Jump to content


Vegan vs. Meat eaters


Recommended Posts


(Totally off-topic), but the font is defined as "comic sans ms, cursive." Which means the first choice font is comic sans ms, and if the system doesn't have that, it'll use whatever go-to font the system does have for "cursive", which is a font-family (such as 'serif' or 'sans-serif'). That can vary depending on the system.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

Beef requires a crapton of land and oil and causes a lot of pollution. Unfortunately it tastes good.

Are people starving because we produce beef?

 

 

not!!!

 

Well, one of the main reasons people are starving is that their land has been stolen from them--for one reason or the other, often big agribusiness--hence, they are 'refugeed'. Continually getting bombed in imperialistic wars doesn't help either, no doesn't help at all. Other than that, it's a matter of manufactured scarcity, poor distribution, and profit motive, keeping people from having food.

 

Wha????

 

What does that have to do with beef production?

 

 

The question was: "are people starving because we produce beef?" I'm basically saying, no, people are starving because of the reasons I listed. Take Mexico, Central, and S. America, for e.g., the U.S and other imperialists have taken a shitton of their land over the last 75 years or so. Why do you think they immigrate here? Look at the history of United Fruit, and go from there.

 

 

Wut? So people in Mexico are starving because America took their land?? First, I think Mexico and the central/south American countries have plenty of food to feed their population. But their corrupt gov'ts and economic systems don't distribute it efficiently and fairly. As for us taking land, the state of Texas (which I suspect you're talking about) was part of Spain since before the American revolution. Then Mexico, including Texas, broke off from Spain. And then Texas broke off from Mexico just a few years later.

 

But really, as far as I'm concerned Mexico can have Texas back if it would make them feel better. So long as we get to keep those yummy Texas cattle. :lol:

 

Well, I guess if "you think" they are not starving and that "you think" it's not in large part because of U.S intervention, then, in your mind, it must be so. But there is this stubborn thing called reality that runs contrary to your thinking, I'm sorry to say.

 

Nah, you have to study the real foreign policy/politcal economics/geo politics of the U.S in South/Central America and Mexico over the last century or so. In short, U.S. says, "hey, your land and resources--and of people if need be(cheap labor/slaves)--are now ours, so, you can cooperate by installing a leader that will be favorable to U.S. enterprise, market intervention, and investment--of all varieties, including agriculture, oil, copper, etc, etc--and if you don't cooperate we will make you--normally via ecomnomic 'hitmen', IMFing them, embargoing them, and if those don't work, proxy war/coup which usually involves brutally killing and refugeeing thousands or millions of people, the latter of which either wind up in Latin urban slums working for a pittance if they can find work, that is, or make a mad and desperate dash for the USA(or elsewhere), hence the 'illegal immigration problem'. In short, we imperialism them. Of course, real U.S foreign policy is generally ignored by the MSMedia and authorized history texts, but the info is pretty available via Google search these days. Really, this is the true history of U.S foreign policy and the standard model is replicated over and over again, really having it's main onset in the Spanish American war. (the U.S has really wanted Cuba for a few centuries, had them under their wing for a bit pre Castro, going after them again, now).

 

Anyway, if you know the standard model, it's much easier to understand WTF all the wars are always about, their always imperialistic, always. They're not about "exporting democracy", "liberating the people"(unless you mean liberating them from this mortal coil) and all that garbage proaganda, and the millions upon millions of people murdered and refugeed across the world over bears testimony to that fact. U.S. foreign policy is actually against truly democratic(populist) movements--which it views as a 'crisis of democracy'-- in states it sets it's sites on as they tend to want to keep their resources and people for themselves and under their own development and investment. The last decade or so, the U.S. has been facing much more "crises of democracy" in it's client states--i.e., they are resisting big time--so, business as usual hasn't been going so 'smoothly'.

 

Does anyone really think Latin Americans(or anyone else) want to leave their country and families, etc, and go thru the odten brutal process of coming to the USA? No, it is as I described, stop believing fairy tales(propaganda).

 

And, unfortuantely, U.S foreign policy is rapidly becoming domestic policy, i.e., the '3rd worldilization of America', like it was before the FDR period.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

Back in the 80s a study showed that being vegan had a socio-economic factor. The poor can't afford to buy meat.

Eggs are cheap as heck though. Especially for what you're getting.

I remember when eggs were cheap.

 

={

 

 

Don't ask why my frowny face has a Hitler 'stache.

Link to comment

 

 

 

Back in the 80s a study showed that being vegan had a socio-economic factor. The poor can't afford to buy meat.

Eggs are cheap as heck though. Especially for what you're getting.

I remember when eggs were cheap.

 

={

 

 

Don't ask why my frowny face has a Hitler 'stache.

 

 

It's not a stache. Your lip is quivering because you're on the verge of tears.

 

Seeing as I've been buying hippie eggs for years, eggs still seem cheap to me.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beef requires a crapton of land and oil and causes a lot of pollution. Unfortunately it tastes good.

Are people starving because we produce beef?

 

 

not!!!

