The Bible is a product of vegetables. Don't be a slave to the Bible.

Pat Roberson is a vegetable.

Vegetables are bad, m'kay.

@eric3579 and @eoe
There have been studies that show that eating unwashed fruit and vegetables can be bad for you, even deadly, thanks to pesticides and contaminants.
There are also studies showing that growing them (in the way we do with artificial fertilizers, pesticides, deforestation, and diverted water) is bad for the environment, so indirectly bad for you. That said, meat production is much worse for the environment.
Not disagreeing with you, just sayin'...nothing's perfect. ;-)

I hadn't, but really the science never surprises me. Either it says this sort of stuff, or not... but usually funded by the meat industry in the later case.

For some reason, in my 35 years of existence, I still have not read a single study saying that vegetables and fruit in any shape or form are bad for you. Funny that, huh?

So, you can't argue against my points, so you change your argument?
You said we are sliding into socialism...I showed you that's wrong and now you say 'sliding to more government' is the same thing. They are not.

You are listening to talking heads. The republicans may promise to 'undo what was done' but in reality they don't do that (they don't really even try, they just try to look like they are, how many 'votes' to 'repeal' the ACA?) but instead increase their control at every turn.

1) Wow! A point we agree on!
2) Um...so you want to say the minimal wall street regulations were 'screwing corporations' and removing them is 'unscrewing them'? Well, lets just leave it at 'I totally disagree' that going back to reasonable rules (rules the republicans removed before, causing the insanity in the market for 25 years) is 'screwing business', it's forcing business to not screw everyone else by fraud.
3) If the government IS in charge of the program (and it is, because states failed miserably to do it themselves) there should be reasonable 'rules' on how to do it. Those 'rules' in this case should be determined by nutritionists, not politicians. Catchup is not a vegetable. It's really just one more swipe at the Obamas for no logical reason in my eyes.
4) It's hilarious that when it's for something you like, you are all pro-federal power to override the states/local laws, but when it's not (like a federal lunch program) they shouldn't be involved.
Socialism and corporatism are the reverse of each other. I should not have to be the one to teach you that.
We disagree as to which party is running faster towards 'oligarchy'. We disagree because you think Faux actually shows NEWS, but they ONLY have propaganda on Faux, not news, not reporting, only editorializing. Those who watch Faux are consistently less informed than those who watch NOTHING. Repeatedly proven fact.

Both parties have failed, so you think we should go for the crazed, farther right splinter party...you know the Naz....oh...sorry...I got confused....teabagger party. They might not all be lynching nuts, but most certainly are. I've seen and talked to them, and walked through rallies. It's not a myth.
Because they were not registered republicans does not make them either democrat or independent, most of them just think the republicans don't go far enough to the right...kind of like a certain German party from the 30's I can mention.

EDIT: I guess since it's OK for the republicans to off hand legislate against the known wishes and vote of the people because they 'control the laws in DC', you would have no problem with Obama using executive powers to bypass congress and to line veto the budget to remove all the superfluous BS the republicans added to it? The president has that power and can executive order and line item veto all day long...but you would be having a fit if he did, no?

@bobknight33,
What color is the sky in your universe?
I ask you because your angry statements are actually diametrically opposed to reality.
The republicans are grasping control with both hands and a net, while the democrats are failing miserably at their attempts to stop the power grab....

Examples from just this week, the republicans just added to the budget (which, BTW, is simply not how they system works, and is simply a way to blackmail the government into capitulating to their plans or they'll just 'shut down the government' again, wasting billions more...again)....
1)an increase in the amount corporations can donate to them by 10 times, because republicans think corporations don't have enough say in our government and want to give them 10 times more voice (but not citizens)
2)a removal of the protections against wall street frauds and cheating that were hard won in the last few years, apparently attempting to ensure we have another avoidable 'recession' as soon as possible, and ensure that those responsible are not ever prosecuted for their frauds, but are 'bailed out' instead...again...
3)removal of minimum standards for public school lunches, because they believe poor children don't need vegetables, vitamins, protein, or micro nutrients, carbs and sugars are just fine for them.
EDIT: 4) and just to prove they don't really want smaller, localized government and don't want more power for the states and less for the fed, the republicans have also 'countermanded' the local people's vote in DC on legalized marijuana, making it illegal again there (contrary to the actual vote that was over 60% PRO legalized recreational marijuana).
If only Obama would use the line item veto, it wouldn't be an issue, but he won't (because he's not a power hungry dictator, contrary to Faux News 'reporting').

