Actual racists only use these new symbols when the mainstream recoils in horror and labels the trolls incorrectly as racists instead of as trolls, or just ignoring them. I think many spreading the "it's ok to be white" slogan are trolls too. They enjoy seeing people freak out at a phrase that says nothing negative about anyone, but many people will read into it a hidden meaning. You can't discern intention in these cases, only assume based on your personal previous exposure. I seem to understand it as a response/analog to "black lives matter" which most people don't think secretly means white lives don't matter, and the posters think the disproportionate response is racial bias.

Romans 10:9-10

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

When you do that, believing that Jesus died for your sins, God will save you and make you a new person. You're good if you don't care where you are going after you die, if you leave it as you believe up to chance. Yet the evidence that God exists is undeniable, and the coming of His Son Jesus Christ was predicted by prophecies going back thousands of years. So you're not really leaving it up to chance because the scripture tells you that you have no excuse for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

You would say, I am sure, that you haven't seen any evidence for God but the scripture says you have and you have suppressed the truth about it. I believe scripture and in our conversations I am sorry to say you are always poisoning the well of reasoned debate with mockery and ridicule. What is behind that is a heavy bias and angst which keeps you from seeing who God is. Being obstinate against the truth of Gods word is foolish. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt and at least ask Him to show you if what I have been telling you all of these years is true?

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

They didn't state as much, aka they don't feel that obstruction of justice didn't occur.

"Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Or, in other words, the justice department doesn't have the legal authority to pursue charges against a sitting president; that job lies constitutionally with congress.

@bobknight33

Bob, understand something, please,

I'm not opposed to changing my mind, but when I read "The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

And he says "SEE! Total exoneration!!!" It's not bias to call a spade a spade, saying the report SAYS what it SAYS is not Anti-Trump. >>>>>>It's pro-facts.<<<<<<<
Stop the bullshit that the report found nothing. That is simply not true.

Oh Bob....you don't even know what the word "disproving" means, do you?

This twaddle only disproves the notion that you can discern actual information from snidely delivered propaganda.
He is right about one thing, he's not a scientist, he's a comedian who's jokes aren't funny, just like he says. He's not a journalist however, he's likely hoping he can be an internet opinion influencer.
America Uncovered....a spin off of the insane China Uncensored channel, dedicated to China bashing.

This new smattering of random right wing YouTube videos are not "proof" of anything but your bias and willingness to repeat nonsense you enjoy but don't understand.

Put your money where your mouth is, go buy some cheap ocean front property in Miami Dade or the Keys, and don't worry about the fact you can't get flood or hurricane insurance, those are leftie hoaxes and nothing to worry about. You're really going to show us! Odd that those properties are losing value with all those smart rich right wing investors fighting over them, isn't it?

You didn't dispute their science, did you? Are you pretending this was reviewed by outside scientists who aren't card carrying vegan zealots...or even by non contributors to the paper they've presented? Do you know who funded it, since that does matter? Any meat producers among them?
You know they neglected to include a list of possible conflicts of interest the authors had, too. Could that be because the vast majority made/make their living selling veganism in one way or another?

I gave specific points of contention with specific details of eat lancet including it's scientific validity, with specific data you failed to address at all.

I'm just pointing out the deficiencies in your movement's new attempt at science...it may have some good points none the less.

I'm much less concerned with the messenger than the science. Veganism pushes out these new claims so often that it takes an army to keep up with debunking them, it's no surprise some soldiers are less than perfect, I don't know these two enough to care....but do you contradict their article's scientific points, ignoring the authors likely bias?

All that said, I don't disagree that red meat once a week is a decent limit, or that less sugar and processed grain would be even more beneficial to average people's health (not everyone)...and that's far from suggesting veganism...but those three suggestions seem to be the main takeaways from the synopsis I've read, but the devil is in the details, which seem to need serious work.