 

Well, one of the main reasons people are starving is that their land has been stolen from them--for one reason or the other, often big agribusiness--hence, they are 'refugeed'. Continually getting bombed in imperialistic wars doesn't help either, no doesn't help at all. Other than that, it's a matter of manufactured scarcity, poor distribution, and profit motive, keeping people from having food.

 

Wha????

 

What does that have to do with beef production?

 

 

The question was: "are people starving because we produce beef?" I'm basically saying, no, people are starving because of the reasons I listed. Take Mexico, Central, and S. America, for e.g., the U.S and other imperialists have taken a shitton of their land over the last 75 years or so. Why do you think they immigrate here? Look at the history of United Fruit, and go from there.

 

 

Wut? So people in Mexico are starving because America took their land?? First, I think Mexico and the central/south American countries have plenty of food to feed their population. But their corrupt gov'ts and economic systems don't distribute it efficiently and fairly. As for us taking land, the state of Texas (which I suspect you're talking about) was part of Spain since before the American revolution. Then Mexico, including Texas, broke off from Spain. And then Texas broke off from Mexico just a few years later.

 

But really, as far as I'm concerned Mexico can have Texas back if it would make them feel better. So long as we get to keep those yummy Texas cattle. :lol:

 

Well, I guess if "you think" they are not starving and that "you think" it's not in large part because of U.S intervention, then, in your mind, it must be so. But there is this stubborn thing called reality that runs contrary to your thinking, I'm sorry to say.

 

Nah, you have to study the real foreign policy/politcal economics/geo politics of the U.S in South/Central America and Mexico over the last century or so. In short, U.S. says, "hey, your land and resources--and of people if need be(cheap labor/slaves)--are now ours, so, you can cooperate by installing a leader that will be favorable to U.S. enterprise, market intervention, and investment--of all varieties, including agriculture, oil, copper, etc, etc--and if you don't cooperate we will make you--normally via ecomnomic 'hitmen', IMFing them, embargoing them, and if those don't work, proxy war/coup which usually involves brutally killing and refugeeing thousands or millions of people, the latter of which either wind up in Latin urban slums working for a pittance if they can find work, that is, or make a mad and desperate dash for the USA(or elsewhere), hence the 'illegal immigration problem'. In short, we imperialism them. Of course, real U.S foreign policy is generally ignored by the MSMedia and authorized history texts, but the info is pretty available via Google search these days. Really, this is the true history of U.S foreign policy and the standard model is replicated over and over again, really having it's main onset in the Spanish American war. (the U.S has really wanted Cuba for a few centuries, had them under their wing for a bit pre Castro, going after them again, now).

 

Anyway, if you know the standard model, it's much easier to understand WTF all the wars are always about, their always imperialistic, always. They're not about "exporting democracy", "liberating the people"(unless you mean liberating them from this mortal coil) and all that garbage proaganda, and the millions upon millions of people murdered and refugeed across the world over bears testimony to that fact. U.S. foreign policy is actually against truly democratic(populist) movements--which it views as a 'crisis of democracy'-- in states it sets it's sites on as they tend to want to keep their resources and people for themselves and under their own development and investment. The last decade or so, the U.S. has been facing much more "crises of democracy" in it's client states--i.e., they are resisting big time--so, business as usual hasn't been going so 'smoothly'.

 

Does anyone really think Latin Americans(or anyone else) want to leave their country and families, etc, and go thru the odten brutal process of coming to the USA? No, it is as I described, stop believing fairy tales(propaganda).

 

And, unfortuantely, U.S foreign policy is rapidly becoming domestic policy, i.e., the '3rd worldilization of America', like it was before the FDR period.

 

Wow...read a bunch of negative propaganda lately?

Link to comment

 

Wow...read a bunch of negative propaganda lately?

 

 

 

 

Guess you're not a facts guy, eh?

 

 

United Fruit:

 

History in Central America

The United Fruit Company (UFCO) owned vast tracts of land in the Caribbean lowlands. It also dominated regional transportation networks through its International Railways of Central America and its Great White Fleet of steamships. In addition, UFCO branched out in 1913 by creating the Tropical Radio and Telegraph Company. UFCO's policies of acquiring tax breaks and other benefits from host governments led to it building enclave economies in the regions, in which a company's investment is largely self-contained for its employees and overseas investors and the benefits of the export earnings are not shared with the host country.[8]

One of the company's primary tactics for maintaining market dominance was to control the distribution of banana lands. UFCO claimed that hurricanes, blight and other natural threats required them to hold extra land or reserve land. In practice, what this meant was that UFCO was able to prevent the government from distributing banana lands to peasants who wanted a share of the banana trade. The fact that the UFCO relied so heavily on manipulation of land use rights in order to maintain their market dominance had a number of long-term consequences for the region. For the company to maintain its unequal land holdings it often required government concessions. And this in turn meant that the company had to be politically involved in the region even though it was an American company. In fact, the heavy-handed involvement of the company in governments which often were or became corrupt created the term "Banana republic" representing a "servile dictatorship".[9] The term "Banana Republic" was coined by American writer O. Henry.[10] ........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in_Central_America

Link to comment

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...