with A WOMAN on the ticket?

[Electrophile]

If Obama chose Clinton to be his running mate, Palin would still be playing Governor in Alaska right now. She was chosen for two reasons: She has tits, and she's farther to the right than Jerry Falwell. That's it.

Democrats were the first to put a woman on a national ticket, the first to have a woman sit as Speaker of the House, the first to have an African-American be the nominee for President, the first to elect a black man governor, the first to elect a black woman to the House of Representatives, the first to elect a black man to the House of Representatives, the first to elect a black woman to the Senate. The first woman elected to serve in the Senate? A Democrat.

But oh yes, the Republicans are the party of equality.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

If Obama chose Clinton to be his running mate, Palin would still be playing Governor in Alaska right now. She was chosen for two reasons: She has tits, and she's farther to the right than Jerry Falwell. That's it.

She has tits,brilliant!Jerry Fallwell is dead,....and Obama has,...?Oh,I get it.

Democrats were the first to put a woman on a national ticket, the first to have a woman sit as Speaker of the House, the first to have an African-American be the nominee for President, the first to elect a black man governor, the first to elect a black woman to the House of Representatives, the first to elect a black man to the House of Representatives, the first to elect a black woman to the Senate. The first woman elected to serve in the Senate? A Democrat.

But oh yes, the Republicans are the party of equality.

And where did it get us?US?But who freed,*cough* the slaves during the civil war?

KB

[Audra]

votes for barack!