Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.

In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

I like to think that everyone's political opinions are at least slightly different. I'd love for you to tell me what you think conservative beliefs are. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.

This is me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.50&soc=-4.41
>> ^NetRunner:

You think conservatism isn't a religion? What is it, then?
>> ^deedub81:
What does conservatism have to do with faith?

You'll never convince the smaller states to get rid of the EC. But it can be somewhat fixed:

* Replace the first past the post with an alternative vote (see one of his other videos)
* Replace the winner take all in every state. The winner of each congressional district gets that district's vote, then the last two votes go to the winner of the state overall. This is perhaps one of the most important changes as it makes it as close to the popular vote as you can get without getting rid of the EC, which as I said, I don't think you'll get enough states to agree to.
* District lines should be drawn by open source software to help eliminate gerrymandering.
* Strict term limits (on both houses and the Supreme Court) and no life-time benefits for any of them that isn't given to every citizen, and every law that applies to citizens applies to them (so no more insider trading being legal for them).

Those few changes alone make it easier to be represented and increases the chance of 3rd parties getting some votes.

I would extend it further with one more important change. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911. It hasn't kept pace with the population growth. With modern technology there is no need for everyone to be in DC. Rather than adjusting those 435 people based on the population of the states, we should go back to the original system of having a Rep for X many people. Perhaps one Rep for every 50,000 or 100,000 people (no less than one for every 250,000). With everyone in their home districts and so many of them it makes it hard to buy them all. With so many Reps it probably means a pay cut, which they should have anyhow, especially getting rid of the life time privileges it comes with now... I would also kill the ability to add amendments to bills that aren't super tightly integrated to the bill, if you can't get your legislation passed without it being hidden as part of another bill, then it shouldn't be passed. Perhaps a lime-item veto of amendments and riders for all members of congress and the President. I say make pay based on the poverty rate and adjust for cost of living in each district... perhaps 2x the poverty rate, that would encourage them to fix poverty (and while we are at it rather than set some random number like $250,000 as a high tax bracket, tax brackets are broken by multiples of the poverty rate as well, so 10x the poverty rate puts you in the same bracket as $250k does today).

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

I guess that is because they look at it as a temporary diet (Yoyo dieting) and not a change in their diet for the rest of their lives... I'm a (self-described) "carbaholic" and as such when I "fall of the wagon" I eat carbs like nobodies business (as in 4 doughnuts, a pound of chocolate, about a gallon of soda and energy drinks, 3-6 candy bars and ~2 pounds of assorted pick-and-mix candy every single day). As it is now I will never return to a carb heavy diet because I cannot handle it, in the same way that an alcoholic can't handle drinking just one beer. And not to go all Ad-Hominem on you but as an MD you are specialised on disease and not health.

I recommend that you look at this page as it has 17 links to 17 RCT studies on the effects of LCHF diets.

Also from the mayo clinic which I assume is a pretty good source: "There have been a number of studies comparing weight loss with these two types of diets [LCHF/HCLF - My clarification]. In general, low-carb diets may result in a little more weight loss in the first 3 to 6 months. However, after 1 to 2 years there isn't much difference. What's interesting is that the amount of weight loss varies widely among people following either diet. So which type of diet you choose may matter less than whether you stick to it."
On an LCHF diet where you are full all and have a stable blood sugar level all the time it is a lot easier to stay on the diet and not splurge... (Kind of an anecdote... see my previous post in this thread)

Also some more science posts here
1 LCHF vs. HCLF diet (I recommend reading all of it)
2 (A full text from 2002 that might not be available for all [I logged on my Uni resources to search databases for the it] and it is a decade old but still a bit interesting. Name of the study is: Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited. Authors: Volek JS; Westman EC in case you need to search for it on Google scholar or the like)
3 Long term (1 year +) effects

I'm drunk right now so can't be arsed to find more sources.. it is Friday Damn it!!


>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

http://videosift.com/video/Story-of-EC-Comics

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by marinara.

I'm just glad this guy is still reporting:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/3/9/20/news-anchor-looks-like-wanted-rapist-15953-1236643459-9.jpg

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Korean story on this: http://www.mhj21.com/sub_read.html?uid=54972§ion=section26§ion2=%EC%82%AC%ED%9A%8C%EC%9D%BC%EB%B0%98 (Chrome translates it, not sure about other browsers).

Seems it was a he as the article says he is asking what is going on. This is a black box recording of the accident on a Hyundai Sonata YF along with a dash cam. It was apparently an older gentleman. I have to guess that it is easy to armchair it in and say shift into N or kill the engine, but if your car suddenly starts accelerating faster than you are pressing the accelerator then panic probably kicks making rational thought go out the door... plus if I don't know about Korea, but at the local BMV, I often see older people given lots of chances to see the flashing light... "...do you see the light now? On the right?" "Oh! Yeah!".

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Reminds me of this guy.

>> ^kulpims:

promote
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.50&soc=-8.41


Define your terms sir.

*promote
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.50&soc=-8.41

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.38&soc=-5.79

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

Wow, I'm in almost the exact same spot as the Dalai Lama