America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism. At least socialism is designed to benefit the populace, what we are getting from the republicans is designed to benefit their pocket books and corporate America, not the people.

As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy.

Actually you said it's no where near time to panic. You also said the people of Kiribati are going to be washed away by a tsunami (but it never happened before in all the times they've been hit by tsunami) and not overwhelmed by sea rise (which IS what's happened to them).


You are just wrong about Texas producing more than California, we're number two in cattle production and ....
Food Facts
California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.
California is the nation's number one dairy state.
California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.
California's leading export crop is almonds.
Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation's leading producer of strawberries, averaging 1.4 billion pounds of strawberries or 83% of the country's total fresh and frozen strawberry production. Approximately 12% of the crop is exported to Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Japan primarily. The value of the California strawberry crop is approximately $700 million with related employment of more than 48,000 people.
California produces 25% of the nation's onions and 43% of the nation's green onions.
and if that's not enough to convince you ...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2182/what-percent-of-food-comes-from-california

It is never 1 to 1 guns VS farmers in the situations you are talking about. The food gets stolen, sold, and eaten. It is not stolen and allowed to rot. If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.

I call BS, the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today. You mentioned one. They are universally agreed on (by energy companies) who have made solar farms, nuclear, wind, etc.

Ahhhh. So now you see why it's time to panic...adaptation of the tech takes time, time that we don't have to waste. If it takes 50 years to stop adding greenhouse gasses, we need to see where that leaves your children's children. Adaptation of new tech is going to happen while we are restricting consumption...it's been that way for decades (see 'car mileage requirements') so it HAS happened in the past, and is happening today...without wars.

If no one panics and no one acts, that's where we'll be if we're lucky. Those figures you linked assume we will stop rising the level of CO2 we add daily and/or keep it below a certain level...an assumption I think is wrong and ignores reality.

Um, well, yeah, 78% less glacier doesn't mean 78% less runoff, it means far more than 78% less, because of glacial dams, evaporation, and upstream use it means probably NO runoff downstream. 22% of the already scarce water won't feed India. Period.
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years, but even those numbers leave billions without water or food. That's far worse than any group ever starved by 'men with guns'.

Ulrich Beck, 1986:

“Whereas the utopia of equality contains a wealth of substantial and positive goals of social change, the utopia of the risk society remains peculiarly negative and defensive. Basically, one is no longer concerned with attaining something ‘good’, but rather with preventing the worst.

The dream of the old society is that everyone wants and ought to have a share of the pie. The utopia of the risk society is that everyone should be spared from poisoning”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/THE-VEGETABLES-OF-TRUTH

The embedded video taken below the reactor at Chernobyl is rather nightmare-inducing.

Who could name it "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel".

That would at least be easier to remember than "Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (whistle) Northcott Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then 'whoop') Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert (sings) 'We'll keep a welcome in the' (three shots) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mainwaring (hoot, 'whoop') Smith"

My gf had terrible headaches, constant nausea, and terrible drowsiness whenever she was hungry for her entire life... until I met her. I suggested she might be hypoglycaemic and should carry around a sugary treat or drink wherever she goes. She started doing that and quickly her hunger sickness symptoms could be basically controlled. But they were still there. One thing I always found strange about her eating habits was her insistence on having lots of bread. She never felt satisfied or full without bread.

After a year of doing that my mom suggested she might be gluten intolerant. My gf had never heard of the concept, had zero friends on any kind of gluten free fad diets. She decided to give it a shot, no gluten for 4 weeks. Boom all symptoms gone. More tests led her to trying out gluten after a week, and what do you know it was back. She waited two weeks, back again. Eventually she figured out a system in which she could have a gluten meal/snack/treat every four weeks without symptoms appear.
Also, she started to feel satisfied and full without an urge to eat bread, almost like the bread caused a weird drug like addicting withdrawal cycle which seemed to be why she always craved it. The gluten seems to build up in her system, or at least the allergic reaction and her body goes through a withdrawal after she has had too much, or too much too frequently, and doesn't get more in her system soon enough.

I eat gluten just fine. Together we eat vegetables, meat, fruit, and occasional pieces of the best gluten free bread (most of its sucks). I tend not to eat tasty gluten stuff around her unless it is a treat day for her Gluten products also make people fat, so it really isn't a problem to not eat them. No one on the planet requires gluten to live a healthy lifestyle. Bread, white bread in particular just gets converted into sugars and fat inside the body. It is empty calories.

