Adding video to channels (Health) - requested by ant.

*health

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/biden-resting-after-surgery-for-second-brain-aneurysm.html

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20201028/a-closer-look-at-joe-bidens-health

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10711779/Jill-Biden-screamed-medics-Joe-ill-suffering-brain-aneurism.html

Why must every word you write be an intentional bold faced lie?

Bob…can you list the three branches of government ?

Democrats control 1 branch, Republicans (including Senema and Manchin) control the other 2 (one outright, one by overused veto power and filibuster) and they block any Democratic legislation out of spite whether or not it’s good for the country, just to deny Democrats any “wins”. It takes a >60/40 majority for Democrats to get anything passed because Republicans do not want anything to be bipartisan…voting WITH democrats is a career ender, no matter what the bill is.

Democrats have tried dozens of times to make improvements, like background checks for EVERY gun sale, clip size limits, red flag laws, trying to raise the purchase age to 21, temporary seizure if someone gets a restraining order against you, and much more….Republicans blocked every single effort because they need NRA money and support.

Republicans made it legal for any criminal or nut job to not only buy as many guns and ammunition as they wish, but also to concealed carry them anywhere except where Republicans gather (like the NRA convention, once again held days after a mass shooting, or the capitol building).

They voted against giving babies formula, they voted against working to release political prisoners, they voted against supporting Ukraine, they voted against removing gun registration loopholes, mental health gun laws, clip size limits, etc., they voted against investigating Jan 6, Republicans are so anti Democrat they went full anti democracy.

Here’s your negative attention, since I know that’s what you really want. I’ll keep it light in honor of your father, unless you don’t, and just say you are a total liar. I would say consummate liar, but you’re really just awful at it and just make yourself look so incredibly stupid and dishonest at every opportunity.

You’ve never changed a single mind with your nonsensical lies.

In Texas, a violent criminal record is no roadblock, anyone can buy and concealed carry a gun (or several) no matter their criminal record or mental health status thanks to Gov. Abbot.

I read that there was at least one mother that entered the school and came back out with her children.

If she couldn't save them she was willing to die with them.

Maybe it's time for mental health checks for politicians.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asbestos (pronounced: /æsˈbɛstɒs/ or /æsˈbɛstəs/) is a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral. There are six types, all of which are composed of long and thin fibrous crystals, each fibre being composed of many microscopic "fibrils" that can be released into the atmosphere by abrasion and other processes. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various dangerous lung conditions, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, so it is now notorious as a serious health and safety hazard.

You cruel bastard! That would be like rubbing your junk on a cactus!

So, if Republicans are pro life, why are you so pro instruments of death? Meaning guns, specifically handguns and military anti personnel rifles both designed to kill people.
Same for the death penalty, Republicans love death.
Why do Republicans support laws that allow them to murder if they “feel threatened”?
Sure sounds pro death to me.

Seems those tools of death and destruction are the number one love of Republicans.
We’ve been over how your party is the clear winner of the debauchery award, you haven’t been able to produce a single example of democrats, which would be a no brainer if your claim were correct….and having no brain, that’s exactly what you need.

Remember, republicans said the elderly would rather be killed by their irresponsibility if it meant they didn’t have to wear masks or get a shot. Another pro death platform from Republicans.

I guess you don’t recall the Republican position, “my body my choice. Keep the government out of my body.” Or are you admitting you never meant it?

That included when choosing to not follow public health recommendations meant you might be responsible for the death of hundreds or even thousands of others. Funny how that’s good enough when avoiding the tiny inconvenience of a shot (like you’re all little crybabies deathly afraid of a short needle) but not important enough for women to avoid the “inconvenience” (by which I mean the extreme mental, physical, and financial costs) of bearing and raising unwanted children, even those of child rapists and incestuous fathers/brothers/uncles.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

...not to mention a major cause of the state of its Health Care is due to a myriad of the US's embargo/sanctions of medical supplies to Cuba, despite some aids (to be truly Fair & Balance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

What in the EVERLOVING FUCK are you lying about?

Yes, he fucked up hugely, massively cheated an election by harvesting and filling out reportedly thousands of ballots, stolen from the elderly, for himself (his campaign did with his knowledge) and voting for other Republican candidates if the voters hadn’t, then barely won the election anyway.

I’m absolutely certain you supported him, supported him staying in office, and would have supported him again had he chosen to run again, despite the undeniable election fraud campaign he ran and the fraudulent votes he “won” with.

I’m positive you didn’t call for the removal of the others not involved in the scheme but who won only thanks to the fraudulent votes Harris’ vote fraud campaign had cast for them, did you? That’s because you really don’t care one whit about election fraud, you only care about schemes to deny legitimate voters their right to vote if you believe they might vote Democrat.
That’s because you know Republicans have only won the popular vote for president once since 1988, so honest elections don’t work for your ilk.

He remained in office despite the blatant fraud his campaign perpetrated with his full knowledge, for over 600 days, and was still allowed to run in the special election they finally held over 600 days later because of HIS election frauds. He dropped out on his own for “Health reasons”.

He never was charged despite his own son, a judge, testifying that he had knowledge that his campaign was committing election fraud well before they were caught because the son had personally told him, and despite the fact that he did absolutely nothing to stop or report it.

HE WAS NOT PUNISHED IN ANY FUCKING WAY YOU BOLD FACED LIAR!

https://www.wect.com/2020/07/15/wake-county-da-clears-mark-harris-candidate-congressional-race-that-led-election-fraud-investigation/

https://abc11.com/mark-harris-election-fraud-bladen-county-absentee-ballots/6318485/


Why do you tell these stupid lies when you know I will call you out on them, Bob? Self hate? Are you a closet masochist? Why? You KNOW I’m going to look into anything you tell me and call it out when it can be proven to be a lie. I’ve lost count how many times we’ve gone to this rodeo. You end up trampled with shit on your face every time. Why?!

So if you synthesize your own through exposure to sunlight, you’re good? Or at least better off?
Is it possible that it’s not the delivery method, but the systems that use vitamin D being healthy beforehand vs being supplemented after the fact? Maybe it takes a while to get those systems healthy, and supplements don’t help with that.

Edit: Maybe, since the same receptors are used to metabolize vitamin D as to infect a cell with covid, those receptors being “full” might be what’s stopping infections, and dosing with vitamin D after infection doesn’t magically replace the Covid with vitamin D? Not really about vitamin D or why you need it, just about the mechanism the body uses to use the vitamin D? Biology is intricate, and why things work and how is not always clean and simple.

Melatonin? Then why aren’t people with more melatonin, people of color, nearly immune? Why are island nations like the Virgin Islands still having outbreaks today? Why were Southern states hit just as hard or harder than northern states? Many questions here.

His explanation seems to confirm this. If your cells produce vitamin D efficiently, they are less prone to infections, if you artificially add artificial vitamin D, it helps with the cellular functions, but the processes that should be producing it are still suppressed, possibly more because your body isn’t triggering them due to low vitamin D levels. It’s less about overall vitamin D levels than about having healthy systems that properly produce and utilize it….at least that’s my takeaway.

It’s not just about sunlight..it’s about diet, overall health, sleep, etc. biology is complex, and we always want a simple solution. There isn’t one most of the time, and our attempts to simplify only make things worse. Eat well, sleep well, get some sun, get some exercise, and you’ll be as safe as you can be naturally….then try supplements in addition, not instead.

I get plenty of sun, and my windows are from the 50’s. It definitely makes me feel better to get sun, but there’s a limit. Don’t just go sunbathe in Arizona, use your brain.

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!