And I'm going to assume you don't know who Zoe Harcombe is, because I know a person like yourself who hates bias, would never willingly post something from her blog, since:

"Zoë Harcombe is an author, nutritionist and cholesterol denialist from Wales. Harcombe disagrees with mainstream medical advice on dieting. She has been criticized for promoting misleading health advice that is not based on scientific evidence.[2] She sells a fad diet known as the "Harcombe Diet".[3]"


Because I know you hate it when there are unproven claims and so on.

https://qz.com/523255/the-us-meat-industrys-wildly-successful-40-year-crusade-to-keep-its-hold-on-the-american-diet/

I'm sure an honest fellow like yourself, would also call out bias where ever you see it right? Like if the link you posted was from an organisation posing to be a non-profit diet advisory, but was really just a front created by meat and dairy industries to help sell more of their products. You would call that out too right?

I mean sure, you can claim bias. But I just hope you are claiming it both ways, because guess who the Nutrition Coalition you linked is funded by?

A few points....
1) PBS

2)slant and outright zealous bias are different, if related. The level of falsehoods, the number of falsehoods, the importance of those falsehoods, the influence gained by those falsehoods, the destruction done to the U.S. by those falsehoods, by every measure Fox outpaces it's competition by > a factor of 10.

3)Fox is the leader in biased, hyper partisan opinion presented as news, always has been. They aren't playing catch up or follow the leader, they are the undeniable and clear leaders of propaganda as news, and have been since inception. The left leaning outlets are decades behind and still have this silly notion that outright lies are crossing the line, not so at Faux.

So yes, it exists on both sides, and the left is getting worse, but Fox/Rush/Beck/Jones and the right are driving this bus and have been in that seat for decades, please don't try to imply it's anywhere near equal, it simply isn't.

MSNBC viewers still gain actual factual information by watching, Fox viewers lose it....that's a verified and continuing fact.

What @newtboy said. Seems all the Conservatives forgot the Golden Rule of do unto others... they treated Obama like shit for 8 years. Fox couldn't go 15 minutes without bashing Obama or the Democrats. The MSM doesn't have a bias, it is the fact that Trump keeps inserting foot into mouth, because he tries his best to keep in the front page of the media headlines, even if it is negative, because he knows he can spin that to his followers like Bob, who'll believe 100% everything coming out of his lying mouth. So to Trump, even the negative is great, because it is great for Fox who can spin it like, look how negative it all is... oh we got one guy who's almost negative about Trump on at a time nobody watches, so we can pretend we are "fair and balanced" but reality is, we are 100% pure propaganda, America's own Provda.
Of course this is all for not, Bob and Trump's other followers (because it is cult) will never change their mind, and nothing they can say will change the mind of free thinking people.

This video has nothing to do with veganism. It's a message from the World Health Organization, two other leading cancer institutes.

If you want to put your anti-vegan bias away for a minute, then notice how the message isn't saying "go vegan", it's simply saying don't eat processed meat. Hardly vegan.

Allow me to demonstrate your bias in this situation.

Q: if instead of bacon, what if they had 800 studies showing that, say, carrots cause cancer. Would you be arguing about the stats, or would you stop eating carrots?

I'm pretty sure you'd stop eating carrots. But because you enjoy bacon so much, it's having a impact on your reasoning. That is your bias.


I can prove this further by asking you what it would take to make you give up bacon. And I'm quite sure you would say nothing. Perhaps short of some instant effect, I know you would never stop eating it, no matter strong the evidence. In fact many people don't. They rather go blind and hav their legs amputated from preventable diabetes than give up their instant comfort foods. They are so biased they lose their own limbs, and still refuse to accept the reality.

You also you like to claim that me being vegan makes me biased. But the truth is that the Science made me vegan. And not the other way around. The reduction of animal cruelty is just a bonus.

Also your stats are way off it's not 1% it's 18% for every 50g according to the WHO after reviewing 800 studies.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf


Lovely of you to claim propaganda, but of course, the bias is all yours here - or are you going to tell me you don't enjoy bacon?

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

From Media Bias website: " Science Based Medicine debunks one by one, many of Dr. Gregers claims. They also claim that NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism. NutritionFacts.org does provide some valuable information and certainly a diet high in fruits and vegetables is preferred, but Dr. Gregers claims are extreme."

Not a consumer of alcohol myself, but this seems about right...