That is quoted once in the whole clip. The number has hovered between $0.70-$0.85 for the last few decades that the issue has been talked about openly.

Where do you get the impression that Oliver is arguing about equal pay for dissimilar jobs at any point in the entire segment? I do not see that at any point. If that were true, obviously that would be ridiculous. The goal here is equality, not up-ending the whole system of employment.

Lastly, as it's said plainly in the first few minutes of the clip: "Equal pay for equal work". There are two points I would like to make here:
1) that's clearly not an argument for inequality in favor of work compensation for women over men, and
2) If we *really* wanted to pay people equally for their work, mexican migrants who pick our vegetables every season, movers, factory-workers, carpenters and any other manual-labor jobs would be living the highlife in their gated communities with million-dollar homes, and most CEO's, wallstreet bankers, and office joe's would be scraping by in the 'burbs.

Bollocks. Complete and utter nonsense.

There is no dietary cure for cancer. You can certainly lessen your chances of getting cancer by eating well, not drinking to excess, not smoking etc, but that you can live the healthiest life in the world and still just be unlucky.

And once you have it, no amount of vegetable enemas or crystals or homoeopathic woo will cure it.

Well, thank you for the compliment, fellow masterdebater.
Or did you mean "masturbator"? Then I'd have to disagree, I'm certainly not bad at that.

Yeah, my post was super hyperbolic but it was just a continuation of the thinking going on here. I took it to the next level. The basic message I took from this thread was "Fuck that guy, he's an insurance scammer and got what he deserved!"
I disagree.
First of all, his crime (scamming people out of money) makes him a huge asshole and definately someone I wish not much well being in general. However, he was slowly run over by a car! You have to do some really awful shit to deserve that kind of punishment. If that man was the pope, I'd have applauded the lady and asked her for a re-run because the pope supports child rapists. If that man was Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd ask if I could have a go. But he's, as far as we know, neither a rapist or murderer or anything else as horrible. He could be dead. He could be a vegetable. He could be disabled. None of that is a punishment fitting his crime. Not even a Bernie Madoff deserves that.
The second thing is this whole "he did something stupid and now he got what he deserves" debate. Look, I'm a person of schadenfreude. I have sadistic personality traits that fill my shrivelled, black heart with gleeful joy everytime somebody gets hurt. But there are limits.
My examples are horrible and gross but what sets them apart from what this guy did is mainly they're not criminal activities. Sure, if you shoot at cops and get shot, you deserve that. You committed and act of agression and got pwned. That man was not agressive towards anyone.
He didn't lay under a moving car, he lay beside a standing car that then rolled over him while making a turn because the driver didn't notice him. Misjudgement on his part? Sure. The same as playing russian roulette or shooting at cops? Nope. That's because his activity, running into a standing or slowly moving car and pretending to be hit, doesn't include certain death as certain possibility.
The only reason people here are so comfortable with this man getting run over is because he's an asshole criminal. If that would've happened to him while he was pulling an internet prank, everyone would be horrified. Imagine that guy wearing a ridiculous costume and talking into the camera at the beginning of the video how he'll make that woman think she hit him with the car and what a great prank that'll be. Is he still getting what he deserves?
People give a shit about the man in the terrible accident because they made a judgement that he is a criminal and not worth it.
See, John Oliver has a point when talking about prisons.
I saw a video of a man getting run over. It didn't upset me but the reactions to it did.

No one made a conscious decision to run him over? Okay, lets say a cop pulls a gun and his foot slips a bit, and he fires the gun accidentally straight into the pickpocket. You yourself imply that now the analogy is equal...

But even if it is not even, this is what it boils down to:
A completely incompetent driver, worse than a 90 year old blind man with chronic seizures, is out there driving. That is pretty evident and only an idiot would disagree with the video showing overwhelming proof. Therefore, this woman should NEVER, EVER drive. I would have hated that to be some seven-eight year old kid that she "did not see."

At the same time I understand @ChaosEngine, even if I somewhat disagree with him. The car could have easily crushed his head like a melon, left him a vegetable for the state to take of forever, and the funny part of that is even a rapist doesn't get that sentence. Obviously everyone here is for corporal punishment and the death penalty--if you believe this "karma" punishment is appropriate.