Nice job. Marbles reminds me of my Aunt Edna. Paranoid and conspiracy spinner. She gets her facts from out of print copies of Reader's Digest, cobbles them together and scares the shit out of her grand nieces and nephews with stories of government cover-ups leading to death. We don't visit much anymore. The last straw was the "mercury in tooth fillings" debacle. Told us to get all of our teeth pulled or we would die hideous deaths. We reminded her that she had such fillings, and she's 97. She threw pie at us.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^spoco2:
@marbles... shit then, better keep kids away from Parmesan cheese, or Mussels or Spinach you don't want them to die from Aluminium poisoning do you?
Also, don't let them ever eat Ice Cream, fuck no! They'll die from the polysorbate 80.
And come on... sodium borate, it's used as a food preservative in many countries, and is ONLY dangerous when ingested in high quantities for long periods of time... like, 5-10 years long.
Sorry, but your bullshit scaremongering, ill thought out crap doesn't cut it, it makes no sense, it does not gel with reality. You can find dangerous substances in pretty much anything you eat or drink. It's all about quantities and timeframes. Also, things that CAN be dangerous in situation A can be beneficial in situation B.
But hey... continue siding with idiots like Jenny McCarthy who have contributed to the deaths of kids... you keep on with that.

I'm sorry. Am I scaring you with facts? Aren't you the one that keeps claiming people that question the safety of vaccines are going to cause health pandemics and contribute "to the deaths of kids"???
First you say there's zero evidence, but now you say it's all about "quantities and timeframes". I say GOOD POINT! When you administer a substance intravenously, the entire quantity is delivered into the bloodstream instantaneous. So why are comparing it to ingesting where the process is slow and little is even absorbed.

You have no facts, you have bits and bobs pulled from all over the place and yet NO scientific basis for any of your claims.
Sorry, but again... People like Jenny McCarthy HAVE already contributed to the death of children. Thanks to Wakefield's bogus findings, and the bleating of McCarthy: "... the inoculation rate for MMR in the UK was 92%; after publication, the rate dropped to below 80%. In 1998, there were 56 measles cases in the UK; by 2008, there were 1348 cases, with 2 confirmed deaths.[43]" That's 2 100% preventable deaths right there.
And guess what?
"In Japan, the MMR vaccination has been discontinued, with single vaccines being used for each disease. Rates of autism diagnosis have continued to increase, showing no correlation with the change."
Sorry, am I fucking up your bullshit with facts?

Well bread and milk probably isn't the best thing for a humans digestive system. I'll go with that, with people have digestive problems it kinda makes sense to go back to basics. I don't get why David won't believe it though, just because you live a long time doesn't mean your body operated perfectly with what you were giving it.

>> ^bcglorf:

@ghark, you are fool who is completely blinded by their hatred for America.
Everything in thread was praising the victory of Libyan rebels over Gaddafi. Joy that all of Gaddafi's promises to exterminate them house by house like cockroaches would no longer come to pass. That is good.
Then you come along and declare that the rebels have some loose ties to the satanic forces of the empire, so their victory over Gaddafi is no victory at all. In fact, you seem to suggest that association makes their victory over Gaddafi even worse for Libyans than Gaddafi's continued rule.
You are insane, or possibly even in the employ of the likes of the regime. I don't really care much which, I'm done with you and your madness.
Congratulations to the Libyan people, may your gains now be as long lived as possible.


What I've given you are facts, the fact that you find them hard to digest doesn't make the facts wrong, it makes you closed minded. In return you've tried to pass off the Iraq invasion as 'an improvement' and called those that question the improvements the "ignorant masses". Refuting history is important for the likes of you because it allows you to more easily justify what's just happened to our friends in Libya. I'm also happy for the Libyans that wanted this, however I see both sides, something you seem closed to and I can't help you there obviously.

The cat just ate the baby's twin for doing the same thing one time to many. Just you wait till it's done digesting...

