OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

I can only speak for myself I guess, but certainly when I would order a chicken burger, I would only think about juicy soft chicken breast with a crunchy outer bread layer and the mayonnaise. There's no way I would order the burger and think about where the chicken came from, what happened to it, how it felt while hanging upside down, and the sad existence it lived prior to that.

Obviously everyone knows that meat comes from a farm. But again speaking for myself, once you know the reality of it, it's a different story.

If you have any hints on how to make headway without even unwilling being insulting while trying to make my points, I'm all ears

The pink goop was in hamburgers. The allegations on the McNuggets was that they are primarily made of chicken skin. This video admits they add skin but doesn't say how much. They also turn delicious looking whole chicken breast meat into a sponge like form which they "mold" into shapes. My take away is that this was done primarily for show and chicken McNuggets are primarily made from chicken skin. Yum Yum

Gonna try this, I think I'll add some chicken breast. Mushroom and chicken is great

And Last-minute 'n not a second to spare, sheppard and this fastidious bachelor-esque gem: Chicken-Mushroom SS w/ P

You'll need 4 boneless / skinless chicken breasts, a can of cambells mushroom soup, cheddar cheese, sugar, and parmesan cheese (grated)

Chicken breasts are easy, just heat up a skillet / pan and cook them with a couple tablespoons of canola oil (make sure to brown them on either side, and save the drippings)

Take your potatoes, wash em, and slice them as thin / thick as you want (thicker makes the cooking time longer) width wise (so you end up with potato circles) Place on a baking sheet and on each potato place a small amount of butter and sprinkle parmesan cheese over the batch. Cook them for ~45 minutes at ~425 degrees.

Start off cooking the soup normally, (however, use milk instead of water as the can instructs) and once it's at a rapid boil, add 2 tablespoons of sugar, 1.5 cups of shredded cheddar cheese, and 1.5 tablespoons of parmesan cheese. Make sure to mix well, and once the chicken is fully cooked / browned, pour this over and mix it with the drippings / oil from the chicken.

sound delicious.
on another note, you've got a been-everywhere-seen-everything kinda vibe to ya. i dig it.>> ^chingalera:

Never had one, knew the name and never had a clue....they look frikkin' delicious
Worked at a place in Durango (sous chef) that has a Chicken Cordon Bleu done similarly:
Wad of grated Gouda, balled-up
Tenderized chicken breast
Smoked Ham, (no cheap stuff)
Wrap ham around cheese, chicken around ham, dunk, Panko, deep fry 5 mins, transfer to oven, 25 mins-
Served with the sauce, heavy cream, egg, wine....white wine sauce.
The Heart-Stopper we called it in the kitchen. Bout 1450 calories on yer plate

Never had one, knew the name and never had a clue....they look frikkin' delicious

Worked at a place in Durango (sous chef) that has a Chicken Cordon Bleu done similarly:

Wad of grated Gouda, balled-up
Tenderized chicken breast
Smoked Ham, (no cheap stuff)

Wrap ham around cheese, chicken around ham, dunk, Panko, deep fry 5 mins, transfer to oven, 25 mins-

Served with the sauce, heavy cream, egg, wine....white wine sauce.
The Heart-Stopper we called it in the kitchen. Bout 1450 calories on yer plate

I've never had a nice chicken breast start flapping at me. Think I'll stick with land-based meats.

"43 m^2 of land to generate 1 kg of chicken" is nonsensical. How long does it take 43 m^2 of land to generate that much chicken? Yeesh. If you assume it takes 4 months (I have no idea how fast chickens grow), and that a chicken weighs 3 kg (a little high, but it makes for easy numbers), and there are ~550 million acres of farmland in the world, and ~8.4 chickens are killed for food per year, then 1/6 of all farmland is devoted to raising chickens? That seems a little extreme.

I've heard this argument before, and even aside from the above it's pretty ridiculous. 1) I think most of that dog food is not meat and 2) what meat there is is the leftovers from what people don't eat. It's not like we're grinding up chicken breasts and compressing it into kibble.

Use a cutting board when butterflying a chicken breast.

I make more than 15k a year but I make it a point to keep my living expenses under $1000 a month and I'm no pauper, so I'm sorry but I have to call bullshit.

In fact, not only can someone live on $1000 a month, someone doing this and making 15k a year would be putting $3000 a year in savings so I'm sorry I just don't buy your argument.

If you wanna make it personal, why don't we compare living budgets and we'll see just why living on $1256 a month is so difficult. Heres mine:

I've included two numbers since I live in a one-bedroom house with my girlfriend. The left is what I would pay if I lived alone, the right is what I pay splitting costs with her (would be the same situation as having a roommate, and if you are that strung up on cash then thats probably the best option for you)

Rent $450 ($225)
*One Bedroom house, in a nice neighborhood, 2 miles from downtown in a city with ~1 million people

Water $30 ($15)

Electricity $50 ($25)
*Electric Heat

Trash $20 ($10)

Internet $40 ($20)
*5mbps Broadband

Cellphone $70 ($70)

Gas $25 ($25)
*150 miles a week, 50 mpg, $3/gallon

Insurance $16 ($16)
*$200 a year

Food $300 ($300)
*$10 a day: bacon ($2/lb) eggs ($1.5/dozen), steak/chicken/pork ($3/lb), fruit ($1/lb) and vegetables ($1/lb)

Total $1001 ($706)

So here I am, someone who makes more than minimum wage, choosing to live on $700 a month. Had I been making $1256 I would still have $550 left over for savings, emergencies, going out, etc. Its not that it can't be done, its that people choose not do it.

Every day I eat bacon and eggs for breakfast and a 16oz new york strip, ribeye, pork lion, or roasted chicken breast with fresh fruits and vegetables for dinner, I have high speed internet, a cellphone, a vehicle, clean water, heat, a front yard, and a roof over my head, and you are telling me this is "unlivable" ?

No...this is unlivable:
http://lboudouani.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/starvation3.jpg

im hungry now.

this is maybe the most relevant:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/3315847/Fancy-some-chicken-with-that-nugget.html

"For Lawrence, the biggest irony is that many people switched from burgers to chicken nuggets in the wake of the BSE crisis, thinking they were getting a healthier meat. "But they're not at all. Manufacturers have tried to change, but nuggets are still inevitably highly processed food. And for what they contain, they are fantastically expensive."


go here, search for "chicken" on the page:
http://www.meatscience.org/pubs/rmcarchv/2007/printables.html


local... related to chickens but not nutrition really
http://www.videosift.com/video/Our-Daily-Bread

you love your nutrition info!
http://blog.videosift.com/jwray/Only-9-grams-of-fat

here's one i have no idea what they're doing to it... but it seems to involve augmenting chicken breast meat:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf9700485

"Here we got some chicken, all chicken breasted."

>> ^obscenesimian:
Overcooked eggs, overcooked chicken breasts, well done steaks, all signs of an underdeveloped palate. Cooking food that is done just right is hard, overcooking is easy.


Enjoy your salmonella.