Corn is actually digestible, what youre seeing when you poop is the outer shell of the corn

In reply to this comment by Morganth:
Plenty of food or other in-edibles that your body can't digest just go through. Gum, just like chunks of corn, passes right through and does not stay partying in your stomach for seven years. Though I think you can digest gummy worms (not certain though), even if you can't, it would still go on through.

Plenty of food or other in-edibles that your body can't digest just go through. Gum, just like chunks of corn, passes right through and does not stay partying in your stomach for seven years. Though I think you can digest gummy worms (not certain though), even if you can't, it would still go on through.

not a bad video, but i want to see highlights. or if i want analysis, I want to read it, so i can digest it (as fast as i read)

>> ^rougy:

In sincerely believe that you don't really want to know what "progressive" means, GSF.
You just want to feign ignorance so you can nitpick at the things you're opposed to.


Believe what you want sir, but I despise dishonesty. I am many things unpleasant, but I don't feign ignorance, if anything I am overly pridefull. I actually attack my own beliefs more than others; usually starting at the position that I am wrong. And while I may not believe in progressive ideals, that doesn't mean I don't care to know what mindset goes behind them. I am not a demagogic monster. I actually do care.

In that, I will have to get back to you @NetRunner as your have a wall of text that I appreciate but can't digest currently (burb). Live long and prosper!

>> ^TheGenk:

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.
Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.
Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television )


Yes I think common sense is a good idea when it comes to food, if a food is more nutritious when cooked, then eat the cooked version. There are many chemicals in raw food that inhibit absorption (phytates, chelating agents to name a couple), so cooking is certainly not always bad, as it can make nutrients more bioavailable.

The most important thing is just to make sure that the food you eat is nutrient dense, so fruit and vegetables should make up a large proportion of the diet, because they are the best nutrient dense foods available for our bodies.

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.

Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.

Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television

>> ^NetRunner:

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?
If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?
It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.
Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?
What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"
As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

"If you asked everyone...?


It's a loaded question. Of course, most people are going to respond that they don't want to be lied to. The problem is, it's not a lie if the person lying to you agrees with you. That's just affirmation.

Let's say there is a magical room that "everyone" can sit in. On the left side of this room there is serious debate being honestly reported and covered by good journalists over the fiscal solvency of social security. On the right side of the room is a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or a Jerry Springer episode, a Lady Gaga video, an Alex Jones bit .. ie. anything else). In which direction do you think most of "everyone" is looking?

Most people honestly don't give a shit, they are struggling with their own lives and a quick escape is what they're after. When it's time for news, they don't want honesty, they want the comfort of a voice that confirms their own beliefs. I don't think Hannity viewers (for example) are making a choice between "comforting lies" and "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?", I think they are comforted by lies because it confirms the easily digestible "truths" they already hold and they're either unwilling or unable to invest more time or intelligence to understand the complexity of reality further.

McCain/Palin got around 46% of the vote in 2008. That means 46% of people were comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes of the U.S. arsenal if McCain died (a real possibility considering his age). Don't overestimate people.

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.

The nervous system (brain, spinal cord, nerves) is an organ system just like your digestive system ( liver, intestines, salivary glands, etc.). People injure and mess up parts of their nervous system all the time, through accidents and what-not. While liver damage can lead to things like renal failure, injuries to the brain can lead to changes in memory access and retention, cognition,... interesting things that make up 'personality'.

I think consciousness is biological, and human consciousness is as biological as the consciousness of other animals. I think we are extraordinary at communication, and that's the major thing making us special in the animal kingdom... we love sounds and music and seeing friends and talking and learning about people and things. We are hyper vigilant with respect to personalities, and the fine details make everyone's unique in our eyes. So when a friend dies this personality that we knew so well now only exists as a detailed set of memories in our brain. And because this isn't terribly comforting, and because we're so keen on other people, we like to think that such an amazing thing as a personality continues on somehow after death.

my two cents!

Hehe yeah, it's from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg-z6vClMhQ&feature=digest they just happened to flash that and I thought it was hilarious.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He's certainly not a favorite among the mainstream media, but I believe (and hope!) that's just a coincidence. Very funny though.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
ABC news, class act http://i.imgur.com/Cyloq.png